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.
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.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Here's One For Solomon
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.
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.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
God Bless You, Mama
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.
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.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Straight Out Of "Home Alone"
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Universal Pre-K. Yes Or No?
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.
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.
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Real Problem With Gay Marriage
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!
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!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Congratulations! But...
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.
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.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Happy Mothers' Day After All
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
To Spank Or Not To Spank
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
