The Battle of the Bulge(-ing waistline)

I have poor self-discipline when it comes to diet and exercise. If there was a diagnosis for binge-and-purge dieting (actually, I think that exists), I would be institutionalized by now. I'm not proud to say it, but since I began the married life I have been a poor example of how to eat or not eat, exercise or not exercise. I'm so up and down with my regimen that Cedar Point should name a ride in my honor. I'm either eating fruit, veggie, and protein smoothies (and they taste healthy, not delicious) or I'm eating ice cream sundaes. I'm either running 3-4 miles a day for three or four months or I'm crashing on the couch with that sundae I mentioned.

Almost 7 years ago, with our first baby on the way and working a 2nd shift desk job, I was experiencing the effects of sympathy baby weight. I topped off at that point at a hair under 200lbs, and will never forget the Christmas pictures of Monica and me smiling at my family's house on Christmas morning, her with her expectant mother glow and me with my well-rounded cheeks. I committed to losing weight and, after entering my office's weight loss challenge, proceeded to diet and exercise my way to a trim 167lbs. Since then I have gone up and down, up and down, up and down. I am currently at my highest ever, topping the scales at 204.

I can make excuses all day about how I have four kids, how I'm in school school full-time; how everybody puts on some weight and I'm much smaller than most of America. I could say that I will weight until I (did you catch that?) finish school and then take advantage of my probable three 12-hour shifts weekly to focus on weight loss, but those are all excuses. Those are the things that should be motivating me to lose now. All that plus my secret desire to actually look like this again in Under Armour:

I want my four kids to see that their daddy wants to be in top shape so I can have more energy to play with them. I want to show my patients that I care about myself and I will certainly care about them. I need to eat right and exercise so I don't feel tired when I sit down to study. And I certainly can't wait until next summer or who knows what I might add to my adipose stash by then. I need to stop waiting for motivation to hit me in the face and get motivated NOW.

Thankfully, I have a good friend who also wants to shed a few pounds. We've made a commitment to encourage and push each other to lose a practical amount by Christmas, with a "mile marker" weight at Thanksgiving. So, I hope to be writing you all again in 3 months at the smaller 180lb mark. I've lost more before, I can do this now.

The politics of "I'm NOT a ______"

Have you seen this bumper sticker? It's one of the Democratic National Committee's bumper stickers that they're sharing with constituents. Someone down the street from us has one on the back of their truck. I'm sure that they're a wonderful person and know what they believe in and the policies they can get behind. So, why not just say "I'm a Democrat"? Are we so far removed from actually talking about our own stance on issues that an officially sanctioned party slogan doesn't even claim membership, but rather touts NOT being a member of the other party? Seems like all we see these days are the negative ads, the "Look at how awful that guy is" jabs, rather than "THIS is what I stand for" statements. This happens on both sides of the aisle, neither Democrats nor Republicans are exempt. But as the president, Mr. Obama, I'm looking you square in the eye; you haven't upheld your claim of a post-partisan, post-racial, most-transparent-administration ever since you were sworn in. Actually, I've felt that the polarization in this country has been worse in the past four years than I can remember in my lifetime. I, for one, would like to think that if I was running for office or leading a political movement I would have the courage to actually stand up and say publicly over and over again..."I believe in THIS and I'm going to stand behind it. How do YOU feel about this issue?" I believe that it's only this type of attitude that will bridge the huge ideological gap that our country is experiencing right now.

In the meantime, since I'm not running for office and can say whatever incendiary thing I want...and since I know that my Democrat readers have a good sense of humor, I'll leave you with this replacement bumper sticker:

Does legality determine morality?

A friend of mine and I were talking over the weekend about the current state of affairs in our country, particularly the erosion of our country's moral fabric. While we both agree on the fact that there is a general sense of moral relativism, a "let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" attitude, we discovered that we were coming at issues from a different perspectives. My buddy had viewed issues more from a sense that issues like the push for same-sex marriage were created or pushed as part of a grand plan to undermine traditional marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that on issues like same-sex marriage the proponents truly want to legitimize these couples in the eye of the world, using legal means to achieve what they believe to be an issue of equal rights. The question for me became: where did this come from? How did human society for thousands of years view marriage as a singular entity, a union between a man and a woman, and now we see individuals and groups who believe that marriage should be defined as a union between any two individuals regardless of sex? Here are my thoughts on the issue...

While often attacked by modern society as being old and out of touch, the Catholic Church has held to its teachings on sexual morality since the time of Christ, approaching human sexuality as not something merely physical, but as containing a sacred element. We believe that every act between husband and wife should be both unitive and procreative...not that every conjugal encounter must result in a new life, but that whenever they engage the couple must be open to the possibility of the gift of life. This is why we believe in periodic abstinence as a means of spacing children. So, anyway...in 1930, under pressure from its members and society, the Anglican church became the first Christian denomination to allow use of contraceptives under some circumstances, during the Lambeth Conference of that year. Since that time, every major protestant church has allowed the use of contraceptives to the point that the Catholic Church is the only denomination that still teaches against it.

Over the next several decades, as the use of contraceptives became more widespread, various methods were improved upon and we had the emergence of "the pill". Still the more widely preferred method today, the contraceptive pill is used to alter a woman's hormones to prevent or terminate a conception. The rate of conception when on the pill is roughly 2-5%, giving rise to the term "protected sex" and taking away the procreative aspect; essentially sex became a recreational activity rather than an expression of unconditional love. It became an act rather than a promise. It became something to protect yourself during rather than something within which to give yourself freely and fully. However, the term love certainly did not go away...

"Free love" was a favorite term during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's as young people began a wholesale shed of their Greatest Generation parents' values. With sex offering both the pleasure they desired and very little chance of producing a child, sexual partners grew in number, couples began to cohabitate more outside of marriage, and popular culture reinforced the new practices in both radio and television.

With the rise of the sexual revolution, aided by contraception, there was still one question that remained in the way of total sexual emancipation: what to do in cases where contraceptives didn't do their job and a conception occurred? It's foolish to look idealistically at the issue of abortion with the assumption that prior to this time abortion did not occur. It did, although it was illegal and believed to be immoral by the majority of society. However, abortion did offer the opportunity to rectify a failed contraceptive, and so our country saw the infamous Roe v. Wade court case that ultimately made abortion a non-criminal act. The case hinged on two basic questions: 1) when does life actually begin, and 2) is it a woman's right to abort the life of her unborn child because it is in her body? According to the law, a woman can choose to abort the child, because life begins when she decides it begins.

With contraceptives accepted by the majority of society and abortion a legal act, sex became viewed as mainly an act of pleasure and not one of meaning and commitment. With this perspective, any sexual act that brought pleasure was sure to be accepted as good, because remember...sex is about pleasure, and nothing else. From this position it makes sense that sex between two men or two women would be accepted as much as sex between a man and a woman, because sex is no longer about an act which is naturally inclined to reproduction, but one that expresses...whatever one wants it to express. And so we see how homosexual acts are more acceptable to those who view sex in this light. So why homosexual marriage?

In the eyes of many, a thing or action is considered good if a majority of persons believes it to be good, if the act is legal, or if it is somehow "endorsed" through laws that support that thing or action. In the case of same-sex marriage the underlying motivation is to legitimize what many in society believe to be immoral, that being sexual relations between two persons of the same gender. The result is an undermining of society's respect for traditional marriage. The same thing has happened before in examples like unmarried cohabitation; society previously frowned on this arrangement and although many still disapprove, the sheer number of couples living together overpowers traditional thoughts on saving sexual cohabitation for marriage.

What is lacking in today's common thought is true logic in the application of legality, morality and where the two intersect on issues. Rather than simply seeking good as one defines it for him or herself, logic aids in the pursuit of good to a natural order and principled end, seeking the good of others first and applying a natural moral framework to one's worldview. Within this view there are limitations on what is good. Not that we should or must force our beliefs on others, but that holding principled views regardless of society's moral tide is acceptable, even when others can't accept that.

If I told you I strangled a puppy...

Would you hate me? Would you think I was heartless and possibly try to press charges against me for committing canicide? Would you want to lead a raging mob to my house if you found out I intentionally strangled a little, big-eyed, fluffy, cute-as-a-button puppy? Yeah, I figured you would. What if I told you I put my dog in a cage designed to be strapped to the top of my car, would you decline to vote for me as president? Or, what if I told you that there was a law being passed to allow breeders to selectively kill puppies at the point of birth by putting a knife through their brain or simply allowing them to perish from the elements? Does that upset you? Fortunately, I don't have to tether my rage into words, as I have the president of the United States, mister Barack Obama, to give his thoughts on allowing little puppies...oh wait, I mean babies...to die:
(emphasis mine)

As I understand it, this [law] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

That transcript came from 2002, during his tenure as an Illinois state senator, where he was arguing against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" which was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Senate and protects babies who survive botched abortions. Sounds humane though, doesn't it? But in case you're thinking I'm just pulling more Obamaphobic quotes...here's a bit more for you to digest from the person elected to lead our country. I encourage you to read through to the end to get the full effect of Obama's words (again, emphasis mine):

Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?
Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it.

How can anyone listen to this and not see the illogical thought in saying that a premature baby who is, for instance, delivered alive and healthy at 25 weeks has all the rights of anyone, but if the baby is unwanted it has no rights up until it's born at 40 weeks? Are there any doubts that he has indeed sold his soul to the abortion industry?

You know, I think I will take your expert advice on the size of my family!

Being the father of four kids has some pretty cool advantages. "Perks of the job", as it were. Near the top of the list is a universally free ticket to the advice of any and every self-imposed expert on why my family size is big enough and how I should probably look into learning "how these things work", so I'm not surprised next time a baby shows up. These experts range from strangers in the supermarket, coworkers, new acquaintances, and store employees.

Monica recently told a new coworker that she's the mother of four children. The woman, with her "family size expert" card proudly on display declared "Wow! So, you've decided your done, right?" Well, now that YOU mentioned it I suppose I probably should be done. I mean, the fact that you've known me for all of 83 minutes and can apply your extensive life experience to mine means you have every right to make pontificating statements on my behalf. Thank you!

I can remember on different occasions how some of my own coworkers, upon hearing that we were expecting our third or fourth child, exclaimed with great giddiness, winking, and sly nods "You really ought to look into how these things happen, Chris!" Shoot...I'm glad you pointed that out because this whole time I was always anxious that the stork was just going to show up at my house again with a little bundle that I would have to accept whether I wanted to or not. Whew, glad that I now know I actually have a hand in this whole process!

I tell you, it's a relief to know that I have so many people willing to give of their wisdom on behalf of my family choices. I also appreciate the fact that so many people stare me down in stores and mention, "You must be Catholic!" It's just good to know that they're sympathetic to the fact that I'm a "good Catholic" and that the Church wants me to blindly bring as many babies into the world as possible. Right?

Imagine if I went around asking people that have two kids whether they've decided to up their count to 5 anytime soon? You know, just randomly state at the grocery line something like "Hey there! That's a cute couple of kids you have. When are you going to get on the stick and have a few more?" What about asking the 30-something childless couple whether they planned to turn in their Audi TT for a Dodge Caravan and fill that puppy up? That would go over well. Inappropriate and quite judgmental, right? Fact is, I actually have no stake in how many kids you have, and wouldn't make you think it. So why do people feel uninhibited enough to randomly assume and assert we're gonna cut things off at four?

The truth is, we do want a big family. Not simply because we're Catholic, but for a number of reasons: 1) We both come from big families and recognize the joy that having lots of built-in playmates and lifelong friends brings. 2) We have been incredibly blessed, even through adversity, and desire to spread that joy and blessings to our descendants. 3) Family memberships to the zoo cost less per person when spread across 12 people. 4) Child tax credits are awesome, especially when multiplied by 10. The joking aside though, we WANT more kids!

I do find the whole "good Catholic" part amusing. I think people look at big Catholic families and assume we've sworn some double-secret uber-oath to the Holy Father that we will be very fruitful and multiply the church's ranks, or something. It might come as a shock to some readers to hear that I've never once heard "family size as a measure of virtue" preached from any pulpit I've ever tuned in to; or, that there are big families in denominations other than Catholic who value the big family life! Having a big family isn't about building a portfolio for the big Guy, or trying to be holier through suffering life out. A "good Catholic family" may have 10 kids or they might have 0 kids. Some even have three! We respect parents of any number of kids...being a parent is rewarding but it's also challenging and difficult! No matter the size, it's important to respect the work that all parents do. What matters most is that family size reflect God's will as you seek Him on earth. For us, that will hopefully mean a few more kids before it's all said and done and before I learn better. And, maybe somewhere along the way, someone in some grocery line or health department desk will look and ask "So, do you have any plans for more?"

Yes, I am in college...

(←Funny, not entirely accurate, currently a little too close to home.)

To all my readers who have inquired into my recent lack of posts, I say "thank you" for your appreciation of my blog. The last 1.5 months have been quite busy and quite honestly I got back on the blog without realizing how long it's actually been since I put fingers to keyboard here. Monica, me, and the kids had a really great month of May. A wonderful trip to the beach with even more wonderful friends, my 30th birthday, the first of two cousin's weddings for the summer, the start of my summer classes, and moving into our "summer home" (we are house-sitting for some friends until August) are just a few things going on in our lives that have kept us incredibly busy...and constantly remembering that we are incredibly blessed.

A few random thoughts:

I was at a Save-A-Lot store with Monica's younger brother, stocking up on some great deals I saw there. They had small canisters of coffee, regular priced $2.50, for $1. I had to buy 10. They also had Honey Bunches of Oats Raisin Medley on sale for around $2. I had to buy a dozen. So I'm standing there waiting to check out, dressed in my my shorts, t-shirt, and ballcap and joking with Ben. The lady behind us gives us a knowing smile and says to me "You must be in college!". Ummm...uhhh...well..."Yes, I am" I smiled back. That is obviously true, but what she probably perceived as a young kid just stocking up his dorm food stash is a guy with a lot more than just "I'm in college". How do you smile back and say "Sure am! I'm also a 30yo married father of four with a previous bachelor's degree who lost his job and moved his family across the state to pursue a new career in nursing and since I'm living with the in-laws I'm taking advantage of these awesome deals!"? Nope, simply "Yes, I am" will have to do.

I am also realizing much more lately how easy it is for me to fall into my trap of "I know best and I'm gonna argue my point". I often forget the saying (and I paraphrase) "the smartest people talk the least", or something to that effect. Basically, remember how stupid you actually are and take others' advice. A couple wonderful classmates of mine have been good enough to kindly and lovingly point out my argumentative and/or sometimes judgmental attitude, well after I should have come to the usual conclusion myself. Opportunities for humility are not always easy to embrace, but I'm trying...so thank you!

To end this random, "welcome myself back" post, I'll just say this: I am truly blessed. Blessed with a wife who loves me unrelentingly despite my numerous faults; wonderful children who are simultaneously a joyful blessing and a big-ticket item on my heavenly resume'; I'm blessed with real friends who I would do anything for and vice versa; blessed with a supporting extended family that humbles me with their love and generosity; and most of all I'm blessed with a God who loves me in spite of my failings and who provides for my every need, both known and unknown. Yes, I am a blessed man.

Liberal's "Inception" Moment and the War on Women

During the January 7th debate between Republican hopefuls, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos managed to pull a genuine "Inception" moment that may very well provide a better script than the fantastic Christopher Nolan movie by that name. During the debate, Stephanopoulos injected a question that greatly deviated from the main points that the nominees had been debating over the past several months. Out of nowhere, he asks this question:

Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

to which Romney responds:

if I were governor of a state-or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.

OK, let's take that as a solid answer and move on...right? Hehehe...oh you trusting Republicans, you! Much to the confusion of the candidates and the audience, Stephanopoulos kept hammering on contraception. Not two weeks later, on the late Friday afternoon of January 20th, the Obama administration quietly announced that all businesses, under the Obamacare laws requiring that they provide insurance, will also be required to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to the insured. Now, I'm not a genius, but that is just so ironic, is it not? How nice of George and his friends at ABC to frame up this question for the Republican hopefuls, just before Obama, Sebellius, et al rolled out this mandate.

Before we could even bat an eye our country witnessed the effect of this "Inception" moment. At the turn of the year not a single Republican was talking about contraception. Stephanopoulos mentions contraception during a Republican debate; Obama's regime announces that they will mandate all businesses to provide contraception; many Americans and especially Republicans and faith-based organizations protest...and by February the GOP was being painted as anti-contraceptive, anti-women, and finally as waging a "War on Women" for supposedly wanting to ban women's access to contraceptives. Much like the man who is accused of murder, tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, only then to be proven innocent in court...his good name has been slandered by a monologue pushed by the media and accepted by the un-critical masses.

Since January I have seen more slogans, signs, cartoons, etc decrying the "Republican War on Women." It's genius! It's like me going out in the street and yelling at the top of my lungs that I saw that guy I dislike trying to take advantage of some pretty girl. "He did it! He tried to take advantage of some girl! I saw him do it!" and everyone around me takes me at my word. If I yell a lie first and loudest, I will be taken at my word by those who are unwilling to challenge my claims and seek the truth.

This is truly a shameful moment for Democrats. Rather than coming forward and saying that they support a law mandating American people to violate their consciences, Democrats have turned the argument on their opponents and claim that Republicans, Catholics, and various other conservative groups want to bar access to contraception for all women, simply for opposing the mandate. "Republicans hate women! They're distracting from the economy to attack the females of this country!" So, you want us to stand here and take your lies, mandates, and restrictions on personal freedom and conscience rights without a fight or you will accuse us of changing the subject from the economy and jobs? Where did this even come from? No conservative I've ever heard of ever called for banning contraception. Many conservatives, like myself, desire to better educate the public about the dangers of contraceptives, but we see no reason to further tether citizen's freedom by making contraceptives illegal.

The fact is (and I know some of you reading this are going to dislike what I'm about to say) that the majority of elected Democrats are, by and large, a bunch of do-nothings. Our Democratically-controlled Senate, with more than enough seats to easily pass a budget, has universally rejected all of Obama's budgets they have received, as well as the House-approved budgets the Republicans have sent their way, to the tune of 3 years without a budget passed. You wanna talk about distracting from the economy? Let's talk!

The Democratic party, currently caught between their opposition to some of Obama's policies and their allegiance to their party, have taken the low road and began a shouting match with the Republicans over whether or not conservatives are trying to strip "womens' rights". All the while, conservative Republicans (for the most part) are trying to pass a balanced budget, protect Americans' constitutional freedoms, and focus on real issues while working to oust Obama from the White House in November. And for good reason. Obama has led the charge for outrageous deficit spending and undemocratic diktat over the past 3 1/2 years, all the while stumping for his unintelligible policies on the taxpayer's dime.

I know what you're thinking: Chris, you've managed to bring this discussion back to Obama and why he should be de-throned in the general election. Yes, I have brought it back. It's his fault. Republicans and conservatives at large had no intention of mandating anything, banning anything, etc. Obama does. His idea of American freedom is that we're free to do what he thinks is best. End of story. And so, with a simple, out-of-nowhere question during an otherwise innocuous debate, George Stephanopoulos pulled a Leo DiCaprio and planted that seed, deep in the public subconscious, that Republicans and conservatives at large want to take away contraceptives, keep a tally of how many babies we are or are not having, ban sex, take women out of the workforce, or whatever...all in the name of distracting from the real issue, the contraceptive mandate, the bloated deficit, the failed energy policies, etc that Obama has proffered on all of us. In essence, the Democrats have followed their old recipe of: 1) find an old, meaningless, nationally irrelevant horse, 2) beat viciously until dead, 3) keep beating. All in the name of distraction.

And inception.