Giving the poo-poo to shampoo

Recently I read this article about women who have ditched shampooing, and never want to go back. It's a secret that has been passed on selectively in this country in our recent past that shampoo is not necessarily required to keep your scalp flake-free and your locks shiny and voluminous. In fact, the women in this article attest to the fact that their hair has never been healthier than when they stopped shampooing. The writer of the article notes that one of the most popular forms of going "no poo" is to add one teaspoon of baking soda (that wonder substance that seems to be able to do all) to a cup of water, mix it well, and pour over your scalp and let sit for one minute before rinsing out. Seems almost more like a recipe than a cleansing ritual, but from the pictures, it seems to get the job done.

I suppose it is in some ways acceptable and sanitary since shampoo was never used for thousands of years, but it still seems odd to me. I like it as an idea to save a little cash, but I love the smell of my hair after I get out of the shower where I just slathered on a good helping of my favorite Aveda formula. After reading this article and seeing the photos of the women who haven't shampooed their hair in upwards of 7 months, I am curious to see how my hair would take it and, more importantly, look like if I got rid of shampooing all together. Part of me really wants to try it out, but another, probably stronger, part of me thinks it's best not to toy around with this sort of thing. The article does give fair warning of the 4- to 6-week period that results are minimal since your scalp will be trying to re-learn the levels of oil it should be producing...and I am thinking that might be just too long for me to take.

So, I suppose I'll stick with the shampoo. But I don't regret knowing that if there were ever a day when I couldn't afford to fork up the $9 a bottle I pay for my products (hair products and make-up are the two things I do not skimp out on) I could resort to my $0.59 a box solution.

Stompin' in my Air Force One

Just as a quick note, I can't even imagine what kind of an outcry we would have seen if the flyby over NYC of Air Force One had happened during our previous president's tenure. Of course 9/11 happened during Bush's presidency, so doing something that would remotely conjur thoughts of that awful day in history would never ever be tolerated by his administration. The incident Monday only demonstrates further the incompetency of those who Obama has chosen to surround himself with. I am not blaming Obama for the event, but just gawking in disbelief that this administration has done everything possible to distance themselves from the military ethos of Bush that this sort of event would happen. Thousands of the same people who had to experience first hand the tragic events of 9/11 were thrown into hysteria because of the insensitivity of someone trying to get a good PR shot. Bad job, boys. Simply outrageous.

Mary Ann Glendon Rejects ND Honor

Well written and thoughtful letter from Mary Ann Glendon to Fr. Jenkins taken from First Things:

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Review: "Wild at Heart"

Recently, Scott and I read the book Wild at Heart. This is an astute look at the innerworkings of human nature, and particularly what it means to be masculine. John Elderidge has spent many years in counselling and ministry and inflects his musings on the nature of masculinity with experience. Elderidge focuses on comparing the masculine nature of men to the nature of God by identifying three main categories that define masculinity: each man has a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to fight for.

Initially, Scott and I agreed that these seemed like pretty narrow categories to fit into and that on the surface it would seem that some, if not most, would not desire to be included in such categories. Scott mentioned that he has never been a fighter and certainly avoids hurting another person at all costs. Scott has the desire, in fact, to been a healer, which seems quite the opposite of a fighter. Upon further reading and reflection though, we decided that being a fighter doesn't mean that every man is called to be a soldier, but rather men must be willing to "fight" for good always and to allow their strength to show through in this.

The call to men to step up to their roles and over-come their childhood created fears and views of themselves is a great one indeed, yet a reader may want to retain a skeptical eye throughout the piece. Generalizations about men are helpful in explaining the state of men today, but one must temper it with the experience of men in your own life. It is important to remember that every man might not fit 100% into these categories, but may be stronger or weaker depending on personality and environmental influences. Also, another point of caution would be regarding the tendency towards "theology from below" in which Elderidge makes several assumptions about the nature of God based on his observations of humanity. This seems to be a more evangelical-protestant point of view of God, so I overlooked it slightly, but it is still something to be aware of.

Overall, this is a thoughful view of the meaning and action of masculinity and what it means to be a man. Much of what Elderidge notes of the "feminization" of culture and of men rings true and I have often thought that this is the way in which our culture is moving as well. This call of "letting boys be boys" is helpful in a time when parents and educators are so quick to medicate their boys for being exactly what they are. Elderidge asks us to fight this tendency by understanding why it is that boys act the way they do, and to be able to respond accordingly.

I recommend this book to anyone looking for a thoughtful outlook on the importance of the difference of the sexes and what is behind masculinity at its heart.

Americanism v. Catholicism

I have to admit, the more I talk about, and even think about, Obama speaking at Notre Dame, the more sick of it I get. It reminds me of the election season and the constant going back and forth with people both getting the point of view out there and then defending it. But somehow, I can't stay away because of my unquenchable desire to discover and speak the truth. The Catholic Church and her teachings and tradition are increasingly under attack (just pick up a newspaper from anytime January 2009 until now and you'll see what I mean), and I'm young and stupid enough to try to defend Her.

I've come across the question of "Americanism" in opposition to Catholicism. Are these sentiments mutually exclusive? My initial reaction is no, certainly not. The American ideal of opportunity and freedom are right in line with what it means to be a Catholic, and I am sure that it is the reason by Catholic immigrants came to this country in droves during the late 19th and early 20th century. From that point, Catholic Americans have struggled to be considered part of the mainstream of culture.

This is what the problem is: we are getting to the point that because of what our American culture holds dear we are asked to change our values, or at the very least stay silent on them. It has become incompatable to be an assimilated member of the American population and hold such counter-cultural ideals as the Catholic faith demands. Not least among these, is the fight against abortion and being pro-life. I certainly don't believe that being pro-life is contrary to being American, but it cannot be denied that it is counter-cultural to be pro-life in every situation and for every reason. In this way, I believe that my Catholic faith trumps my "Americanness" because the faith transcends what is stamped on my passport and what one country believes is the best way of governing. I do not think that one cannot be American and Catholic at the same time, even a proud and patriotic American. This is the great strength of America, that democracy, freedom, and especially religious freedom exist. I pray that they are ALWAYS defended, and that the compromises that are being tolerated against Catholics especially are no longer.

Response to "Partisan Hand"

Below are the contents of an e-mail I wrote in response to a Viewpoint article yesterday. I did not send it to the Observer, but rather directly to the person who would write such things about a student who is defending life and the unborn on national television. (As a note to my readers: Though I was never enrolled as a student at ND, I took more than a semester's worth of classes at Notre Dame while a student at Saint Mary's College and participated in almost all of my extra-curricular activities there, which is why I justify calling myself a "former student of Notre Dame".)

If you wish to see the original letter to the Observer to which I am responding you can find it here: http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2009/04/08/Viewpoint/Partisan.Hand-3701481.shtml

Dear Ms. Burns,

I write to you as a former student of Notre Dame and one who was offended by the contents of your article published in today's Observer. Your comment that "the death penalty is an even more egregious affront to life since it is the government taking an active role in snuffing out life" is simply untrue. Obama's actions and policies that he has created already within his first three months in office paint an ominous picture for pro-lifers indeed. I am sure you have read enough about his recent record of lifting a ban on funding abortions overseas, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and repealing, perhaps as I write, legislation protecting health care providers from doing procedures against their consciences, among other anti-life policies. The possibility of Obama passing FOCA, which he promised in a speech to Planned Parenthood to sign, is the largest threat to the pro-life cause at this time. Our government is taking an extremely "active role in snuffing out life" indeed; through sanctioning and funding countless abortions in this country every year.

Ms. Donahue spoke correctly in not equating abortion and the death penalty. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a 2004 memorandum to American Catholic bishops (the year before he became Pope) called "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion -- General principles," "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Simply put, what you said, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, is incorrect. Particularly as one preparing to defend our country's laws and legal system, I pray that you are able to come to a thoughtful conclusion about the relative gravity of the life issues, and are able to defend the pro-life cause accordingly. This is not to say that the issue of the legalization of the death penalty is unimportant or should not be a point of concern for Catholics, but that abortion is simply the greater issue at hand and needs to be addressed promply and with great ferverance.

Thank you for your time,

Sarah Galgano

Payroll

Warning: This post involves a lot of venting and whining about my job. BEWARE!

In an effort to consolidate resources once again, my company decided about a month ago to give me a couple of the responsibilities of one of the employees in finance who left the company. These include credit card reconciliation and payroll. The credit card is a little stressful, but at least doable. On the other hand, in payroll I generally have no idea what I am looking at. Even though my supervisor and I are working on it together, neither of us has the experience needed to make this transition without a little extra help. It seems like every time we come up to a payroll, we have to go back and forth with the HR companies before we figure out who is getting paid what.

Then, there is the fact that Erin and I have different ideas of how the spreadsheets and everything should work, and I hate feeling like I'm inserting myself with her, but I also don't want the information to be recorded improperly.

Lastly, it doesn't help that recently they are continuing to let people go every payroll. First it was Rob. Then last time it was Dan and Carm. Now, it's four people in Canada. All of the terminations have something different going on with them, and we have to figure out how to treat them. It doesn't help that many of them have been in Canada, which means a lot of rules and regulations about terminations according to Canada's socialist government.

Basically, blame Canada.

I know that having this as a skill set will make me more marketable in the future when I am looking for a job (I guess if it ever came down to it, I might be sort of qualified to do payroll or something for a small company), but in the mean time it is frustrating and makes me realize why (not that I ever ever would have considered it) I did not major in finance during college. It also makes me glad to think that I might only have to do this for four or so months if I end up leaving WRT when I go back to school.

ughhhhhh.... thanks for letting me let that out of my system.

Good News for Sarah

Happiness came in the form of a sunny day to me. Spring in Minnesota certainly has its ups and downs weather-wise, but it seemed to me that today's beautiful, sunny day brings with it a new outlook on the opportunities before me.

I have been informed this week by the University of St. Thomas (located here in the Twin Cities) that I have been accepted to the Master of Arts in Catholic Studies program. They have also offered me a partial scholarship to help with my tuition costs.

At first, the scholarship information was a blow to me. I was really hoping to get one of the very competitive Fellowship spots in the MA program. I was told that I was the runner-up for the scholarship, and until the deadline for acceptance, one of the individuals who was offered the Fellowship had not responded. The individual responded on the last day. It was also sad to hear that until this year they gave three Fellowships, but because of a need to cut costs at the school, they would only award two for this year. I was the third.

Once I let it sink in that the opportunity was no longer available to me, I started to think about the alternatives and I think I have a few options which are encouraging to me. I also believe that when I apply to FAFSA I have a good chance of getting some good loans since I no longer claim myself as a dependent legally.

Bottom line: I'm going back to school and I am excited about it, regardless of the cost to me! I can make it happen if its what I really want. Knowing my reaction to all this information, I am truly invested in this and I am willing to make some changes in my concept of what going for my masters means if that's what it takes. I am just excited to be getting myself in a direction that will be time well spent and moving towards a life of fulfilling work.