Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Updates to My Working Boys Center Blog

You might notice that after months of absence, I am beginning to update the photos in the photo bar. Take a peak if you like.

You will also notice the blue bar of ads above head along with the Google Search Bar. Why, the cheesy add ons you may ask? The more money I generate, the more I can do with these kids. Simple enough.

I have added some new blog links which are really great. Dave Muccino, a fellow volunteer writes some great stuff. Where I am the dreamy optimist trying to play Shakespeare, Dave has a very straight to the point way of reporting things. Aaron Hendrickson is our resident comedian and his blog gives you true insight to the comedy that is our lives as volunteers.

Also, Angelo DeGuzman. Though not a full time volunteer, Angelo is a friend from back in LA who is in Magis as well as working on a host of other things. Angelo is one of the most insightful and driven men I know, and I felt that reading his blog could be beneficial for others to discover as well.

I've also made public my support of Barack Obama for president in my sidebar. I write on the tail of the New Hampshire primary but still strongly believe in that which Senator Obama stands for. It's a time for telling Americans what they need to hear, not what they want to hear is something I have heard him say a lot. It's a time to rise above the fray of party politics and once again, hope for greater things. It's a time, for a movement like his, a movement no other candidate can match. Watch the videos below from and tell me you don't want to believe. The top video is 1 minute, the second, longer but worth it.

So check out the blogs, watch the Youtube video, and forgive me for the tacky blue bar!



12 comments:

Kristin said...

"Believe" in what? Mr. Obama is great with the flowerly language, but lacks on substance and specifics. He acts as if the members of Washington are going going to sit in a circle and sing "Kumbaya" when he becomes President. The 'peace' he speaks of (I'm okay, you're okay, see no evil, hear no evil, confront no evil) is not the peace Jesus was talking about. That is why Jesus said, "I have come not to bring peace, but division..." In order to achieve real peace, you must stand first against the real evils of our day...abortion, euthanasia, Islamic fascim, terrorism, etc. If we are going to "unite" as a country, we need to unite around something, around a set of principles, not liberal buzz words.

He's a great speaker and can really work a crowd. I'll give him that. So could Hitler.

Patrick Furlong said...

Comparing him to Hitler? Wow. I think that in itself is enough to say I don't really need to respond to this comment. There are a set of principles and beliefs, perhaps it's just you don't believe in them.

Kristin said...

I did not mean to insinuate that Obama is the next Hitler, my point was that people need to look beyond the charisma and eloquent speaking and take a good, hard, look at the issues, and his liberalism.

Kristin said...

Perhaps that last line was abrasive. I will edit it. I am sorry.

However, please answer these questions?

Given my example of terrorist politician, would you vote for him or her?

Do you believe leaving BORN babies to die and/or sucking out their brains as they are in the process of is less evil than terrorism?
If so, please explain your answer.

Please do not say "I weigh a variety of issues when I consider a candidate." Please answer my specific questions.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy. Issues like these never get resolved, and least of all in comments to blog posts. Good luck, Patrick. I'll jump into the fray with you.

Regardless of how you view abortion, when you use language like "sucking babies brains out," it's pretty obvious that there's no room for rational debate. But if the question is, "is abortion less evil than terrorism," there's a pretty compelling argument to be made for yes. The primary motive for having abortion is one of self-interest: a woman feels incapable or unwilling to bear a child. While that may not be the most noble of motives (although with all the problems in the world today, do we really want to add more parents who are unwilling to raise their children), it's a far cry from terrorists' motives, which is primarily to injure and kill innocent people to sent a message. If you can weigh two evils, then, yes, abortion is less evil than terrorism. You can ask the current president who has far more interest in attacking the problem of terrorism than that of abortion.

That point aside, if you ask any of the candidates running for president where abortion is a good thing, none of them, including Obama, will answer yes. The place they differ is whether abortion should be legal in our country. Given the pluralistic society we live in many of the candidates believe there are strong reasons to think that it is inappropriate for the government to restrict access to abortions.

Kristin, as for your claim that Obama is a bunch of liberal buzz words and no principles to actually unite around: those so-called "buzz words" are what many of us want to unite around and the reason why we find Obama so appealing. We want to believe that the people running our government are reasonable, considerate individuals who are open to ideas from across the political spectrum, not ideology-driven policy makers. There are plenty of ideas running through Washington--we need someone charismatic to implement them.

Your mention of Kumbaya reminds me of Bolton and Kofi Annan at their last U.N. meeting:

> Asked the next morning at the United Nations whether he and Mr. Annan had made peace at the farewell event, Mr. Bolton said, “Nobody sang ‘Kumbaya,’ ” referring to a confessional song celebrating companionship.

> Told of Mr. Bolton’s comment, Mr. Annan said, “But does he know how to sing it?”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/11cnd-nations.html)

At least Obama knows how to sing it.

Kristin said...

Babies brains are sucked out during POA. Babies were (and probably still are even tho the BAIP passed) being left to die in hospital utility rooms. Why can't I use words that speak the truth? As far as the fact that most Americans believe that terrorism is the greater evil, since when did the opinion of the majority determine if something was objectively a grave evil? Sixty years ago, the majority of Americans believed in segregation. The reason why Americans are more concerned about terrorism than abortion is because terrorism affects them, while abortion is hidden and affects someone else. Both the terrorist and the woman having an abortion are being deluded. The terrorist by his religion, the woman by the notion that her baby is not a "person." It is impossible to get into someone's head and heart and dicern who has the more evil intent. We need to look at the objective reality.

If Mr. Obama was so interested in bridging the gap, he wouldn't participate in the Dems constant antagonism of the president. He would work with him him, even if he doesn't agree with all his policies. The hatred towards the president spun by the far left is deplorable. He is our commander and cheif.

Patrick Furlong said...

Kristin,

I will respond to your question as you requested and after that, I have no time for this though I have appreciated the spirited debate.

First, Mr. Obama did comment, in regards to working with the President: “I am obligated to try to see the world through George Bush’s eyes, no matter how much I disagree with him. That’s what empathy does- it calls us to task, the conservative and the liberal... we are all forced beyond our limited vision.”

As for the terrorist vs. abortion issue, I think it is a very slippery slide to compare a woman who is debating the choice of having an abortion to a terrorist who is dedicated and intent upon the destruction of as many lives as possible. The two don´t compare in my book.

And from the point of a political scientist, I say I weight the issues because that is what I was trained to do and in light of my studies, that is what I feel is the best option as a voter. I am obligated to look at the issues in front of us and decide, where and how a president has the most likely chance at making an impact.

Disagree with me all you want, but that is how I vote. I do not consider a woman aborting a child a terrorist and I do not believe that in 2008, I can bring myself to vote on an issue the next president will most likely have little impact on when there are so many issues on the table with a real opportunity for change and resolution.

Again, I appreciate the debate we have had. Best of luck with your blog and everything else. Feel free to comment to this if you like, but I will no longer be responding.

God Bless...

Patrick

Kristin said...

Hi Patrick,

I know you said you no longer wish to debate, but I'd still to make one final (okay, a few;) final comments. I think at the heart of our discussion is the question of moral relativism vs. objective moral truth, (i.e. the natural law). In order to dicern if the evil of abortion is equal to the evil of terrorism we must ask ourselves what makes an action morally wrong. Does the morality of an action rest how others percieve or intend the action, or is the action evil in and of itself? If you agree that abortion is an instrincally moral evil (and I'm not sure that you do), then it does not matter if the mother or the doctor intend evil...it is still evil. After all, we do not look at the terrorists "intent" when we express
our outrage against terrorism, even though many terrorists really feel they are doing Allah's will--they are brainwashed to hate Jews and the rest of the Western World as babes. So can we really blame them either? Both the mother and the terrorist are deluded, in different ways, but the outcome is the same---killing and death. If anything, I think abortion is a greater evil because simply because it kills more people. In so far as the next President not being able to do much to end abortion, I disagree, but that's another topic for discussion.

God Bless you and the work you are doing,

Kristin

Anonymous said...

Just to introduce myself and where I am coming from, I am currently a volunteer with the Episcopal Church where I have been placed at Planned Parenthood and work with The Religious Leaders Task Force, that’s right there is a group (a big group) of clergy members who support what Planned Parenthood is doing. My program is also AmeriCorp. If you were to ask me what my religious faith is I would say that I consider myself Catholic but at the end of the day only God can decide if that is true or not and unless you’re God you have no say in what I believe and what I call myself.

That said, I could honestly say that no one at PP likes abortion and I bet there is no one out there who does. I could see from the words used by Kirsten that she does not know what truly happens during an abortion and is not using scientific knowledge to support her side. Understand that using the word “baby” as a buzzword hinders your position. If you chose to base your scientific information on what the Pope says then go ahead and use the word “baby” but basing your faith on what a scientist says makes no sense so how does using the opposite logic work? A six-month embryo is different than a 2-year-old child.

I agree that abortion is a symptoms of other social ill, thus if you’re against abortion vote for a candidate who will address those social ills; someone who believes in comprehensive sex ed., someone who believed in sexual and reproductive health access for all, someone who fights poverty. That’s the best thing an anti-choice citizen could do (since we’re using buzzwords).

What would happen if abortions were illegal? Women would be left to take matters into there own hands and not only that but have no counseling, no contraceptives after an abortion and no insurance (all resources PP offers to women seeking abortions). Even worse, they may become ill and/or possibly die. Do you think that the punishment for wanting an abortion should be the death of the women? In the end I must admit that making the case for abortion is choosing the lesser of two evils and I chose to give women a voice and a choice.

Talk to women thinking about getting abortions, go through the process, sit in the waiting room with them and maybe then you can have a civil conversation with someone with the intent of educating them instead of belittling them.


I truly wish you the best in your mission to impose your moral beliefs on people (sounds like the plan of a certain German I know) but in the mean time I’ll be working in addressing issues that are real and a part of our everyday lives.

Thanks for this opportunity Furlong!

Kristin said...

You may choose to belittle me all you like, but I am the one basing my arguments in reality. Again, the pro-choice argument rests in relativism, "is it a baby?" If you want it, it's a baby. If you don't want it, we can call it something else less personal. Doesn't change the fact that it is what it is. Planned Parenthood motto is "Every child, a wanted child," as if a child's personhood rests in weather or not it is "wanted." How very sad.



I happen to know quite a bit about abortion. My college held a funeral for babies that were killed via abortion. The first little guy, Joseph was about four months, Andrew was sixth months. Andrew had severe burn scars throughout his tiny little body. I know many women who have had abortions, I've listened to their stories, I've dried their tears. I do not think women who have had abortions are terrible, horrible people. They made a mistake, and we all make mistakes. No sin is greater than God's mercy. But that does not change the objective fact that abortion is evil.

In so far as the back alley argument, we can't allow killing just because some people will hurt themselves in the act of killing. Someone may hurt themselves trying to break into your house. Should society then permit robbery? If a woman dies as result of an illegal abortion (and statistically more women have died from legal abortions) she does not "suffer punishment," she reaps the effects of her own actions.

Kristin said...

Oh by the way, 6 month old embryo? Didn't you mean to say "fetus?"

I don't think there is much difference between a 6 month fetus and a two year old. The fetus isn't fully developed, but neither is the two year old. The two year old is simply older. Birth is not the beginning of life, it is simply a change in location. As Peter Singer, a eugenics advocate from Princeton University has said, "you either prohibit abortion and prohibit infanticide, or you allow abortion and allow infanticide. He advocates euthanizing disabled children up to two years. Eugenics? Eliminating the "imperfect?"

Sounds like that German dictator you where talking about.

jennifer said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Alanna

http://www.craigslistguide.info