Category Archives: Editorial

by

Don’t Tell Me What to Do – You’re Not the Boss of Me

Why should a king be able to tell his subjects what to do, or a parliament, or a president for that matter? “No taxation without representation,” was not a battle cry for independence, but a cry for a voice.  Unfortunately, a crazy king sort of thought, “I am king, my voice is all that matters.” Rational voices advising the king were ignored.  Hot heads in the colony ignored their moderate comrades, took advantage of the king’s attitude, promoted independence, war broke out and the rest is all history.

Well, except for the fact that nobody knew how they were going to fund the new nation. That issue took a few more years for the wrinkles to be worked out. Luckily there was plenty of land wealth just to the west; land filled with untapped natural resources and rich farmland.

That great expanse of land to the west served a couple purposes for the new nation. The first was it acted as a great national income booster; land speculation and sales have always been good money makers. Secondly, it afforded people a place to migrate when they began to feel penned in by civilization and all the terrible ills of government.  History tells of land rushes and land deals, of frontiersmen and pioneers, all taking advantage of the great western territory, ripe for the taking and cheap.  True there was hardship and uncertainty, and one can’t forget the peoples that would have to be removed, displaced or killed, but what is a little hardship and genocide if it keeps your citizens happy and your national coffers from running dry?  As long as the land didn’t run out, everything would be fine.

Yes, I am being a bit flippant with the issue, but barring a full history lesson which would probably bore you, this quick synopsis does the trick of setting up my point.  You see as long as there was open land to the west, unhappy citizens could pack up their gear and move when they decided the government was interfering too much in their private lives. It is what our ancestors have been doing ever since the first European feet were planted on North American soil.  True the rebels of the American Revolution told the king to take a hike, but then they turned around and created a government based on the constitutions of British colonies (i.e. Massachusetts and Virginia). Yes, yes, and yes, I hear your arguments streaming in, they did reform, reorganize and design a constitution of the people which could continually evolve as the nation grew.  They did an excellent job, but citizens still got miffed and moved west from time to time. “Don’t tell me what to do – you’re not the boss of me,” was an attitude that settled the west.  Just look at Texas, Oregon and Utah.

In the end, the government remained the boss.  Contrary to what some might want you to believe, our current president is not a Crazy King George and still listens to the people.  The same holds true for the majority of our elected officials and for the political candidates seeking office. However, with all the shouting, distrust and propaganda coming from all sides of the political world, it might be hard for any of them to actually hear what the citizens are saying. Too much noise and sensory overload can seriously get in the way.  So if you really have something to say then research your point well, write a polite letter, and remember to sign your name.  That is what rational, mature citizens do.

Oh, and if you want to know why the US government can tell you what to do, it is the price of citizenship.  Don’t believe me, just check out the oath all new citizens take.  “…I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America…” 

by

Responsibility of Speech

A worry…

Historically other US presidents and politicians have been disliked.  Some have been assassinated, sadly by US citizens.  I am sure hate rhetoric has always been part of US politics and culture. Isn’t it sad that with new media technology, the hate rhetoric of today is recorded for all to see? Is spread by the click of a button? I wonder if studies will now be conducted on how often someone posts, “the president needs to go, and we shouldn’t wait until November”.

These thoughts bring me to another, why is President Obama so disliked? Is it because of his policies?  Is it because he continued the bailouts President Bush started?  Is it because he has not produced a miracle and returned the economy to some undefined economic glory days of the past?  Is it because he didn’t spend all of his youth living in the United States? Is it because his parents’ union would have been against some state laws during a more ignorant past?

Whatever the reason, it makes me worry anytime someone lightly speaks or writes about the death of another.  It especially makes me worry when it is our president.  Only the crude, the ignorant or the anarchist would wish the President of the United States dead. Oh yea, and a few terrorists.

Freedom of Speech is well and good, but responsibility of speech needs to be encouraged more.  Not political correctness but ownership and understanding of what you actually say and spread.  I believe there will be a judgment day, and I suspect that what we say, what we write and what we share with our friends will be on the list of items we must account for to the Almighty.  Passionate debate, strong beliefs and political rhetoric have a place in society, but the crudeness of political speech that is becoming more prevalent, is something we should not support or encourage.

Defend Freedom of Speech, but also promote Decency and Responsibility of Speech.

by

War for Gas

Spring 1990 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein claims economic warfare over Kuwaiti oil production.

By August, his military forces had invaded Kuwait.  By January 1991 the US had committed to freeing Kuwait and its oil.  There were many reasons the US government, the US media and the US people gave for the decision to wage war on Iraq.  The most reasonable justification was that a sovereign nation had been invaded.  Other reasons were:  support an ally and major US oil supplier, Saudi Arabia; help the Kurdish people of Iraq from their ongoing persecution; and prevent known biological and chemical warfare from being used by Saddam against the peoples of the Gulf region.

By February, President George H. W. Bush had challenged the Iraqi people, specifically the oppressed Kurds, “to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”

To the great relief of the US, the First Gulf War ended quickly.  The promises made to the people of Iraq were left unfulfilled, as the citizens of the US pressured the President to pull out of the region.

November 2000, George W. Bush was elected as the US president bringing with him feelings of unfinished business in regards to Iraq and a desire to finish the task his father had started.  The only thing holding back the new president was a lack of justification for reentering Iraq; a justification the US citizenship would support.  However Iraq was not the same country as it had been a decade earlier.  A harsh crack down on the opposition by Saddam had left the country with greater fear of their dictator and with the potential for greater instability should the dictator be removed.  Added to this was also a greater distrust of the US and its promises.

By 2003 terrorist actions and threats had propelled the US population into a state of fear making it easier to convince them of a just cause to invade Iraq, and embroil the US into a further Middle Eastern war.  It would take the majority of a decade to pull the US troops out of this war.  However, Iraq would remain destabilized, and by that time the entire region would become destabilized.   Technology and a changing world would propel the Middle East into internal turmoil and revolt.  While the pleas of rebels would seek US help, the distrust and dislike for the US would continue to grow.  Allied nations and adversarial nations alike would distrust the US and its policies knowing that US election politics and fickle citizens could again force a US president to go back on his promises or worse encourage a president to act aggressively towards perceived threats.

So why do I bring up this history?  Well it is simple, gas prices or war to protect gas prices?  If one moves away from listening to political yelling matches, they might just hear that a) even with additional US drilling for oil, current gas prices would not drop anytime soon, b) opening up the US reserves would only adjust the price minimally, c) the prices of gas will go up not down if speculators fear more Gulf conflict and d) it is through trade agreements not threats that the US has been able to maintain the low gas prices compared to what Europe pays.

Ah, remembering back when gas was only a buck a gallon.  I was newly married, had children on the way and was dirt poor.  President Clinton was developing solid friendships with trading partners as well as putting the US on a path of making millionaires a common place. Oh yea, he was also developing a reputation for avoiding war even when our people were under attack.

It was good times, strong economy, low gas prices and big houses. All was perfect – right?  However, all an enemy had to do was wait; wait for a new president to be elected; a president less opposed to retaliation when attacked.

Low gas prices are gone, big houses are foreclosed on, and businesses closed up shop or moved away. Millionaires have lost millions, the middle class have lost jobs, and the poor have become so much poorer.  Religious wars, cultural wars, and international wars are threating our homeland and allies.

Okay so times are tough, but all this blame and hate and fear is not helping us.  Go back to 1990, it was Saddam that invaded a sovereign nation and he is now dead.  It was Osama Bin Laden that brought down the towers and the Pentagon in 2001. He too is now dead. Katrina was a natural disaster so we can’t send troops or drones after her.  BP was responsible for the big oil spill, but eliminating them won’t undo the environmental damage or lower our gas prices.

Our presidents, regardless of their political party affiliation have tried to do what they thought was best in every crisis they have faced.  They have all in their own way tried to correct the ills they have inherited.  President George H.W. Bush protected an ally.  President Bill Clinton pulled the US out of a deep recession.  President George W. Bush tried to fulfill a promise made by his father, tried to punish international terrorists for their crimes and tried to keep us from going into a recession after years of conflict and natural disasters.  President Barak Obama is trying to aid our poor, rebuild our international relationships, pull us out of a recession, bring jobs back to the US and keep us out of new wars despite entangling alliances.

In an election year it is my duty to vote as my conscience dictates, but I will support the people’s choice as I have after every election.  I will and do support my president regardless of who he is, because he is my president.  I will let the history books decide if his policies helped the people more greatly than they hindered.  I will not add my ire to my president’s burden, because I know he acts on his conscience.

I understand policies of containment and I understand the need to stand up to genocidal dictators. I recognize the turbulence of our time and the often unavoidable reality of war.

I understand there is great suffering in the world, but I do not expect my president to fix it all in four years or even eight.  With so many worries and ills in the world that the president must contend with, I will not take him to task over gas prices!

For a timeline of information on the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, Click Here for an informative page.

by

Majority vs. Minority

Is it just as wrong to make policies that discriminate against the majority as it is to make policies that discriminate against the minority?  Should the government deny the majority health care services on the premise that it might go against a minorities’ beliefs?

As for religion and state, the government is charged with due diligence to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of The People.  It has not been charged with protecting the liberty of religious organizations.  While religious organizations are made up of people, they are not The People.  The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and mandating health coverage does not impinge on the exercise of faith.  It does not require any one to use the coverage, only for organizations to provide it for those who choose to use the coverage.

In the end, it comes down to money, or in other words taxes.  Whether the tax is levied in the standard sense or through mandating organizations to cover heath care equally, it is still a tax.  So rather than arguing about contraception, maybe the argument should be on whether religious organization should lose their tax exemptions?  This change has been called for, but I think that our churches would prefer simply offering health care, it would probably be much less costly.

by

Common Sense ???

Put aside political affiliation and hear the truth of where political polarization is taking us.

“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail,” she said.

“As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern, and I believe there are unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate. I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America.”

Senator Olympia Snowe                                 February 2012

by

There Must Be a Better Way

I am deeply saddened that during a time when our youth are being bombarded by so many ill winds, good organizations with a desire to help our youth are under attack.  Sadly too often the attacks come from politically driven individuals who have done little to inform themselves before slandering the organizations.

This, I believe, is the case in the recent attacks on the Girl Scouts of America.  In my blog Entitlement is a Symptom, I discuss the benefits of having a community of loving adults aiding in the development of our youth.  I believe that this is a role in which organizations like Girl Scouts can play a beneficial part.

To read one account of some “scary” activity or association should not make us publicly condemn the whole. Nor should we read an account of something “disagreeable” happening in a worldwide organization with similar name, and assume it applies to our local group.  While everyone has a right to develop their own opinions, it is irresponsible to do a small bit of research, and then publicly criticize and condemn the whole.

When a public leader or politician lashes out at a group like Girl Scouts, the consequences can be far reaching.  In just a few unkind or under-informed words, long term damage can occur.  How sad is it then, when the effects trickle down and a young person in need no longer has available resources to help mold their futures in positive ways.

We are not a nation of “one size fits all” and this especially applies to ideological beliefs.  We do not have to agree with every belief or principle of our neighbor.  Our neighbor should not be labeled as someone evil just because they don’t vote the same way we do.  There is enough real evil in the world without creating the perception of more.

The desire to slander an individual or a group based on our own precepts does not make us good people.  Politicians need to remember that while calling names and slinging ideological mud might temporarily rally supporters, it does not make them likable.  Worse yet, they are acting and sounding like lunatics and giving credibility to hatemongering.  So in the end, their politically driven tirade results in a negative effect on the youth who need the resources provided by Girl Scouts and similar organizations, as well as in the encouragement of the radical ideology of hate.

There must be a better way.

Note:  I considered adding links to articles detailing the nature of these attacks, but there were just too many of them.  If you would like to read them, search “Girl Scouts Under Fire” and you will find many from which to choose. 

by

Political Spew – Who cleans it Up?

It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when there is so much information available so few politicians take the time to seek a balanced understanding of the issues they choose to use as sound bites, before they spew them.  In the past when news took days to travel the nation, a politician could arguably spew crap and not have a wide spread stink fest.  There was time to retract, dispute and rebut before the masses became aware of the crap and absorbed it as truth.

In a time when it takes minutes, if not seconds for news to travel, it is important for politicians to do more homework, have their staff do more homework, and be more informed before they speak.  In a good debate you always know your opposition’s standpoint.  You never go in with only half the argument.  If you really want to win, you really have to be prepared.

When a politician spews crap, who is responsible to clean up the crap?  When the sound bites and election is over, who will instruct the masses that the political rhetoric is just that – rhetoric and not reality?

In the good old days of politics, the candidates bashed each other, spewed misinformation, spun webs of confusion, and appeared to really dislike each other.  In some cases they may truly have been adversaries, but in most cases once the campaigning was finished, they returned to respectful associates, if not friends.

This was how politics worked.  Once the newspaper was thrown into the trash, and the world moved on, the masses went back to worrying about their own worlds and forgot most of the spew of the election.  This is not the case now.  When a candidate spews crap, it sticks around.  Others add to it, littering the internet and cable channels with more crap.  The piles become so large that they remain long after the election is over.

Over time and with more experience, the candidates become better educated on specific issues and often change to a more moderate stand, thereby becoming flip-floppers.  It is then up to them to clean up, not just their previous spew, but all the crap heaped on top of it. Sadly the more they work to clean up the mess, the more they are painted as wishy-washy.  So they often just let the crap stand, leaving us all to wither in the stink.

by

Attack the Test or Change the Culture

I read an article claiming presidential candidate Rick Santorum does not believe that health insurance should cover amniocentesis because the results often lead to abortion.

Yes amniocentesis has led to abortions, but it has also given parents an opportunity to prepare for children with special needs months before the child comes home from the hospital.

I have been blessed to know a couple mothers who truly valued this time to prepare.  In one case, the mother was able to research her baby’s condition, prepare her home and family, sell her car and buy a minivan, and most especially prepare herself for the complications that might take her baby’s life.

She was encouraged to have an abortion many times during her pregnancy; her decision against abortion was questioned and often condemned by those in association with her.  However, she stood firm. Her child was given a very slim chance of making it to full term and she prepared herself. Once he made it to term, he was given a very slim chance of survival and again she prepared herself.  The well prepared mother took each day as a blessing and cherished every moment.  She rallied her family around her and continued to educate herself and her family on what might come next.  After nearly three years of being told her child might not survive, she invited all her supporters to her son’s second birthday party.  He was a joy to watch, a blessing to all.  He still is.

If insurance companies do not pay for this procedure, women are much less likely to undergo it.  As with any procedure, it should be the woman’s choice.   Comprehensive insurance should be comprehensive.  It should leave the decision of which procedure is needed up to the doctor and the patient, not up to bureaucrats and accountants.

The discussion of abortions being linked to amniocenteses should not be centered on whether the procedure is covered; it should be centered on changing the medical community’s feelings that they should encourage abortion when the chances of “normal” life are slim for the child.  This is what needs to change.

Abortion may be legal and may be in some cases be in the woman’s “best” medical interest, but to encourage it for the goal of limiting possible emotional suffering or struggle later on, should not be the outcome of amniocentesis.  Amniocentesis is a test and while warring against it is easier than changing attitudes, it is not the solution but the cop-out.

by

Is it Justified?

I have just read of the new law waiting to be signed by the governor of Virginia. It would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an transvaginal ultrasound. The first article I read was an outraged editorial opposing the law, but what upset me was the rhetoric of the proponents for this law. It reminded me of other times civil liberties have been violated by the government. I searched and found to my dismay that versions of this law were being considered in other states as well.

Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you stand on, I ask you to consider whether this rhetoric, and the intent behind the proposed Virginia law, is not an abhorrent violation of moral decency and civil liberty?

It appears that the intent of the forced transvaginal ultrasound is to ensure that a woman seeking an abortion fully understands what she has chosen to do.  This seems reasonable on the surface, but as with any controversial issue, the debate around this policy has become embroiled with little reason and volumes of appalling opinion.

So I would like to pose three comparisons; and please bear in mind I am not trying to make light of any of these issues.

Okay so let’s assume you believe abortion is murder.  A legalized murder, kind of like suicide is for all intents self-murder and is not illegal, mainly because you can’t prosecute the deceased for their own death. (I would hope you would not prosecute anyone for attempted murder if they failed to succeed with their suicide.)  So you can’t stop the woman from seeking a legal murder, but you feel you must impress upon her that she is killing a living being.  So you force her to recognize the beating heart by “penetrating” her body against her will.  This violation is justified because you are trying to prevent a murder.

Next let say you would like to go on a hunger strike, maybe even to oppose abortion. So you set out to starve yourself until abortion is abolished.  Others would try to talk you out of it, but to no avail.  So the state steps in and force feeds you through a tube, preventing you from murdering yourself.  This is justified because the state is preventing a murder, a self-murder, but still a murder.

Finally let say you are a terrorist and you are planning to murder many people because they teach principles that are abhorrent to your moral beliefs.  You are captured but your partners are not.  So the government steps in and tortures you so you will divulge information which might put to an end your murderous plans.  This torture is justified because it might save many lives.  The government recognizes that you really don’t fully understand the magnitude of your actions, that your moral beliefs are misguided and you are obviously incapable of fully understanding what you have chosen to do.

It is not my intent to weigh in on the abortion debate, again it is the rhetoric that upsets me.  Have we learned nothing from our past?  Is there not a better way to save lives or are Machiavellian ideas to always be the justification for the disregard of civil liberty?

by

Entitlement is a Symptom

I am a mother of two teenagers.  My boy turns sixteen in less than a month and my girl is in the first half of her fourteenth year. This fact does not make me an expert, however it does qualify me as a mother of our current generation of teens.

While my teens disagree with non-family adults at times, they are quick to apologize if they should act in a rude manner.  What I mean by this is that they speak their minds, defend their beliefs and apologize later even if they were in the right. They are good kids, they show respect for me and my husband.  They argue with us, as I believe they should because each argument leads to a lesson taught and learned.  They have said they are sorry for their attitudes more times than I can count and so have I (just not as often).  They have learned to respect people who deserve respect and have tolerance for those who do not.

I have the testimonials of others to confirm what I know from experience – I have good kids.  However, my kids didn’t get this way by chance and I didn’t win some good child lottery.  I worked diligently every day.  I went to bed praying every night to have better skills to teach my kids with, and forgiveness for my own shortcomings as well as theirs.  Too many days I yelled, too many times I became distracted, too often I waited longer than I should to give hugs and kisses.    I didn’t read to them enough, I didn’t play with them enough, but I did listen, observe and act.  I was in their lives, their faces and their business.  I still am.  I sacrifice for them. I give them all the tools they could possibly need to succeed. I drive them crazy with lectures, discussions and evaluations.  I am their mom, their confidant, their counselor and maybe just a tiny bit their friend.

It has not been, nor is it my goal to be their friend, but somehow, they like me.  Go figure, they like the grumpy, annoying, and nearly always right teacher, their mom.

So how have I managed this miracle?  Am I a Tiger Mom, or a French Mom or a Soccer Mom?  I am none of these things.  My success comes from spending endless hours talking to my kids, analyzing what they need, and acting.  In essence I parent them.

In 2004, Bill Cosby gave a speech in which he said, “We are not parenting.”  He also says that all the children “[know] is ‘gimme, gimme, gimme.’ These people [the parents] want to buy the friendship of a child….and the child couldn’t care less.”  He was talking to a very specific audience, an audience bigger than the one in the lecture hall that day.  His comments, which I advise all to read or watch, were directed to the lower and middle class black community of the United States, and he started a firestorm of fury.

However, I would like to direct his words to all of the middle and upper class of this nation, maybe even to the world.  I hear so much about the problem of youth entitlement, and how this is a “give me” generation, but where are their parents and grandparents in this debate?  Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that the idiocy of the youth must be addressed, just as I have addressed my own children’s idiocy.  I have also addressed their grandparent’s idiocy of excess.  Excess money and toys do not make a child feel loved; only time and attention can generate that emotion.  Money and toys are easier to give and are a balm to the grandparent’s consciences when distance or busy lives keep them away from their posterity.  The child, old or young will not remember the money or toys when grandparents are gone, they will remember the games, stories and most of all the smiles and hugs that they shared with their “gramps and nanna”.

If it holds true that time and attention generate love, fondness and respect, then this recipe should work for parents as well as grandparents.

Often I have been told by working moms that they wish they could homeschool their kids as I do.  My answer has always been that they should use the hours of the evenings and weekends to work with their children.  Now, I don’t mean by heaping on more school subjects or doing endless housework (although working alongside your child is encouraged).  I mean that moms (and dads) should find a common interest or intrigue and pursue it together.  Yes, the zoo is fine or the museum, but unless you have a young biologist or artist in your home, try to find something else; something that you have to learn right alongside them, something new. It is amazing how much more open kids will be with you when the playing field has been evened.  Of course, word of warning, just like when teaching a child the game of chess you must help them win sometimes, while learning new skills and hobbies you should not outshine your child too much, let them compete with friends not parents for the blue ribbon.

When I hear adults complain about the “entitled youth”, I wonder about the parents and grandparents.  I wonder about the neighbor lady who is grandchildless, and the older gentleman whose children live far away.  How are they helping this generation?  I don’t think that the youth are the problem of today, I believe they are the byproduct of the problem.  Parents not parenting.  Grandparents spoiling rather than interacting.  Adults with kids grown, not volunteering in youth groups.  Society blaming the lost and not those who lost them.  Yes there will be some youth who will rebel or get lost regardless of the attention they recieve, but the effort should be made while there is still time left to make it.

I was brought up by a community of family and close neighbors.  When I had my children, I was not fortunate to have family nearby, so I found “family”.  I found aunts and uncles, grannies and grandpas, and even a few older cousins.  When someone moved away, I found a replacement.  I ensured that my children had a community of caring people in their lives.  I did this while I still worked full time and maintained it afterwards.  When my son faced a devastating internal struggle and his parent’s counsel did not help, we brought him to a loving “uncle” who spent time with him, listened to him and was always available, despite his own busy life as a father, husband and provider.  When my daughter struggled with self-doubt and low self-esteem, I found a bunch of “aunts” and “grandmas” who took her under their wing and nurtured her.

You will notice the word “I” was used quite often.  These are my kids and therefore I am accountable for them in their youth.

So what is the secret of my success, I spend time with my kids and I don’t do it alone – I don’t try to do it alone either.

(Just a note to the dads out their – all that I have stated, my husband agrees with, as parenting truly is a group effort.)