Home Fires

I'm Happy, But...

2010-10-24T01:27:00.005-05:00

I saw on Yahoo! News yesterday that Celine Dion has given birth to twin boys. The Canadian singer announced her pregnancy earlier this year and has now blessed her husband Rene with two more sons and her son Rene-Charles with two brothers. I'm happy for Ms. Dion and her family, really I am, but I can't help feeling that something's a bit amiss here.

Celine Dion under went six in-vitro fertilization attempts to get pregnant again after having her first child, and I think that's what's bothering me. After already having their own biological child why didn't Celine Dion and her husband simply adopt if they wanted more children? If Celine Dion just wanted to experience pregnancy again she could've adopted embryos--yes, you can do that--and had the unique joy of carrying and giving birth to her adopted child(ren). I know I really don't have the right to second guess anyone's private decisions, but with so many children in this world needing loving homes it just irks me that so many people remain obsessed with having biological kids even after they've already had one.

I remember feeling the same way when the famous McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997. These children were the results of fertility treatments, which would've been understandable if Bobbie McCaughey, their mother, were trying to get pregnant for the first time. But Bobbie and husband Kenny already had a biological daughter, Mikayla. So why, I remember asking myself at the time, didn't they adopt if they wanted more children? Especially since the McCaugheys implied they were devout Christians. I didn't understand then and I don't understand now.

I sympathize with infertile couples. I can understand couples who've never had a baby getting fertility treatments. I can understand them wanting to have the experience of bringing their own child into the world. But once an infertile couple has had their own baby they should consider adoption if they want more children. At the very least, fertility clinics and doctors should give preference to couples who've never had their own child (if they don't do that already).

I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning. I'm happy for Celine Dion and her family. I know that her twins will be well taken care of and well loved. It's just sad that two little babies won't be coming out of an orphanage or a frozen embryo container because Ms. Dion and her husband were more devoted to genetics than parenting. And far too many other people feel the same way. I really, really hope that changes. Parenting is about love not biology. I pray more people realize that.

Rocker Babies! Grown Ups BEWARE!!!!

2010-06-21T18:09:00.006-05:00

In a change of pace I've posted two of the cutest videos I've seen on YouTube in a long time. These two little future rockers have the motions done pat. All they need is the 'tude and the world won't know what hit it. ROCK ON BABIES!!!!

Fist banging never looked so cute. And dig that skull pacifier!

Getcha head bangin' on, Katie! And that KISS song ROCKS!!!!

Happy Fathers' Day!

2010-06-20T21:27:00.002-05:00

Happy Fathers' Day to all you loving, devoted, responsible men who've taken on the awesome task of successfully raising the next generation. I commend today's fathers even more than mothers because in our feminist society being a dad has become an often thankless job.

Today, in the name of gender equality, everything to do with men has been subjected to calculated status degradation. Fatherhood has come under especially intense attack. Modern dads often find their position and role confusing and unstable. Their necessity to their children is belittled but if they behave according to that expectation they're denounced as "deadbeats". And when they perform their parental duties splendidly, today's dads still get the proverbial short end of the stick. In divorce, for instance, good fathers will usually lose custody to good mothers simply because of their gender. A dad has to prove that the mother is unfit in order to have any real hope of gaining full custody of his children. He is definitely NOT assumed to be the better parent just because he's the dad.

And then there's the "bad dads" propaganda. Movies, books, sensational news stories, school "safety" programs, etc., all reenforcing the notion that fathers are far and away the parents most likely to abuse children. But that's not true. When abuse, especially sexual abuse, occurs in families studies show that stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are the usual perpertrators. Having the biological father in the home is one of the main predictors of children's domestic safety. In other words, real fathers don't abuse their kids, but that's not what gets hyped.

Considering how much the deck is stacked against dads today, it's remarkable so many men enthusiastically become them. That's why good fathers in our modern society deserve recognition and praise more than good mothers. They are truly fighting an uphill battle to succeed in the hardest and most crucial job there is: raising children. So I recognize, praise, and salute YOU, the committed patriarchs whose lives are your kids. Don't let a thankless, hostile society discourage you. Be proud of yourselves and confident of the irreplacable role you play in your children's lives. You are truly doing God's work and don't you ever forget it!

Social Liberals Strike Again

2010-06-17T23:48:00.007-05:00

In the current political climate most Americans believe fiscal liberalism, i.e. massive government spending, is the main menace to our nation; however, the threat of social liberalism can't be dismissed. It's still there, devouring our families and traditional moral order. And here's the proof.

On tonight's edition of The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly revealed that the school board in Provincetown, MA has decided not only to give condoms to any student who asks but to deny parents the right to object. This would be outrageous even if we were talking about high school students, but the liberal educators in Provincetown have ok'd giving condoms to elementary school kids! And Mom and Dad can't say no. The arrogance of social liberals is mind boggling.

And just what justification did the Provincetown educational progressives have for distributing prophylactics to kids and trampling parental rights? I don't know; none of them could be reached for comment by the time the show aired. I think I know what these "concerned" school officials would say, though. They'd say that they're just trying to protect children from STDs and pregnancy, and I'd say, yeah, right.

Here's the deal.

Social liberals HATE the traditional, Bible-based morality that has guided America since its founding and even before. They particularly despise traditionalism's sexual ethic which defines moral sexual relations as only those that occur between a married man and woman. Liberals blame traditional sexual morality for everything from homophobia to wife beating. Only by replacing traditionalism with an anti-Biblical, free sex ethic, they believe, can we ensure an enlightened and egalitarian society. And traditionalism, liberals have found, can be quite easily replaced by teaching children their free sex ethic in public schools.

That's what Provincetown's condom give away,like all condom give aways, is really about: defeating Bible-based, traditional values, NOT protecting kids from pregnancy and disease. For social liberals it's a quasi-religious belief that defeating traditional values is necessary to create a just society. Consequently, they feel justified in using whatever means they can to ensure said defeat. Violating parental rights and authority comes naturally to social progressives since such rights and authority are part of the value system they're working to eliminate.

But what about dissenters from the progressive socio-sexual vision? Social liberals will respond to them the same way they responded to dissenters from health care "reform", namely, with contempt and arrogant paternalism. Unshakeably convinced that they alone know what's best for society, social liberals believe people will embrace their free sex ethic once it's been forced on them and they experience the resulting utopia. Until then, those who object to a sexualized childhood and anti-parent policies will be demonized as religious nuts, bigots, and/or ignorant defenders of outmoded thinking. And liberal educators' indoctrination of the nation's children will continue unabated.

As stated at the beginning of this post, massive fiscal irresponsibility IS a threat to the nation; I'm not trying to down play that. However, those of us who are conservative, who are traditionalist, must understand that progressives are waging a two front war on America. Their fight is fiscal AND social. Conservatives are gallantly fighting the fiscal war but too many seem to have surrendered in the social war. We can't do that. There's more at stake than the size of government or what happens to our money.

What good is a balanced budget if parents can't raise their children as they see fit?

What good are lower taxes if our history is rewritten and our heritage is smeared?

What good is smaller government if it can still undermine traditional values through the schools?

The actions of the Provincetown, MA school board show that progressives are determined to impose their Godless worldview on the whole of society. They will never stand down and neither should we. We must fight them on the social issues as tenaciously as we fight them on the fiscal issues. Our children and nation deserve nothing less.

Happy Mothers' Day!

2010-05-09T20:43:00.003-05:00

Happy Mothers' Day to all the moms out there, and all the non-moms who are playing the role of mom so well that the kids can't tell the difference. I'm talking about the grandmas, the aunties, the stepmoms, and, in some cases, even big sisters who are raising kids like real mothers. All of you, moms and "like-a-moms", are a HUGE blessing to the children whom you love and pour your every effort into to make them loving, moral, and responsible human beings who add to rather than take from society. I salute all of you on this, your day, and wish you blessings and happiness as the year goes on. And most of all I wish the same to my mom, who turned 72 this year and, in the summer, will mark four years as a breast cancer survivor. I LOVE YOU, MAMA! GOD BLESS YOU!

No "Rescue Plan" Necessary

2010-05-08T22:47:00.006-05:00

When I was standing in the checkout line at the store last Sunday I noticed a blurb on the cover of the Black magazine Essence. It read, "Is Your Child Obese? Michelle Obama Has a Rescue Plan" (or something close to that). When I saw that I was angered and saddened at the same time. I couldn't believe how much dependence on government had become an unquestioned part of reality for many Americans, especially Blacks. Like I said, it made me both angry and sad.

I admit I didn't read the actual article; the cover blurb totally turned me off. The very idea that obese children and their parents need a rescue plan from the government is just so offensive. It presupposes that parents just aren't smart enough to raise their children on their own and need input from government to succeed. What nonsense!

Yes, there are parents who really are incompetent, abusive, or negligent, but those parents are in a very small minorty. And yes, there are parents who are just too wimpy to impose anything, like better eating habits, on their kids. But those parents, too, are most likely in the minority. If their child is obese most parents can see that and know what to do about it. The equation is simple. Too much inactivity plus too much food equals too much fat. Most parents get that. And they know what to do about it. Governmental intervention is NOT necessary.

If Michelle Obama wants to use her position as First Lady to simply encourage parents to practice better nutrition with their children, that's ok. That would be no different from, say, a Hollywood celebrity using his prominence to raise awareness of an issue. Prominent people using their position for good is good. But if Michelle Obama is using the problem of childhood obesity as an excuse to get more government regulation into our lives, that's unacceptable.

Parents don't need government telling them how to parent. They don't need government to teach them how to feed their children or get them away from the tv and out to play. Parents already know how to do that. Sure, many of them aren't doing that but it's not because they don't know how. In this age of stressed out, dual income families, it's often much easier to buy McDonald's for dinner than prepare a healthy meal at home. There are solutions to that quandry and if Michelle Obama just wants to give parents some helpful information, that's fine. Anything beyond that, though, is suspect.

Michelle Obama needs to remember who she is. She's the First Lady NOT the First Mother. More control by the state is NOT what America's families need. Mom and Dad are raising the kids and need to be pretty much left alone to do that job as they see fit. If that means many parents will make choices for their children that Michelle Obama wouldn't make for hers, so be it. That's called freedom and most Americans think it's pretty cool. Michelle Obama should get a clue.

Not Cute!!!!

2010-01-11T21:02:00.006-06:00

First, a belated Happy New Year to one and all. Hope your holiday was great and hope the upcoming year will be exceedingly blessed for you!

Now on to the post.

While I don't think celebrities set the standard for parenting, or anything else, I do think they can lend some legitimacy to a trend, idea, or behavior that otherwise would be ignored or even condemned. That's why the apparent trend of celebrity tots wearing heels disturbs me.

It started with Suri Cruise.

The daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes has been photographed on several different occasions wearing heels as if she were 16 instead of 3. I found this to be rather weird. The Cruises let Suri suck a bottle long past her second birthday. Then, almost as soon as she's off the bottle, they allow their child to dress like a teenager. Weird. But the Cruises are Scientologists so I figured this was part of their religion. I was glad that Suri Cruise was the only celebrity preschooler trying to channel Miley Cyrus. Then came Denise Richards' daughters.

I recently saw pictures of Sam and Lola Sheen--daughters of Denise and her ex, Charlie Sheen--wearing black, heeled boots that looked more suitable for biker chicks than preschoolers. How can a mother have such poor judgment? What's going on here? It's beyond me that any company would even make children's shoes with heels. I don't get this. I don't get this adultification and sexualization of our children. What is it supposed to achieve?

Little children should be allowed to be little children. They do NOT need to go from the high chair to high heels in one step. They should NOT be prancing around in heels, lipstick, dangling earrings, and grown up looking dresses. I mean, if they're allowed to do that at 3, what's left for them to do at 13?

Parents who put their preschool girls in adolescent get-up and think it's cute are off their proverbial rocker. It is definitely NOT cute. Cute is a little girl wobbling around in her mother's high heels pretending to be grown up. Freakish is the word that best describes that same little girl wearing HER OWN high heels and accessorized like a super model. Freakish, and sad.

I think the Cruises, Denise Richards, and all parents who allow this behavior are being very irresponsible. Parents are supposed to love, nurture, and protect their children. They are supposed to set limits and teach values. Letting their children grow up too fast is a failure of the parental duty that can have disastrous consequences. I hope all those irresponsible parents will get a clue, and fast. Their children are depending on them. If only they knew that.

Why The Hate?

2009-09-07T09:59:00.002-05:00

A few days ago I saw on Yahoo! News that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, America's most famous parents, are expecting their 19th--yes, 19th!--baby. I was happy for them but some of the comments I read following the story disturbed me. They were nasty, mean-spirited, hateful. I wouldn't have 19 children myself, and I have expressed dismay that the Duggars didn't adopt a child or two, but I certainly don't hate them. Many people, though, seem to. Why?

As stated above, the Duggars were the targets of some nasty comments. What really struck me was how disconnected from reality some of those comments were. They were rants of blind hate, spoken in total disregard of the fact that they had no basis in fact. The epitome of those rants was the charge that the Duggars were a burden on society. A burden on society?! The Duggars are not and have never been on welfare, so how could they be a burden on society? The claim was that they were a burden because their children had to be educated at taxpayer's expense. Well, the Duggar kids are homeschooled, and even if they attended public school, their parents pay taxes just like everyone else. So, again, how are they a burden on society? Answer: they're not! But that doesn't matter to the people who hate the Duggars. And I ask again, why are they so hated?

I don't think the Duggars are hated because of their super large family. I think the Duggars are hated because of the kind of people they are. The Duggars are White, conservative Christians, and there is a liberal segment of our society that hates such people and does not want to see their numbers increase. Michelle and Jim-Bob Duggar have been called everything from ignorant to homophobic. Can you imagine them being called such things if they were Muslim or Black? Of course not. That would violate the progessive tenet of never criticizing minorities. But it's open season on White Christians.

Well, I want to say I support the Duggars. Yes, I wished they'd adopted a child but I accept that they've chosen to live out their pro-life, Christian beliefs another way. And who knows? Maybe some of their children will adopt. At any rate, the Duggars have done a better job with 18 kids than many "modern" parents have done with only one or two. Maybe that's another reason why the Duggars are so hated. Their success with over a dozen kids makes so many struggling, small-family parents look incompetent. Hmmmmm, hating White Christians AND being made to feel incompetent? That could add up to a potent brew of animosity. Oh wait, it already has.

Corruption In Vermont

2009-04-19T19:14:00.004-05:00

What's up with Vermont? I saw on "The O'Reilly Factor" a few days ago that this VERY liberal state is considering legalizing "sexting" among teens as young as thirteen. For those who don't know sexting is the practice of taking sexually explicit pictures on a cell phone and text messaging them to another person.

Over the last couple of years I've heard of more and more instances of kids sexting each other. In a few cases kids have been arrested and labelled sexual predators for sending and/or receiving sexually explicit photos of themselves or others. The state of Vermont wants to legalize sexting supposedly to protect kids who just might be doing something stupid from getting slapped with the predator label. Sounds good, but it's not. There's something else going on here.

If Vermont doesn't want teens to be designated sexual predators for sexting it could simply lower the legal penalty for the act. But no, Vermont wants to completely legalize sexting for kids. Kids! Oh, there are stipulations. The sexting must be by kids 13-18 years old and sent only to other 13-18 year olds with whom they have a "committed relationship". Did you get that? A committed relationship. For 13 year olds! What is going on here? I think Bill O'Reilly hit the proverbial nail at least partially on the head.

O'Reilly opined that Vermont's move reflects the progressives' goal of eliminating all sexual boundaries for everyone, including children. I would take this further and say that Vermont's action is also part of a progressive plan to legitimize adult-child sex. Hear me out.

As I stated above, the proposal to legalize sexting by kids stipulates that the act must occur between kids in a committed relationship. The notion of a committed relationship among teens as young as 13 presupposes that said teens can consent to sex. And if 13-18 year olds can consent to sex among themselves why not with older people, i.e. adults? Thus, legalizing sexting could be the opening salvo against age of consent laws which, in turn, could be a precursor to normalizing sex between adults and kids. Why would progressives want to normalizing such sexual deviancy?

Progressives despise America's traditional, Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. They regard it as repressive and the source of misogyny and anti-gay bigotry. Eradicating this ethic is a prime goal of the progressive movement. For progs, unfettered sexual expression is the panacea for society, and they believe it should include children. The effort to legalize sexting is just the latest instance of that belief run amok.

Vermont is corrupt. Progressives appear to have almost total control there. From opposing Jessica's Law to legalizing sexting this state is a lost cause. And it's a portent of what lies ahead for all of America if we traditionalists fail. We can't lose heart. We can't give up. We can't be afraid. An "anything goes" philosophy is guaranteed to put our kids at risk. We need to shout, from the bottom of our hearts, NO! NO to sexting! NO to anything goes! NO to Vermont! The future and well-being of our children depend on that.

Everyone Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand

2009-03-08T23:13:00.003-05:00

I saw this video on a friend's blog and was so moved by it that I had to post it here. It is short but powerful. If, after viewing this video, you still cling to the canard that unborn babies aren't human and abortion isn't murder, then you have a hole in your soul. God help you. The rest of us will cry...for the babies, not you.

Suffer the little children to come unto Me.

What's In A Name?

2009-01-23T23:17:00.002-06:00

If your name is Adolf Hitler Campbell, a lot.

Little Adolf Hitler Campbell shot to notoriety in December when a grocery store refused his parents' request to put his full name on his birthday cake. Heath and Deborah Campbell, Adolf's parents, denied they were racist even though their two other children, both girls, have Nazi inspired names. Now the state of New Jersey, where the Campbells live, has removed Adolf and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nations and Honszlynn Hinnler Jeannie, from their parents. Most people seem to think that was a good move; I don't.

The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seized the Campbell children supposedly because a neighbor accused their parents of abuse and their father of domestic violence. The child welfare agency insists that it would never remove children from their homes just because of their names, but Deborah Campbell believes her children's names are the real problem. I agree.

I've heard the Campbells called unfit and abusive parents for naming their son Adolf Hitler. I believe that naming your child after someone is a way to honor that person. I believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell intended to honor Der Fuhrer with their son's name. I believe they are racists, in spite of their denial. And I believe that giving a child a badly stigmatized name is a socially disasterous move; socially disasterous, though, is NOT the same thing as abusive. And being a racist doesn't automatically make anyone an unfit parent. But the state of New Jersey apparently believes that it does. Whatever their neighbor's accusations, I believe Heath and Deborah Campbell lost custody of their kids because they have beliefs that the state doesn't approve of. Their children's names tipped off the state to those beliefs. This is chilling.

The state has an obligation to protect children from abuse but under no circumstances should the definition of abuse be political. If that happens children become powerful tools the state can use to punish politically incorrect adults. And when child abuse is politicized its prosecution can become highly selective. Does anyone believe, for instance, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Osama ben Laden from radical Muslim parents? Does anyone believe, even for a second, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot from Communist parents? We know that would never happen. Muslim civil rights groups and the ACLU would be screaming in the streets and the courts. In the current politically correct climate it's ok to be a radical Muslim or a Communist; it's not ok to be a White racist, supremacist, or separatist. That's why the Campbell children were taken from their parents. And that should terrify everyone because the next "wrong" beliefs could be yours and child protective services could come calling.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T19:28:00.002-06:00

Merry Christmas, happy Hannukah, and a Blessed New Year to everyone!

Here's One For Solomon

2008-08-13T22:55:00.005-05:00

Who should get baby Manji? That's the question facing India's Supreme Court as it tries to decide the fate of a baby girl born to a Japanese father and an Indian surrogate mother. This case reveals not only problems with practice of surrogacy but also what happens when law trumps common sense. For those of you who don't know, here's baby Manji's story.

In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.

India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.

An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.

This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.

Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.

God Bless You, Mama

2008-08-09T14:26:00.003-05:00

Today is a very special day. Today marks the second anniversary of my mother being cancer free.

Mama was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, only 18 months after my father died of the disease. My sister and I were panic stricken. Mama, though, was calm and displayed a remarkable level of confidence that she would be alright. She was...and is.

I don't have the best relationship with my mother. Often our interactions are difficult and fraught with tension. Good days are that way usually because we both choose not to go beyond the superficial in our conversation. Still, I love my mother dearly and I'm so grateful that she is still here. Every day that she wakes up is another chance that we can make our relationship better. So I happily and thankfully celebrate this special day, and prayerfully look forward to many more.

God bless you, Mama. I love you.

Straight Out Of "Home Alone"

2008-08-04T10:48:00.005-05:00

I read this on Yahoo! News this morning.

In a mad dash to board a plane to Paris, an ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple forgot one of their five children at Ben Gurion airport. The child, a three-year-old girl, was found by airport personnel wandering around and crying for her mother. She was later flown to Paris, accompanied by airport staff, and reunited with her parents. The parents, whose names haven't been released, didn't know they were missing a child until they were informed in flight that their daughter had been found at Ben Gurion. They will be investigated for parental negligence when the family returns from their vacation.

Wow! I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the surface it's easy to accuse those parents of neglect. How could they possibly not know their little girl was not with the family? Then again, airports are big, crowded, busy places and when you're trying to shuffle five little ones plus luggage through them it's easy to see how children and parents could get separated. This is especially true if they are running late and rushing to make it to the plane, as this family was. So I can cut the parents some slack on losing sight of their child in the airport. What gets me is how they didn't notice the three-year-old was missing once they got on the plane.

Airplanes, in sharp contrast to airports, are small, contained spaces where it should be fairly easy to do a head count. Why didn't the parents do such a head count? That's the first thing I would've done. What did they do to make sure each child was accounted for? Who did they think had their daughter, since she obviously wasn't with them? Were they depending on one of the older kids to look after the three-year-old? And if so, why didn't that child tell the parents that his/her little sister was missing? Was the older child scared of the parents? These are the questions that keep running through my mind.

I don't want to condemn these parents. It's not like they left their child in a hot car or some other life threatening place. And I understand how hard it can be to keep up with one child, let alone five. On the other hand, I also know that if you're supervising more than one child you must constantly count, count, count! Doing head counts and name checks, where each child says "Here!" when his name is called, is crucial to prevent losing a child or discovering early that a child has wandered off. I learned that trick from working in day care and I will always follow it because it works. This family should've tried it.

In the end I suppose we should just be thankful that the little Ben Gurion Girl was found unharmed and safely reunited with her family. I hope Israeli authorities won't be too hard on her parents. Everyone involved has, I'm sure, been through enough trauma.

Home Alone, indeed.

Universal Pre-K. Yes Or No?

2008-07-15T23:46:00.003-05:00

It's part of Barack Obama's grand plan to change America. Universal pre-k. From what I understand, Obama plans to use federal money to make pre-kindergarten education available for all American children at no cost. Apparently, Obama doesn't plan to make it mandatory to send children to pre-k, just free and available for all parents who want it. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.

Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.

Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.

Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.

ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.

The Real Problem With Gay Marriage

2008-07-11T17:06:00.004-05:00

I got this from my blogging friend Roadie who got it from...well, I don't know where he got it from but this is great little post. Sometimes humor delivers the truth better than anything else does. Enjoy!

San Francisco City Hall

Morning at San Francisco City Hall

"Next"
"We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you're not gay you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we're not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert. Jane loves me and June. June loves Robert and Jane. And Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No. It's just that, well, the traditional idea of marrige is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return."
"That does it. I quit!"

See, I told you humor sometimes speaks the truth better than anything else can. Thanks Roadie!

Congratulations! But...

2008-06-02T23:55:00.008-05:00

I heard a few weeks ago that Michelle Duggar, mom to the famous Duggar clan, is pregnant again. This baby will be number eighteen--eighteen!--for Michelle and her husband Jim Bob. I waited a while to write on this subject because I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not against large families; in fact, I think we need more of them. It's just that I feel a little disappointed that Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar never adopted a child. Actually, the Duggars are just one example of what I consider to be a shortcoming among pro-life people, especially Christian pro-life people.

Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?

Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.

Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.

Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.

Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.

When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.

As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.

I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.

A Happy Mothers' Day After All

2008-05-11T23:39:00.005-05:00

Well, Mothers' Day turned out great after all. In fact, it was wonderful. I'm so happy because I didn't expect the day to go well.

Mother's Day actually got off to a bad start Thursday, when the cable tv I'd ordered for Mom for her gift was installed. The cable guy hadn't even left the house when Mom started complaining that the tv's picture wasn't clear. Now, my Mom had been whining for months about how bad the picture quality was on the tv in her bedroom. In fact, she could only get one channel and it was full of lines and snow. Instead of being grateful that she now had multiple line and snow free channels to choose from, she chose to find something wrong. I was hurt and pissed. I felt like cussing my Mom out and then ripping the cable from the wall and tossing it and the tv out the window. I didn't do that, of course. But I sure felt like it.

How could Mom be so ungrateful? That was the question I tearfully posed to my sister when I talked to her on Saturday. Thank God for big sisters! Sis told me not to worry. She said she'd talk to Mom and tell her that if she was that unhappy with cable she would have it taken out. She'd call Mom's bluff which would almost certainly shut her up. I felt better and actually started looking forward to Sunday. I'm glad I did.

When Mother's Day arrived I was in a good mood and it only got better. The weather was GORGEOUS. Mom loved the card I gave her. Sis came over and we took Mom to a place called Weston Gardens. We all had fun looking at the different plants, flowers, and sculptures there. There was also live harp music and lots of different types of herbal teas to try. All mothers got to get a free plant. Mom chose a begonia. We really had a great time and I can't wait to go back.

After the trip to Weston Gardens Mom, my uncle, and I went to the cemetary to put flowers on the graves of my grandparents, uncle, and Dad. I hadn't planned on going but I decided to go so I could spend time with my uncle. Mom had chosen some really pretty flowers for the graves and she arranged them quite well. Personally, I've moved past the need to visit my loved ones' graves and worry about how they look, but that's still important to Mom and it was sweet to see her taking such care to make the flowers look just right. When she was finished the graves looked great and I was happy I'd gone to the cemetary with Mom and Uncle.

Finally, Mom and I went out to eat at her favorite restaurant. We both enjoyed our meal and came home quite satisfied. Later, when Mom was in bed, she told me that she had enjoyed me on all the outings we'd had. I was really touched, and a little surprised, and I told Mom I had enjoyed her, too. And that was the truth.

Oh, and the cable tv? Sis did what she'd told me she would do. She called Mom's bluff and suddenly the picture was fine. Like I said, thank God for big sisters. And thank God for a truly happy Mother's Day.

To Spank Or Not To Spank

2008-05-01T22:09:00.004-05:00

Well, I guess it's time to bring up THAT issue.

While surging blogs on BlogExplosion several months ago I came across an anti-spanking blog. I briefly perused the site and was going to leave a comment when I saw that comments had been disabled by the author due to unpleasant remarks left by spanker who "tend to be an angry lot". I lost all interest in the blog right then and there. To accuse adults who spank children of being somehow abnormally angry is the kind of self-righteousness that I often see in anti-spankers.

As you've probably guessed I'm pro-spanking, i.e. I believe that parents who want to spank their children should be allowed to withtout judgement and definitely withou interfernce from the state. I even believe that day care workers should be allowed to spank children with parental permission. I know I just ticked off half the universe with that opinion. People, especially the anti-spankers, can get really emotional on this issue. So let me explain why I believe spanking is ok.

The main reason I'm pro-spanking is because I was spanked as a child and I turned out alright. No, I don't think that everything that happens to someone in childhood should be mindlessly accepted and repeated. I certainly believe in subjecting one's upbringing to a critical review. However, I was spanked as a child and I'm ok. As hard as it may be for the anti-spankers to believe I'm not a child abuser, domestic abuser, violent criminal or depressed psychotic in spite of the fact that my mother whipped my tush when I needed it. The idea that spanking teaches violence is one of the anti-spankers' favorite arguments against physical punishment but I've never seen that connection in real life.

Sure, there are murderers and other violent criminals who were spanked as kids but there are also countless hardworking, law-abiding, and decent people who are loving spouses and parents who were also spanked as kids. Somehow their existence doesn't register on the anti-spankers' radar screens. Let's be honest here. It takes a combination of many different influences to make someone an habitually violent person. To say that spanking is the decisive factor is a little too pat for me.

Part of the problem is that anti-spanking activists tend to conflate spanking with abuse. The blog mentioned above claimed it was dedicated to protecting children from "physical assault". That's a loaded statement. The term "assault" conjures up dire images in the minds of most people. The effort to equate those images with parents who pop their kids on the behind every once in a while is insulting, to say the least. But that's the dishonest tactic the anti-spankers use. Of course, many anti-spankers may sincerely believe that any physical punishment of children is physical assault, but that just makes me question their judgment.

Spanking isn't abuse; it's a method of discipline that children need to become productive, responsible adults. Children are not the equal of adults, a fact some anti-spankers tend to forget. Children are rightfully under the authority of adults because their understanding of life is not fully developed. Children don't know what is best for them but will do whatever is appealing regardless of the consequences. In fact, they lack the life experience to fully understand the concept of consequences, especially long term consequences. As the Bible so accurately puts it, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it from him." I think the extent to which someone believes this proverb determines whether he's pro or anti-spanking.

I don't believe that parents have to spank their children to raise them properly. I just believe that parents who do shouldn't be condemned for it. I feel that pro-spanking people--parents and non-parents alike--are by far the more tolerant side of this debate. They aren't the ones accusing people of being abusers and assaulters; they aren't the ones demanding that the state force their views on others through force of law.

If you don't want to spank your child then don't. If you believe that spanking is an effective tool in an overall discipline strategy then use it and don't sweat what the anti-spankers say. Fight all attempst to outlaw spanking; that's an egregious assault on parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. Yes, some people will make decisions for their kids that other people don't like but unless those decisions are abusive government--and activists of all kinds--has absolutely NO right to interfere. So I say spank if you feel it's right, don't if you don't, and live and let live. That's a lesson in tolerance children can really use.

Injustice In The Lone Star State

2008-04-16T12:16:00.009-05:00

I'm beginning to believe I'm the only person in America who has a problem with the ongoing crackdown on that polygamist sect in Texas. I want to make it clear that I oppose any abuse of children and I'm not defending this sect's beliefs or marital practices. However, I feel the state of Texas has committed a grave injustice by removing over 400 sect children from their parents.

As you know this sect, called the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, practices plural marriage and, apparently, routinely marries underage girls to older men. It was a claim of spousal abuse from one such girl that triggered the removal of the group's children. Rather than deal with that one case in the normal fashion Texas authorities are using it as a pretext to shut down this sect. I strongly suspect it's our mainstream culture's visceral dislike of polygamy, and not concern about child abuse, that's really driving this crackdown. The FLDS parents are being punished for daring to live a lifestyle society doesn't like. That's what is most disturbing about this case.

Think about it. Why are Texas authorities so eager to terminate the parental rights of the FLDS parents? Because they're desperate to save the children from abuse? Not hardly. A few months ago a Texas mother threw her two sons off a freeway overpass then jumped herself. Fortunately they all survived, but the children had been in state custody at least once before this ordeal. If the state of Texas was so concerned about protecting children from abuse why did it give those two boys back to an abusive mother? Why have child protective services all over America given children back to unfit parents who later killed them? Government has a dismal record of protecting children from abuse.

But, you might say, the government had to do something with the FLDS. These people weren't just polygamists, they were child sexual abusers. Why, they gave underage girls in marriage to men old enough to be their grandfathers! That sounds horrible I know, but just what is it that people don't like about these May-December marriages? It certainly isn't the sex part. For all the sanctimonious outrage at the FLDS's marital/sexual practices the truth is our mainstream culture loves underage sex. Our popular entertainment is saturated with it; our schools aid and abet it.

For example, virtually every teen horror flick of the last 30 years has included sexual intercourse between the teen characters. Popular teen tv shows are also full of underage sexual activity. Music constantly pumps pro-promiscuity messages into the hearts and minds of our kids. And the original version of The Vagina Monologues, a very popular feminist play, positively portrayed the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a grown woman.

Public schools continue the sexual evangelizing of our kids. Most teach an amoral sexual ethic where anything goes so long as you don't get pregnant or get a disease. Last year a Maine public school began dispensing contraceptives to 11-year-olds without parental knowledge let alone consent. No provision was included in the policy to ascertain the age of the preteens' sexual partners. Other schools were reported to be considering the same policy. All to keep the kiddies safe, they claimed. Of course, such policies make a mockery out of age of consent laws and loudly proclaimed committments to childhood innocence. Yes, we mainstreamers love kiddie sex even as we stand in pious condemnation of those child marrying polygamists.

If I had a daughter I wouldn't marry her to an older man, but is that really the worst thing that could happen to her? And if polygamy is so awful why isn't the state of Texas investigating it in the Muslim community? Why isn't the state of Texas investigating honor killing, where girls are murdered for "shaming" their families? Two young Muslim sisters were victims of an apparent honor killing back in January. Texas authorities didn't respond by taking other Muslim girls from their families on the grounds that they, too, might be killed. Yet the mere potential for abuse--abuse, not murder--was deemed justifiable grounds to snatch hundreds of Mormon kids from their parents.

I smell a rat. Something is really, really wrong here. The removal of the FLDS kids was a virtual kidnapping by the state of Texas. If it is allowed to stand it will bode ill for all families whose lifestyles are remotely unconventional. Families whose beliefs strongly contradict the prevailing secular, PC orthodoxy will be especially vulnerable. Homeschoolers in California recently got a preview of that.

I ask all people who believe in freedom, family autonomy and parental rights to pray that the FLDS parents get their children back. Yes, their beliefs may be starkly different from yours; you may even find them repulsive. But if the state can take those fundamentalists' kids, it can take yours. Whose to say when your lifestyle will be judged unacceptable. So I think you'd better pray for those "weird" Mormons because the family and children you save may be your own.

Attack on Homeschooling

2008-03-12T23:31:00.005-05:00

A couple of days ago a court in California issued a ruling that could end the majority of homeschooling taking place in that state. The Second District Court of Appeals (SDCA) ruled that parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their children and that education should be done only by credentialed teachers. How arrogant!

So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.

If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.

Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.

Paternity Wars

2008-02-15T23:25:00.010-06:00

Men should not have to pay child support for children who are not theirs. That sounds simple and fair enough, but it's not. All over America men are being forced to pay for kids they were deceived into believing were theirs. And that's not fair.

This issue first caught my attention several years ago when a rash of stories about non-fathers being forced to pay child support hit the media. One story that got a lot of air time centered on a man who didn't discover that one of his three sons wasn't his until after his divorce, yet he was ordered to pay support for that child along with the others. And then there was the man who not only wasn't the father of the girl he was ordered to pay for, but he didn't even know the mother. He just had the misfortune of having the same name as her ex-boyfriend. I was instantly struck by the injustice done to those men. Why should they or any men be forced by law to pay for children they didn't sire?

Supporters of this treacherous practice say the best interest of the child should overrule any concern about fairness to adults. They say that kids need support no matter what and they also point out that men do have a time period in which they can contest a claim of paternity. This is true but the time period is only 30 days long and when it's over there's little chance of a successful appeal. A man is stuck even if he never got the initial claim in the time frame allowed. That's what happened to a Florida man just last year.

Francisco Rodriguez was targeted for $10,000 in back child support, plus $305 in monthly payments, for a girl DNA testing proved wasn't his. The girl's mother, a former girlfriend of Rodriguez, testified that he didn't father her daughter and even requested that the child support payments be stopped. However, the state of Florida persisted in charging Rodriguez because he missed the deadline for contesting paternity. I don't know the final outcome for Francisco Rodriguez and his family but I pray it was just. If it wasn't Rodriguez is stuck paying money to another man's child while his own children go without. That is NOT fair!

How can we stop this insanity? Simple. First, women who commit paternity fraud must be prosecuted and made to pay back any money they received from their victims. Second, we must require all children to be given a paternity test at birth. This will let men know their true relationship to a child up front. Men who choose to assume responsibility for a child knowing they are not the father shouldn't be allowed to back out later. So post-natal paternity tests will protect both men and children. This isn't a perfect solution, though. Some women might opt for a clandestine abortion rather than risk their infidelity being exposed. As a prolife person that possibility weighs heavily on me but, in our imperfect world, I feel this trade off is necessary to achieve overall justice.

Feminist types will no doubt oppose my solutions. Their problem is with men, not with men who don't pay child support. They have a very vengeful mindset and believe that women defrauding or harming men is just payback for the injustices of male chauvinism. They won't say that in polite company, of course. No, their desire for revenge will be cloaked with a bogus concern for "the best interest of the child".

Well, the best interest of the child is to be loved and supported by its REAL father, or a man who freely assumes the role of father while knowing his non-paternal status. Surely the child's best interest aren't served when a fraud that's been perpetrated for years is exposed, causing upheaval in the lives of all involved. So we as a society must take paternity fraud for the serious crime that it is, punish it like we mean it, and prevent it when we can. That is in the best interest of everyone.

In Defense Of Large Families

2008-02-09T15:05:00.006-06:00

I believe it's high time that we in the West get over our love affair with infertility and start to once again appreciate and celebrate large families. I don't mean that everyone has to go out and have 10 kids. I DO mean that our culture needs to once again see children as blessings from God rather than as time consuming, figure destroying, money draining headaches, as it does now. I've been coming to this belief for several years but it crystallized in my mind several months ago when I read a disparaging article on the Duggar family of Arkansas, perhaps the most famous large--and I mean large!--family in the world.

The article, obviously written by an embittered liberal, moaned that the then 16 Duggar children were attention deprived, disparaged the family's Christian faith, and accused them of being homophobic. All because the Duggars dared to go against the "progressive" optimal family size. It never occurred to the author of that bigoted article that the Duggars and other large families may be doing the world some good.

Imagine seeing this bumper sticker on someone's car as you're driving down the street: Save the Earth! Stop socialized medicine! Now what, you may be asking, does socialized medicine and saving the earth have to do with defending large families? Well, "progressives" have been preaching for decades about the threat (supposed) overpopulation poses to the environment. These are the same people who also advocate for government welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. Yet the fewer children you have the fewer taxpayers you have. See the catch-22?

"Progressives" want zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the earth and its resources but they also want a nanny state, i.e. socialism, that can only survive with a Catholic birthrate, as author Mark Steyn put it. Many "progressives" who acknowledge the inconsistency tout immigration as the solution. But that still means increasing the population, at least in a given country or region. And if you must increase the population why not do it naturally rather than importing foreigners? After all, if those foreigners adopt "progressive" ideas they'll start having fewer babies, too. Then where will Western countries get the people they'll need to sustain their nanny states?

The only solution is to admit that we can't have it both ways. If we want fewer and fewer people in order to protect the environment we must be willling to forego the "free" state services provided by taxing workers and consumers, i.e. people. Hence the bumper sticker mentioned above. Of course, the vast majority of "progressives" will never agree to this. They'll continue to dogmatically insist on both ZPG and socialism. They'll continue to hysterically denounce large families like the Duggars even though they're providing the resource the "progressive's" socialist utopia needs most: children. But maybe those children, raised in self-reliant Christian families, will spell the end of the "progressives'" unsustainable dream and herald the coming of a saner world where both children and the earth are loved.

Wimps, Weaklings, And Wussies

2008-01-25T00:12:00.001-06:00

Have you seen those nanny shows on tv? You know the ones, Nanny 911 (which I think has been cancelled) and Super Nanny. I find them a hoot. Every time I watch them I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent people let the whole country see that they're totally incompetent parents. I can't believe the amount of child spoiling going on in our society. There are parents out there who are total pushovers with their kids, parents who are even afraid of their own children. It's sickening.

Even before the nanny shows debuted there were plenty of baby whipped parents on tv. A few years ago there was a spate of "I'm Scared of my Child" episodes on Maury Povich's talk show. They were shocking. They showed kids as young as seven literally ruling the roost, hitting their parents to keep them in line, and throwing outrageous tantrums to get their way. But what was really disgusting were the parents, all mothers, crying helplessly and pleading with their monsters to behave. YOU DON'T ASK CHILDREN TO BEHAVE, YOU MAKE THEM!!! I didn't understand why those moms didn't get it. And, unfortunately, there was more.

Another Maury Povich show discussed obese children. There was a 4-year-old boy on the show who was extremely overweight, and guess what his parents said? If they tried to limit the amount of food the child ate he'd throw a tantrum, so they let the kid stuff himself. I was dumbfounded. Those parents were risking their son's health, even his life, because they didn't want to deal with his tantrums! And, sadly, they weren't the only parents doing that. The father of a 100lb 2-year-old let the girl eat a whole bag of hot dogs for lunch because, he claimed, he loved her too much to say no. So another child's health and life were put in jepodary by a "loving" parent. And the sad parade of parental incompetence didn't end with Maury's show.

On an old episode of the news show 20/20 a mother let her preschooler make a total ass of her. The family was in the car, ready to leave home for the day, when the child insisted she needed a stuffed animal on the ride to day care. The mom got out of the car, went back into the house, and got a toy. The child whined that it wasn't the right one, so the mom went and got another toy. That one wasn't right, either. The mom got yet another toy; it, too, wasn't right. Back and forth the mom went for what seemed like forever. It never occurred to this supposedly intelligent woman to tell her daughter "No!" and then let her scream all the way to day care. My mom, like most moms of her generation, would've had no problem doing that. But today's parents act like not giving in to their kids' every demand is a crime. How did we come to this?

I think the astronomical increase in two income families is largely to blame. Many working parents feel a great deal of guilt leaving their kids in substitute care. They try to assuage that guilt by spending "quality time" with their children, meaning the little darlings are horribly indulged so they'll like mom and dad. Showering their kids with everything they ask for, and even things they don't, helps working parents further justify their employment--they "have" to work so they can get so much for the kids. So parents indulge their children to assuage their guilt, thus making the kids ever more demanding, which leads to more indulging, this time to keep the kids quiet. It becomes a viscious cycle. But there's more.

Working parent guilt also makes many of today's parents uncomfortable about being the boss in their families. The collapse of traditional values in America has led to widespread disrespect for parental authority, even among parents. Many of them are indecently willing to give up huge chunks of their authority over their children in exchange for less responsibility for them. That responsibility is given to day care centers and schools. Combine this parental abdication with the obsession with children's self-esteem and "positive" discipline, and you have the perfect spoiled brat recipe.

How do we get out of this mess? Return to traditional values! As I stated above, parents of my mom's generation had no trouble telling their kids no. They and their children knew who was in charge (hint: it wasn't the kids). Today's parents need to get the same confidence in their authority. It's a vital prerequisite to teaching children character. If kids learn good character in childhood they'll be blessings to society as adults. It's the parents' job to make sure that happens. It's a daunting task. No wimps, weaklings, or wussies need apply!

Let's Legalize Polygamy

2008-01-15T21:57:00.000-06:00

I support polygamy. I probably wouldn't practice it myself but I believe it should be legal for anyone who wishes to marry that way. There, I said it. This may seem like a strange thing to advocate on a blog dedicated to family values, but here me out.

Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.

Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?

Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?

Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!

God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!

It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.

Rest In Peace, Little Angels

2008-01-09T13:54:00.000-06:00

I just read a news article on the 'net that makes me so mad I could kill. A father--I use that term very loosely--drowned his four babies to get revenge on his wife. Lam Luong, an Alabama shrimper, threw his children off a bridge after having an argument with his wife, Ngoc Phan. The article didn't say what the couple argued about but did mention that Luong had a cocaine problem.

I don't know what to say about this. I'm so sick and tired of filthy, cowardly, and downright evil "parents" murdering their own defenseless kids to solve their problems or strike back at each other. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be executed in the slowest, most painful way possible. And I mean that literally. To those of you who are squeamish about capital punishment, think of the terror the Luong children felt as they plunged 80 feet to their deaths. They were given the death penalty by their own father; he deserves no mercy.

I can't imagine what Ngoc Phan is going through right now. In one cruel instant her entire family was wiped out by the one person duty bound to protect them. Never again will Ngoc plan a birthday party, hear her children laughing, or feel their good night hugs. From now on the only time she'll see her babies is in photographs. As I said, I can't imagine what she's going through. If I were her I'd be out of my mind.

Lam Luong confessed to his crime and is facing four counts of capital murder. At least he didn't take the coward's way out and commit suicide the way so many of these killers do. But that should get him no mercy from the law. He should be executed immediately so he can stand before the Judge who really matters. The One who said it would be better to be thrown in the ocean with a milstone tied around your neck than harm one of His little ones. Lam Luong faces a justice more terrible than man's.

But his children are in a better place. They will never again know family strife, or crying, or pain. Goodbye Ryan, 3; Hannah, 2; Lindsey, 1 and Danny, 4 months. Rest in peace, little angels. I will cry for you.

Merry Christmas!

2007-12-25T22:31:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and I pray that the new year will be blessed for all.

The Christmas Shoes

2007-12-18T18:26:00.001-06:00

This is one of the most touching Christmas songs I've ever heard. It's by the group NewSong, and if it doesn't make you cry you're not human.

I wanted to post a video to the song on one of my blogs and went to YouTube to find it. There were several different videos for the song, including the official one. I chose this version, which was made as a Film School project, because of the way it ends. That clinched it for me. When you see the ending you'll know why.

None of us has a guarantee that we or our families will be here next Christmas or even next week. I hope this video makes all of us hug our loved ones a little tighter now and always.

Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year!

The Simplest Game Of All

2007-12-07T21:34:00.000-06:00

Whew! I can't believe it's time for Fun'n'Games Friday again. This time I'm actually in a gaming mood, but only a little bit. So I'm going to tell you about a game my family learned from one of my Mom's co-workers over 30 years ago. It's a very simple game. It requires no equipment, has no real rules, and can be played anywhere. It's called the tv game.

What's the tv game, you ask? Simple. It's a game where you have to guess the name of tv shows from the opposite of the words in the title. Did you get that? Let's see if I can clarify. In this game two or more people pick a tv show, tell the other person(s) the words that are the opposite of the words in the show's title and that person(s) has to guess the show. If the words in the title don't have exact opposites you can use words that are similar. Here's a simple example: Cottage. Can you guess which tv show that is? Right, House!

As you can see, "cottage" is similar to "house" rather than opposite to it. Here's another example: Spirit Shouter. Can you guess this one? Think hard. That's right! Ghost Whisperer. I could use both a similar and an opposite word for that show's title. And that's the gist of the tv game. Like I said, simple.

You can make "rules" to the tv game if you want. You might decide to do only dramas or comedies. You could also include the title of cd's or the names of bands in the game. It's strictly up to you how serious and involved you want this game to be. And because there's no equipment for this game except your brain it's great for road trips. My family and I have had tons of fun with the tv game. I'm sure you will, too.

To Tell Or Not To Tell

2007-12-06T11:07:00.000-06:00

Well, it's that time again. Christmas is just around the corner and a lot of parents are facing the Santa question. Do they tell their children the truth about jolly St. Nick or not?

I have mixed feelings about Santa Claus. Like most folks I believed in Santa as a child. I was never told the truth; I figured it out on my own. Slowly, over time, I realized that the Santa story didn't add up. By the time I was nine or ten I'd put two and two together and made peace with the fact that Santa was a pleasant fiction. I suffered no psychological damage from having been "lied" to by my parents and other adults for years. But I do understand how the dishonesty can be uncomfortable for a lot of people.

Many adults remember their belief in Santa as harmless fun and they want the same for their children. A happy fantasy, they reason, can be soothing and reassuring for children in an often dark and dangerous world. That's true, but today's children are often more wordly than those of the past and more likely to spot a hoax. Consequently it might be a good idea for parents to level with them from the beginning. But won't that take away the magic of Christmas? Not necessarily.

If you're religious, Christmas was never supposed to be about Santa Claus and his presents anyway. It's supposed to be about the birth of Christ. Teaching children the true reason for the season, sharing precious time with family and friends, and giving to those less fortunate are ways to experience the joy of Christmas without involving the Santa myth.

If you just can't get through the holiday without Santa, but don't want to tell your kids a fib, try telling them the story of the real St. Nicholas, on whom the Santa legend is based. The life of this man can serve as an inspiration for everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. You can make telling his story a family tradition, as telling the story of the first Christmas already is for many. Following St. Nicholas' example of loving children and the poor can motivate us to help others, bringing joy to them and to ourselves. And keeping us in the spirit of Christmas.

I don't want to sound like a moral relativist, but there's no right or wrong answer to the Santa question. Children aren't going to be harmed by believing in a pleasant myth for a few years. On the other hand, if you don't want to fib to your kids rest assured that not believing in Santa won't ruin the spirit of the season for them. Be careful, though, that your kids don't spill the beans to kids whose parents DO want them to believe in the man in the red suit.

Whatever decision you make about Santa be sure it jibes with your values as a family. Santa Claus IS Christmas to many people, but he doesn't have to be. Worshipping Christ, being with family, giving gifts and helping others are all ways of bringing Christmas joy to your children with or without Santa Claus. So go ahead. Tell your kids Santa's real, or tell them he's not. The magic of the season will be there either way.

Not In A Gaming Mood

2007-11-16T17:24:00.001-06:00

Hi all. I know this is Fun'n'Games Friday but, for some reason, I'm just not in a fun'n'games mood. I know what game I want to post but I just can't bring myself to do it. I've been thinking alot about what's going on in my life and the world and my mood is so serious right now. Writing about a game seems so...trivial, a waste of time. I know I said that Fun'n'Games Friday would be a weekly thing and I still plan on it being that, but this Friday fun just isn't where I'm at. Sorry.

Boundaries

2007-11-14T11:22:00.000-06:00

Families can be heavenly...or they can be hell. I think one of the things that makes living and dealing with our families difficult is the absence of boundaries. All relationships need boundaries. They help us to respect each other, which is vital in healthy relationships. Many of us seem to forget that, though, when it comes to our families.

Bosses, co-workers, neighbors, friends, even strangers are often treated better by us than our families are. But why? Because we know and respect the boundaries of non-family members. If our neighbor's son mows our lawn we pay him that day, not weeks later. If our friend babysits our child we pick up the baby on time, not hours later. Very often we don't show the same curtesy to family.

There's an old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. I don't think most of us hold our families in contempt, but I do think we take them for granted and have an attitude of entitlement toward them. We often view our family members as people who exist to provide free services for us. This usually isn't done maliciously but the consequences can be ugly nonetheless.

Our families are not here just to serve us. They have their own needs, lives, and responsibilities. Treating our family members with respect can go a long way to creating family harmony. We respect our family members by respecting their boundaries. If our sister-in-law doesn't approve of smoking we won't do it in her house. If Uncle Frank isn't religious we won't pester him to come to church. If we leave the kids with Mom we'll get them at 6 as we promised. And we won't presume that Mom will always be there to babysit.

Our families should mean more to us than anyone else. Our relationship with them should be paramount. Love alone, though, doesn't make relationships successful. Respect is the vital ingredient for family happiness that is so often missing. Giving our family members even a little of it can go a long way. And that's what boundaries are really all about: respect, love, and happiness.

Cat and Mouse

2007-11-02T11:55:00.000-05:00

I can't believe it's Friday again! Here's installment #2 of Fun'n'Games Friday. Hope you enjoy it!

Cat and Mouse

Like Jump the Creek, this game was a big hit with the kids at day care. It's basically another version of tag that evolved out of a regular game of tag we were playing one day. It's great outside or in. On rainy days we played it in the gym. Have fun!

As always, supervise children while they're playing this or any other game.

Type of Activity: Running Game
Objective: Catch all the "mice"
Equipment: Kids!
Location: Inside or outside
Number of Players: Works best with from 5-10, although more can play
Age Group: 5 and up

The kids and I actually came up with two versions of Cat and Mouse, the short version and the long version. I'll give you the short version first.

Short Version

In this version of CaM the game is over when the "cat" catches all the "mice". What makes it go so fast is that every "mouse" caught turns into a "cat" and helps the original "cat" catch the other "mice". The last "mouse" caught becomes the new "cat".

Before you begin find some place to be the mouse house. This is where the "mice" will run to to be safe. The mouse house can be anything: a tree, the side of a house, a square drawn on the ground, the circle beneath a basketball net, anything. Just make sure all the players know the mouse house's boundaries. Next, pick someone to be the "cat". Now you're ready to play!

All the "mice" start in the mouse house. At the count of three off they go! The "cat" tries to catch them. The "mice" run in and out of the mouse house, teasing the "cat" as they run. Catching them isn't as easy as the "cat" thought! The "mice" run very fast, but as they get captured some will forget who's a " cat" and who's still a "mouse". This will make them vulnerable. Soon, the "cat" and his helpers will catch the last "mouse" and the game will be over. Start over again with the new "cat"! That's the short version of Cat and Mouse.

Long Version

The objective of the long version of CaM is for the "cat" to imprison all the "mice" in the mouse house. This version can be endless, like Monopoly. You may want to put a time limit on it and let the last "mouse" caught within that limit be the new "cat". Here's how you get started.

First, choose a mouse house like in the short version, only this time it'll be the "mices'" jail, as stated above. Next, chose a "cat". Now, gather the kids in a crowd, count to three, and let 'em rip!

The "cat" has to catch the "mice" and put them in the mouse house. This sounds simple; however, there's a wrinkle. The "mice" who're free can tag their imprisonned friends and get them out. This forces the "cat" to do two jobs: catch the "mice" AND guard the mouse house. Of course, the "cat" can't be two places at once. He has to decide when to chase and when to guard. No matter what choice he makes there's always a chance "mice" will be freed from the jail. So, the goal of capturing all the "mice" gets complicated. That's what makes the long version of Cat and Mouse well...long. As I said above, you can put a time limit on the game, or just let the kids play until they're tired. Either way, you'll have a lot of fun.

Play Cat and Mouse the next time the gang's over . It'll give everyone some fun filled exercise. And it might become a favorite of yours like it did for me and my kids. Have fun!

Bottles and Binkies and Boobs! Oh My!

2007-10-31T21:34:00.000-05:00

We live in a society that doesn't seem to know what to do with children. The stage of life called "childhood" is shifting. The lines between infant and child and child and adult are blurring. I touched on this phenomenon in my previous post "Prosti-tots". The wearing of provocative Halloween costumes by preteen girls, however, is only one facet of this disturbing trend.

We adults can't make up our minds about when we want children to be children, babies, or adults. We want to both infantilize and adultify children whenever it suits us. Young children, for instance, are allowed to continue doing things like sucking bottles or wearing diapers long after they're past the age for it. As recently as five years ago I worked for a day care where kids couldn't move up to the 3-year-old class unless they were potty trained. Now, 3-year-old teachers are expected to change diapers. It's like adults want to keep children babies for as long as possible. Working parent guilt may be partly to blame.

Infancy does pass quickly. Some working parents, feeling they've missed out on it, may try to recapture it by letting their kids suck pacifiers or wear diapers when they're too old for it. Other working parents may be too tired to fight with rebellious toddlers and let them have their way just to keep the peace. Either way, toddlers and even preschoolers are being infantilized for the satisfaction of adults. And it gets worse.

Once we adults decide that infancy is finally over, we want an immediate transition to maturity. We want kids to stay in diapers until they're five but show their cleavage at ten. We switch them from bottles to bustiers with ease. We dress our girls in sexy Halloween costumes and think it's cute. Even everyday clothes for kids, especially girls, are getting more "sophisticated". Several years ago the show 20/20 did a story on this trend. The children's fashion industry even had a name for it: KGOY or kids getting older younger. I find that really, really sad.

We grown ups need to get our proverbial act together. We need to understand that we are here to train children, guide them through the various stages of growing up, and finally send them into the world as responsible adults. We have no right to either retard or accelerate that process for our convenience. Three-year-olds shouldn't be wearing diapers and sucking binkies just so parents can cope with their guilt. And ten-year-olds shouldn't be looking like Britney Spears because Moms want to relive their carefree, pre-motherhood days through their daughters.

Stunting or accelerating children's development can be detrimental, even dangerous. Provocatively dressed young girls could give the wrong idea to the wrong people. And children who are infantilized may never become autonomous individuals but remain forever dependent on Mom and Dad. We can and should do better by our kids. They don't deserve to be stunted or pimped out because we've got issues. Let us deal with our problems, not mess up our kids with them.

Prosti-tots

2007-10-29T20:13:00.000-05:00

Halloween is just around the corner and little children all over the land are eager to jump into their costumes and "extort" candy from willing "victims". Unfortunately, a large number of those children will be little girls looking more like hookers than Disney princesses. Welcome to the age of the prosti-tots.*

When I was a child I was lucky to get a mask to wear for Halloween. Now, teen and preteen girls are clamoring for sexed up costumes and parents are buying them. How sad! We live in a time when child predators are everywhere yet some parents happily offer up their daughters as pedophile eye candy.

Some will say that I'm overreacting. Halloween is just one night out of the year. Surely girls won't be harmed by looking sexy just one night. Maybe not. But why should 11, 12, or 13-year-old girls look sexy at all? What purpose does that serve except to make them enticing to the wrong men?

Of course, the little Lolitas couldn't wear those costumes if parents didn't buy them. But they do buy them. Some parents do so because they're wimps too weak, lazy, or even scared of their kids to say no. Other parents buy the outfits because they don't find them inappropriate and/or don't have a sense of boundaries. These parents want to be the "cool" parents. They want to be their girls' friends, not the people who make and enforce standards. Also, some of the Moms who buy these sexy costumes maybe trying to recapture their pre-motherhood figures through their daughters. Whatever the reason, this needs to stop.

If provocative costumes are worn on Halloween they should be worn by adults. Kids, including teens, have NO business looking sexy at ANY time. It is child abuse to push young girls into a psuedo-adult sexiness. When they grow up they'll have the rest of their lives to look trashy, if they so choose. While minors, let children be children. Don't turn your tots into prosti-tots*.

*I didn't coin this term; I heard it on the Glenn Beck Show, which inspired this post.

Jump the Creek!

2007-10-26T23:45:00.001-05:00

Home Fires is my newest blog and I've decided to try to make it more "organized" than my other blogs. I don't want to structure it too much and box myself into rules that might get in the way of meaningful writing. However, I think--and hope!--that if I give my readers "columns" to look forward to on a regular basis it will encourage them to keep returning to HF. So today I'm introducing my first column, Fun'n'Games Friday.

Fun'n'Games Friday will be featured--you guessed it!-- every Friday (because fun and Friday both start with "f", hehe). As the title implies this column will be about games and other ways to have family fun. A lot of my ideas will come from my childhood and my years as a day care teacher. Other ideas will come from books, magazines, friends, and any other sources I can find. Some posts in this column will have just one game or activity, other posts will have more. It'll just depend on what I can come up with each week. Well, that's it with the introduction. Let's get into the first issue of Fun'n'Games Friday. Hope you enjoy!

Jump the Creek

Type of Activity: Game
Objective: Last child to jump the creek wins
Location: Outside
Equipment: Two jump ropes, sticks, lengths of yarn, or anything else to make the "shores" of the creek
Number of Players: Works best with about 10, not counting the "constuction workers"
Age Group: 6 and up

As always, supervise children when playing this or any other game.

Jump the Creek was one of the most popular games in one of the day care centers I used to work at. It's a very easy game to play, with minimal equipment and only one real rule: don't land in the creek. I hope you find it as fun as my kids and I did.

The object of this game is simple: be the last person to jump the creek and win. To make the creek place two jump ropes on the ground a few inches apart. Appoint two kids to be the "construction workers" on the creek. They will each hold an end of ONE of the jump ropes and move it away from the other rope as the game progresses. To begin play line up the jumpers and have them start jumping the creek (the space between the jump ropes). This will be easy and go fast, at first, because the creek will be very narrow. But it will quickly get harder.

After the last jumper has jumped, the construction workers yell, "Construction on the creek!", and move their rope a few inches from the other one. The jumpers line up and go again; when the last one has jumped the workers yell and move the rope. This continues so the creek gets wider and wider. Soon, the jumpers have to get a running start to make it across the creek. Any jumper who lands in the creek, i.e. between the ropes, is out. Finally, it'll come down to two jumpers. They will keep on jumping until one just can't make it across and "falls" into the creek. When this happens the last jumper wins and the game is over.

As stated above, this was one of the most popular games at day care. Sometimes half the center--about 50+ kids--would gather on the playground for a Jump the Creek "tournament". Most of them were spectators cheering on their friends as the creek got wider, the jumping got harder, and the suspense got more and more intense. Shouts of "Go Patrick!", "Go Erik!", or "Go Ryan!" filled the air along with squeals of delight when the favored one won. And then the game was immediately started again.

Try Jump the Creek at your next birthday party or family reunion (adults can play it as well as kids). Create teams, start your own tournament, give out ribbons or medals. You can make it as simple or elaborate as you want. It might even become a family tradition. Most of all, just have fun with it like me and my day care kids did. Get out your ropes and jump that creek!

They Are YOUR Children!

2007-10-23T23:31:00.000-05:00

I'm sure everyone has heard about the decision of the Portland, ME school board to give birth control pills to middle school girls without their parents knowledge, let alone consent. This makes my blood boil! And what's even worse is that there are parents who agree with this policy! Is there no sanity left in our culture?

Remember, public schools are government schools. So when they give children anything without their parents' knowledge it's really the government telling parents what they can and can't know about their own children. It is government intrusion of the worst kind. I don't see how any parent could submit to that, but some do. It's as if they don't understand who they are or what their job is. I'll tell them.

Parents, you job is to raise your children!!! They're your responsibility and yours alone. You have no right to expect anyone or anything--grandparents, government, day care centers, even the church--to take on any part of the job for you. And you should never let anyone or anything take away any part of the job from you. Parents, you are to provide for your children not only financially but also morally and spiritually. You are to consciously teach them values not just let them create their own. And you are to teach them faith. The Bible clearly gives parents, not clergy or religious institutions, the primary responsibility to teach God's law to the next generation. This is a BIG job!

Many frazzled modern parents apparently feel it's too much. They work 8 or more hours a day and think that that is their main parenting function. Exhausted, they begin to believe that things like potty training or teaching values are, or should be, someone else's job. Indeed, many modern parents feel that's what they're paying day care centers to do. By the time their children start school these parents are already comfortable with giving up huge chunks of their authority in exchange for less responsibility. This sad state of affairs reveals itself most starkly in situations like the one in Maine, where some parents happily embrace the government's take over of a very important part of their job. It's like they're saying, "Yes! Less work for me!".

I implore all parents to take back their role and rights as parents. You are the authority over your children. You, not the government, decide what values they will have. I understand that parenting can be hard and exhausting, especially when it's combined with working outside the home. But when you brought that little bundle home from the hospital you were committing yourself to that awesome task. Your children are a sacred trust. You, not grandparents, day care centers, or schools will be held responsible by God for how they turn out. They are YOUR children. Act like it!

Just What Do You Mean "Family"?

2007-10-15T15:26:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years, you know that the American family has undergone a lot of change, much of it painful. In many ways our society has become weaker due to this familial transformation. The family has become a heated topic, difficult to discuss because we no longer have a cultural consensus on what "family" even means. Therefore, I want my readers to know what I mean when I say family.

By "family" I mean the traditional family: mom, dad, and kids. I mean that because I have a conservative, Judeo-Christian worldview, even though I'm unchurched. I'm sure I've just turned off a lot of people, but try to be open minded. Yes, I believe in the traditional family, but that doesn't mean you can predict where I stand on every familial issue. Some of my views will probably surprise and/or anger conservatives as well as liberals. But I didn't start Home Fires to anger or offend anyone. I started it because I wanted to discuss my views on the family and express some of my concerns about the state of the family in modern America. If I offend anyone I apologize in advance.

To reiterate, I support the traditional family structure of mom, dad, and kids. I believe this structure is the best. Why? Because it's the family form outlined in the book of Genesis where it says, "For this cause[the cause of God making Man male and female], a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh." This verse has been the foundation of Western civilization's understanding of marriage and the family for over a millenium. I believe that the farther we get from Genesis' familial plan the worse off our culture will become.

The above verse establishes what we call the nuclear family as the foundation of society. A man is to leave his parents, cleave to his wife, and begin the creation of a new family unit. I don't think this means that newly married couples must always live apart from their parents. Sometimes that just isn't feasible. It does mean, I think, that the new marriage must be respected by society as a nascent family unit independent of and equal to the family units bride and groom came from. From the new marriage a new family--mother, father, and children--emerges.

I believe that the verse in Genesis establishes marriage and the family as heterosexual institutions. A MAN is to cleave to his WIFE, not to his wife or male lover. Homosexual unions do not have the blessings of God and for centuries didn't have the blessings of the civil authoritites, either. Does this mean that gay people should be treated like dirt? Of course not. It just means that homosexual unions are outside the definition of family, just as incestuous and adulterous heterosexual unions are outside the definition of family. Having a societal consensus on what constitues a family is not a license to abuse anyone. Personally, I'd rather live next door to a nice gay couple than a straight adulterer or incest practitioner.

If you notice, I used the phrase "marriage and the family" in the paragraphs above. I did that on purpose. Just as I believe that the nuclear family is the foundation of society, so I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, BUT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FAMILY BY ITSELF. A married couple is a married couple, not a family. The birth of children is what turns a marriage into a family. As I said, family means mother, father, AND children. Again, I know I've offended many people and again, I apologize. I just believe there IS an objective familial norm, given to us by God, that all people should acknowledge and strive to achieve. And what do I think of "alternative" families? Where do they fit into my view of life? Those are subjects for other posts. For now you know just what I mean when I say "family".

The Qualifications of a Childless Parenting Advisor

2007-10-09T23:58:00.000-05:00

This blog is about family and anything related to and/or impacting the family. It's impossible to talk about family without talking about parenting, and I intend to do that. But for the sake of honesty I must admit that I'm childless. I'm not a parent; I don't have kids. Of course, a lot of people will immediately say that that disqualifies me from saying anything about raising children, but I disagree. I feel I'm highly qualified to talk about childrearing and even to give parents advice. Here's why.

First off, I was a child. That's not a trick answer. Having been a child, like everyone else on this planet, I know a lot about parenting from the back end, so to speak. I remember much about my childhood that show me now a lot about how moms and dads should, and shouldn't, parent. I remember words, spoken in anger or carelessness, that still cause pain to this day. I remember the burden of trying to live up to contradictory expectations. I remember the oppression of controlling, smothering adults. I remember the fear engendered by parental wars.

But I also remember never eating breakfast at school because my mom rose before dawn every day to fix a hot breakfast for her kids. I remember having long, beautiful hair because Mama took the time to take care of it. I remember always being clean and well-groomed, even on the weekend. I remember never going without any necessity. I remember always getting everything I wanted for Christmas and then some.

All of these childhood experiences were lesssons in parenting for me. The responsibility of parenting. The power of parenting. And the love of parenting that makes you do more for another human being, at your own expense, than any other love there is. These lessons qualify me to talk about raising kids.

I'm also qualified because, even though I have no biological children, I've been intimately involved in the rearing of other people's children. I have a niece, a nephew, and a great-niece whom I absolutely adore and helped cared for for much of their childhood. Plus, I have a batch of godchildren whom I spend lots of time with. Too, I worked in day care for 13 years teaching, training and, above all, loving, dozens of kids who spent more time with me than with their parents. I readily concede that no amount of "aunting" or godmothering can equal the real thing. Still, my adulthood has been so defined by hands-on caring for children that I feel entitled to call myself an honorary mom.

As an honorary mom I can give out parenting advice. In fact, several first time parents at the day care centers I worked for asked me for help with various childrearing issues. They understood that as a longtime day care teacher my experience with kids far outweighed theirs, even if the baby went home with them every night.

So being childless doesn't mean you don't or can't know anything about raising kids. Childless, strictly speaking, means only that you have no biological children; it doesn't mean you have no "child sense". I have tons of child sense, regardless of never having children, and I'd like to share it with you. May it help you on the scary, funny, sad, maddening, and superhumanly loving adventure called parenthood.

Welcome to Home Fires!

2007-10-06T02:51:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Home Fires! On this blog I'll be opining about all things family. I may say some things that challenge you, or even upset you. But I'm just talking about children, parents, and family as I see them. So come along for the ride. Hope you enjoy what you read, and maybe we can learn more about what makes this thing called family tick. :)