His first sail

Simeon liked sailing a lot. In fact, he spent the first 15 minutes trying to "help" grampy man the sails ~ by untying all the ropes that is :) We did have a lifejacket with us, in case you were wondering. He didn't take too kindly to it though seeing as how it made his arms stick straight out LOL. We thought it was pretty funny, but he remained unamused.

About halfway through I took him below because he started to get fussy (missed his afternoon nap) but I'd still say that he did very well for his first trip on the bay. And here he is safely back on land.

The giving of thanks.

We spent the whole weekend in Belleisle and the weather couldn't have been better! At one point I actually wished that I'd brought capris because it was so warm. It was a lazy time - for me at least. Sean usually takes on a lot of the diapers changing and early mornings on the weekends and he outdid himself this time! One morning I was still in bed at 9:30!! it's been at least a year since I've done that and it felt soooooo good. Sean didn't have quite as much sleep - Sunday he actually had to drive Simeon home (45 minute drive) at midnight because the little *ahem* tyke wouldn't sleep. I won't get into the whole story, but suffice it to say that if you pick up and move the playpen a baby is sleeping in, that child doesn't tend to appreciate it. But let's move on.

On Saturday we picked up some pumpkins to carve for Thanksgiving - oh yes, jack-o-lanterns aren't just for Halloween anymore :)

That afternoon we relaxed in the beautiful sunshine and Simeon showcased his sensitive side. I think he may be auditioning for a men's cologne ad in this picture. Not quite sure though.And back to happy.

There's a lot more to come, but I hear the man in question starting to stir. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!

Airing Out, Clearing Up.

Hi, it's Ruth again. Here we go...

Point 1:
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision there have been 4 Republican presidents (not including Richard Nixon who was in power at the time). The decision still stands, despite the party's very vocal opposition to abortion. I want to be crystal clear that I hold a pro-life stance and do not support abortion. In my post I wasn't supporting the Democrats' pro-choice stance; I was condemning the practice of Republican candidates using the anti-abortion rhetoric to get themselves elected when they don't change (nor harbour any intention of changing) abortion laws. Now, I'm sure that we can debate nuances of bills and amendments that may impact individual states or grey areas of definition within the abortion laws but what I'm saying is, if these candidates are so anti-abortion, why is it still legal? It seems they've had ample oppourtunity. Could it just be a tactic to get votes? YES! That is my point. Votes should be based on policies and changes that candidates are actually going to make. It might give you a warm fuzzy that McCain is pro-life, but if that won't change anything then what does it really matter?
PS- McCain stated that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade if he was made President.

Point 2:
You can't create/impose a relationship with Jesus Christ by the legislation you pass. By this I mean that even if all the laws in Canada (or the US) were in exact adherence to the moral standards of the Bible, Canada would be no closer to being a Christian nation than it is right now. It is a relationship that cannot be brought about by social pressure or ideology. So say we ban gay marriage and make things incredibly tough socially and legally for homosexual people. Hands up if you believe this will make homosexuals say "Oh! I guess this must be wrong, I didn't realize before it was made illegal." Change in peoples' lives is brought about by Christ and not by government. Again, I don't agree with homosexuality but I'm not going to march and picket about it because I believe such behaviour only alienates people and drives them away from Christianity in general. Incidentally the behaviour in question was rampant in Christ's time and He didn't run around shouting with a sign in His hand, either, or spend His evenings madly dashing off letters to Caesar. Revival is not brought about by government; it is effected by the people. So, is it vitally important to me if my political leader is a Christian? No, and here's why: a) the Church has always been strongest when it has been furthest removed from the state anyway and b) the possession of good morals is not exclusive to Christians. If that's the tack you take then you'd better make sure your boss/CEO/manager, etc. is a believer too because otherwise he/she is clearly incapable of making any intelligent decisions.

Point 3:
Voting is personal and it should not be said that Christians should vote for a certain party no matter what. I'll use the example of the States because this attitude seems more prevalent there. In recent years Republicans have demonstrated disregard for the poorest peoples and have allowed health insurance companies to line their pockets while denying benefits to their customers; there are a lot more issues but you get the picture. To the average Canadian observer Republican seems to equal rich, white men who don't care about anyone else, but they are "opposed" to abortion. The Democrats are not opposed to abortion, but seem to want to help the poor, middle class and oppressed individuals. So, if a Christian feels that the Democratic platform matches 90% of their morals and the Republicans only 10% then why is it unreasonable that a Christian person would want to vote Democrat? Sometimes refusing to do so looks like blind allegiance. I know that the issue of who to vote for isn't that simple and there are probably a lot of good, valid reasons to vote Republican but here's my point: it is positively ridiculous to say that someone cannot be a Christian while not voting Republican. Last time I checked none of us was omniscient, so let's not decide who is saved based on a ballot. Thanks so much.

Feel free to comment.