ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - About 2,000 Islamist women gathered at the radical Red Mosque in the Pakistani capital on Wednesday and vowed to raise their children for holy war, days after a suicide bomber killed 18 people after a similar rally.

Chanting slogans of "jihad is our way", burqa-clad women, some with babies, listened to fiery speeches from the daughter of the mosque's jailed cleric on the eve of the anniversary of a commando raid on the complex in which more than 100 people died.  (READ ALL)

Ultimately, this is how they WILL win if they do.

They have children, we have utterly rejected our fertility in favor of comfort.

The next time you see a large family rather than make some smart alec comment about "You know what causes that, don't you?" or "Get cable already!"...

THANK THEM and pray for them.

By Nadeem F. Paracha
After much prompting and insistence from younger men and women, I finally decided to watch Shoaib Mansoor’s Khuda Ke Liye (KKL) on DVD. Before I begin my belated review of the film, I must confess my admiration for Mansoor for being brave enough to actually construct a full-length feature on a rather imposing and controversial topic: Terrorism and religious fanaticism in Pakistan.

It is commendable that Mansoor actually chose a daunting and risky topic for his debut film at a time when most people in every artistic field are more likely to avoid doing so, usually shoving the problem under the carpet which now sits on top of a massive heap of socio-political mess that cannot be hidden anymore.

The story about a young musician (Fawad Khan) falling prey to conniving jihadists and consequently leaving his whole family bouncing between hell (Taliban) and the devil (the CIA), is a somewhat accurate look at a generation of educated, urban, young Pakistanis who are looking for political and social identities in all the wrong places: Fanaticism; a warped sense of international politics and Islam; and maybe even the lawyers’ movement that is now being surrounded by an increasingly right-wing and reactionary voltage rather than the democratic and progressive currency it should be dealing in.

But this certainly does not mean Mansoor got everything right in his venture. To begin with, KKL actually turned out to be an intriguing example portraying exactly why Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ failed to capture the people’s imagination, falling flat on its face right from the word go. Because the film’s dialogue when firing shots at things like fanaticism and terrorism may as well have been words for a detailed manifesto of ‘enlightened moderation’, if you know what I mean.

In other words, the overall make-up of the story and the characters of the film are nothing more than a hectic exercise in typically apologist, local liberal dribble. I really do not understand exactly why the mullah brigade was so upset about the film? It offered nothing new (or offensive) as answers. It simply repeated the dreadful old act of a moderate Muslim soft-feathering a hardliner with counter quotes from the hadith and certain worn out clichés about social and parental responsibilities.

But then the hardliners too have their set of hadiths and social and political arguments. It most certainly would take a lot more than a brilliant Nasiruddin Shah playing the role of a sensible Islamic scholar to convince the other party that the moderates’ set of scriptures is truer than that of the hardliners’.

Religious fanaticism is a social, economic and psychological problem, or in other words, it is a purely modern human problem rather than only an ideological one. Unfortunately moderate Muslims, when they address it, become as myopic as the fanatics because they get stuck in the quicksand of conflicting ideas, conveniently forgetting that the fanatic may just be a mentally ill human being with serious social problems. And that the moderate himself may only be indulging in a navel-gazing tug-of-war of ideas and words to come to terms with his own liberalism in a place where religion is ubiquitously present in everything and everywhere.

Take for instance KKL’s last scene in which a reformed Fawad actually returns to the fanatic’s mosque and decides to deliver azaan in a turned baseball cap, T-shirt and jeans. First of all, just how come his family (and the government) never bother to apprehend the fanatic who is left free to preach hatred? Rather strange, but credible, I guess. Where’s the rule of law in this country, you may ask.

But the azaan scene takes the cake in the art of offering a gimmicky response to a question that requires a more substantial answer. I mean, what is Manoor suggesting through this scene? Is he suggesting that attire is the only overwhelming problem in the moderate versus fanatic debate?

In fact, the film actually never takes a firm stand against the fanatics on issues other than the question of what is the correct Islamic attire. As a matter of fact, subjects like sex, girls, alcohol, etc, are treated and dismissed by the moderates in the film almost as mindlessly and myopically as they are by the fanatics. For example, after Fawad comes to his senses, he says he was a good Muslim even before he became a fanatic. And he justifies this by saying “mein sharaab, larki, jhoot mein nahin involve tha…” (I wasn’t involved in alcohol, girls, lies).

What does that mean? Is he saying he was a better human being than those who drink and have girlfriends? And how can he be a better Muslim when instead of a womanising and alcoholic Muslim, it was he who joined the fanatics in the blackening of billboards, kidnapping women and killing fellow Muslims? There was even marital rape involved. How can he be a better Muslim when he was the one with some serious psychological issues? Are violent urges enough to get brainwashed by an irrational and sadistic band of fanatics? I mean it wasn’t booze or women that made him do all this, was it?

Really, apart from the difference in attire, there’s very little to separate Mansoor’s moderates from his fanatics as shown in the film. Khuda Ke Liye is a tad too self-restrictive and soap-operaic; it tends to get a little too excited by the shell of the subject it is based on, but conveniently forgets to also take into consideration the many social, political and psychological complexities that are associated with matters such as religious fanaticism.

I think it’s time we started addressing irrationally-charged matters like religious fanaticism as a psychological issue rather than an intellectual or an ideological one. Because in the end when we are shown how Fawad’s musician brother Shaan is tortured by the CIA till he goes insane and becomes a vegetable, I wondered how less insane the character of Fawad was when he decided to dump music, grow a beard, kidnap his cousin, force her to have his child and pick up the gun in the name of Islam? And was Fawad really cured when he went into the mosque and delivered the azaan in a baseball cap?

© DAWN.

• Stock market prices are driven by anticipation of higher corporate profits.
• Rising interest rates stifle credit (loans), make it harder for companies to source funds for expansion.
• Rising interest rates make fixed-income yields more attractive compared to investing in stocks and direct investment in companies.
• With less expansion and investment, growth in corporate profits plateau.

And the list continues carrying the same logic.

In recent years, evidence seems to indicate otherwise--about the relationship of interest rates, the economy, and the stock market. We can take some publicly available information, these charts courtesy of the New York Fed website and draw the relationships ourselves.

Three groups of data: Stock Market Indices, Short-Term Interest Rates, and Non-Farm Payrolls (being a measure of economic output). Here are the charts (updated as of May 2008):

If you look closely, seems economic output and stock market prices are indeed correlated as people assume--but the surprise is that both are also correlated with interest rates as well.

Higher rates = higher economic output = higher stock prices?

I think the key is understanding what drives short-term rate movements, which are largely tied to monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. Although the intricacies of what drives Fed policy are to lengthy to discuss in this post, one thing should be basic to readers is that Fed policy, and by association, short-term rates, move in response to two conflicting concerns:

Inflation vs. Recession

Inflation is a concern since high prices lead to higher production costs, which can depress economic growth. Recession is a fall in economic output. The two problems are not mutually exclusive either, since both can exist simultaneously in a phenomenon called Stagflation.

Personally, I view interest rates as the trigger point. Rates fall when the Fed eases monetary policy in response to a demand for liquidity. Case in point: the recent subprime crash, where banks and investment houses, suffering from losses in mortgages, savagely needed liquidity, forcing them to sell their mortgage investments, causing further losses.

The Fed will usually ease rates act to stem the liquidity crisis, but will eventually stop once the crisis has abated, and subsequently raise rates to arrest inflation. In the past this has coincided with a rebound in the economy, and consequently coincided with higher stock prices.

The point I'm driving at is the statement Correlation does not imply Causation. Just because two things happen together does not mean one causes the other. The common logic of lower interest rates leading to better economy and markets is a causal statement--which would have been disastrous to follow in the past. I'm merely pointing out that once rates have stopped falling, the economy and markets seem to recover in the same period.

Fortunately we are in another situation to test the relationship now. Fed has been lowering rates to arrest the crisis but now with inflation and higher prices pressuring the economy the easing might stop. The period following it should be a good one for stock markets if the relationship shown by the above charts continues to hold.

The 'crowns' were wreaths made from the myrtle plant. These fragrant crowns of fresh green myrtle leaves are a symbol of the continuity of life, and in some traditions also of prosperity and success in life. Traditionally, the wreaths are of the same size, symbolizing oneness and respect for each other.

It was a picture perfect wedding day. The rain clouds had spent several days doing what rain clouds do best - watering the thirsty earth while raining on any parade out there. On this day the sun shone forth gloriously, accompanied by a gentle breeze.

The church was fragrant with flowers. An aunt lovingly shared beautiful tulips, peonies, columbine, irises, anenome, red and white bleeding heart, primroses of every kind, grape hyacinth, daisies, blue bells, lily of the valley and the lovely blue forget-me-not. Large vases of roses added to the picturesque setting of joy and love.

Lovely strains from the violin and viola wafted through the air as the church was filled with loving family and friends, young and old, who had gathered to support and witness the public declaration of commitment and blessing. The singing offered by dear friends throughout the service added to the beauty and solemnity of the moment.

At a certain point in the service the couple shared a common cup of wine, symbolic of the mutual sharing of every aspect of their future life.

The beautifully attired bridesmaids and handsome groomsmen, the adorable ring bearer and flower girls - all complemented the picture of the proud groom and the radiant bride.

If you are looking for something to add to the love and mutual respect a husband and wife have for each other, contact us for information on natural family planning. Share the good memories again and again, and look for new ways to build up your 'couple-ness.' NFP has enhanced many a relationship with confidence, deeper commitment, and shared responsibilities.

Serena offers a dynamic approach presented by qualified volunteer teacher-couples. We hope to help you build a relationship that can be even more than 'picture perfect.'

Contact us for our next class on July 14, 2008.

First and foremost there is a high correlation between homeschooling and stay-at-home-mothering. While there are some stay-at-home dads and dual-income families that homeschool, mostly SAHMs are their kids' primary teacher. I would say that SAHMs are still the minority of the female population, especially those of school-age children. SAHMs are also more likely to embrace other ideas in the homeschooling spectrum such as breastfeeding and co-sleeping. It's true that the idea to breastfeed often comes before the idea to homeschool, but you see greater discussion about the merits of ecological breastfeeding, extended breastfeeding (to age 3 or 4), and child-led weaning.

Since it is not easy these days for a family to live on one income anymore, frugality is a big topic of discussion among homeschoolers. Frugality often leads to scratch-cooking, economizing, and cloth diapering. And there are many places where frugality and environmentalism intersect: air drying clothes, reducing consumption of utilities, recycling (using fewer garbage bags, shopping yard sales), vegetable gardening, eating less meat, and being a one-vehicle family.

I would also be willing to bet that there is also a higher incidence of home birth and midwife usage amongst homeschooling families than non-homeschooling families. Childbirth is seen as a natural life process just like learning, and both rarely need to be put in the hands of mis-trained specialists. And Natural Family Planning or Providentialism are often discussed and practiced in religiously conservative circles.

On the medical side of things again, there is a bigger discussion of child vaccinations. Many insist on avoiding combination shots and spacing individual ones. Many are picking and choosing which ones they want their kids to have (the Hep B and chicken pox ones are often skipped). And some are eschewing vaccinations altogether. There are concerns about mercury-based preservatives (although most vaccines no longer contain any mercury anymore), especially from parents who have dealt with mercury poisoning themselves. There are some who are concerned about the use of cells from aborted fetuses to make vaccines. There are also concerns about overwhelming a growing baby's immune system with the large number of vaccines that are administered in the first two years; this is related to the concern about the link between vaccinations and the rise in autism.

Television is also a big debate. Many homeschooling families throw out the television all together because they believe it inhibits learning. Many are concerned about the negative cultural values being transmitted through television. There are also concerns about the physical effects of television on attention-span and general health. Some parents limit the amount of time their children are allowed to watch television; some limit television viewing strictly to approved videos and do not pay for cable television. This is unfathomable to many Americans, who see cable television as a necessity up there with food and shelter.

I think the main reason that these topics are so interconnected for homeschoolers is that the majority of homeschoolers are critical thinkers, who are not afraid to research issues, and have a certain amount of cynicism about mainstream culture and the status quo. I think once you start questioning one thing, like institutional education, it is easier to question other things such as medicine for profit.

Homeschooling SAHM's mom's also often have a little more time to research these things. We're not sitting around eating bon-bons all day by any means, but the mandatory rest periods required by nursing a baby are great times to catch up on reading books. And I know that I always considered quitting my paid position as downsizing from three jobs to just two (childcare and housework). So we may have a little more time and energy to consider such things than the average working mom.

Many non-homeschooling families may consider one or more of these topics from time to time (especially mainstream ones like environmentalsim), but they seem to be recurring themes in homeschooling chat rooms, forums, and groups in addition to specifically homeschool-related topics. In some ways, I guess the Homeschooling Spectrum reinforces the concept of "homeschoolers are weirdos". Many homeschoolers don't care about being perceived as weird, though. Probably many of us were considered weird our whole lives, and now we just embrace it. And we have no qualms about making weird decisions that we believe are right for our families.

Dennis Prager has written the best explanation of the essential theological-sociological nature of Catholic-Jewish teachings on human sexuality. Starting with a description of male sexuality and implicitly the necessity of social mores/boundaries on the male, he demonstrates the connections between the dignity of the human person, particularly women and children, and the sublimation of male sexuality into exclusively heterosexual outlets. In Catholic terms there is a continuum between the consistent ethic of life and heterosexual family building. It's an absolute must read!

To a world which divided human sexuality between penetrator and penetrated, Judaism said, “You are wrong — sexuality is to be divided between male and female.” To a world which saw women as baby producers unworthy of romantic and sexual attention, Judaism said “You are wrong — women must be the sole focus of men's erotic love.” To a world which said that sensual feelings and physical beauty were life's supreme goods, Judaism said, “You are wrong — ethics and holiness are the supreme goods.” A thousand years before Roman emperors kept naked boys, Jewish kings were commanded to write and keep a sefer torah, a book of the Torah.

In all my research on this subject, nothing moved me more than the Talmudic law that Jews were forbidden to sell slaves or sheep to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews engage in homosexuality and bestiality. That was the world in which rabbis wrote the Talmud, and in which, earlier, the Bible was written. Asked what is the single greatest revelation I have derived from all my researches, I always respond, “That there had to have been divine revelation to produce the Torah.” The Torah was simply too different from the rest of the world, too against man's nature, to have been solely man-made.

The creation of Western civilization has been a terribly difficult and unique thing. It took a constant delaying of gratification, and a re-channeling of natural instincts; and these disciplines have not always been well received. There have been numerous attempts to undo Judeo-Christian civilization, not infrequently by Jews (through radical politics) and Christians (through anti-Semitism).

The bedrock of this civilization, and of Jewish life, has been the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit so much as it is a value that must be cultivated and protected. The Greeks assaulted the family in the name of beauty and Eros. The Marxists assaulted the family in the name of progress. And today, gay liberation assaults it in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gays would do this. Life has been miserable for many of them. What I have not understood was why Jews or Christians would join the assault. I do now. They do not know what is at stake. At stake is our civilization.

Does Episcopalianism today look anything like what we read about here? Would an Episcopalian from 1931 PECUSA recognize 2008's TEC?

Where will your church be in 20 years? What about 50? What about 78?

Which Church (like Jesus who is "the same yesterday, today and forever) is advocating the same, no matter how unpopular?

From TIME magazine:

Monday, Jan. 26, 1931
Birth Control

The American Birth Control League invited 30 Protestant Episcopal bishops to its convention in Manhattan last week. Not one bishop appeared, although their Triennial General Convention at Denver next September is certain to consider birth control in echo to the last Lambeth Conference of bishops of and affiliated with the Church of England, which discreetly approved the movement (TIME, July 14 & Aug. 25). Nonetheless there were several preachers of various denominations among the 200 delegates who attended the convention. Also-present were a few doctors. Conspicuously absent were women who revel in tales of their own childbearing, women too prudish to discuss procreation in any manner, Catholic women obedient to the Pope's denunciation of any hindrance to conception (TIME, Jan. 19). Last week's meeting lacked the vigor of previous conventions. Some speakers interpreted the Pope's denunciatory encyclical as favorable to birth control. "It paves the way for the inevitable fight over what is one of the most important biological findings in history"—Professor Julian Sorell Huxley of London. Other speakers and a formal resolution politely denounced the recent White House Conference on Child Health & Protection (TIME, Dec. 1) for not mentioning birth control at all. Dr. Ira Solomon Wile of Manhattan called the White House Conference "a total, a complete and excellently devised demonstration of an ostrich policy. This is unjust to the ostrich, however, as it does not bury its head quite so deeply." Otherwise the birth controllers were placid. They reiterated an old boast that their movement has been endorsed by various sectional conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, the Universalist "General Convention, the American Unitarian Association, the Lambeth Conference. During ten years of formal organization Birth Control has developed an American League, state leagues in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; local groups in California. Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland. North Carolina and Ohio; a Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control: and 58 big-city clinics for contraceptive advice.

Where will you be in 78 years?

A. The difference is that one is indulgence in pleasure and the other practices self control. Both methods have the same effect, limiting family size, but that does not make them equal morally. For instance, if Grandma is terminally ill you could kill her or allow her to die naturally. The end result is the same but the moral difference could not be greater. Never do evil so that good may come.

The couple who practices NFP abstains from pleasure in order to limit family size while the contracepting couple indulges in pleasure stripped from its meaning and purpose.

The NFP couple practices total self giving love in their union but the contracepting couple rejects the fertility of their mate and so the union is incomplete.

God designed sex and eating to be pleasurable so that we would not forget to procreate and nourish our bodies. Stripping the pleasure of sex away from its God-given purpose is disordered just like attempting to get the pleasure out of eating but avoiding the natural purpose by throwing up after every meal.

God created the marital union to be a tri-unity of pleasure, bonding and openess to children. The attempt to extract pleasure and bypass the purpose of sex and eating is called lust and bulimia.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Catholic, Marriage, Contraception, mortal+sin

I suppose when it rains, it pours ... or maybe if you've just posted about a topic, you're more attuned to seeing other related posts elsewhere. But, given my recent post about local media and cause-related PR, one of the interesting items I see in the Metrica report is in relation to regional media (which in the U.S. would also translate as local media). This UK study indicates that regional/local media turn out to be a better vehicle for an organization's message delivery and for obtaining favorable coverage and for charities, not-for-profit and government agencies (not to mention news about the media itself, which gets beaten up pretty badly in the to-ing and fro-ing of Fleet Street battles).

As the report notes:

Regional for the people: Despite a downwards trend over the last decade, the regional media type accounted for almost half of analysed media coverage in 2007. It was the strongest channel for eight out of 11 sectors featured and was particularly dominant for charities, government, not for profit and media. Regional coverage was generally very favourable and strong in terms of message delivery – regional press was 23% more likely to convey a key message than the national press.

The tallest bar in this chart from the report shows Charities/NFPs standing head and shoulders above other sectors in terms of favorable coverage -- showing 99 percent of all monitored coverage of the sector as favorable in 2007.

Likewise, the tallest bar in this chart from Metrica shows that regional media are much more likely to cover charitable causes than other media -- 65 percent of all coverage of charities monitored by Metrica occurred in regional newspapers, with the next greatest coverage of charities coming from online media at a relatively skimpy 9 percent.

So, what exactly constitutes "favorable" coverage, one might ask? Metrica says it categorizes coverage surveyed as:

...either strongly favourable, slightly favourable, slightly unfavourable or strongly unfavourable. Strongly favourable or unfavourable coverage is self-explanatory. Usually journalists attempt to write objective, neutral articles. However, an element of bias or opinion nearly always appears -this is reflected in Metrica’s slightly favourable and slightly unfavourable measurements. If an article is totally neutral, the measurement defaults to slightly favourable because our research shows credited media exposure is beneficial to the monitored organisation.

Takeaway in this for PR practitioners? I dunno, but I'd guess it's safe to say that if you like that "feel good" factor that comes from largely favorable coverage for your organization or client, then pretty much the place to be is with charities, not-for-profits and non-governmental organizations. And, if you're looking for maximizing that favorable coverage for your NFP organization or client, then in the UK as in the US of A ... regional and local media would seem to be the best bet around.


E-mail this: Bookmark this:

It's a phenomenon clearly being driven by market forces and there is no denying that readership preference shows a tendency toward news that falls in the local category, such as local government and crime, as per the following graphic I recently reproduced from the State of the News Media 2007 report:

When it comes to corporate public relations work, local media are a pain in the derriere -- from an ROI standpoint, at least, the value of the coverage you can glean by taking big corporate stories and "downsizing" them for a geographically narrow audience makes it hardly worth your while.

But, the other day I remembered a study about cause-related PR from a couple of years back. I've long since lost the PDF, but just did a bit of Googling and found the original press release, with the headline: Study Conducted by eNR Services Ranks Cause-Related Public Relations Highest among Distributed Releases.

Conducted by eNR Services, the Norwalk, CT based PR technology company, the study was released at the June 2006 Cause Marketing Forum, in New York City, and results showed that the "the media is very interested in 'good news' stories - specifically about local corporate giving and cause related events."

From the release:

"This study shows that targeting local media is a very effective PR strategy for promoting cause-related efforts. Almost all cause-related events are local, with local volunteers, with local donations, with local companies, helping local communities. It isn't surprising then that the study recommends that PR communication efforts should be local as well," says Chris McTague, director of PR Applications for eNR.

The study determined that only 11 percent, of the 461 projects were cause-related. However, these projects accounted for more than 34 percent of the resulting news stories, generating about 50 million local media impressions.

Almost 90 percent of the resulting articles came from local newspapers and journals with a circulation size of less than 50,000. Papers of this size make up approximately 85 percent of the news media across the country according to eNR.

Hmmm ... could it be that the hyperlocal bain of corporate PR could prove to be a real boon to cause-related PR, whether around corporate responsibility of for NFPs or NGOs?

Still can't find where I archived the study itself and the hyperlink on the news release is now broken, but if somebody out there has a copy and would like to share, I'd really be interested in taking a peek at it again.


E-mail this: Bookmark this:

Spread the word. If you know of a NFP that is a national women’s non-government organisation who would be eligible. That is, an organisation whose sole focus is to provide services for, or represent the interests of, women and has established branches in the majority of states and territories.

 Here's to volunteer treasurers..

Ich habe eine Weile gebraucht, bis ich kapiert habe, was “NFP” bedeutet.

öffentlich zuzugeben.

MyNFP - Zykluskurven online auswerten. Das klingt durchaus interessant: Schluss mit Zettelwirtschaft, ausufernden Exceltabellen oder unterwegs nicht zugänglichem zyklus.ical! In Zeiten sozialer Netzwerke mag es durchaus angemessen sein, seinen, respektive ihren, Zyklus online zu stellen. Auch community-öffentlich: "Heute auch besonders empfängliche Mitglieder sind..." "In Deiner Nachbarschaft menstruieren heute auch..." Da ergeben sich ganz neue Diskursmöglichkeiten.

Zur wirtschaftlichen Seite: Rein hypothetisch und nur als Analogie zu einem beliebten Studentennetzwerk gedacht könnte bei einer entsprechenden Änderung der AGB dann auch gezielte Werbung möglich sein: Bei gewähltem Profil "Verhütung" kommt passend vor den kritischen Tagen eine Mail mit Präservativwerbung, beim Profil "Kinderwunsch" die eines Veranstalters von Kurzurlauben. Selbst für manche Unternehmen könnten solche Informationen von Interesse sein, z. B. als Ersatz der Stirnbandpflicht. Doch soweit muss man gar nicht gehen. Es ist vorstellbar, dass die Basisleistung, also die Bereitstellung der Datenbank, kostenlos ist, aber gewisse Extras kostenpflichtig sind. Zum Beispiel die Benachrichtigung per Mail/SMS: "Jetzt aber!"/"Jetzt nicht!", je nach Profil. Oder die tägliche Mail "Noch ... Tage und ... Stunden zur Ovulation."

Ein Risikofaktor bleibt: Sollten Sie ihren Zyklus ausschließlich online aufzeichnen, ist es wichtig, für unterwegs einen Tarif gewählt zu haben, der nicht wegen übermäßiger Nutzung gekündigt wird. Zur Sicherheit also noch den papierenen Kalender behalten! Ist auch irgendwie sinnlicher.

Durch Zufall bin ich beim Buchen von AdWords auf die Seite myFNP gestossen. Neu und unverfänglich bin ich auf der Seite gelandet und ich wurde herzlich begrüßt...

Sie sind hier, weil Sie...

• nach einer sicheren Alternative zu hormoneller Verhütung suchen?
• mehr über Ihren Körper und den weiblichen Zyklus erfahren möchten?
• ein Kind bekommen möchten und nach einer geeigneten Methode suchen, um zu erkennen, wann Ihr Eisprung stattfindet?
• NFP schon kennen, Ihnen aber eine komfortable Aufzeichnungsform fehlt?

Ich habe eine Weile gebraucht, bis ich kapiert habe, was "NFP" bedeutet. In solch einem Falle macht mich eine Website eher stutzig - zumal ich als Mann dort gestrandet bin. ;-) Auch die sonst typischen gestalterischen Mittel wurden "vergewaltigt". So setzt ein Designer eigentlich den typischer Störer nicht zwingend am unteren Bereich einer Website hin, sondern integriert ihn in den Header.

Nichtsdestotrotz finde ich die Website aus wirtschaftlicher Sicht spannend. Schließlich ist dies ein mutiger Schritt, eHealth und Internet zu verbinden. Über Preise konnte ich leider nichts heraus finden. "Kostenlos anmelden" bedeutet zwangsläufig nicht "kostenlos nutzen".

Eine Besonderheit hat mich dann doch noch ein großes Schmunzeln gekostet: es wird dem Nutzer die Wahl seiner "individuellen Privatsphäre überlassen, das bedeutet: jedes Mitglied kann einstellen, ob es anonym bis öffentlich den eigenen Zyklus messen möchte. Etwas strange klingt das schon, oder? :-)

Urteil: interessanter Ansatz

Tipp: weitere Tipps & Rechner beim Ernährungsstudio (kostenlos!)

P.S.: was bedeutet eigentlich bei myNFP der Begriff "NFP"? Ganz einfach. Es ist keine Krankheit, sondern ganz profan: "Natürliche Familienplanung". Mir war's neu...

Download | 212KB |

A good friend of mine has this brochure on NFP called, "Go Organic," which totally plugs my blog--thank you, and it suggests that learning the world's most underrated method of family planning *might* actually be a super-green thing to do. Here's an excerpt:

Close your eyes and imagine what makes you feel most in love and the most intimate. If you could step into any love story, any romantic landscape, what would you find yourself surrounded by and who would be there? Ask a hundred women that same question, and the answer would be strikingly similar.
No one ever says “I’d like to be alone,” “I like being an object instead of a person,” or “I’d like to be
depressed, gain weight, more irritable and increase my risk for cancer.” No. They imagine being
with someone, feeling loved and being healthy. They imagine candles, lovely music, genuine embraces, honest words and laughter. The love and need for intimacy without barriers is deeply rooted
in us all.

Our bodies are made beautifully. We are living masterpieces, kaleidoscopic perpetual miracles on our own, without anything extra. That’s the way we were made to live and to love—without barriers, without chemicals, or additives. Imagine a wide open landscape of love. Imagine holding nothing back. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is 100% organic, based in fertility awareness and appreciation. Your fertility is a gift, not a disease, and NFP is the all natural way to embrace it. Best of all, NFP is cooperative. Women don’t bear the burden and the side effects alone. No, the only side effects are increased communication, greater mutual self-knowledge and respect, self resolve and poise, healthy body, more romance and greater intimacy. Welcome to NFP.

Doesn't it seem interesting that we'll go to great lengths to ensure our meat, dairy and other grocery products are "all natural" and hormone free, but then we'll turn around and ingest, poke or patch our bodies with all sorts of synthetic hormones, the ramifications of which we're still discovering?

Check out these articles, both secular and religious, which talk about the grave effects we're seeing in the environment because of the residual effects of drugs--particularly chemical contraceptives. Now, if the human side effects don't trip you out, perhaps libidoless intersex fish will grab your attention. No more fish frys, you Midwesterners! Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005 said, It's “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me." We're not talking one freak fish here; it's a significant problem, a problem so significant that in a couple months, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the American Pharmacists Association will begin a major public-awareness campaign regarding contamination that’s resulting from soaps and pharmaceuticals, including birth control. (Reference NC Register article above.)

Am I giving a clarion call to mob the pharmaceutical companies? No, but at least when people jump on the Green Trend Train (and even for those pre-trend greenies), they should consider Natural Family Planning as a way to reduce their environmental impact and increase the intimacy. Give it a try!

Thanks to Melanie for telling me about this outstanding discussion on the struggles of NFP from a guy's perspective. My husband read it and laughed.

One reader, Maria from the discussion wrote this and it is the best explanation I have found to date to explain WHY Catholics are against Contraception but NOT against NFP.

I have begun to find the use of the term "contraceptive mentality" with NFP rather annoying. It tends to betray a real lack of understanding of exactly WHY contraception is evil among even faithful Catholics. Catholics using this terminology seem to imply that contraception is wrong simply because it prevents conception. Contraception is an intrinsically evil act NOT because it prevents conception, but because it fundamentally alters the sexual act.

Obviously, the sexual act can be completely moral even if there is NO chance of conception, i.e. after menopause, within a couple which suffers from infertility, or during pregnancy. In these instances a woman cannot get conceive. Still, it would be intrinsically evil to use contraception, like a condom to prevent an STD, because it fundamentally alters the gift of self that occurs in the sexual act.

And

Both a contracepting couple and an NFP couple can have grave reasons for preventing pregnancy; both can not. Their motivations is a separate issue from the use of contraception. An NFP couple NEVER contracepts, no matter how selfish they may be behaving in avoiding pregnancy, because the couple does not alter the sexual act. They may be guilty of other sins, such as selfishness, but not of the sin of contraception. This can be a difficult issue for non-Catholics (and even many Catholics) to understand, and I think Catholics who talk about couples who use NFP with a "contraceptive mentality" just create more confusion.

For Catholics, we believe marriage is a gift of one person to another. And EVERY sexual act within that marriage is a RENEWAL of the marriage vows. Now, for a Catholic, a person's sexuality is NOT separate from that person, but rather sexuality is part of the very BEING of that person. Our language even expresses this fact "I AM" a woman, "I AM" a man. We don't say "I am a person who happens to be a woman." Nope. We say, my being is female, my being is male.

Catholics also believe that ACTIONS express what is being said in the deepest resources of a person's heart. For instance, I can tell my husband that I love him, but if I am abusive towards him or hit him, my actions tell a completely different story. The same is true in the bedroom. I can say "I love you" to my spouse and that "I give you my WHOLE self" but if I am NOT truthfully giving him my entire self INCLUDING my fertility and my body, my mouth says one thing BUT my body tells an entirely different story. In reality I am telling him "I give this to you, EXCEPT ___" Fill in the blank. The act becomes a lie to its core, which is WHY Catholics believe it is an act of Blasphemy to contracept marital LOVE. A contracepted act of "lovemaking" does NOT fulfill the Marriage Vows EVEN if both people remain exclusive and faithful to each other, their lovemaking says "I love you ,but not enough to give you my whole self unreservedly."

It is a holistic approach to sex. We believe that when a husband and wife make love holistically they bring God into their marriage thereby making it Sacramental and Divine. It is the ultimate spiritual experience that can only be trumped so to speak by the Eucharist. Interestingly enough, the Catholic marriage vows are said RIGHT before the Eucharistic prayer. Just as Jesus gives Himself 100% and unreservedly to His Church in Communion, so does Husband and Wife give themselves to each other 100% unreservedly.

This approach is SOOO entirely different than our culture's understanding and our Society's way of doing things. I would just remind everyone that when the Early Church began, they were very tiny in numbers and had to celebrate Mass in the Catacombs. At one time a good majority of the Church did NOT believe in the divinity of Christ IN the Early Church yet the small numbers of Faithful were responsible for holding onto their Truths and keeping alive the Church. Numbers are irrelevant. I believe people in today's world WANT AND YEARN for Holistic Sex and Holistic Intimacy. They want a total surrender and Love to each other that cannot be found in many places. We have the responsibility to live it out and bear Witness to such a Love.

Numbers of those in the helping professions and vocations (nursing, teaching, law enforcement, priesthood, missionary work, etc.) has been plummeting for years. Recently, though, some companies, like Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol*, are helping to revitalize some these sacrificial career fields by offering scholarships and programs to encourage, promote and support those wanting to enter the health field.

SO WHY IS THIS ON THE NFP BLOG?

Great question. Well, the good news is that we are experiencing an increase in interest in NFP from Catholics and Non-Catholics alike, but the bad news is that we don't have enough teachers. The good news is that we've had some people (though not quite enough) express interest in teaching, but the bad news is that sometimes we can't cover the costs of training, particularly for the medical methods of NFP (Marquette & Creighton).

So, are you or somebody you know thinking about teaching NFP but cost is a barrier? Check out the above links, or keep me posted on more opportunities like this.

* (This post in no way is represents or supports the public or private ventures of Tylenol and Johnson & Johnson corporations. We are grateful for their philanthropy, though.)

Back in October I asked my friend Celina to tell me her story because I find her so different from most people I know. I find her quite remarkable and thought you would enjoy her story as much as I.

Background: Celina is a military wife and a Catholic revert. She and her husband sterilized themselves before their reversion. After they realized Church teaching and read John Paul II for themselves, they realized what they had done and worked to reverse it. She and her husband Jason are the parents of 14 children, 5 living and 9 in Heaven. They are in their 30s. Here is their story.

How many miscarriages have you experienced?
We have lost 9 babies to miscarriage. 7 were quite early, only a few days after a positive pregnancy test and 2 were in the second trimester. All of them are mostly unexplained.

What is your Catholic background?
I am a revert to Catholicism, having been brought up cafeteria style :) I knew virtually nothing about the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life. Well I knew the "what" but not the "why". Jason was raised commercial, as we like to call it; Christmas = presents, Easter = chocolate candy, etc. Both of us from very abusive homes.
When did you revert and how did you decide that NFP would work for your marriage?
When David was born, our older girls were starting to be school aged and we knew there was something missing in how they were being raised, though we are pretty sure that we weren't doing too bad considering both of our upbringings. We had decided on sterilization shortly after David was born in 1998 (no miscarriages that I am aware of up to that point). We felt a bit railroaded into it since we had 3 children very close together and because Jason volunteered to be the one who underwent surgery, he was praised all around for being responsible and kind to his wife (so weird to think now how kindness and responsibility in involved with messing around with, well, THAT, you know?)

We looked into having David baptized as well as our older two (the focus was on him because not only was he our baby but he was our "last" baby). We met an awesome family through our church who taught the baptism class. We learned so much about the Church through them. They presented the teachings of the Magisterium to us in a way that was very matter of fact. They were very understanding with our difficulties and our questions. They were very faith filled people who were just awesome. I didn't know that the husband was a doctor until one day when I saw him in uniform and you know how some people can wear their rank inappropriately.

So within 2 years, Jason and I were taking RCIA classes. Unfortunately I don't think that NFP is presented nearly enough and one of its pitfalls is that some of the best NFP stories are from larger families. People see this and automatically think that NFP is only appropriate if you want to raise a baseball team or something which is totally not the case. The concept of being open to life seem so simple now and we are largely Providentialists but are open to limiting our family size if it becomes necessary for financial or other reasons. But the whole contraceptive mentality is pretty strong. Funny how things have changed in such a relatively short period of time when contraception was largely frowned upon by Protestant and Catholics alike.

After having mentioned a few times that David was our last child, Cindy, the wife of the couple who helped us understand our faith better, very lovingly and bluntly told me about what the Church teaches on the subject. It made total sense. I won't say it was like a light bulb that went off over my head and I was sold but after thinking on it a few days, it makes perfect sense that God made our bodies to be fertile. It wasn't an accident. He knew what he was doing. AND bonus, there was a way to work within his plan to limit our family size if after prayerful consideration, we decided it was necessary. We didn't need to shut the doors to our bedroom completely to God. On the contrary because the act of marriage is how we participate with God in creating new life, it makes perfect sense that there are "rules" surrounding it. We shouldn't have treated it so lightly. We knew that it was probably the biggest mistake of our marriage.

Although it was perfectly clear that we didn't HAVE to have the vasectomy reversed to be right with God, we felt it was necessary. We never considered that in 5 or 10 or in our case 2 years later, we would change our minds. Not to be too morose about it but it is similar to the old adage about suicide: it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It didn't feel right that we were essentially enjoying the gift of sex in our marriage but not assuming the responsibility of it. What could we then tell our children as they came of age?

We took it to confession and had a reversal in 2000. Thankfully the military paid for the whole thing. I would have never thought it.

• U.S. economy lost 80K jobs in March, following 76K losses in the prior two months
• Unemployment rate rose from 4.8% to 5.1%
• Once again, the job losses were fairly widespread, and the question now is how much worse the employment situation will get

 

 

The U.S. employment situation deteriorated once again in March, with another 80K jobs lost during the month. And, we found out that the employment picture heading into today’s nonfarm payrolls report was weaker than we had originally thought, as the February number was revised from -63 to -76, and the January result from -22 to -76, for a total of -67K in net revisions. The unemployment rate jumped in March from 4.8% to 5.1%, which was a little worse than the 5.0% that the markets had expected.

Looking at the details of the report, the job losses were once again widespread, with far more sectors recording losses than gains. And the only sectors that did manage to record gains were government and education and health, which are generally not very sensitive to economic conditions, and leisure and hospitality, which is likely being propped up by tourism activity, thanks to a weakening U.S. dollar. Private sector employment once again fared worse than the headline number at -98K, its fourth consecutive monthly loss.

The question going forward is how much worse the employment situation is going to get, since that will likely determine just how weak consumer spending becomes. Typically in a recession, you see several months of much larger job losses, in the range of about 200K, or sometimes more. So far the job losses in the U.S. have been fairly moderate, averaging 77K over the last three months. The risk is certainly that the deterioration in the labour market accelerates over the next couple of months, and accordingly, we expect the unemployment rate to continue to rise. This is certainly a recipe for the Fed to continue cutting rates, and we expect to see another 50bps lobbed off the fed funds rate at the next FOMC meeting on April 30.