Took Gilby in today because he'd been running fever for a couple days (since Sunday afternoon) and this morning when he got up he complained of his legs hurting when he tried to get out of bed. Now Gilby is not a complainer, at least when it comes to physical discomfort. A fever for him is like a sedative, makes him calmer but doesn't make him act like he feels bad. So I called the ped first thing and made an appt.
Also asked for the ped to see Sara because she has been extremely fussy the last 24 hours or so.
So the ped did a swab on Gilby and Sara and sure enough they both have the flu. It is likely that what Cora had Saturday and Sunday was the 'flu too.
So far I'd say that, while I am sure those of us who have been sick weren't real happy about it, the 'flu hasn't been that bad for us. This is kind of a milestone for us, to my knowledge, we've never had a confirmed case of the 'flu. Not really one I want to brag about I suppose, but there it is! :P
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
President declares a National Emergency!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html
"The 2009 H1N1 pandemic continues to evolve. The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities," Obama said in a statement.
Really?! According to another report the number of cases has been over exaggerated.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml
And this from the CDC website is troubling:
Will tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths after August 30 be the same as it was in the spring and summer?
No, tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths will not be the same after August 30, 2009. In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu. This is a broader set of data than states were previously reporting as it now includes 1) laboratory-confirmed influenza for all types of influenza, and 2) pneumonia and influenza cases identified from hospital records, most of which will not be laboratory confirmed.
That seems designed to inflate the numbers, which will increase fear.
It does not make sense to declare a state of emergency for 1,000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations When 35,000+ people die every year from the seasonal flu!
And this little gem from another article:
"More comprehensive tracking is not possible with current resources and medical record-keeping, some public health advocates say"
Really? We cannot test for it? and record it anywhere? Give me a break! That is just a push for the health care bill!
The hysteria over this is out of proportion with the real danger, it doesn't make sense. There is something else at work here, and it cannot be good!
found another great blog post about this on Spunky Homeschool
"The 2009 H1N1 pandemic continues to evolve. The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities," Obama said in a statement.
Really?! According to another report the number of cases has been over exaggerated.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml
And this from the CDC website is troubling:
Will tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths after August 30 be the same as it was in the spring and summer?
No, tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths will not be the same after August 30, 2009. In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu. This is a broader set of data than states were previously reporting as it now includes 1) laboratory-confirmed influenza for all types of influenza, and 2) pneumonia and influenza cases identified from hospital records, most of which will not be laboratory confirmed.
That seems designed to inflate the numbers, which will increase fear.
It does not make sense to declare a state of emergency for 1,000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations When 35,000+ people die every year from the seasonal flu!
And this little gem from another article:
"More comprehensive tracking is not possible with current resources and medical record-keeping, some public health advocates say"
Really? We cannot test for it? and record it anywhere? Give me a break! That is just a push for the health care bill!
The hysteria over this is out of proportion with the real danger, it doesn't make sense. There is something else at work here, and it cannot be good!
found another great blog post about this on Spunky Homeschool
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Christian Political Action Committees
Are they really a good thing?
Why do Christians seem to want to use the government to promote religious views? There's the American Family Association, the Right to Life, and Christian Coalition of America, Moral Majority, and many others!
My main beef with the CPACs is that I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility to legislate a moral religious code.
Yes, I agree that homosexuality is immoral. I believe drug use is a bad idea. I believe pornography perverts what God intended to be a wonderful thing. I believe that alcohol is bad to drink. I believe that people should get married and then stay married instead of shacking up. I believe abortion is the most awful thing a person could do to the unborn.
But all of those things are my religious views. I believe those things because I believe in God and I believe the Bible is His word. They are, at their heart, religious views. I have no right to impose those views on others who do not hold the same.
The essence of Liberty is that every person, as long as the do not hurt another, should be allowed to live in the manner they desire. Whether I agree with it or not.
Think about history. The times of greatest Revival were when people were trying to separate the Church from government, not trying to join the two. The Reformation, the Great Awakening. The latter especially came about because of Baptists who believed that the government had no business involved in religion, hence the 1st Amendment! It was because of that Great Awakening that we had the liberty in America to worship as we chose. And now the Christian Right is trying to take it away!
Jefferson said that it didn't matter if a person worshipped one God or 100 as long as that person would faithfully obey and uphold the Constitution. How a person views the Constitution is a much better measure of how that person will be in a position of authority than how well they can spout Christian Right rhetoric. For example, I know that Obama will be a bad president simply because he does not believe the Constitution means what it says, or that it is even a good governing document. That's enough for me. His religious affiliation or social views are irrelevant. His position on the Constitution is enough to know that he will not govern well. Incidentally, there is a clause in the Constitution that says that no religious test would be given to those seeking public office. The Founders made it clear that one's religion should not be the defining characteristic of whether one was fit for public office.
But this post isn't about Obama. It is about Christians using the government to spread the gospel.
How can Christians really think that making laws will make people turn to Christ? It won't. Just like having too many rules in a church as a condition of service (legalism) will eventually kill the church. It destroys liberty.
True revival starts with the individuals in the church, not through government intervention. If Christians honestly wish to see a return of the American people to a Biblical worldview, they must stop using the political podium as a bully pulpit. I am in no way suggesting that Christians stop preaching the word or passing out tracts or witnessing. I am saying that using politics to do so is wrong.
Christians need to stop thinking that the Republican party is the moral party. It is not, if the people involved at the top are any measure. Christians need to do their duty and vote, not for the religious candidate but for the Constitutional candidate.
Christians must, to some degree, separate their religion from their politics. Our religion ought to make us honest and trustworthy in our political dealings-in all our dealings with others. It ought to make us willing to do our duty, and not shirk it (that includes jury duty!!). It is our duty to be engaged in politics. To make an educated decision about who to vote for, not an emotional one. It is our duty to obey the law, and to oppose those laws that violate the ultimate authority of our land, the Constitution (not the Bible).
It seems that many Christians believe that the final civil authority in America is the Bible. Actually, that would be the Constitution! Yes, the Bible should be the final authority for Christians in their personal lives. It is not, however, our final civil authority. This is what makes it hard for Christians I think. I know it was for me. How can we 'advocate' homosexuality or abortion? Shouldn't we seek laws to curb such immoral behavior? NO! The proper place to rail against those things is in the pulpit at church, not the political podium. Those things are personal decisions and ought to be left to an individual's conscience. I hear you, But...but...its WRONG!!! And? So is divorce or lying or lust or... Do you, Christian, want to make divorce illegal? or adultery? or fornication? Those things were also punishable by death in the Old Testament.
Step back, take a breath, consider...why do Christians wish to make America a "Christian" nation? Even John Adams, likely the most pious Founder, signed a treaty that said we were not! (that was a treaty with Morocco) Why cannot they distinguish between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation. Do you, Christian, really want a theocracy? Really? Like Rome? Or any number of Muslim nations?
And which version of Christianity do you wish to impose? The Mennonite one? Where women have to wear a head covering and the same style of dress all the time. The Catholic one? Where one must confess one's sins to a priest. The Mormon one? Where drinking Coke was a sin. The Jehovah's Witness one? Where celebrating any holiday or birthday is forbidden. The Puritan one? Where neglecting to pay the preacher or not going to church on Sunday landed you in jail. You see the trouble one can get into?
Morality is for the individual to decide, that is called soul liberty. One can choose to believe or not. We should not use the government to decide which morality is right. The government already has its hands too much in our personal lives! And it has a hard enough time handling what it is supposed to!
Christians deprive themselves of some wonderful allies for Constitutional governance because they draw a line in the sand that says, "If you aren't a Christian, you cannot be a true American." I doubt Jefferson could stand up under the scrutiny of the Christian Right! And yet he was a great Patriot!
I'll end with a quote. Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Why do Christians seem to want to use the government to promote religious views? There's the American Family Association, the Right to Life, and Christian Coalition of America, Moral Majority, and many others!
My main beef with the CPACs is that I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility to legislate a moral religious code.
Yes, I agree that homosexuality is immoral. I believe drug use is a bad idea. I believe pornography perverts what God intended to be a wonderful thing. I believe that alcohol is bad to drink. I believe that people should get married and then stay married instead of shacking up. I believe abortion is the most awful thing a person could do to the unborn.
But all of those things are my religious views. I believe those things because I believe in God and I believe the Bible is His word. They are, at their heart, religious views. I have no right to impose those views on others who do not hold the same.
The essence of Liberty is that every person, as long as the do not hurt another, should be allowed to live in the manner they desire. Whether I agree with it or not.
Think about history. The times of greatest Revival were when people were trying to separate the Church from government, not trying to join the two. The Reformation, the Great Awakening. The latter especially came about because of Baptists who believed that the government had no business involved in religion, hence the 1st Amendment! It was because of that Great Awakening that we had the liberty in America to worship as we chose. And now the Christian Right is trying to take it away!
Jefferson said that it didn't matter if a person worshipped one God or 100 as long as that person would faithfully obey and uphold the Constitution. How a person views the Constitution is a much better measure of how that person will be in a position of authority than how well they can spout Christian Right rhetoric. For example, I know that Obama will be a bad president simply because he does not believe the Constitution means what it says, or that it is even a good governing document. That's enough for me. His religious affiliation or social views are irrelevant. His position on the Constitution is enough to know that he will not govern well. Incidentally, there is a clause in the Constitution that says that no religious test would be given to those seeking public office. The Founders made it clear that one's religion should not be the defining characteristic of whether one was fit for public office.
But this post isn't about Obama. It is about Christians using the government to spread the gospel.
How can Christians really think that making laws will make people turn to Christ? It won't. Just like having too many rules in a church as a condition of service (legalism) will eventually kill the church. It destroys liberty.
True revival starts with the individuals in the church, not through government intervention. If Christians honestly wish to see a return of the American people to a Biblical worldview, they must stop using the political podium as a bully pulpit. I am in no way suggesting that Christians stop preaching the word or passing out tracts or witnessing. I am saying that using politics to do so is wrong.
Christians need to stop thinking that the Republican party is the moral party. It is not, if the people involved at the top are any measure. Christians need to do their duty and vote, not for the religious candidate but for the Constitutional candidate.
Christians must, to some degree, separate their religion from their politics. Our religion ought to make us honest and trustworthy in our political dealings-in all our dealings with others. It ought to make us willing to do our duty, and not shirk it (that includes jury duty!!). It is our duty to be engaged in politics. To make an educated decision about who to vote for, not an emotional one. It is our duty to obey the law, and to oppose those laws that violate the ultimate authority of our land, the Constitution (not the Bible).
It seems that many Christians believe that the final civil authority in America is the Bible. Actually, that would be the Constitution! Yes, the Bible should be the final authority for Christians in their personal lives. It is not, however, our final civil authority. This is what makes it hard for Christians I think. I know it was for me. How can we 'advocate' homosexuality or abortion? Shouldn't we seek laws to curb such immoral behavior? NO! The proper place to rail against those things is in the pulpit at church, not the political podium. Those things are personal decisions and ought to be left to an individual's conscience. I hear you, But...but...its WRONG!!! And? So is divorce or lying or lust or... Do you, Christian, want to make divorce illegal? or adultery? or fornication? Those things were also punishable by death in the Old Testament.
Step back, take a breath, consider...why do Christians wish to make America a "Christian" nation? Even John Adams, likely the most pious Founder, signed a treaty that said we were not! (that was a treaty with Morocco) Why cannot they distinguish between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation. Do you, Christian, really want a theocracy? Really? Like Rome? Or any number of Muslim nations?
And which version of Christianity do you wish to impose? The Mennonite one? Where women have to wear a head covering and the same style of dress all the time. The Catholic one? Where one must confess one's sins to a priest. The Mormon one? Where drinking Coke was a sin. The Jehovah's Witness one? Where celebrating any holiday or birthday is forbidden. The Puritan one? Where neglecting to pay the preacher or not going to church on Sunday landed you in jail. You see the trouble one can get into?
Morality is for the individual to decide, that is called soul liberty. One can choose to believe or not. We should not use the government to decide which morality is right. The government already has its hands too much in our personal lives! And it has a hard enough time handling what it is supposed to!
Christians deprive themselves of some wonderful allies for Constitutional governance because they draw a line in the sand that says, "If you aren't a Christian, you cannot be a true American." I doubt Jefferson could stand up under the scrutiny of the Christian Right! And yet he was a great Patriot!
I'll end with a quote. Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Without Natural Affection
Romans 1:28,31, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient... without natural affection..."
Caution!! Don't read the links below unless you are prepared to read something very terrible! You have been warned!
Peter Connelly Part 1
Peter Connelly Part 2
The verses I quoted above describe the condition of the brute (I will not refer to it as a man!) that killed that baby perfectly. There is no end to the fury that I feel when reading about about it, and other cases like it. It calls on every instinct of protection and creates such a feeling of hate toward the perpetrator of such heinous violence that it frightens me to think of what I might do to such a 'person' if I were to meet them. How can one look on such monstrous human beings without being filled with 'righteous indignation'? How can one not wish to inflict upon them the same type and degree of suffering that Peter, and others like him, suffered?
I know how...by remembering that all sin is THAT bad in God's sight. God hates lying, stealing, adultery, etc. with the same passion that he hates what was done to that little boy. Shirking of duty, which is what that 'mother' was guilty of, no matter how small is still a sin.
I am not suggesting that our civil authorities punish petty thieves as severely as they do murderers, but only thinking on how a righteous God views sin. James 2:10"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." As angry as such vileness makes one, one must remember that all men, and women, are sinners. The only hope for any of us is the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
Caution!! Don't read the links below unless you are prepared to read something very terrible! You have been warned!
Peter Connelly Part 1
Peter Connelly Part 2
The verses I quoted above describe the condition of the brute (I will not refer to it as a man!) that killed that baby perfectly. There is no end to the fury that I feel when reading about about it, and other cases like it. It calls on every instinct of protection and creates such a feeling of hate toward the perpetrator of such heinous violence that it frightens me to think of what I might do to such a 'person' if I were to meet them. How can one look on such monstrous human beings without being filled with 'righteous indignation'? How can one not wish to inflict upon them the same type and degree of suffering that Peter, and others like him, suffered?
I know how...by remembering that all sin is THAT bad in God's sight. God hates lying, stealing, adultery, etc. with the same passion that he hates what was done to that little boy. Shirking of duty, which is what that 'mother' was guilty of, no matter how small is still a sin.
I am not suggesting that our civil authorities punish petty thieves as severely as they do murderers, but only thinking on how a righteous God views sin. James 2:10"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." As angry as such vileness makes one, one must remember that all men, and women, are sinners. The only hope for any of us is the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
Continental Congress 2009!!
Delegate election in this Saturday October 10! (Can it really be October already?!)
If you are not helping at a local polling place do get out and vote!! If you are not helping but would like to contact your local coordinator!
Linkies!
http://givemeliberty.org/user/congress/Region.aspx?state=TX
http://www.cc2009.us/
If you are not helping at a local polling place do get out and vote!! If you are not helping but would like to contact your local coordinator!
Linkies!
http://givemeliberty.org/user/congress/Region.aspx?state=TX
http://www.cc2009.us/
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Sara update...
Well we had Sara to the ped again yesterday. Ped ordered an xray. (Why does it cost so much more at the hospital than it does at an urgent care?)
Ped called about 2:20pm and said that her skull was indeed fractured!! I feel so awful! At least I know how it happened! Hubby is going to be taking that ladder off the bunkbed!! We are going to get a couple baby gates to keep Sara from wandering the house.
So...Ped said that she would have to report it but that she would tell them that she did not suspect any abuse/neglect and that she believed it was just an accident. I am so glad we have been seeing the same ped for so long (9 years) and that she is a good doc. I hope that her assurances will carry some weight.
Please pray for us...I am worried. I know how bad it looks for her to have TWO fractures in such a short time. I think I figured out what happened the first time too. I had been at WalMart and I was carrying Sara and Wes ran off...I chased him and slipped and fell and Sara hit the ground too. I am sure that was the initial injury the first time. Then she hit her head again in the same spot and then that's when the bump appeared. Crazy fluke accidents! It looks bad though...it really does!
Ped called about 2:20pm and said that her skull was indeed fractured!! I feel so awful! At least I know how it happened! Hubby is going to be taking that ladder off the bunkbed!! We are going to get a couple baby gates to keep Sara from wandering the house.
So...Ped said that she would have to report it but that she would tell them that she did not suspect any abuse/neglect and that she believed it was just an accident. I am so glad we have been seeing the same ped for so long (9 years) and that she is a good doc. I hope that her assurances will carry some weight.
Please pray for us...I am worried. I know how bad it looks for her to have TWO fractures in such a short time. I think I figured out what happened the first time too. I had been at WalMart and I was carrying Sara and Wes ran off...I chased him and slipped and fell and Sara hit the ground too. I am sure that was the initial injury the first time. Then she hit her head again in the same spot and then that's when the bump appeared. Crazy fluke accidents! It looks bad though...it really does!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Prayers needed for Sara
Some of you may remember the deal with Sara several months ago. To make a long story short, she developed a hematoma in her head. For those of you not familiar with medical terms, let me explain. It's where a bubble of blood develops, usually in your brain area. It's very bad, because if you get blood actually on your brain, you die.
Her hematoma several months ago was formed by a skull fracture. This morning, she has another suspicious-looking 'bubble' on her head. My mom just called us, and asked us to pray. She's very upset right now, because this same thing happening in the space of just a few months...doesn't look good.
Sara bumped her head last night Mom thinks, and that's probably our cause. Please pray that Sara will be OK, and that we'll be able to get this fixed without getting into any trouble with the government.
Thanks!
Update!
Sara is okay, no alarming symptoms and the ped doesn't seem worried. Were supposed to get a CT scan but didn't have the $750 to fork over and since Sara seems fine otherwise I decided to skip it. Ped called at about 6 pm and asked about Sara and said she wanted to see her on Mon at 9. She did not seem alarmed when I told her I didn't get the CT done, just sympathetic about the cost. So we shall see...
Her hematoma several months ago was formed by a skull fracture. This morning, she has another suspicious-looking 'bubble' on her head. My mom just called us, and asked us to pray. She's very upset right now, because this same thing happening in the space of just a few months...doesn't look good.
Sara bumped her head last night Mom thinks, and that's probably our cause. Please pray that Sara will be OK, and that we'll be able to get this fixed without getting into any trouble with the government.
Thanks!
Update!
Sara is okay, no alarming symptoms and the ped doesn't seem worried. Were supposed to get a CT scan but didn't have the $750 to fork over and since Sara seems fine otherwise I decided to skip it. Ped called at about 6 pm and asked about Sara and said she wanted to see her on Mon at 9. She did not seem alarmed when I told her I didn't get the CT done, just sympathetic about the cost. So we shall see...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
