Attention all Grandchildren, Nieces, and Other Beloved Children!

Grandma/Auntie has added the following to her already smashing sets of marble runs. Won't it be fun to combine them?





The Gadget Shoots Marbles from Bottom to Top,
This means we Can Start Marbles from 17 inches
Higher Than we Can Reach!

 



With Templates, Cardboard, Scissors, and Tape,
You Can Make Any Kind of Marble Run You Like






This Run Sticks on the Wall Without Leaving
a Mark.  Plus, it Comes With Glow-in-the Dark
Marbles!










The templates for the paper run I've already downloaded. Can't wait for the others to arrive! I'm already figuring out where to build this gigantic whopperoo!

Being Nice or Being a Doormat?

In a dream the other night, a married couple, co-workers of mine at a large company, confronted me in the conference room and wanted me to resign. I couldn't imagine why. They said because they considered me a threat to their marriage. I couldn't fathom such an absurdity; I had never even looked at the man the wrong way. Looking at the very young woman, I thought, "Who wants that young dork of a husband of yours, anyway? I can't even imagine why you'd want him!" but I didn't say it. I considered whether to accede to this demand or not.

In the dream, I decided to do it, for the sake of being nice and of being humble. I didn't really need the job anyway.

In real life, that would be a deplorable thing to do. It definitely would not qualify as being loving. It's hardly loving to allow someone to get away with bullying you. It would only reinforce the bad behavior, thus encouraging more of it. This would certainly not be good for the soul of the other person(s).

I woke up thinking maybe that's the answer I've often looked for to the question: What's the difference between being kind, loving, self-sacrificing or just being a doormat, just being abused? Perhaps the criterion is amazingly simple: what is genuinely good for the other? Good here means spiritually good, helping him grow healthier and stronger and holier and more mature.

I suspect most of the time it's fairly clear what the best is for the other in the given situation. But even if it should be hard to discern, we have to make that evaluation as best we can, both for our own sake and the sake of the other. It's a call that needs to be made with prayer and humility and ideally, with the guidance of our spiritual father.

If the sacrifice you're considering making is not good for the other, you may both end up resenting it. But if it is for the other's best, it will turn out to be for your best, too.

I can imagine situations, though, in which taking abuse does turn out to be the best course of action because every available way of trying to put a stop to it is too unkind.

Jesus didn't put a stop to those who seized Him and mistreated Him and crucified Him.

Blanket for Jackson

Here's  a corner of the blanket I've just finished for Jackson.  As I was in a hurry, I crocheted it this time; crochet works up so much faster, doesn't it?  This is the sedge stitch except for the scalloping at top and bottom.  The sedge stitch is very easy:

Chain a multiple of 3 sts plus 2 for the base chain

Row 1:  Skip 2ch (counts as 1 sc), work [1hdc, 1dc] into next ch, *skp 2 ch, work [1 sc, 1hdc, 1dc] into next st; rep from * to last 3ch, skip 2ch, 1 sc into last ch, turn.

Row 2:  1 ch (counts as 1 sc, work [1hdc, 1dc] into first st, *skp [1 de and 1hdc] work [1sc, 1hdc, 1dc] into next sc, rep from * to last 2 sts, skip [1dc and 1hdc], 1 sc into top of 1 ch, turn.

Rep. 2nd row

(For British terms, convert sc to dc, hdc to htc, and dc to tc.  Then say "miss" instead of "skip".)

A different effect can be achieved by using a larger hook; I used the smallest one I could with this yarn because I wanted a tight, thick blanket.

Busted!

Or, the Cat-napper Strikes Again

My grandchildren Kelly, Ryan, and Conner have acquired two kitties since last year. They are littermates, named after coffees. Demi (Demitasse) is a pastel calico and her brother Frap (Frappucino) is mostly white with symmetrical gray markings. They're both beautiful.

And they're both shy and they're both mostly Kelly's.

"This is my Cat Attracting Blanket," she told me several days ago as she showed me her room. It was a very soft, velour blanket with two matching Cat Attrracting Pillows that all lay at the foot of her bed. The cats sleep there every night, she said.

"Well, not tonight!" I replied. "Tonight they're going to sleep with me in the guest room!"

"Grandma! No way!"

So I waited until almost midnight and then tiptoed into her room. There were no cats in sight. Kelly lay peacefully, eyes closed. I was pulling the Cat Attracting Blanket toward me when Kelly's bass voice rumbled, "Hi, Grandma."

Busted!

Getting caught trying to steal from your own granddaughter, now that's humiliating. Kelly laughed all the next day.

That night, pajama-clad, she showed up at my bedroom door with her pillows in one hand and the Cat Attracting Blanket and Pillows in the other. I didn't even know what to say, until her mother said, "She wonders if she can sleep with you tonight." So into my bed she climbed and all was well with the whole, wide world.

After Christmas, I Kept Saying

After Christmas I will give the house a really thorough cleaning.

After Christmas I will think whether to get the 2 crowns the dentist says I need.

After Christmas I will have my echocardiogram.

After Christmas I will look into airline tickets for next Spring.

After Christmas we will decide which coffee table to get one another for a late Christmas present.

After Christmas we will edit Demetrios' paper yet again. This time, to make it comprehensible to the average psychoanalyst, if possible.

After Christmas, I will finish the heavy blanket for Jackson.

After Christmas I will take out my marble run toys from the attic and build a marble run as tall as the ceiling, that uses every single piece in the two sets. And maybe I'll even order some more gizmos so the marbles can do even more interesting stuff on their way down to the floor and the Mousetrap contraption thingy.

So now it's After Christmas.

Because We're All So Fond of It...

...and we may as well use it correctly, here's a wee bit of King James grammar.

Conjugation of Verbs
I am
Thou art
He/she/it is
We are
Ye are
They are

I do
Thou dost
He/she/it doth
We do
Ye do
They do

I say
Thou sayest
He/she/it saith
We/ye/they say

I have
Thou hast
He/she/it hath
We/ye/they have

I sit, hear, desire, hold, pray, know
Thou sittest, hearest, desirest, holdest, prayest, knowest
He/she/it sitteth, heareth, desireth, holdeth, prayeth, knoweth
We/ye/they sit, hear, desire, hold, pray, know

1st person singular
I say
My life (“my” before a consonant)
Mine eyes (“mine” before a vowel)
Tell me

(1st person plural is the same as today:  we, our/s, us.)

2nd person singular
Thou sayest
Thy life
Thine eyes
I tell thee

2nd person plural
Ye say
Your life
Your eyes
I tell you

3rd person singular and plural  (same as today: )

He, his, him
She, her(s), her
It, its, it
They, their(s), them

An Old Christmas Memory in a New Light

The other day, over the telephone, my mother and I were remembering this incident. I've already written about it on this blog before (Nov. 2007), but reprint it here, as I think it's a nice little Christmas story and because it has taken on a new significance this year.

The Black Doll

We were very poor, and the blonde, blue-eyed doll cost $12.00, which for us, in 1974, was a lot to spend on a four-year-old. So we bought her the brown-skinned, black-haired version of the same doll, for half the price. It would broaden our daughter’s awareness.

That was the same Christmas my parents, in addition to inviting the whole family as usual, had invited the Brooks family. Their daughter had committed suicide earlier that year, and we didn’t want Col. and Mrs. Brooks to be alone for Christmas.

“Why did you have to go and buy a black doll just because the Brookses are coming?” asked my Mother. “What are they going to think?”

“I bought the doll before I knew they were coming!” I protested. “It has nothing to do with them! I promise, it’s just coincidence!”

So on Christmas morning, we all waited with some apprehension as Erin opened her gift (Col. and Mrs. Brooks having been forewarned). She looked at her new doll. Then she looked up at Mrs. Brooks, then down to the doll again, then up at Mrs. Brooks again. Finally she stood up, walked over to Mrs. Brooks, and held out her gift.

“If you want to play with my new dollie, you can,” said Erin. “She’s just about your size.”

"I remember how annoyed you were," I told Mom, "because you thought I had bought the black doll because Col. and Mrs. Brooks were coming, but in reality, I bought it because it was the only doll I could afford. And because I thought it would be broadening for my daughter."

She laughed. "Well, it took!"

Erin and Her New Doll

Political Issues

On Illegal Immigrants

Okay, so it's pretty clear we want illegal immigrants here.  And we want them here illegally, too; that's the whole point, because if they were legal, we'd have to pay them minimum wage.  And then everything, especially food, would cost more to produce and be more expensive for us to buy.

So if that's what we really want, it means we are exploiting their desperation.  In view of that, it seems we could at least provide them with some benefits after all.  I used to be dead set against this, because on the face of it, giving legal benefits to illegal aliens is outrageous.

But love has a different logic, doesn't it?

On Homosexuals in the Military

I grew up in an Army family, and I'm aware that homosexuals have always served in the military, and more or less openly, too.  They haven't usually spoken up, but as some of them were quite effeminate, everybody was aware of it.  It even provided fodder for good-natured banter and joking.  It never has seemed to lower morale or have any of the other dread effects people are predicting.  No doubt many homosexuals have served with valor and distinction, too.  So I'm not really appalled at the idea of homosexuals serving in the military.

What is wrong with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, though, is the implication that we all ought to accept homosexuality as a perfectly valid alternative lifestyle.  It just isn't. 

And I'm not speaking in moral terms, either.  Homosexuals, as far as I can see, are not necessarily any more immoral than anyone else and I'm not qualified to cast the first stone, or even the second or the millionth.   In fact, there's no reason a homosexual can't become a saint.  Maybe some of the people we revere, whose icons we kiss, were handicapped by homosexual orientation at the beginning of their struggle for sanctity. All the more ought we to be in awe of them.

So homosexuality isn't a civil rights issue, as it has been portrayed; nor is it (in itself) a moral issue. 

It's a mental health issue.  Homosexuality is an emotional disorder, and a fairly severe one at that.  That's the sober truth, despite the massive propaganda to the contrary.  And to tell a sick person he is healthy isn't doing him any favor.  In fact, it's doing him a grave disservice, because that tends to dissuade him from seeking to get better.  (And there are effective, if difficult and long-term, treatments available today for those who want them.)  It's an emotional disorder and this is so no matter how much he implores you to say he's healthy, or calls you names or accuses you of bigotry or hatred if you don't.  You don't tell an alcoholic it's okay to drink, and you don't tell a homosexual his desire for same-sex intimacy is normal. 

It just isn't.

More Bragging...

...from Grandma.  (Grandmothers' boasting about Grandchildren is acceptable, isn't it?)

Kelly wants to be a meteorologist when she grows up.  She has always been interested in science, and now her interest has focussed upon all things related to weather.

Kelly's other Grandmother went to a silent auction and bid high for 3 hours of shadowing the chief meteorologist at the local television station.  And she won it for Kelly - a thrilling gift for this 9-year-old!

So here's Kelly in Front of the Television Station



Standing Before Blue Screen; on TV, it Would Look as it Does in Monitor, Background



Here's How the Composite Image Would Look to Viewers



With WXII Chief Meteorologist Lanie Pope, Kelly's Idol

Congratulations, Kelly!

Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men

Driving down the street earlier this week, I caught sight of this bumpersticker and winced.  I thought, in the words of someone I found later blogging about this bumpersticker, that it was "extremely smug and intellectually slovenly."

Someone designed a parody of it, in which the "e" becomes a hammer and sickle and the Star of David becomes a swastika. Of course the Jews took offense at the latter, claiming it was anti-Semitic; but its purpose wasn't to slam Jews at all, but to point out that co-existence may not be is not always possible.

And that's because not all ideologies, let alone religions, believe in peaceful coexistence. The Quran, for example, gives mixed messages at best on the subject, and the hard historical fact is, Muslims have never lived in peace with their neighbors if they had the power to do otherwise, except when they were severly oppressing non-Muslims.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a politely worded but clear message: it does not advocate violence, to be sure, but it says how much religious liberty you have is, by rights, up to the pope. So coexisting is not just as easy as the bumpersticker may make it appear to be.

Nevertheless, to try very hard to coexist peacefully is required by Christian tolerance, isn't it?  In fact it is the minimum required, for  Jesus taught us go much further than that, to love those who hate us, bless those that curse us, pray for those who depitefully use us. That, for the Christian, is what tolerance of other faiths and ideologies means.

It doesn't mean you have to suppose that all religions are equally good or equally bad, because they just aren't and it would be dangerously naive to pretend otherwise.  Some are more benign or malignant than others. It doesn't mean you always have to be super-polite about ideologies that enslave people or lead them down dark paths. It doesn't mean you cannot speak out against other people's religious practices, like polygamy or human sacrifice or suicide bombing.  It doesn't mean you must refrain from pointing out to people how certain doctrines tyrannize over them.  (How can you, if you love them?)

It does mean that if you do all this, it should be for love of the other person and not to prop up your own beliefs. It is to be done in charity and with kindness. It needs humility. And although a Christian is not required to respect false beliefs, he is most certainly required to respect other people, to respect, love, and coexist in peace with other people.

I'm not saying a Christian doesn't have the right to defend himself against violent people, although as a former absolute pacifist, I've always leaned in that direction. But I am saying we ought to prefer martyrdom to harming anyone.  Christians are called to embody peace on earth and good will to all men.

I am not a gentle person, never have been accused of tact, and am a stranger to humility.  So to all I have offended by my blunt remarks, I offer sincere apologies and promises to try to be less acrid in future.  Please forgive me.

And may the Prince of Peace be with you, and  merry Christmas!

Posted Without Comment (Very Frightening)

Baby Jackson With His New Sister and Three of His New Cousins


Q.  Is he named after Jesse Jackson?

Q.  Is he named after Michael Jackson?

Q. Are you going to spell  his name Ja 'xon?

Q. Are you going to call him "JJ" (for Jackson Jeffery)?

Q.  Are you going to call him Jackie, after Jackie Robinson?

Q. Is the jungle theme in the nursery because he's African American?

Q. Do you think he looks a little like E. T.?

Q. Doesn't he remind you of a baby gorilla?

The name was inspired by a little boy in Sydney's class of whom she is fond.  He is going to be called "Jackson" with no shortening of it and no cutsie spelling.

The nursery got its start from some crib bedding a neighbor lent in the emergency because Erin and Jeff only had pink items and no time for much shopping.

And adorable as a baby gorilla is, and E.T., too, check it out; there's really no comparison.



So Ugly He's Cute





  

Truly Handsome Baby, Held by Sydney;
Click to Enlarge



Precious, But Not Good-Looking





P.S.)  Jackson is as perfect a baby as can be.  He never fusses unless he needs a diaper change or a bottle.  He never frets; he never demands anything.  He is content to sit in his bouncy chair or swing, just looking, peacefully absorbing the world around him.  He eats well, sleeps well, burps as soon as you sit him up.  He never spits up (thanks, probably, to the new, high-tech bottles you need an instruction leaflet to know how to put together).  He loves to be bathed.  He loves to cuddle.  He knows no strangers.  He sleeps up to 4 hours at a time, usually needing only one middle-of-the-night feeding.  He already weighs 8 pounds, up from his birth weight of 5 something.  He can already roll over, in one direction.  He has real smiles.   Not bad for a preemie, eh?  Okay, end of Grandma's bragging - for now

How Not to Handle It

“It” being the pedophilia scandal currently racking the Catholic world, a topic dwelt on at some length in Pope Benedict’s Christmas message Monday.

Blame it on Society (and/or Deflect Attention from Rome to Society)

We are aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our consequent responsibility. Yet we cannot remain silent concerning the context of our time in which we see these events taking place. There is a market for child pornography which, in some way, seems to be increasingly considered by society as something normal. The psychological devastation of children in whom human beings are reduced to the level of a market commodity, is a frightening sign of the times

.
Blame it on Drugs (???)

In this context, the Holy Father mentioned the problem of drugs, "which with increasing strength extends its tentacles to the entire world. ... All pleasure becomes insufficient and excess under the delusion of intoxication turns into violence that rends entire regions. And all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom, in which precisely man's freedom is undermined and in the end completely cancelled.”

Blame it on Deficient Moral Theology (“Proportionalism”)

On his way to Australia in the summer of 2008 … Benedict targeted the moral theory by name, claiming that “with proportionalism, it was possible to think for some subjects – one could also be pedophilia – that in some proportion they could be a good thing.”

This morning, Benedict XVI returned to the same point, though without directly invoking the term. Here’s what the pope said, in the English translation of his address provided by the Vatican Press Office:

To oppose these forces we must look at their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focused anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience.

What's the Problem?

"We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen," the pope said.

Indeed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. And Ireland, and England, and France, and Germany, and the U.S., and on and on. But it isn’t merely corrupt contemporary society, for Catholicism is supposedly in the business of transforming society, rather than being shaped by it. Nor is it as simple or as ephemeral as Proportionalism, which the clergy pedophile problem both predates and postdates. It has more to do with whatever allowed “the realm of Catholic theology” to come to such a state as ever to let Proportionalism through the door – and with it, any notion of child rape being a good thing. (That’s if this breathtaking idea really ever really was proposed by any Catholic ‘theologian’. I tend to agree with Margaret Kennedy, from a survivor group, who says this is “absolute nonsense… No-one in any age has ever thought that adults having sex with children is right.”) It has to do with why so many homosexuals and/or pedophiles managed to be ordained and even made bishops. It has to do with why this horrific thing wasn’t stamped out at least half a century ago. It has to do with why Rome still today is handling it all so badly.

Go figure.




Sources:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/crisis-does-pope-have-it-right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8214796/Pope-sex-abuse-scandal-humiliating-but-society-must-share-the-blame.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12437712&tqkw=&tqshow=

Totally Unprepared

Dear Christmas,

Well, you see, it's like this. We only got back from Greece the Thursday before Thanksgiving, and then we had to spend that entire week getting ready to host some of my family.

Then the day after Thanksgiving, we both got sick and that lasted until mid-December, and we were feeling too bad to do anything at all except sit around or lie around and sniffle, cough, wheeze, and sneeze.

And then Erin and Jeff's baby came, suddenly, with only three days' warning, and I've had to spend this past week there, meeting him and visiting all my other grandchildren at long last, whom I hadn't seen since Spring.

And now here it is, only a couple of days to go until Christmas, and I have yet to put up a single decoration (much less a tree), bake a single cookie, write a single card, or finish making the gifts I had started (while sick) for my family.

So what I want to ask is, is there any way Christmas could possibly come a week or so later this year?

* * *

Yes, there IS! Every Orthodox Christian knows in his heart we ought to be on the Old Calendar for liturgical purposes anyway, right? So this year, we are going to observe the Nativity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in accordance with the Old Calendar. I believe that puts it at January 7, doesn't it? Ah...

Just to Keep the Record Straight

One blog site I came upon thanks to John at Ad Orientum had a discussion in which someone asked, "When Rome speaks of 'full unity among Christians,' does Rome mean anything other than unqualified submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?" and a Catholic wrote back, "This is ridiculous. The Catholic Church doesn’t require “unqualified submission” to the pope from Catholics. How can we have actual dialog with this kind of (ignorance? attitude?)."

The Catholic went on to add:

Christians give “unqualified” submission to Christ. “Submission” (what does that mean, exactly? Is that the best word?) to the Bishop of Rome would be qualified… by the content of divine revelation… by Christ… by the doctrine of the Catholic Church… by the fact that one’s actual ordinary is not the Bishop of Rome… by Canon Law… by a myriad of things, all of which “qualify” the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Um ..... no.

As for the content of divine revelation, the pope tells Catholics what that is.  Ditto the doctrine.  As for canon law, he has the ultimate say in formulating it, and there is nothing in it that limits either his authority or the requirement for Catholics to submit to it.

According to the Catholic Catechism, the pope's authority over the church is supreme, full, immediate, and universal (see paragraphs 882 and 937).  The scope of the pope's claimed authority, within and outside of the Catholic institution, is apparently not limited; see many papal and other Catholic quotes to that effect here).   In any case, whatever its scope may be, submission to papal authority is required to be absolute, not qualified.

Theoretically, perhaps, Catholics only have to submit when a pope speaks infallibly. (Although more than one Catholic 'saint' has said otherwise; see the link above.) But rather than theorize, let's look at this in down-to-earth terms: What, specifically, is there, taught by any pope, which the 'magisterium' considers optional for Catholics?

(A lot of Catholics don't submit to some teachings, notably on birth control, but not because Rome makes submission optional.)