Sunday, May 9, 2010
Happy Mothers' Day!
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!
Saturday, May 8, 2010
No "Rescue Plan" Necessary
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.
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.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Not Cute!!!!
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.
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.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Why The Hate?
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.
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.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Corruption In Vermont
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.
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.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Everyone Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand
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.
Suffer the little children to come unto Me.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What's In A Name?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
