Just had to share this

Thank God some doctors still follow the Hippocratic oath

Dateline NBC

Open-fetal operation saves infant's life
An eleventh-hour attempt to save the tiniest of lives


Saving Garrett
May 13: Jan and Russell Morrison were hoping for a baby boy -– but the prognosis for the baby in Jan’s womb was grim. The baby had a huge tumor filling the left side of his chest. With a team of gifted doctors, they set out to beat the odds.





NBC News
Updated: 2:56 p.m. PT May 13, 2007


BONHAM, TEXAS - High school sweethearts Russell and Jan Morrison shared the same dreams and were happily on their way to living them in Bonham, Texas.

Russell Morrison: Two kids and my wife and just… you know, a perfect little family.

Baby daughter Carson was the start of that perfect little family. And in September 2005, Jan learned she was pregnant again.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Rob Stafford, Dateline correspondent: Are you hoping for a boy?

Russell Morrison: I’m hoping for a boy but I’m happy either way.

But having their perfect family would take this couple on a medical odyssey far beyond anything they could have imagined. The odds were against them, the risks potentially fatal, the medical science turned mind-boggling. Still Jan and Russell, together with a team of gifted doctors, set out to beat the odds.

It began in January 2006, five months into Jan’s pregnancy. She had a sonogram to learn the sex of their baby. It was a boy.

Stafford: Just what you want.

Russell Morrison: Just what I wanted.

Jan Morrison: I was excited but it was a very short-lived excitement.

It was short-lived because Jan was noticing this ultra sound was taking longer than others she’d had.

Jan Morrison: The lady that did the ultrasound… she kept focusing on one particular image.

The little boy they were hoping for had a huge tumor filling the left side of his chest. It covered his heart and was pushing it to the other side. The prognosis was grim.

Jan Morrison: I was just mad. I was excited about being pregnant and didn’t wanna lose my child and wanted to do something about it and I couldn’t find an answer.

Russel began researching his son’s condition, and where it might be treated. In February 2006, two weeks after first learning about the tumor, the Morrisons traveled to Houston to consult with specialists at Texas Children’s Hospital. There the news was even worse.

Russell Morrison: We met with the cardiologist that morning and she told us that he was basically in heart failure.

The tumor appeared to have grown. It was 3 inches large, filling the chest of a 5 month old fetus which weighed a mere pound and a half. It was now squashing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm. Blood wasn’t getting to the heart, which was rapidly failing.

Stafford: How much time does he have?

Russell Morrison: They told us he had about a day and a half to live when we got there.

Jan and Russell decided all that was left to do was plan the inevitable. At lunchtime they began making funeral arrangements.

Jan Morrison: That was the only thing I could do so couldn’t help my child so I did what I could.

And they gave their son a name: Garrett.

Jan Morrison: It was my baby and he needed a name. And just was wanting to name him while he was still alive.

Russell Morrison: We needed something to put on his headstone.

With funeral arrangements underway, and seemingly out of hope, the Morrisons still had an afternoon meeting with more doctors. Among them, fetal surgeons Darell Cass and Oluyinka Olutoye. Who said something the Morrison’s did not expect.

Stafford: Can you remove this tumor?

Dr. Darrell Cass: Yes, we can.

Stafford: This is doable?

Dr. Darrell Cass: It is doable.

Doable, but these doctors would have to operate where few have ever tried—inside a mother’s womb.

Dr. Darrell Cass: It’s high-stakes surgery. It’s the only thing we do where you have to go through a normal patient to get to a fetus—another patient that’s dying.

It was risky for both mother and child. Jan faced the possibility of never having children again or worse: bleeding to death during surgery. And there was no guarantee her son would survive. Still, without the operation she would definitely lose her baby.

Stafford: Is there any question in your mind whether you’re gonna go ahead with the surgery?

Jan Morrison: No. It was Garrett’s only shot, and I wanted to go with it.

Stafford: How quickly do you need to operate?

Dr. Darrell Cass: Within hours. The child had only limited time to survive.

On Feb. 7, 2006, 21 hours after arriving at Children’s hospital for consultations, doctors prepped Jan for surgery.

Surgeons will open the womb, remove the tumor from a tiny 5 month old fetus, then close the womb so the pregnancy can continue... all this without triggering labor.

An ultrasound showed the doctors the baby’s position.

And it guided them in determining where to open Jan’s uterus.

A half hour into the procedure, the uterus was safely opened, and Dr. Cass saw Garrett for the first time.

Dr. Darrell Cass: It’s always a fairly dramatic moment to see this very, very young fetus, this developing human that’s dying.

Garrett’s tiny chest had to be opened to remove the tumor. To expose the chest, Dr. Olutoye had to raise Garrett’s left arm out of his mother’s womb. Right in the operating room, the doctor found himself actually holding the hand of this 5 month old fetus, which weighed less than two pounds.

Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye: Well, consider the size of my hand—being able to hold that tiny hand was actually quite dramatic.

Garrett now straddled two worlds. Part of him was delivered, and part of him still inside his mother’s womb. The doctors then opened his chest and found the tumor that was rapidly killing him.

Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye: I don’t think either of us really anticipated how big it really was gonna be up close and personal.

The tumor was so large, it filled about two thirds of Garrett’s chest cavity.

Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye: It was unbelievable that that size mass came out from such a small child.

Stafford: Now they faced one of the trickiest parts of the procedure: putting Garrett back in his mother’s womb and closing it up as well.

Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye: The last thing we want is for incision to pop loose and the baby come out of the uterus ruptured.

After two and a half hours in surgery, Dr. Cass gave Russell the news he’d hoped for.

Dr. Darrell Cass: Everything went fine for your wife.

Dr. Darrell Cass: He was doing as good as he can possibly be, but we were not out of the woods yet.

Garrett’s survival remained uncertain. His heart could still stop, Jan could go into labor and deliver Garrett too early to survive. These next weeks were critical and Jan had to remain in the hospital, in bed.

By the end of March, they were on the home stretch with just over six weeks to go. And Garrett’s chances of survival were getting better by the day.

Jan Morrison: The doctors are saying that Garrett looks like a normal 29 week old baby. And that his lungs have developed. And they’re looking normal and healthy.

But it was a temporary calm. Ten o' clock at night, Easter Sunday, April 16, 2006, Jan was bleeding and she was going into labor. If her labor continued, it could rupture her uterus.

Dr. Darrell Cass: There was absolutely no choice. Now was the time to deliver.

At 11:45 that night, Garrett was delivered, fighting for his life yet again.

Dr. Darrell Cass: Garrett comes out and he did look a little blue.

Russell Morrison: They they took him and hit the doors running.

Dr. Darrell Cass: I was worried. Did Garrett die somehow during this delivery process? But then, he began to move. And then, he began to cry. And so, it really became clear that he was doing great. It was an incredible relief. And a really a joyous, joyous moment.

The little fighter had made it two and a half months after miraculous surgery in his mother’s womb.

Stafford: You got your boy.

Russell Morrison: I got my boy. It was all coming together just like we hoped for.

Finally in May 2006, the Morrison’s perfect little family was home at last. Happy, and healthy. The only sign of what this baby endured was the scar on his chest.

Stafford: You look at him now and what do you think?

Jan Morrison: I think how perfect he looks. After all he’s been through, he looks so good. He’s just a miracle and God’s gift.

Here, at eight months old, Garrett’s heart and lungs are strong. His tumor was benign, no worry it will come back. Doctors expect him to have a completely normal life.

Russell Morrison: He’s had a pretty tough road, but he’s made it every step of the way. He’s a little fighter.

Garrett at one year old

"We forget that Christ adopted our human nature from the moment of conception. Christ did not incarnate into a non-human amorphous piece of tissue. It would have been beneath his dignity. He doesn't love tissue. Tissue is not made in God's image and likeness.

God became like us because he loved us; he became an unborn child because he loved the unborn child, like he loves Man at all the stages of his life. In fact, Christ has a special place in his heart for the unborn, as he does for all who are marginalized, weak, poor and vulnerable.

The liberal cannot fathom such a love for the unborn, because to him, he is not an equal. To him, the unborn child cannot live up to a man-made litmus test of "personhood". The child is a blob of tissue, a mere organism, a parasite. His worth is relative to his being able to demonstrate certain capabilities. He must have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or feel pain, or have consciousness or self-awareness, or some other arbitrarily selected ability, in order to be deemed worthy.

But this is judging with human eyes. In God's mind, the human being's value is intrinsic and independent of any other consideration. From the moment a human being exists, God loves him. There is no performance test required. We may not be able to know who the unborn child is, but God does. God sees his virtues, talents, and future accomplishments. He is a somebody in light of his very existence."

from the Birth Story blog site

A glimmer of hope

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday in a speech at the University of Delaware said that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, is not a precedent he is willing to accept, the Wilmington News Journal reports. "When you give the court the power to insert new rights, you also give it the power to take out old rights," he said, adding, "The right to abortion on the part of a woman is the end of the right to live on the part of the fetus" (Miller, Wilmington News Journal, 4/28).

According to the AP/Washington Examiner, Scalia defended his "originalist" approach to interpreting the Constitution, saying that the document should not be subject to change based on the norms of society. He added that if U.S. citizens want to secure new constitutional rights, they should look to the legislative branch, not the Supreme Court. "The Constitution is not a living organism," Scalia said, adding, "It's a legal document." Several opponents and supporters of abortion rights staged silent demonstrations outside the theater where Scalia spoke, the AP/Examiner reports (Chase, AP/Washington Examiner, 4/27).

An Atheist Argues Against Abortion

David Hunt, PE

Yes, I am indeed an atheist. Raised as a Jew, I became an atheist in my late teens over two decades ago. I’m happy with it, and am stating it because of the perception that all atheists are pro-abortion. To my astonishment, however, I’m pro-life.

It started with a bumper sticker several years ago. That bumper sticker read, “If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant.” The more I thought about it, the more I agreed with it in my gut. I started to do some thought experiments. The one that convinced me was this one:

A woman wakes up to another day of morning nausea. She buys a pregnancy test, and it comes up positive. From there, two scenarios unfold, admittedly at extreme ends of the spectrum. (N.B.: I do not discount that many women who seek abortions do so reluctantly, nor do I doubt that even the most enthusiastic mothers-to-be occasionally have twinges of doubt; I am using extremes for a reason.)

Scenario One: She is suffused with warmth, knowing that she is about to be a mother. Names flash through her mind. Visions of baby clothes, cribs, and everything else dance before her eyes as she starts making plans for one of – if not the – biggest events in her life.

Scenario Two: She curses, throwing the test into the trash. Upon leaving the bathroom, she reaches for the yellow pages for the phone number of an abortion clinic.

What’s different about these two women? They could be the same woman. Is one physically different from the other? No. Is the embryo inside her different? No. The sole difference is her perception of the nascent life inside her.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. In the first scenario, the growing clump of cells is a baby, less than a year away from entering the world squalling and welcomed. In the other, it’s a fetus, an unwanted clump of cells to be excised. The same physical entity perceived wildly differently.

Where else have we seen such a difference of the value of human life based solely on perception? Genocide. Throughout history groups have slain other groups, and the core of this appalling crime comes from the same source: The perception that some human life is, in fact, not human and may be exterminated. Just like a fetus is not human, and can be eliminated for convenience’s sake.

A human life is something of immeasurable worth. At times human life can ethically be ended, such as when defending your own in self-defense, or during war when engaging the enemy. But this presumes that the enemy, whether one-on-one against a rapist or on a battlefield with an enemy equally determined, is potentially capable to do the same to you. In contrast a fetus has no intent, no opportunity, no ability to intentionally injure. It is a total innocent, like the innocents herded from their homes, lined up beside trenches, and killed in countless tragedies throughout the world.

The dichotomy is stark. Aside from a few fringe nuts, every human being recoils in horror from genocides; the piles of Tutsi bodies in Africa or the ovens at Auschwitz. It’s almost impossible to comprehend such evil. We abhor this awful crime whose root cause is the dehumanization of a person. But pro-choicers celebrate the legal ability to destroy a fetus based on that same dehumanized perception.

Legal or not, abortions will still happen so long as people see abortion as just another method of birth control. After all, abortion is not the root problem – unwanted pregnancies are. Through encouragement of abstinence, through birth control training, through monogamy, through planning, and especially through adoption and financial assistance to encourage it, through all these multiple attacks on the real problem, we have the power to essentially eliminate the need for abortions as a method of birth control. Only when people perceive abortion as the snuffing out of a human life, not a method of convenience, will abortion end.

Abortion is based on the idea that a human life’s value is subject to perception; that it can be redefined to have none. By dehumanizing it in the tradition of every genocidal authority, by shifting our perception of life’s value, we slowly sacrifice our own humanity on the altar of convenience. Even without deity-derived rules from which to pull judgment, it’s a poor trade. And that’s why this atheist is pro-life.

Classic Memories

Nathan was brushing Hannah's teeth and Isabella was in the bathroom too and I heard her ask "Daddy, are you going to be here tommorrow when i wake up?" This was the third time in the past hour she had asked this. He told her no, honey, I'm going to be at work. She replied "But, Daddy, your not going to die, are you? You were just kidding?"
He asked her what she was talking about and she, in all seriousness answered "You said your back was killing you!

BITTER

I'm a bitter women lately. I got so caught up in being shocked at this whole new (?) futile care law, and the rhetoric, that i was missing the flaw in the arguments I've been hearing against it. Most people that are writing against it that are angry are upset because the hospital is trying to kill toddler Emilio Gonzales against the wishes of his mother. But it seems to me, after some reflection, that it's a tiny step from a decision that was made in this country years ago. The decision to place the life of a child in the hands of his/her mother. ABORTION. I wonder why it seems so horrifying to these people that are spouting off about how horrible it is. Is it because the mother isn't it control? Would it be alright if the mother was all for it and wanted her toddler to die? The decision for someone to live or die should never rest in human hands. It belongs in the hands of the Lord. And the sick thing is this issue isn't just about being hooked up to a machine that breathes for you and makes your heart breathe-it's about withdrawing food and water, too. If you withdraw food from any toddler, they'll die. They can't go get food on their own. They talk about giving only comfort care. What, patting their hand as they are starving to death? Dying of thirst? I'm so, so angry right now.
I heard a song yesterday that ripped my heart up and made me burst into tears.

Justice, by Seeds

They've got millions of dollars
still their greed's not met
So they build another factory
and they fill it with the labor
of little children in some far off foreign land
Keeping them out of sight
and out of mind
as the market place expands

When will Justice come upon the earth
When will the cries of the innocent be heard
When will power not be used for selfish gain
When will Justice Come?
When will Justice Come?

A generation of babies
have carelessly been slain
In the name of money
and convenience

While the poor and the elderly
are left alone to die
Keeping them out of sight
and out of mind
in the convenience of our times

An entire race of people forced
to leave their land
for the sake of someone elses' freedom
While another is enslaved cuz the color of his skin

TELL ME, WHEN WILL IT END?

We got Bosnia and Sudan
Rwanda and Iraq
Nations ripped apart before our eyes
Although we stand for justice
Although we fight the cause

In the end
I'm asking

When will Justice come?
When will Justice Come?
when will power not be used for selfish gain?
When will Justice Come?
When will Justice Come?
When will Justice Come?

While there's a Man who knows the pain of life
in the very deepest way
and He's coming soon to claim His rightful power
His kingdom it shall stand upon the righteousness He has
He'll give sight to our minds
as His kingdom comes at last

Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come
Then will Justice Come

Come Lord Jesus Come

How did you get so big?


Hannah left the ink pad on the floor


you love hanging out with the girls

you love your mommy

Birthday girl

can't believe it'll be a year tomorrow, sweet baby girl.

best friends #?

NAZI GERMANY, OR AMERICA?
It's becoming more and more difficult to figure out.

here's an article i found online.

Imagine visiting your 85-year-old mother in the hospital after she has a debilitating stroke. You find out that, in order to survive, she requires a feeding tube and antibiotics to fight an infection. She once told you that no matter what happened, she wants to live.

But the doctor refuses further life-sustaining treatment. When you ask why, you are told, in effect, "The time has come for your mother to die. All we will provide is comfort care."

Sound far-fetched? It's not. It's already happening.

Just as doctors once hooked people up to machines against their will, now many bioethicists advocate that doctors be permitted to refuse life-sustaining treatment that a patient wants but that they deem "futile" or "inappropriate."

Alarmingly, hospitals in California and throughout the country have begun to implement these "futile-care" policies that state, in effect: "We reserve the right to refuse service."

Medical and bioethics journals for several years kept up a drumbeat advocating the implementation of medical futility policies that hospitals -- for obvious reasons -- don't publicize. The mainstream news media have generally ignored the threat.

As a consequence, members of the public and their elected representatives remain in the dark as "futilitarians" become empowered to hand down unilateral death sentences.

Indeed, futile-care policies are implemented so quietly that no one knows their extent. No one has made a systematic study of how many patients' lives have been lost or whether futile-care decisions were reached according to hospital policies or the law.

The idea behind futile care goes like this: The patient wants life- sustaining treatment; the physician does not believe the quality of the patient's life justifies the costs to the health institution or the physical and emotional burdens of care; therefore, the doctor is entitled to refuse further treatment (other than comfort care) as "futile" or "inappropriate."

Treatments withheld under this policy might include antibiotics to treat infection, medicines for fever reduction, tube feeding and hydration, kidney dialysis or ventilator support.

Of course, physicians have never been -- nor should they be -- required to provide medical interventions that provide no medical benefit.

For example, if a patient demands chemotherapy to treat an ulcer, the physician should refuse. Such a "treatment" would have no medical benefit.

But this kind of "physiological futility," as it is sometimes called, is not what modern futile-care theory is all about. Treatments are not refused because they don't provide any medical benefit, as in the case of chemotherapy to treat an ulcer. Rather, they are refused because they actually sustain life -- such as a feeding tube does for a persistently unconscious patient.

It isn't the treatment that is deemed futile but, in effect, the patient.

Early attempts to impose futile care upon unwilling patients and families were often ad hoc. For example, a few years ago I received an urgent phone call from a distraught woman who told me that her 92-year-old mother's doctor was refusing to give the woman antibiotics for an infection.

When I asked why, she said, "He told me my mother was going to die of an infection sooner or later, so it might as well be this one."

I advised the woman to get an attorney and threaten suit. That apparently did the trick. She later called to tell me her mother was being treated and was well on the way to recovery.

In 1994, the parents of a premature infant sued to prevent the imposition of futile care upon their son, "Baby Ryan" Nguyen, after doctors told them they were ending his kidney dialysis.

Ryan would have died, but the Nguyens' attorney obtained a temporary court order forcing doctors to provide continued life-sustaining care pending a full trial.

The doctors and hospital did not take the Nguyens' defiance lying down. They filed an affidavit requesting the right to refuse to provide treatment, claiming that Ryan's condition was "universally fatal" and that continuing life-sustaining treatment was a violation of their ethics and autonomy.

Astonishingly, a hospital administrator even went so far as to report the Nguyen family to Child Protective Services for "physical abuse and physical neglect" of Ryan based on the parents' success in obtaining the injunction to keep their child from death.

The case could have had a major legal impact on the entire futile care debate. But the trial judge never decided who had the ultimate right to determine Ryan's fate. The case ended when Ryan was transferred to a Portland hospital, where a different physician successfully weaned him off dialysis. Ryan lived four years, a happy if sickly child who gave high-fives and was the delight of his parents' hearts.

Cases like Baby Ryan's led futilitarians to pursue a more sophisticated approach to securing their agenda. Rather than have doctors act on their own accord or file lawsuits seeking permission to refuse wanted care, which had been attempted on several occasions with mixed results, many futilitarians began to argue that hospitals adopt written futile-care policies establishing formal procedures by which wanted life-sustaining treatment could be refused.

Although given little attention in the news media, these policies have been extensively described in medical and bioethical publications, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Progress.

Most policies set up internal hospital procedures that work like this:

-- If a patient wants life-sustaining treatment that the physician wishes to refuse, social workers, chaplains and hospital staff attempt to mediate the dispute.

-- If the patient and physician cannot resolve their differences informally,

the matter is referred to the hospital ethics committee for adjudication.

-- If the ethics committee determines that the treatment is inappropriate, a decision based on the institution's own futile-care standards, life- sustaining treatments may be terminated even if the patient or family find another doctor willing to provide the desired care at that hospital.

-- At that point, the patient or family have three options. Acquiesce, which means the patient probably dies. Find another hospital -- not likely in our managed-care environment, since life-sustaining treatment treatment to continue, as did Baby Ryan's parents.

Futile-care protocols are designed to thwart legal action by patients or their families. The strategy is to stack the deck by convincing judges that they, mere lawyers, are ill-equipped to gainsay what doctors and bioethicists have decided is best.

In the Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, authors urging implementation of futility policies wrote last year: "Hospitals are likely to find the legal system willing (and even eager) to defer to well-defined and procedurally scrupulous processes for internal resolution of futility disputes. "

Considering that California legislators recently enacted a statute that appears to authorize futile-care impositions upon the sickest patients, that may be a winning strategy. Section 4735 of the California Probate Code states that a doctor or hospital "may decline to comply with an individual health care instruction" that runs contrary to "generally accepted health care standards." This means that once futile care becomes mainstream, the law will permit doctors to refuse wanted treatment that runs contrary to their values --

even if such care is necessary to keep the patient alive.

This little-noticed law raises an urgent question: How many California hospitals have already promulgated futile-care policies? Unfortunately, no one knows. But there is little doubt that the number is growing fast.

Authors of the Cambridge Quarterly article surveyed 26 California hospitals,

including UCSF, Kaiser Permanente, Stanford, UCLA and Cedars-Sinai. Without identifying the hospitals, they reported 24 had protocols in place that "defined nonobligatory treatment" in terms that were not "physiology based" -- in other words, a treatment that has no medical benefit.

Of these, "nine policies assigned the final decision-making authority to the responsible physician."

Other policies gave the power to hospital committees, the chief of staff or the hospital administration. Tellingly, only seven protocols permitted the patient or patient representative to have the final say.

As if this weren't enough cause for alarm, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has introduced federal legislation to let doctors deny life-sustaining treatment against the will of the patient or the patient's family.

The Health Care Assurance Act (S24) is a 171-page bill with noble ambitions to expand health coverage for children and disabled people. Buried in the bill's bowels is a provision that permits hospitals to withhold care that is determined to be "either futile or otherwise not medically indicated."

The bill would be a disaster for the most vulnerable, disabled and defenseless among us -- patients who are too often dehumanized and callously viewed as parasites on limited health care resources.

Then there is the very real potential that bigoted doctors would apply futile-care policiesin a discriminatory fashion. Indeed, a 1996 study published by the Mayo Clinic found that "CPR was more likely to be considered futile if the patient was not white."

Implementing futile care to control health care costs doesn't add up. Since only about 10 percent of the nation's entire health care budget goes to end-of- life care, little would actually be saved.

But cost control isn't the ultimate point for futilitarians.

As many of them see it, if the nation were to swallow futile care theory, it would establish the principle that health care can be explicitly "rationed" -- a euphemism for discrimination against people who are elderly, disabled, chronically ill, dying or otherwise "expensive to care for."

Seen in this light, medical futility is the foot in the door that would begin the step-by-step descent from a health care system based on Hippocratic principles -- "First, do no harm" -- to a system in which access to medical care is restricted to some but open to others.

Futile care is not the finishing line of this important ethical and legal struggle, but merely the starting gate of a far longer race.

Wesley J. Smith is the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."

This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

How very Hallmark of you.

Excerpts from a book by Max Lucado

Our hearts are not large enough to contain the blessings that God wants to give

So try this
The next time a sunrise steals your breath.....
or a meadow of flowers leaves you speechless
remain that way

Say nothing and listen as heaven whispers "do you like it? I did it just for you."

Flooded by emotion, overcome with pride, the Starmaker turns to us, one by one, and says
"you are my child, and I love you dearly"


Find your answer on a splintered cross, on a craggy hill.

Worship the potato? The idea seemed silly to me. But then I thought, what else is more deserving of worship? It's simple, it comes from the Earth, and it can kill you if you disobey it.

Jack Handy

I heard just about the best sales pitch in my life last night-simple me, I didn't know it was a sales pitch until I told Nathan about it, but anyways, here is what happened.

I was sitting in the car waiting for Nathan to get off work, and a street kids walked up. He made the usual icebreaking comment by complimenting my dreads, then leaned over and said "hey, I got a question for you"
I said "yes?" He said "What would you do if someone gave you an eighth of a bag of weed and 3 ounces of hash? I just don't know what to do with it"
I thought for a second and said "I'd throw it away. Drugs are evil. Just go throw it away, man.
As if he hadn't heard me he said again "I just don't know what I'm going to do with it.

I thought that this encounter was rather strange. Did he want me to buy it? Tell him to smoke it?
If it really was a sales pitch, he should become a businessman.

Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

jack handy

More deep thoughts be Jack Handy

It's funny that pirates were always going around searching for treasure, and they never realized that the real treasure was the fond memories they were creating.

I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.

by the way, this is a sarcastic article-i don't believe abortion is EVER ok-never ever.
I just think it so funny in an awful terrible way that they try to deny the wrongness of it, but affirm the guilt and grief in so many ways. why would you need consolation if it's a right?

Greeting cards for abortion and other rights
By Jon Sanders

We Americans can certainly learn a lot from a nonprofit organization's idea for "abortion greeting cards." No, really.

The Associated Press reported this week that an Oakland, Calif., nonprofit called "Exhale" is offering "a series of electronic greeting cards that concerned friends and relatives can send to a woman after she chooses to have an abortion." For example, one card tells the woman she "did the right thing." Another "expresses sympathy, offering the gentle reminder that, 'As you grieve, remember you are loved.'" (For some reason — probably just an oversight — there's no sympathy card for the father.)


The Supreme Court and all our self-appointed elite agree: abortion is a woman's right. So you might ask how on earth could someone just exercising her right be cause for grief. But that's the wrong way to look at it, or else next thing you know, you might start wondering if there's not some other reason for women having an abortion to grieve. You might start to suspect there's a different cause for the guilt.

One of the cards even offers a chipper "God will never leave you or forsake you." You don't want to be caught thinking why just exercising a God-given right would make someone need that card.

Because if you start thinking along those lines, then pretty soon you'll start noticing that there are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics. And then you might see that those centers work to help pregnant women find prenatal care, housing, clothing, charity, an uplifting vision of themselves as a mother and giver of life, friendship, hope, and maybe even God. And then you might be tempted (Earth-Mother forbid!) to compare that vision with the cynical vision of a pregnancy being likened to a tumor … a tumor that, hm, kicks and responds to ambient noise and grows and … well, the analogy tends to break down over a period of nine months.

So you don't want to pursue those lines of thought. If you were Al Gore, of course, you could wow feminists and eco-looneys by having your bogus company award every women having an abortion a free, "life"-time supply of "carbon credits" – for all the "carbon footprints" not left by her children.

But given the inconvenient probability that you're not Gore, try this idea instead. Obviously this California nonprofit has stumbled upon a new, potentially lucrative field of greeting cards for people acting within their inalienable rights. Because people doing what society and our Constitution agree is A-OK must be grieving and in dire need of encouragement.

People are hurting – for nothing. It must be an untapped market, and some greeting-card entrepreneurs could really rack up. As a classic liberal, lover of freedom, and humanitarian, I don't mind sharing these suggestions for the greater good:

For people who take the First Amendment step of bravely talking, there could be a range of cards. Feel guilty for speaking up? You could be told, "As you speak, remember that you are loved." Need encouragement? How about a silly rhyme: "Roses are red; you say they're blue. We have free speech; I'm proud of you." There could be a "Thanks for Talking!" line if you just want to send a "friendship" card to a vocal friend. Oh, and for the religious yap, a John 1:1 "Inspirations" card would remind him that "In the beginning was the Word."

Speaking of religious yaps, no doubt there'd be a huge demand for "Holiday Encouragement" cards, perfect for the loved one on your list who wigged out the local ACLU snitch with a hearty "Merry Christmas!" You could even have special "Beat Hell Soon" cards for Bible-believing invalids. Remember, people taking advantage of their mundane, God-given rights need all the encouragement they can get, the poor souls.

There could be a special line of "Not Missing You" cards for people practicing free assembly. Heartfelt "Good Luck (You'll Need It)!" cards for someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Friend buy a new gun? Why not a "Give It Your Best Shot" card? (Enemy buy a gun? It's not too late for "I'm Sorry.")

And who hasn't secretly wished just once to receive an "Atta Boy" for not housing a soldier? Are you seeking due process after your local government threatened to seize your land under eminent domain? If so, what could make you feel better than a musical greeting card serenading you to the strains of Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land"?

Those are just a few of the cards possible in this new, promising line of "I Exercised My Rights and Now I Feel Bad" greeting cards. Look for them soon in the card aisle in your favorite grocery store. You're sure to find them right next to the new "Unbirthday" section.

To me, it's always a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, 'Hey, can you give me a hand?,' you can say, 'Sorry, got these sacks.'
by Jack Handey

Super Granmie fix

excerpt from Chuck Smith's book, "a family together"

"In creating woman God created her different from man in physical structure - the man being the stronger and larger, the woman being the smaller and more frail."

this does seem to be the case generally, but i know some strong women!

"Along with the physical differences, certain emotional differences were created. In the emotional realm He created the woman with a higher sensitivity than the man. Emotionally, man is usually very coarse. His emotions move in a narrower spectrum. A woman's emotional spectrum is quite wide. She's capable of great highs; she's capable of great lows. Yes, a man can get excited and a man can get depressed. But, as a general rule, he cannot appreciate as much as a woman or enjoy as much as a woman. Men don't have the extreme highs that women can attain."

This is why i posted this. What planet do i live on? This one paragraph has shocked me more than anything has shocked me in years. Men are coarse?????!!!!!!!


"As far as intelligence is concerned, I don't believe that there's any difference at all between male or female. I believe that women are capable of as great understanding and thinking process as men, they may even have a slight advantage over man in the area we call intuition. Spiritually, of course, men and women are one in the eyes of God (Galatians 3:28)."
But having created us with different physical characteristics and a different emotional spectrum, God then set forth the rules of the relationship between husband and wife. By obeying these rules, man and woman can find the fulfillment, joy, and happiness from life, that God desires them to have."

ok, now is it just me, or is there traits that are common to manKIND, and people have them in differing amounts? Some of the most dreamy, sensitive people I know are men.
Kyle, if you're reading this, yes, i'm talking about you! I was reading this thing today that said women aren't logical at all-they have to learn from men how to be logical. Sheesh. They probably never met Cate or Amy Mooney. Or my mother in law!
This whole weird notion that men are unemotional cold hard beings and women are melting emotionally driven i don't know what has been messing with my head for so long now. Where did it come from? Not my reality or experience, thats for sure.
Please give me feedback on this