Soccer Mom: Unplugged

Throughout the Old Testament Israelites prophets performed symbolic acts to shed light on the problems of their wicked society.  It would appear that Americans have become such a hard hearted lot that extreme acts are required to get our attention as well.  Charlie Rangel has proposed military draft legislation that neither he nor his own party supports and liberal bloggers argue that he merely wants to "start a conversation".  Hmmm.  I wonder how they will view the discourse demanding act that has gained attention at Boston University.  Following the example set two years ago at Roger Williams University, the college Republicans have initiated a caucasion scholarship to spark public debate over the failure of racial profiling with respect to college admissions and financial aid.

According the the ABC report,  the application itself makes the point of the scholarship apparent.

"We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today."

According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out "how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship."

No doubt this act will be seen as racist but as a graduate of a historically and predominantly black college, I can assure you that the scholarship in question is hardly unusual.  My alma mater offered minority scholarships to white students regularly.  White students were actively recruited.  Every semester I made the Chancellor's list and every semester I was offered a full ride because I wasn't African-American.  I never took the money.  I found other scholarships and grants to pay for the part of my education that I couldn't cover myself.  That's because, like the kids at BU,  I believe that I shouldn't be rewarded for the color of my skin but for the quality of my work.

But, I digress.  The really important questions surrounding thie issue will probably be neither asked or answered.  Instead charges of racism will be leveled.  But just ask yourself, for curiosity's sake, if nothing else... (1) Does it really take this kind of gimmick to draw attention to substantive issues? (2) Will Charlie Rangel's supporters consider this whites-only scholarship a public ice-breaker or an insult? and (3) Are racial quotas a form of bigotry that you are comfortable living with?

 

So many reasons to be grateful so little time...

I am thankful for:

- the sound of my daughter's sweet voice as she climbs into my bed every morning and says "Mom"

- the crashes and booms, the squeals and shrieks that mean my sons are strong, healthy and playing together, even if the furniture is a little worse for the wear

-a safe, warm home that offers shelter from the elements and a refuge from a confused and insecure world

- the strong, loving arms of a gentle husband who is a wonderful example of the Biblical injunction to love one's spouse as Christ loves the church

- parents whose dedication to faith and family inspire me to be a better woman and give me hope that I too can grow wiser and more Christlike with age

- brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors who've been steadfast in offering love and support through the good times and the bad

- the freedom to choose my course and the health and disposition to execute those choices

and above all

- a loving Father who saw in me something worth saving and His son who loved me enough to offer himself in my stead

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

And now, we're becoming breeders for the state... at least, they are over in the UK.  No more raising your children yourselves. Oh no. You are merely an agent of the government.  Is that Little Boy Blue you're reading to the baby, Mrs. Smith?  That's it!  That child is coming with us...  If you think the article seems harmless enough, follow the rabbit trail.

Anyone want to exit the Matrix now?

Usually, I don't like to write divisive posts about Christianity because I think we canabalize our own all too often when we confuse politics and religion.  Today,  I'm making an exception.

The Democrats made an effective effort before the last midterm to get out the message that they too are believers.  They ran commercials and ads highlighting the stereotypical association between the DNC and the war on poverty, senior citizens concerns, etc.  There are good Christians on both sides of the aisle, I acknowledge this but this association is distressing for several reasons that have less to do with politics than with faith.

It was particularly disturbing to me because I am a Christian quite concerned with social issues but also aware of the fact that Conservatives give more in the way of money, time and every other measurable donation to charitable causes.  In fact, conservative Christians object, not to helping the needy, but to being forced to let the government do it.  As with most issues,  the conservative stance is simply... I can do a better job with my money than Washington can.  I can donate through organizations that don't require a million man bureaucracy to distribute goods to the needy.  I can buy groceries for my neighbor who is having a hard time.  I can lend a hand to someone who is struggling.  I can afford to save and put my children through college on my own dime.

Some Christians in America have confused government intervention with the New Testament model of a united order (Acts 4-5) where saints laid all that they had at the feet of Peter who then distributed the goods and wealth among the saints so that there were no poor among them.  Still others see the scriptural practice as justification for communism.  On some levels,  this sort of redistribution of wealth looks a lot like communism.  But from a distance, lust looks a lot like love.

Remember that the united order practiced by the early saints was administered by men of God, apostles who were dedicated to lifting up the hands that hang down and strengthening the feeble knees (Heb 12:12).  We have no historical record to verify but I'm not inclined to believe there were earmarks.  Somehow, I fear, the very human American government, no matter how noble and inspired, will never measure up to the original officiators of this radical social plan.  Thus we are left to depend upon something just as reliable as God's desire for us to be charitable, mankind's self-interest.

For some, placing the sacred trust of caring for the needy squarely on the shoulders of the individual seems to be too much of a risk.  They would rather rely on government agents and a series of complex laws (regardless of the propensity toward loopholes) to administer what they see as a divine command to care for others.  We cannot forget, however, that God himself endowed each of us with free will before requiring that we use it for good.  To strip individuals of their ability to be charitable by redistributing their wealth for them is to be in opposition to the great plan that requires choice and obedience.  For how can one willingly obey if he is first compelled?

Joshua said "Choose ye this day who ye will serve" (Josh 24:15).  The purposes of God are thwarted without choice. Even Christ in Gethsemane recognized the inherent need for choosing good when He said "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matt 26:39).  Admittedly, Christians on both sides of the political spectrum struggle with the impulse to legislate morality.  There is a wide gulf, however, between outlawing evil acts that pose a danger to society and forcing people to choose the better part.  One is common sense.  The other is nonsense. 

True to accusations from the right, Dems are showing America that they have no plans to deal with issues that trouble the nation.  Social Security.  Poverty.  The Iraq War. 

Before the election they campaigned hard to the left, swearing to act quickly to get troops out of the Middle East.  Hasn't even been two weeks and those promises are DOA on the House steps.

And now there's Charlie Rangel, proposing again, a military draft.  You'll remember the last time he proposed it, he went all over television accusing the Bush White House of seeking to reinstate a draft (even though it was his own bill and did not come from the administration at all).  And then, he promptly voted against his own bill so that he could say "I voted down the draft".

Apparently, the Dems are bored, having no real platform other than "Buck Fush", and Rangel has again proposed the draft while a coalition of his own partymates have declared intent to vote it down.  Ahhh, the joys of having power again.  Must make people proud to have voted them into a majority...

Much valuable print space is given to photos of and statements by Americans who clamor for peace.  They condemn war at any cost.  Or do they?  A closer review of the statements and activities of these groups reveals that not only do they not give a damn about war generally, their efforts are focused not on stopping war but on condmening and impeding American response to war. 

Most of these groups are thinly veiled front organizations for political operations like the American Communists or social movements looking to take advantage of the free publicity.  In fact, if these groups were at all interested in stopping war, they'd be in Indonesia (see below) right now.

Anyone who takes a 30 break from the MSM and does one mouse click's worth of research will find that ANSWER one of the largest organizers of the anti-war rallies over the last 5 years was founded just 16 days after 9/11 by none other than Ramsey Clark, a communism supporting Democrat who served under Johnson and was the party's nominee for Senate from NY in 1974.  I won't even address the fact that he is defending the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.

If Clark had any interest in stopping war, why wasn't he in Saudi Arabia before September 11th protesting outside of the madrassas?  Why wasn't he in southern Lebanon picketing Hezbollah?

These groups are pursuing a political agenda whether or not the 19 year old koolaid drinking college coeds who fill the ranks are aware of it and stopping war is nothing more than a talking point. 

 (h/t Atlas Shrugs)

 

Sundays are usually less than calm around my house and it begins with wrestling 3 little boys into church clothes.  My daughter is more than happy to don "pretty clothes" but she is still too sick for the nursery so my husband and I had to draw straws to see who was going to stay home with her.  We settle that he's taking the boys and I'm paying penance for some unknown sin by staying home with diarrhea girl... how did that happen?  Oh well.  And that's when it began.

I went to the laundry to retrieve my husband's white dress shirt only to find that it wasn't on the hanger.  Uh-oh.  Turns out he'd taken it on a business trip this week and it never made its way through the wash-dry-iron cycle.  No problem, I thought.  I don't usually do laundry on Sunday but I can make an exception.  There's time.  Only half an hour before we need to leave, the washer stops.  Actually the motor keeps groaning but the tub ain't spinnin'.  Crud! 

I call Mr. Cate and the two of us look at the machine and each other like the college educated but functionally incapable morons that we are.  Okay, we decide, we'll just take a quick look-see.  Before we knew it we had the entire thing disassembled and were pulling pillow stuffing from space between the two drums and around the motor.  Did I mention that a chair cushion got caught in the machine on Thursday and ripped?  So we pull about 295 lbs. of white fuzz from inside the thing and plug it in.  It whirrs.  It groans.  It stops.  I kick it.  He goes online and sets up an appointment for a service.  And we all miss church.

Moral of the story:  Always get things ready ahead of time and never ever wash chair cushions in the washing machine.

 

As the post title suggests, I've been doing a lot of thinking.  Especially about the conversation I've been having with Michael about the social responsibility we all bear for our children. 

A legend comes to mind.  One of those stories that, if it isn't true, should be.

A certain group of travelers wanted to move west.  They were in need of an experienced driver to lead the wagon train through rough terrain.  In particular, they were concerned about a mountain pass that was extremely narrow and dangerous. Many a wagon had come to a fatal stop at the bottom of the gorge that bordered the path.  Upon petitioning the locals' recommendations, three drivers were found who were interviewed for the job. 

The first driver declared with certainty.  "I can handle anything.  I've crossed the country several times and can manage any trouble that we encounter, including Indians."  When asked about the mountain pass, he responded with confidence, "I can get within a foot of the edge without having any problems whatsoever."

The second driver, during his interveiw expressed even more bravado.  "I'm the best driver around.  Ask anyone, they'll tell you."  And his response to the question about the pass was even more astounding.  "I can get a wagon and a team of horses within 6 inches of the edge and still manage to get everyone safely across."

The third driver, the one who was hired, also came with high praise.  When the leader of the company of pioneers asked him if he was familiar with the dangerous mountain pass that presented such a hazard, the third driver replied, "I know that pass.  It is indeed very dangerous."  "Well," asked one of the pioneers, "how close can you get to the edge?"  "I don't know" he responded "I stay as far away from the edge as I can."

Many Americans want to skirt the edge of decency, morality, and good sense using the law as a measuring stick with which to mark the distance between themselves and a terrible fall.  Some intentionally push the wagon closer and closer until they are on a dangerous precipice or even leading unsuspecting followers down a treacherous path toward a deadly end. 

Others are convinced that a healthy respect for freedom demands that we get as close to the edge as humanly possible.  They declare the edge a guardrail instead of what it really is, a terrifyingly unstable position.

Then there are the drivers who stay firmly on the path and refuse to skirt the edge simply because a foot of earth and the laws of phsics say they might stand a chance of getting away with it.  They recognize that the obligation of a driver is not to see how close to danger he can ride, but how safe he can keep his passengers.

With respect to the conversation about pornography and our oversexualized society, there are edges.  They are all around us.  And we are in danger.  Safety can only be found by staying on the path.  And while some may walk the edge and survive, enough fall that we must recognize the dangerous reality.  Making excuses for skirting the edge only reveals our true purpose - and that isn't protecting our children.

 

It has come to my attention that I inadvertantly changed the settings on my blog and only registered bloghi users were permitted to comment.  There was also a limit on the number of links you could use in a comment.  I have changed those settings so that, once again, anyone can post a comment.  You can put as many as 10 links in the text of your comment.  So, to those who may have been shut out accidentally,  my apologies, and welcome back!

Khalid Chahhou - rookie Spanish teacher with a hateful agenda.  A Johnston County, NC first year teacher has resigned amidst allegations that his homemade crossword puzzle crossed the line.  While solving the puzzle for SPANISH class, students uncovered some words that were no muy bueno. From WRAL out of Raleigh:

"There were words like 'kill,' then I saw it said 'destroy America,'" Eric Herrera said.

As they read on, students found the puzzle contained a paragraph that contained the following phrases:

• "Sharon killed a lot of innocent people," a possible reference to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

• "Palestine is not a terrorist group."

• "Allah help destroy this body of evil making humanity miserable."

"It was kind of scary at first to think about, you know, your own teacher in your own school that is teaching you," Herrera said.

Chahhou claims that the words slipped in accidentally as he was upset about a news report he'd seen.  That's some kind of Freudian slip, there, eh?  I remember those days as a first year teacher, when I made my own worksheets using terrorist propaganda for inspiration. Not.

 

I must admit that I have had the eerie experience of wondering how I can see the world so differently than my friends and neighbors.  There are days when I see a liberal agenda in everything and yet no one around me seems to notice.  I feel like shouting "Hey!  I see brain-dead people!"  Or I wonder if I'm losing my mind... and maybe I should plug back into the safe matrix of force fed ideology.

Today was one of those days when my resolve was strengthened.  I really do see brain-dead people.

Actually, what I saw was a movie called "Happy Feet".  It's animated, musical, brightly colored - perfect for children, right?  Wrong.  The movie which begins as an ugly duckling tale featuring Mumble, the emporer penguin who is unable to find his heartsong (i.e. mating call).  Nothing too unusual initially but then the movie really went off the deep end...

Here's a quick brief:

1- Countless films advise youngsters to be tolerate of differences and glorify non-conformity.  This is one of them.  As parents, it's our job to teach our children that there is nothing wrong with conformity so long as we make the educated choice to conform.  On the other hand, non-conformity just for the sake of being different is always bad. (After all, a dancing male penguin can't very well hold an egg still and safe through the long winter, now can he?)

2-  In this film, Mumble simply can't conform.  He just wasn't born that way.  You can figure that one out for yourself...

3- The leaders of the Emporer Penguins are depicted as religious leaders who are close-minded and without compassion.  They treat Mumble as an outcast and even blame his mating ritual differences for community problems - fish scarcity.  They even refer to his actions as "pagan". Talk about projecting human society onto the animal kingdom... The religious elders worship a God and even purposefully ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview.  Mumble represents the pragmatism of scientific discovery.  Not only is he different, but he's going to get to the bottom of the food shortage and save the people from themselves.  It was uninhibited faith bashing.

4- Mumble sets off to solve the mystery of the fish shortage and is followed by Gloria, the female penguin obviously destined to be his mate, they fight and he sends her packing so that he can save their world.  But not before the quick motherhood bashing moment.  She only wants to be with him, he says, knowing that their entire existence has been about preparing to breed and raise a new generation, 'whatcha gonna do when all the other females have eggs',  she smiles lovingly and says 'who cares, I've got you babe'...

4- Then the film goes really wacky - like the writers just got seriously derailed.  Suddenly, the story turns into one of environmental fatalism.  The humans are harvesting the fish and polluting the water as well. Mumbles swims for time-elapsed days and ends up on a foreign shore where he is found.  He awakens in the zoo and his dancing feet get him the attention of the world. There is a montage of politicians, UN leaders, reporters, CEOs and other well dressed white people arguing over whether or not we should protect the penguins.  All done in this weird grayscale like an old newsreel.  It was so in-your-face that I almost thought the narrator was going to ask leadingly "So children,  how do we care for mother earth and protect the penguins?" (Class in unison) "Never eat fish, sir!"

5- Without much explanation Mumble is suddenly released from the zoo where he has gained international notoriety and has brought attention to the plight of his species.  He is tagged and returns to the emporer penguin homelands.  During yet another confrontation with the stubborn, superstitutious elders, the humans arrive.  At this moment, Mumble is validated, there really were aliens who were taking the fish.  So the penguins dance to get the aliens (humans) attention and the humans respond by being enchanted.  The movie ends.  I'm guessing that we are to assume that the UN has stopped any and all fish harvesting from the antarctic and that somehow the penguins are saved by the injection of good humans into their habitat (as opposed to those horrible corporate funded fishermen).

The overall message of this film is religion=bad.  Humans=bad. And penguins with foot fetishes aren't bad... it's just who they are. 

What is it with this world.  Everything is going to hell in a handbasket!  People just don't have respect for true believers anymore.  Another example of the backlash against faith comes to us from the UK today.  Damn those secular progressives...

ROTFLMBO!

According to a U.S. government commissioned study about 1% of the web sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are considered pornographic.  This information is released as the Justice Department seeks to revive the 1998 Child Protection Act, a law which Bill Clinton signed that requires viewers to use a credit card number or some other proof of age to log onto porn sites.

The 1998 law was a watered down version of other Congressional attempts at filtering the internet.  But even that law was struck down when the ACLU took it before the courts.  Heaven forbid we infringe upon the rights of web pornographers and adults who want to satisfy their sexual voyeurism in anonymity. 

Ordinarily, I'm inclined to take a libertarian approach and demand individual accountability.  But having had a few experiences with children on the internet and knowing the dangers of viewing pornography, I believe more invasive measures are in order. Here's why:

Pornographers regularly buy domain names of misspelled search words that children and young people use.  For example, if your child types "Harry Pottter" or "Pokeemon" he may very well end up on a hard core porn site.  The practice is common in the industry and clearly aimed at luring children.  Sellers of pornography purchase popular domain names as soon as they expire so that they have an unknowing audience in viewers who are looking for the content originally located at the original domain name.

Pornographers have a trade magazine and staff psychiatrists and psychologists who use their expertise to create teasers that will attract children and teens to pornographic material.  The internet has altered the rate at which people are caught up in pornography and it is now addictive with merely a few exposures.  Especially to children at certain developmental stages.  Studies have been done that show that pornography can be addictive to some people with a single exposure.  A 2000 copy of the magazine includes an article about how to get the addict more addicted so that he purchases pornography weekly instead of monthly.  It takes two weeks for many people to become addicted and addiction is common after 3 months.  Porn sellers hold conferences twice a year to set goals for sales. 

Pornographic web sites use looping to trap viewers.  In other words, you accidentally end up on a page with pornography and you click the "X" at the top right of your screen to escape and it opens another window on the same porn site.  You are looped into seeing a half dozen hard core photos as you attempt to exit the site.  Once the site has established a cookie on your hard drive, you will become the lucky recipient of abotu a hundred emails a week that say "re:Hi" or "re:come back" in the subject line with no text in the body of the message - those are to verify your email address.  FYI: if you ever get trapped in one of those looped sites, immediately shut down your computer - do not click "X" just hit the power button.

Do you think that American library association is government run?  Actually, they are funded by various other organizations and in July 2000 they had a session in one of their conferences about how to get more pornography in libraries without public outcry.

Pornography isn't limited to government identified magazines and movies - most magazine covers in the grocery check out have sexualized covers with articles like "How to have a better orgasm" or "Sex Secrets he wishes you knew" written across them for any child to read.  They are placed at a child's height - not out of reach or eyesight.  Most American children have seen sexually explicit, pornographic material before they enter Kindergarten - and it has devastating impacts.  The one scene that we often excuse in an otherwise good movie shapes the way viewers perceive sex and intimacy.  Study after study reveals the detrimental affects and yet the onslaught goes on untempered.

I often rail against the homosexual community for defining themselves predominantly by their sexuality.  The unfortunate truth is that the same can be said for heterosexuals.  Our society has come to treat sex so commonly (another word for common is vulgar) that it has been reduced to mere physiology.  Even sex within marriage is depicted as being all about excitement and not about love.  Magazines that cater to women tell the tale better than I can...

This morning on Cosmomag.com "Cosmo's most creative sex positions ever" and if that doesn't convince you, check out the side bar section entitled Love and Lust where one can play the Kama Sutra Match and Moan Game.

I don't think that we'll ever get sex back in the bedroom.  But we must recognize the damage done to people who are taught that their entire existence revolves around arousal and sexual satisfaction and take steps to respond to the dangers of this sick denegration of the spirit.  Can anything be more demeaning and dehumanizing than an ideology that professes that we are merely the sum of our reproductive parts?  There is one who wants us to believe that we are no more than the dust from which we were created.  As Christians, we are disciples of another teacher, one who calls us children of God.

Stand up and be counted.  Call or write your congressmen and encourage them to place guardrails around pornography to keep our children safe.  Call your local grocery stores and demand a magazine free aisle.  Do something. Do anything. Make your voice heard!

So little time.

First, the news briefs and some middle American op-ed:

Much is being made of the Anglican Church's announcement about the care of severly disabled infants. Personally, I think the characterization by my fellow pro-lifers is abhorrent.  There is a vast difference between "killing" and withholding extraordinary measures.  I'm not saying that I believe refusing treatment is the way to go but I can't call it "killing" either. We allow adults the option of signing a DNR order and we don't equate that with euthanasia.  I don't see this as being much different as a legal matter.  Personally, I don't want to be Terri Schiavo.  Although I feel overwhelming sympathy with the parents and loved ones who struggle in the letting go.

The problem comes when we endow the government or doctors with the responsibility of defining the parameters of reasonable measures.  Once those limits are legislated, it becomes impossible to reverse the decision, no matter how far medicine advances.  That's part of the reason viable babies are being aborted in this country every day.  Once the cat is out of the bag...  and of course, the question becomes how far will we go in defining excessive aid?  Will it eventually extend to all the disabled?  The elderly?  Anyone whose illnesses are a drain on public funds?  Which leads to the tangential discussion of socialized medicine... which I'll save for '08 when Hillary runs.  All in all, I think the decision is best left to the parents but, and this is a huge but, I appreciate the Anglican Church for addressing the issue and opening the public conversation.  The only way to come to some consensus on public policy (or the decision not to have a public policy) is to start the discourse, and the Church of England certainly did that.

South Africa has made it legal for homosexuals to marry and while I have some fundamental objections to the whole government-defined marriage bit in general, there is one part of the SA law that I think bears mentioning.  While the law allows for the unions, it does not require that all people who officiate in marriage services perform them.  In other words, you can conscientiously object to performing a gay marriage if it goes against your religious beliefs.  Already, that makes this law better than the Mass. response to devout pharmacists, who are forced to sell Plan B regardless of their beliefs on abortion.

Meanwhile, back at the Vatican... Catholic priests issued guidelines encouraging homosexuals to remain celibate to which Ellen DeGeneres is rumored to have said "You first."  Okay, I made that bit about Ellen up, I admit it.  Generally, I think the new guidelines are a reasonable response to the dilemma facing an increasingly gay-friendly Western world.  They don't pretend to change any commandments but they do address the fact that homosexuals can be people of faith.  After all, no one is barring adulterers or fornicators from sitting in church... I would argue that's the best place for them. For all of us.  Of course, gay Catholics are not happy with the guidelines but let's face it, if you don't believe the Catholic church is teaching true Christianity, and you believe that they are wrong on fundamental points of doctrine, then you aren't really Catholic anyway. 

On one point, the Catholic church appears to be ahead of science.  The guidelines "acknowledge that gays and lesbians do not choose their sexual orientation".  Wow.  Even the human genome project couldn't do that.  Although, since evidence shows that lesbians are very likely to have been victims of sexual abuse, I suppose that would be considered a serious limitation of choice. This, if you don't recognize the veiled sarcasm, is where I think the priests got it wrong.

Toys for Tots has refused to accept 4000 donated talking Jesus dolls that quote verses of scripture.  I suppose some might to make an issue of this.  Don't.  It was the right thing to do.  Toys for Tots is charitable organization run by the Marines and to blur the lines between state and church in this way would be harmful to all of us.  America should be symbolic with religious freedom - which is precisely why good Christians love it here.  We should never confuse Christian preservation with Christian predominance.  The fight is to maintain fair treatment not to subjugate non-Christian believers or subordinate other faiths.  That is the domain of another religion. Islam.

In cases where the courts are rewriting history to the exclusion of Christianity, I'm all for fighting.  But when an agency that is going to hand out toys to needy children refuses to endorse an ideology, that's AOK.  How would you like it if they handed out a doll that spouted verses from the Koran?

Sick people abound these days.  Even so, amid the plethera of perversity, this report caught my eye.  So here's this angry 22 year old guy who gets into a fight with his girlfriend, starts a fire in back yard and throws her 4 helpless kittens into the fire pit, burning them to death.  Definitely a sicko.  How cruel do you have to be to do something like this?  Here's what caught my  attention.  The convicted cat-killer, Robert Tomlin, gets a year and a half in prison for aggravated animal cruelty.  A year and a half.  Not that he doesn't deserve it, but we have pedophiles on the street because they're too pretty or too short for jail.  Apparently, all the judges with sense are busy ruling on animal cruelty cases...

And, for those who are interested in the personal issues...

The children and I are all feeling better and we are done with birthdays until January when we have 3 within a week. So things are returning to normal. Sort of. 

It hasn't even been a week since my neice's husband was arrested and it feels like ages already.  Over the weekend, I was sure my neice was slipping into the denial phase of the post-trauma period.  She was ready to forgive him and recognized that he is a very sick young man.  She was having a hard time coming to grips with the ugly future in store for the man she loved and married.  Needless to say, I was getting worried about her because I feared any wavering or show of weakness would invite the state the remove her children from her. 

Today, I believe my fears were laid to rest.  He was arraigned.  She sat in the courtroom through the process and from her retelling of the events, it appears that her emotions have stabilized and her resolve to make a safe life for her daughters is strengthened.  She said he was barely recognizable to her.  That he looked like a monster.  She said that when the charges were read (something like 19 or 20 of them) the courtroom was filled with noise because people were sickened and outraged.  The judge had to quiet those present. 

I feel an overwhelming sense of loss for all of them.  And I am afraid to to see him, in court or even on the news broadcasts.  My sense of justice and my sense of mercy are battling it out right now.  Thank goodness, I don't have to sit on this jury...

I've been MIA for a few days now for many reasons, some good, some not so. 

My oldest two children both completed another year of life since the month started and there were parties to plan and gifts to purchase. Good.  The children and I have shared a lovely virus which left each of us with fevers and croup for several days. Not so good.  My oldest son, now eight, chose to be baptized. Wonderful.

A beloved family member found out that her husband was sexually abusing their toddler. Devastating.

It's the last bit that has left me speechless this week.  Suddenly, as happens on traumatic occasions like this, your life comes into focus.  And for me, that meant walking away from soccermom and being a supportive aunt.  Something I may get to do much more of in the coming weeks and months.

The events of the past few days have left me with greater clarity on several issues and since this is where I spout my ideas when no other forum seems right, I beg your indulgence.

Yesterday, I got another of those emailers from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association.  It seems that Best Buy is refusing to market Christianity this year.  By that I mean, they aren't going to say "Merry Christmas" or use the "C" word in their ads and mailers.  Wildmon and the AFA want good Christians to come together and wield their influence with a letter writing campaign aimed at changing the store's Christ-free atitude.  I've never felt the need to boycott stores for refusing to indulge my faith.  When they throw direct support to causes that undermine traditional families, yes.  But when they refuse to hang red and green streamers from floor to ceiling and hose down the entire showroom in pine scented greenery... well, if those are my demands, then you tell me who's forgotten the real meaning of the season?

When did our faith derail?  At what point did we decide that others should be required to greet us according to our Christian customs? Instead of us taking the great commission upon ourselves to lead non-believers to Christ, we are now economically browbeating them into submission with boycotts? 

Christians, we have more to worry about than whether or not a Wal-Mart greeter is invoking the Lord's name every time someone walks through the sliding glass doors.  Last week, the head of the evangelical churches in America stepped down amid charges that he was a drug using, adulterous, closet homosexual.  In the face of such overwhelming degeneration, no amount of Christmas well-wishing is going to save our faith.

The young father I mentioned above may very well be spending much of his life in prison.  At this point it is way too early to tell.  What I can say is that I knew this man when he was a twelve year old boy.  I've seen his baby pictures and laughed at funny home videos of him as a child.  Even before he met my niece, I had dinner in his home and with his family.  Though he attended a different sect, I considered him a decent young man and over the years, little changed my opinion of him until now.  As it turns out, throughout all of this time, this young boy, raised in a loving home with good, church-going parents, was developing an increasingly overwhelming appetite for pornography.  As best as I have been able to surmise, what began as adolescent curiousity developed into an insatiable desire that ultimately led him to indulge in degrading and depraved viewing in order to satisfy his need for sexual stimulation.  At some point, the lines between his deviant fantasies and reality became blurred.

I realize that in the telling of this, I sound sympathetic to the perpetrator.  His actions are reprehensible and I do not excuse them in any way.  And yet, I find myself disheartened for the promising young man whose future is lost.  I am sad for his young wife and her young children. I could call for justice but there is no justice to be found in a situation like this.  Justice won't give this young family the good husband and father they deserve.

What I can do is identify the pitfalls for myself and others and shout to whoever will listen with a voice of warning.

Pornography is a plague upon our culture.  It is, in many cases, as addictive as any drug.  And like a drug, tolerance can be built up and the need for increasing amounts of exposure or increasingly powerful stimulation is required to achieve the "high" of a euphoric sexual experience.  And yet, as a culture, we do hardly anything to stem the tide of this insidous danger to which our children and we ourselves are exposed.  Our society has become so oversexualized that what would have been late night viewing a decade ago is now airing at 9 a.m. I noticed during the after midnight hours I spent nursing my children over the last eight years that you can hardly turn on the television at night without being invited to have phone sex or to purchase a movie about someone gone wild.  Even the television shows themselves barely shroud the titilation in plot. 

If we aren't vigilant, our children won't know what healthy, monogamous relationships look like.  They won't recognize expressions of love and caring between committed adults.  Gratuitous sex scenes, soft core Glamour magazine covers and Victoria's Secret commercials will see to that.  To be so concerned with the the mention of Christmas in a Best Buy flyer seems almost pharasitical in light of the real dangers facing American Christians.  And if the AFA is any indication, we aren't doing a good job of picking our battles.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Halloween on this site.  I cross posted at another site and was surprised to find some commenters expressed condemnation of Christians who allow their children to participate in a pagan ritual.  It is this kind of looking beyond the mark that led the Jews of Jesus' day to live in accordance with a litany of rules and regulations that had relatively little to do with the actual good news of the gospel.  As Christians, ours is the charge to call men to a higher standard of living.  We are to rise up and reach for the better part that is within us.  If we are truly the children of God then ours is a godly inheritance that should inspire us to abandon base and animalistic desires in favor of a life motivated by the same selfless service and charitable spirit that our Savior exemplified.  We are not here on this earth to live in a bubble of self-gratification.

We can not waste our time quibbling over costumes and candy when, from the darkest recesses of the heart of man, evil invades our lives on a daily basis.  If we are to lift others up, then we must be reaching down to them from higher ground.  And contentious quarreling over issues of lesser significance only undermines our sure footing.  If we are to make a difference, then we must make it by standing out to our fellowmen, not as outsiders pointing a condemning finger at Babylon but as former Babylonians who've found a better, more enlightened way.  We must reflect His light not with blithe platitudes but with holy attitudes. 

In nearly every New Testament interaction, Christ is described as one who reached out his hand to those in need, whether temporal or spiritual.  Only once did he cleanse the temple and yet many American Christians practice the inverse.  I do not suggest that we tolerate the intolerable.  Merely that we can acknowledge the wrongfulness of an act without withholding mercy and compassion from the sinner. And that we not demand that others observe superficial Christian practices but that we inspire in them the desire to become true practicioners.

It's late.  I'm rambling.  And Don Wildmon is waiting, no doubt breathlessly, for confirmation that my letter has been sent to a certain CEO.  But tonight, instead, I am going to put pen to paper for another cause.  I am going to tell the mother of a young man sitting in county lockup that she is in my thoughts and prayers.  That I'll lobby against the porn industry and that I'll be pleading to a loving and merciful God tonight, not just on behalf of a small victim, but for her daddy as well.

Great footage from the front lines in a John Kerry gaffe redux

Caught this one over at youtube and thought it was funny.  Doesn't mean I'd vote for Newt...

 

Well, it was a rough night for Republicans.  In my home state, the state GOP party chair resigned before 9 p.m.  Talk about depressing...  As I listened to the radio and news shows through the night and into this morning, I heard many Republicans speak honestly about why they lost.  Tom Delay gave a great interview to Fox and Friends early this morning, as did Ken Mehlman.

In my opinion, as you may have noticed, expressed here before, this was a better day to lose than in 2008.  Or so I thought.  My original perception was that a loss yesterday would give the dems just enough rope to either hang themselves with liberalism or to pull themselves closer to the center - both options which would benefit a return to responsible conservatism.  After the president's briefing this afternoon, I have a different take.

My respect for President Bush plummeted today between 1 and 1:30 p.m. He crumbled under the loss of Congress and spoke of Rumsfeld's resignation with an air of sour grapes.  What I wish he would have said:

Yesterday, the voters spoke with their ballots and it is increasingly clear that at least a vocal minority feel strongly that we must change course in Iraq.  Our political goal for the Middle East is not up for compromise but the means we use to achieve these ends can always be adjusted to reflect the ever changing circumstances on the ground.  It is with that in mind, that I announce the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. 

The fiscal policies that have brought this nation back, like a pheonix from the ashes of 9/11, have incubated an environment in which we have seen the lowest unemployment rates in our nation's history and the highest surges in our stock market.  The tax cuts we pushed through the republican congress were a crucial part of the policies that have ushered in this time of national prosperity.  A democrat led congress may feel tempted to alter our fiscal policy.  Such alterations will be vetoed.  The deficits that I projected would be cut in half by 2010 are already down 50%.  Attempts to raise taxes or redistribute allocated funds in a way that burdens the tax payer will be vetoed. 

Oh well, back to reality.  He cowered.

Again, on a local level, these elections really annoyed me.  North Carolinians don't have a lot of power in Washington.  It's no secret.  One of the reasons is that tarheels tend to vote for moderates.  The state hasn't had a very strong alliance to either party although recently it has leaned republican on national issues and democrat on local policy.  It's seems kind of schizophrenic when you put it in those terms but a deeper analysis would probably indicate that most of the state votes for the more moderate candidate - party be damned.  Having said that, the face of state politics is changing.  And that change can be summed up in one word:  CARPETBAGGERS.

Cary, Raleigh's affleunt suburb, is commonly defined by the acronym Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.  Now, the spillover from Cary is infiltrating small sleepy towns like Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina.  I was shocked, when I moved "home" to North Carolina to find out that I only have one neighbor who is actually, like me, a native.  Most are New Yorkers.  It's like and 1865 invasion. 

Don't get me wrong, I like my neighbors.  But they have brought with them the same failing political beliefs that ruined both New York and New Jersey.  And the same people who fled high taxes and an enormous, invasive state governments up north, have moved south without abandoning their awful misconceptions about public policy.  Someone needs to wake up the native North Carolinians or the days of Mayberry and common sense politics in the tarheel state are over.

 

It has become increasingly clear that many GOPers feel that they are voting for the lesser of two evils.  I can't say I don't understand this sentiment.  Frankly, I cast some votes today that were definitely more "against" a candidate than "for" one.  Here's one example of why:

(NC's Brad Miller voted with Pelosi & co. to approve both unrestricted partial birth abortion and transporting minors across state lines for abortions without parental notification or consent)

My 8 year old asked me today, "Mom, how do you know who to vote for?"  I replied, "I don't always know, son.  Most of the representatives in Congress don't really represent me very well.  But sometimes, when politicians make it clear what they believe, and it's something terribly wrong,  I know who not to vote for." 

Don't vote Democrat.

After reading the news today, I have to admit I'm feeling quite entrepreneurial.  Ive decided to rent out my bedroom every other weekend to make a little fast cash.  We will provide a complimentary basket with a bottle of sparkling cran-raspberry, a box of Godiva chocolates and a well-used VHS of Green Card along with a step by step list of instructions to help you manage the task at hand in between putting older children to bed at 8:00 and attending to the crying newborn who needs to be fed every hour.  A list of responses to the annoying calls from your mother-in-law at exactly 8:35 will be provided at additional cost. 

Hey - it worked for us...ROTFLMBO!

 

It has come to the attention of the folks over at Free Republic that some liberal bloggers are trying to illegally impact the elections.

Read about it:

Bizzyblog

MM

Right on the Right

Yeah... republicans are trying to steal the election (eyes rolling wildly) that's why the GOPers run around slashing tires of the opposition staffers.  Oh wait.  Those were Dems doing that.

HOAX?  Bizzyblog has the update.

In the back of my parent's closet sat two or three shotguns.  If I remember the stories correctly, they belonged to my grandfather.  My younger brother and I generally ignored them as we were neither intrigued nor intimidated by their presence.  They were just there.

A few shells sat on top of my father's dresser for most of my formative years.  I don't know why.  They just sat there gathering dust.  Moving from the farm to the suburbs erased any real need for them nevertheless they rested like relics from another life on top of a cherry wardrobe until I was almost a teenager.

And that about summarizes my experience with firearms.  A neighbor taught me to hold a pistol when I was about 10 and my dad took me to a turkey shoot when I was 13 or so.  That's it.

So it is with some shock that I find myself writing about the right to bear arms.  A right I have willingly abdicated.

Many people argue that the right to bear arms is contained within the context of the provision for state militias.  This would imply that there is no individual right to bear arms and that government regulation over a citizen's gun purchases and gun use is no violation of the Bill of Rights.  Reading the exact wording, the commas being where they are, I'm inclined to agree.  What is missing from the grammatical syntax, however, is historical context. 

Early American legislators knew exactly what they meant when they demanded the right to bear arms. In fact, the text of Madison's original draft of the second amendment reads: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country." (He explains in Federalist #29 that well-regulated refers to well practiced, as in rehearsed, exercised in military arts, not as in over burded by legislation)  Clearly Madison saw the advantage of having a standing army whose precision and practiced performance would deter breeches of security.  But more pertinent to this discussion, he also saw that it was a man's inviolate right to bear arms.

I hope I'll never feel the need to own a gun.  I hope I'll never have to hunt to feed my family or to shoot to protect them.  But I respect the fact that some people do.  Apparently, our government does not.

During the evacuation of New Orleans, local police, under the guidance of local government, decided that the Constitution was irrelevant.

A local Fox affiliate out of Louisiana chronicled the brutality with which some citizens were treated as their firearms were confiscated, their homes invaded and, in some case, they themselves were injured by those sworn to protect them.  How can this happen in America?

Visit www.givethemback.com and click all the tabs on the left side of the screen to see and hear from people who were victimized and disarmed. 

Think back to the coverage during Katrina.  There were tales of looters and unspeakable violence.  Rapes in the superdome.  Madness.  Afterwards, when the public began to show less sympathy for the 'Cajuns gone wild', we were told that the reports were greatly exaggerated and that people actually behaved quite well.  I don't pretend to know what really happened in that regard but I am wondering... if the accounts of violence and unlawful chaos were untrue, then why were all the guns confiscated?  And if the horrific accounts were true, and people were out of control, then why disarm those who were prepared to defend themselves and their homes?  Didn't Madison say, after all, that gun ownership was a powerful deterrent?  What really happened in those darks days after the storm when local government failed and bureaucracies bumbled?

is trying to score political points by using a anti-war hoaxer.  In the tradition of Jesse MacBeth, the DNC has embraced Joshua Landsdale.  Check out Michelle Malkin's coverage of this token soldier whose story and image are being peddled, whether or not they're true...

Minnesota Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch  is denying reports that he called an agressive reporter a "republican whore".  Hatch claims that, to his recollection, he said "republican hack" though since those two words don't sound much alike, you've got to wonder where to confusion arose.

Apparently, this confrontation stemmed from Hatch's frustration at repeated questioning regarding a slip up earlier in the week by his running mate and Lt. Governor, fellow Democrat Judi Dutcher. Dutcher flubbed up a question about E-85 and admitted ignorance.  Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue but in Minnesota, a state that's a major ethanol producer, it drew guffaws, and head-shaking dismay.

Bad week for the Dem team in the Gopher state.  But Minnesotans love Democrats so it's questionable whether even the combination of ignorance and partisan paranoia will be enough to sway voters.

 

A new photo that will no doubt make the rounds is posted over at Free Republic.  Apparently, the Army and Air Force cadets are getting in on the joke.

Thumbs up for the military's next generation!

The independent film that chronicles radical Islam's hatred of all things American will be airing on Fox this weekend. An edited version of the documentary will be shown at 8 p.m. and 10 p.m on Saturday and then again Sunday at 4 p.m. and 10 p.m.

I have seen this film in it's unedited version and it is a powerful compilation of clips and analysis of the radical Islamic movement.  The footage comes directly from the groups spotlighted - there are no dramatizations or reenactments.  And it is frightening. 

Many Americans have trouble seeing the legitimacy of a "war on terror".  And if we were just hunting down Osama bin Laden and a few  crazed lunatics, perhaps there would be reason to question the deployment of American troops.  But this movie puts the war into focus.  Obsession defines our enemy with his own words.  It identifies those who have actively chosen to pursue war with America and the West and it lays bare the indoctrination of whole generations of children and young people by Islamic leaders in the Middle East.

As a nation whose cultural and political underpinnings are based in self-interest, it is natural that optimistic Americans, from their luxurious position at the top of the global economy fail to perceive the threat.  After all, what could be more contrary to self-interest than an ideology that encourages suicide bombings.  And yet, our survival depends on understanding the threat and facing it.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended,"

That is what is being described as John Kerry's apology.  Now for most English speaker, an apology consists of one contraction and one adjective.  I'm sorry.  Some prefer 'I apologize' a simple but effective subject and verb.  For the illustrious senator from Massachusetts, (no, the other one, John Kerry) however, a new expression of remorse has been devised.  The non-apology apology.

"I'm sorry that you misunderstood me" is what he's saying here and that is the equivalent of the statement that got him into hot water in the first place.  'You people are too stupid to understand me."  Is that what he's saying?  Perhaps, he means 'You people are too stupid to see how the evil Bush folks are trying to trick you!'  Either way, this is about the most condescending apology possible. 

If he simply misspoke he should have just apologized and explained.  What is most revealing about Kerry is that instead of sucking up and recognizing that he committed an enormous political blunder (again) he reacted like a reject from the Howard Dean school of "yeeeeaaaawwwww".  He was shrill and unrepentent yesterday during his press conference and only after his partymates began treating him like a leper did he bother to issue the online non-apology that is quoted above.

Standing by my earlier assessment of this man... he's an ass with delusions of aristocracy. 

Those are the words of Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat fighting for a seat this election, describing John Kerry's remarks about American troops.  Democrats are running from this verbal blunder faster than Ted Kennedy can commit manslaughter and call his lawyer.

TN Rep Harold Ford Jr. called for a Kerry apology but even he missed the point when reprimanding Mr. Heinz' public expression of remorse: "Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said".  No, Harry.  He wasn't just wrong to say it. In addition to being "just plain stupid"  Kerry is just plain wrong.

Somebody get Kerry a sitdown with perscom - he clearly needs a briefing.