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.)

Conversation with Sydney

Sydney is 5, not 6 as I mistakenly wrote earlier.  Yesterday, she was showing me how she could count to 130, so today I  asked her, "What's the biggest number there is?'"

After a moment's thought, she said, "A hundred."

"Why do you think a hundred?"

"Because  after about that many years you have to go to heaven and you don't have any more numbers."

"But we can still count higher than 100, can't we?  Yesterday you counted to 130.  But you could go on and say 131, 132, and all the way up to 140, and then you could say 141 and 142 and 143."

"How about a hundred billion gazillion thousand?"

"How about two hundred billion gazillion thousand, or three hundred billion gazillion thousand?"

A few more moments of pondering and she finally said, "Grandma, we are never going to find the answer to this one."

I was opening my mouth to agree when she added, "We'll just have to look it up on the Internet!"

If They Made a Black Baby Doll, He Would Look Like Our Jackie

Don't you think? Except they wouldn't give him straight hair; no idea where that came from.  There isn't even a hint of a wave, except when wet.

He's "yummy", in Erin's word.  Huge, limpid eyes, an earnest gaze, a real smile already.  He's a snuggler, melts right into your curves, reminds me of a cup of chocolate pudding, sweet and soft. 

His birth parents are unmarried college students who already have an 18-month-old and are struggling.  They have each left us with notes to be shown to Jackie one day, and they are full of love and regret, but also hope.

His foster parents, whom Erin and Jeff met, also sent along a letter assuring us this baby has been prayed for, hugged, snuggled, rocked, sung to, cuddled, and loved every minute of his little life.

It shows.  He's a calm baby, never fusses unless he needs feeding or a diaper change.  He isn't fretful or fearful or anxious, just the picture of peace.

Sydney, 5, has been literally hopping up and down with joy since Friday.  When she first saw his pictures, she had a moment of doubt; she said, "I would be sad if I had skin that dark."  But when we went to pick him up, she said, "He's much cuter in person than in his pictures," which is true, and she was full of kisses and wanted to hold him, and was allowed to, with my help, for a moment.

The telephones (landline and cell phones) haven't stopped ringing.  A few neighbors came over last night.  Looking out the front door, Sydney said, "I see my friend coming!  Logan is coming.  Come on, Logan, hurry!  Are you ready to see someone a different color?  He's my brother!"

Her only other remark re race, so far, was, "Mommy, I bet if he had come out of your tummy, he'd have skin like ours."

Well, it's true, adoption is not the natural way to acquire children, although it can be a wonderful way. 

And there's no doubt it all takes some getting used to, and nobody here is pretending otherwise.  I don't think it'll take very long, though.  Jackson had already won our hearts before we met him, and now that we have, we're all head over heels in love. 

Sydney wore her new button to kindergarten today.  It just says, "Sister."

Jackson Jeffrey: Pictures Taken Before He Came to Us

Jackson Jeffrey, NewestMember of Our Family

Pure in Heart

My daughter-in-law, Katherine, sat down with Kelly, 9, to explain to her that she was about to acquire a new cousin; Auntie Erin and Uncle Jeff had adopted a baby, who would arrive in a day or two.

Kelly fell silent and looked so grave her mother asked, "Are you alright with this? What's the problem?"

It was shock. It was distress. Kelly was trying hard to absorb the unthinkable news that there are people who give their babies away. Her mother tried to explain that this couple did the best thing they could in the circumstances, but still...

I hate what the evil, the brokenness of this world does to children - to all of us, but especially to the children; I hate it, hate it, hate it!

Best Christmas Present Ever!

Okay, the second best. The Very Best is the Child born in the manger.

But the second best is another Christmas child, born 3 weeks ago, and who, this coming Tuesday, is going to become my daughter's son. And Sydney's brother. And my grandson.

She was at Target this afternoon shopping when the adoption agency rang her on her cell phone, and she burst into tears.

We don't know anything about him except that he's 3 weeks old, healthy, and of African-American descent. Oh, and he's a preemie, therefore tiny.

Erin and Jeff don't even have any idea what they will name him. "All I can tell you," I said, "is what NOT to name him. Don't name him Egbert or Ethelbert or Nero or Moriarty. And probably you should avoid Oswald and Adolph."

"And we just ordered our Christmas cards!" says Erin, "With a picture of our family on the front, and now it's obsolete already!"

They are to meet the baby on Monday, together with his foster parents, who will fill them in on the child's schedules and health records and every sort of information Erin and Jeff could want. Then they are to bring him home on Tuesday.

The birth parents chose Erin and Jeff from the agency's website, which has pictures and blurbs of prospective parents. They have already signed all the legal papers and the waiting period for changing their minds has already expired. They have declined to meet Erin and Jeff.

Jeff has a business trip scheduled for Tuesday, immediately after the baby is turned over to them. He is going to see if he can cancel it.

I'll go down to North Carolina Sunday evening, and be there to help in any case.

"And we have plane tickets to Minnesota the 22nd!" says Erin. "Do I have to call the airline and tell them there will be a 4th person?" Yes.

They are spending Christmas with Jeff's family. His mother has already begun scrounging and borrowing baby things.

"I don't even have any boy baby clothes!" said Erin.

"We'll go shopping Monday night and get some," I told her.

"I dont' even remember what all I'm going to have to pack!"

"You'll pack a few changes of clothes, a couple of bottles and formula, and enough diapers to get you there, and then you'll buy more diapers and more formula when you get there."

I'll bet Nancy (Jeff's mom) will also organize a hasty baby shower. That's the sort of thing she loves to do and is so very good at.

"I don't even remember how to take care of a baby at home."

"You're a newborn baby nurse, for heaven's sake! You know better than anybody!"

"In the hospital. That's different. The baby screams and screams and nothing can make it stop, but you know you're getting off at eleven o'clock and you can go home. Having a baby at home is different!"

"It'll all come back to you."

"Are you going to start knitting tonight?"

No, dear, tomorrow. I never really thought about it, but of the 5 preemie blankets I've knitted recently, only one is for a boy, and it's a lightweight blanket, a summer blanket, useless in Minnesota. Well, I can remedy that in a jiffy.

A NEW BABY FOR CHRISTMAS!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pretty, Easy, Reversible Stitch (Knitting)

The scarf I'm working on

Scarves are great projects for a lot of reasons. They help you use up odd balls of yarn left over from other projects. Or they give you a chance to use some luxury yarn you can't afford enough of for a larger project. They make nice gifts. They give you a chance to try out new stitch patterns.  They're portable, so you can work on them in, for example, waiting rooms.  And they're quick to knit.

This is a stitch pattern I came up with while playing around with two balls of yarn I wanted to use up. I didn't want plain stripes and, as almost always, I did want something reversible. (Scarves, especially, need to look good, I think, on both sides.)  This scarf has all the advantages I wanted.  Well, except one.  It gets a little boring after a while.  Still, sometimes the circumstances are wrong for work that needs more concentration, and a relatively mindless project is just the thing.

Materials: Two colors of yarn that look good together, double-pointed needles

Skill Level: Beginner

Cast on with Color A, multiples of 4 +3

***Do not turn.  Slide stitches back to the other side of the needle. 

With Color B, (K3, P1) ending K3.

Now both working strands of yarn should be at the same end of the needle. Turn the work.

With Color A, (K3, P1) ending K3.

TIP: If you will put the skeins of yarn one on either side of you and turn the work clockwise each time, the yarns will be much less likely to become entangled.

Repeat from ***, continuing in this same fashion, alternating 1 row of A with 1 row of B until the work is as long as you like and only turning every other row.  All the rows are worked the same:  (K3,P1) K3.
Variation:  You can, of course, space out the purl stitches differently, as in K5, P1 or whatever.  The  row will appear to curve as you get wider than that.

Morals and Ethics

My husband and I have recently had a debate. There are two points at issue, and any enlightenment you, dear readers, can shed on either of them will be welcome.

(1) What, as you understand it, is the difference between morals and ethics? Your own view, please; we can do the googling ourselves.

(2) Do you think this difference is generally known and understood? By fairly well-educated people, I mean? (0ne of us thinks this is something virtually everybody knows, and the other thinks virtually nobody knows it.) Did you know it before you googled it?

Thanks for any input you may offer.

UPDATE: A genuine expert has responded to an e-mail I sent her, as follows:

Ethics involves system and process whereas morals involve judgement and values. Sometimes the terms overlap, as when we speak of Kant's Deontological decision-making as a "moral system".

I hope that this is helpful.

Best wishes,
Alice C. Linsley

A Clean Conscience Never Relaxes

...by Ogden Nash

There is an emotion to which we are most of us are adduced,
But it is one which I refuse to boost.
It is harrowing, browbeating, and brutal,
Besides which it is futile.
Because of it sleepy men go sleepless.
Because of it, for all I know lyrical canaries and nightingales go peepless;
Hungry men lose their appetites;
Warm acrobats perspire coldly in their dapper tights;
Eligible bachelors enter ballrooms less eligibly,
And stoics talk to themselves loudly and fortuately also unintelligibly.
Land of Goshen,
What an easily dispensible emotion!
I am referring, of course,
To remorse.
Remorse is a violent dyspepsia of the mind,
But it is very difficult to treat because it cannot even be defined,
Because everything is not gold that glisters and everything is not a tear that glistens,
And one man's remorse is another man's reminiscence,
So the truth is that as far as improving the world its concerned, remorse is a duffer,
Because the wrong people suffer,
Because the very fact that they suffer from remorse proves they are innocuous.
Yes, indeed, it is the man remorse passes over completely who is the virulent streptococcuous.
Do you think that when Nero threw a martyr to the lions remorse enveloped him like an affinity?
Why, the only remorse in the whole Colosseum was felt by the martyr who was reproaching himself for having dozed through the sermon on the second Sunday after Trinity.
So I think remorse ought to stop biting the consciences that feed it,
And I think the Communist Party ought to work out some plan for taking it away from those who have it and giving it to those who need it.

Do You Believe It?

One theory, common in America, England, Greece, and elsewhere, is that our governments are just incredibly stupid. They don't know what they are doing. Every farmer and schoolteacher and construction worker in the country knows better, but Washington (or Downing Street, or Athens) just doesn't GET IT.

I don't believe that. Do you?

I think they know exactly what they are doing. We're the ones who don't, necessarily.