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.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Rocker Babies! Grown Ups BEWARE!!!!
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!!!!
Fist banging never looked so cute. And dig that skull pacifier!
Getcha head bangin' on, Katie! And that KISS song ROCKS!!!!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Happy Fathers' Day!
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!
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!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Social Liberals Strike Again
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
