Greedy Young Businessman Celebrated

Below, you can learn about Caine, a 9-year-old small business owner in LA.


Caine's Arcade from Nirvan Mullick on Vimeo.

This story has been called "heart-warming" and "inspiring" by almost everyone who reads it. But perhaps Caine's fans haven't considered the danger involved in rewarding a small boy for his creativity and hard-work.

Donors have contributed to a college fund for Caine in excess of $54,000. Presumably, his father didn't charge for the cardboard boxes and housed the arcade rent-free, indicating every dollar of Caine's money is profit.  

Do you understand what this means, fellow members of the 99%? We have unwittingly encouraged a future businessman to continue down the path of greed! After one, "harmless" display of support for a 9-year-old entrepreneur, it's very likely this boy developed a taste for money which will progress into adulthood.

If you don't believe me, consider the ticket price policies adopted by Caine's Arcade. With no overhead for electricity or employee salaries, why does Caine need to charge $1 for regular admission? If that's not bad enough, he up-sells every customer on the Fun Pass, which is twice the cost for the same games.

Like all businessmen, Caine wants to squeeze his customers for as much as possible.

Mark my words, that boy will use every penny of his $54,000 to major in business--while the other kids in his neighborhood get left behind. In fact, he might just get the bright idea to hire some of his friends, to run the arcade while he's in school running miles ahead of them. And do you think those other children will ever earn more than the owner himself? No way.

In short, I haven't heard one word about sending the IRS after Caine, to claim society's fair share of his business, and I'm concerned about America's future if this enterprising spirit goes unchecked. He could build the next WalMart, Apple, or Chuck-E-Cheese empire!  He could be a billionaire!

Caine made twice as much as I did this year, and he did it with CARDBOARD. Do we really want to celebrate this destruction of equality?

Breaking: Lazy Journalism Rewarded by a Race-Obsessed Culture!!!

When does a quick Twitter search and a couple screen shots count as investigative journalism?  When the story is about racism, of course!  Minority-hating is so prevalent that a reporter needn’t work terribly hard collecting a black list of offenders (no pun intended) before presenting the nasty, intolerant folks for public shame.

For example, this article recently chastised roughly 15 Tweeters, whose posts about the black actors in the movie The Hunger Games were considered racially-inappropriate. The scandal was uncovered by the reputable journalists at Jezebel.com. (Motto: "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women.")

Okay, seriously, Jezebel is an online tabloid. If you need more proof, one of its columns is called "the dirt bag.” Like most gossip gazettes, it has turned defamation into an art form—though celebrities provide bigger targets than private citizens. So I’m a little surprised they dared post the full names and faces of unsuspecting Tweeters, under a headline calling them "Racists.” 

The tweets were used—poor spelling and all—to make sweeping character judgments. But the reporter didn’t bother contacting the Tweeters personally so they could explain themselves in more than 140 characters. Jezebel settled for lazy research leading to libelous accusations, which is why “entertainment news” receives zero credit from sane people.

But race-obsessed America isn’t sane.

Thus, a whole gaggle of second-and-third-hand outlets picked up Jezebel’s story, taking it seriously as if it hadn’t appeared next to a piece about “the appropriate times to stare at a woman’s butt." Copy-cat “reports” ran in Forbes, HuffingtonPost, E!, Us Magazine, WashingtonPost (blog), and countless other virtual information hubs. And—what’s worse—not one of these newspapers gave the Tweeters a chance to defend themselves. No one gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Does it frighten anyone else that a regular Joe’s tweets, statuses, and blog quotes can be ripped from context and used to castigate him as a person?  Is it possible there are explanations for those quotes, besides utter, intolerable racism? 

-------                    

                         

"After watching the hunger games preview 6 times in a row, i realized Rue is black. whaaaat?! #shocked."

"cinna and rue weren't suppose to be black...why did the producer make all the good characters black smh"

"I was pumped about the movie, until I learned a black girl was playing Rue."

Honestly, I have no idea whether these Tweeters think black people are worth less than white people. Or if, possibly, they’re just upset the movie didn’t match the picture in their head. Personally, while reading the Hunger Games, I had a difficult time keeping track of the skin tones of 50+ characters at once. So I, too, am surprised Rue is black. I see now the book’s author calls her “dark-skinned,” but I missed that line the first time around. And I can tell you what I would have said to my husband in the theater, when I saw African-American Rue instead of the red-head I expected:

“So, they’re keeping it PC, huh?…” 

Luke would understand what I meant; when the book’s author doesn’t specify a race for a character, the part often goes to a minority actor, to “balance out” the cast. We wouldn’t want a movie to become too white, or the producers might get caught in the pages of Jezebel, wearing the racist label.

Thus, if someone pictured Rue incorrectly, his “disappointment” belongs in the same category as those who complained about Dear John, Twilight, and any other best-seller-turned-movie failing to reach the high expectations of its fans. Viewers especially hate when a beloved novels get edited for political reasons. 

In this case, it seems many fans were guilty of misreading. (What?! With elogquent, well-punctuated Twitter posts like theirs?! Poor reading comprehension?...  #shocked)  But that’s far less damning than being “racists.” 

A couple of those tweeters I’m nearly sure were just making jokes. Like this guy, who is pictured as a young, black man, (and who tags a dark-skinned girl in his tweet): "EWW...rue is black?? I'm not watching." It sounds like irony to me. Another person wrote, "Since when is Rue a nigger?" He could be an insensitive racist. Or he could watch a lot of “shock” comics—like Chris Rock—and genuinely believe blatant profanity is funny. 

Again, I can’t say what happens in the heads of these Tweeters—much less their hearts—but I wish at least one reporter had bothered to ask them before (almost all of) the offenders closed their Twitter accounts. This last bit of the story interests me most... I believe the reaction of the “guilty tweeters” reveals more about the issue of racism than anything they wrote before realizing a sleazy magazine would turn it into news.  

The internet community blasted the Twitter-users, with a unity that doesn’t often follow controversial stories.  Even when a tiny human died in utero, trolls emerged to say unspeakably ugly things to the parents. Yet, in the case of the Racist Tweeters, literally thousands of responses delivered the same message: “Shame on those tweeters!”  “Skin color doesn’t matter!” “Racist behavior sickens me!” “I thought Rue looked like an angel!” And on, and on, and on. In my searching, I couldn't find one--NOT ONE--person suggesting the tweeters were misunderstood. Let alone someone suggesting that racism itself is okay.

So, where are all the racists?

The readers/commenters believe “skin color doesn’t matter.” Their implication is, “I’m not a racist!” And many people shared the story on Facebook—to clarify they disapprove of racism as well. This generation went to school in integrated classrooms, played on black, brown, and yellow sports teams, and usually had a least one close friend they could use as a reference about life-in-a-different color.  (At 7-years-old, I asked Jasmine how she “got her hair with all the beads in it.” She responded very informatively with: “I don’t know. My mom does it.”) 

Besides hearing that “skin color doesn’t matter” (repeatedly), most young people have experienced it. Thus, being “racist” is so serious an offense that even people condemned supposedly by their own words took to hiding rather than face the wrath of the righteously-angry Online Community. (Motto: we’re not racist.)

So, where are those who believe skin color does matter? And why are we so determined to find them, give them a platform, and then criticize their intolerance?

I Skimmed It

I volunteer in a pregnancy center, which--like most medical establishments--handles a lot of paperwork. One of the very first things I ask clients is whether they had a chance to read and sign the liability release.

The release includes information such as "we report cases of rape to authorities" and "you should consult your primary physician regarding major medical decisions," written in elaborate legalize and taking up half a page in very small font.  It's a lot to get through, I know. So it's not surprising most women tell me:

"Well, I skimmed it."

All of us do it. When we're downloading software, we skim the licensing agreement before checking the "accept" box and moving on. We skim our Facebook newsfeed for information about people we're stalking--ignoring ads, game requests, etc.

In the store, we "browse."
Using the radio, we "seek."
With TV and the web, we "surf."

We've gotten adept at receiving, judging, and discarding information in a matter of seconds. Considering all the forms, contracts, and status updates thrown at us, this isn't always bad. It's a survival mechanism.

But I wonder, amidst all that skimming, when was the last time you really digested something?

----
 We've heard warning of society's waning attention span, and more than one writer has explored the topic. (After all, the writer's product suffers most when audiences prefer images and bumper-stickers rather than tackling a bulky article.)  I, too, worry that people will ignore what I have to say because I rarely express myself in 200 characters or less.

But--putting aside that bias as much as possible--the subject is dear to my heart because I strongly believe Truth requires studying...  consideration... meditation...  And, to find a piece of truth, we must slow down and think about what we're reading or hearing for more than a second!

----
In a post about the time Joy Behar refused to let Joel Osteen defend his stance against homosexuality, I suggested she simply didn't have the time to go back-and-forth in a fair manner. When we discuss things with friends, we can listen better than someone trying to entertain viewers with a half-hour show. I said: "[Finding] truth may require extra digging and can't be rushed...truth isn't sound-bite friendly....it doesn't fit nicely between commercial breaks."

It'd be great if we could make all of our points with a single, clever line; but this doesn't always work.

For this reason, I get frustrated with those digital posters being shared like crazy on Pinterest and Facebook. You know, the ones intended to be inspirational? (Although I'd bet many creators spend more time picking fonts and backgrounds than considering the message of the quote...) Occasionally, these "sound bites" of wisdom do offer good advice. But, if we stopped to unpack them--maybe wrote a responsive essay, using plain old Times New Roman--we might find they aren't wise at all.

Here are some examples:

I'm not going to write the responsive critique I mentioned above. I only want to say: be wary when trying to summarize truth in a sentence. Jesus didn't say, "You'll find me if you search for 'quotes' on Google."   :)

----
Full disclosure:  the inspiration for this particular post comes from suggestions from several readers (including my husband) that I make future posts shorter. But I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at those who don't want to climb through my wordiness. Anyone who gets worn out trying to follow my thought processes has every right to stop reading. That's perfectly okay, really!  (Unlike those people who keep reading and reading, then complain to me about how offensive I am. To them, I wrote the post "If You Don't Like My Teaching...") 

But, I'm encouraging everyone to read something challenging each day--on this blog or another site--and practice critical thinking as often as possible. Consider the thing you read, whether it's 10 words or 10,000, And find a way to learn something from it.

My long blogs result directly from my learning process, and it takes me awhile to unpack the truth (or the lie) of a particular topic. I like to think of problems from every angle. I compare and contrast. I write to get all the nagging, swarming thoughts out of my head, coming from the reading I do. And I totally understand if you don't want to read those thoughts when they ramble.

But, please, take some time to work through the things you see each day...

If we resort to skimming everything, never reading...unpacking...chewing...we risk settling for the bumper-sticker version of truth.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Please read this article, and tell me if you agree or disagree that many of today's young adults subscribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:"

"[The study showed] most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence... [They believe] all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures."   

 "...a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” ...When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers." 


Be sure to read the author's theory regarding why this trend occurs...

-----
Rather than writing a lengthy response of my own, I'd like to borrow a few quotes from commenters at the bottom of the linked article.

20-Something Wrote:
"As a member of what would be considered the "Emerging Adult" group, I must say Christian Smith is right on. . .and totally wrong. I agree with him on the fact that a large portion of adolescents and emerging adults ascribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." I would, however, like to add that this is not a generation-specific phenomenon. Church goers of all ages have begun to adapt and edit the more traditional views of Christianity to accommodate their chosen lifestyles. As for those who fall into the adolescent category...in my opinion we are suffering the consequences of the sensationalism of churches in the 80's and 90's. (i.e. more show than substance). Things will turn around as soon as churches start preaching the unapologetic gospel again." 

Julian Wrote:
"...Youth these days...are as ignorant about religion as they are about almost everything else except their particular line of specialty and pop culture. America has always had a pragmatic bent, but anti-intellectualism has reached its zenith under the modern image-based media domination... You cannot expect them to love and follow something they do not know. The Death of reading--serious intellectual reading--has profound consequences for society. The only real opportunity to get views other then the liberal and atheistic weltanschauung of the media and other elites, is to read, from every age, from every category, from everywhere. I am in my mid-20s. I find your assessment accurate. Humanity...[may] thrive in the sense of longevity, health, comfort, safety, freedom, and opportunities for work and pleasure. But very few will really live, rise above the constraints of social norms and pop culture, and the gratification of the senses and emotions..."

What do you think?

Cheerio!

If you watch a commercial for Old Navy performance gear, you may start believing that their Performance fleece sweatpants will make you look exactly like the model.  Ads for shoes try to convince you that running will somehow be fun, if you have the right foot-wear.  And I can't watch people twirling their pasta on a TV set designed to look like Olive Garden without thinking I need cheesy, saucy noodles right away.  That's the way all businesses try to present their product: as can't-live-without necessities, so you'll want to spend your money with them.

My daughter started eating Cheerios a few weeks ago, and I noticed they dissolve faster than the off-brand. But that's not the selling-point General Mills is using. Years ago, they played to the consumer's nostalgic feelings toward Cheerios (think of the commercial featuring the grandmother, feeding cheerios to her toddler grandson and talking about bringing the family together for Christmas).  Now, the marketing department uses the "It's good for you!" line. And, anyone who didn't realize the producers are just a little biased might believe people who don't eat heart-healthy, whole-grain Cheerios will die of a coronary blockage.

But, what if the commercials weren't convincing enough people to buy the cereal...so General Mills decided to fire employees who didn't buy a box of Cheerios every week? Does that seems reasonable?...

Employee #1:  That's fine! I buy at least two boxes every week, anyway! I love the heart-healthy, family-friendly Cheerios brand!

Employee #2:  Um...I really prefer the cheaper Tasty-O's brand.

General Mills: Well, you can still buy Tasty-O's if you want, but we're going to take about $2.00 out of your paycheck every week, to purchase a box of Cheerios. It's important for our job security that you support the company cereal!

Employee #2:  Yeah, but if it's a good product, then people like Employee #1 will keep buying it. Why do I have to?

General Mills: Well, it's a great product. It's not too sweet. It's made with natural ingredients. And, it may lower your cholesterol! I really think you'll be glad when you have it in your pantry.

Employee #2:  I appreciate the concern for my heart but...I really don't want the Cheerios. And I don't like the idea of my boss taking money away from me to pay for something I don't want.

Employee #1:   Let me tell you something. My great-grandfather came across the ocean to America with a vision...he wanted to provide for his family with the sweat of his brow and his own two hands. And do you know what he was eating while he sailed? Cheerios.  I'm fearful when I imagine an America without Cheerios.

Employee #2: You're not touching my paycheck.

General Mills: You have no regard for your coworkers or for this company. If you won't buy our cereal every week, then you're fired.
-----

...If employees can't decide what to do with their own money, then a bit of freedom is lost. Slowly, bit by bit, we allow certain groups to tell others what to buy. Why is this okay?

Regardless of how anybody tries to spin it, the Right-To-Work bill makes it illegal for an organization to fire an employee who refuses to pay union dues. If the employee doesn't want union representation for one reason or another, can we make them buy it?

I have many public-employee friends from whom I've tried to get an answer to this question, but the only thing I've gotten is long-winded emotional responses about how necessary unions are--and how America's middle class will collapse if employees stop funding unions. I'm extremely interested in rational dialog, but it feels like I'm being fed T-shirt slogans coming straight from General Mills--er, I mean union bosses--themselves. 

"If you don't buy our product, you'll die of a coronary blockage." That's the tragedy most businesses try to present, in order to keep their consumers loyal. But, ultimately, it's still the customer's choice. Even if the support of a union is THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD for a worker....even if a teacher or librarian or policeman literally would lose all health coverage, the whole retirement fund, his or her house, and everything without union help: is it our job to make them pay for something we know they need, if they don't want it?

---
I realize employees who like their union are worried there won't be enough funding unless they require other employees to pitch in. In fact, I imagine the Right-To-Work law probably would deal a lethal blow to unions, due to much less funding. (This is because many workers find their product isn't the can't-live-without-necessity their bosses claim.)

But, are union-members willing to give up the right to refuse purchases, just to "ensure" they keep their health benefits? Am I willing to make other moms buy Cheerios, just so I know the cereal will be on the shelf next time I go to the store?  It reminds me of the statement by oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin: "They who will give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."   I'm not sure what Ben would say about those willing to give up their neighbor's liberty. In keeping with the theme of this blog, that seems a little....(prepare for impact)  selfish.

As for me, having heard the level-headed arguments from people like Peter Heck, Governor Mitch Daniels, and many teacher friends, I've decided the emotionalism-disguised-as-arguments from critics of Right-to-Work don't stand.

The only issue is: should workers have to pay for a union they don't want?

If the answer is "no," and workers choose to withdraw payments, and this results in the disbanding of unions, well then...
Cheerio!

Did You Have a Baby in 2011?

Why, yes I did have a baby in 2011. Thanks for asking, TurboTax.

Having determined we could provide for a growing family--and believing a mini-McKinney would enhance our lives, my husband and I made the private decision to conceive.

But, why is the government paying us for that decision this tax season?

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice bonus. But I wanted to have a baby anyway. On the other hand--if Luke and I were incapable of supporting a child apart from a tax incentive--we wouldn't have gotten pregnant.  So, this few hundred (or thousand?) dollars will be given to us for...really, no reason. 

I bring this up because I'm thinking about the insane American debt--the "budget crisis,"--and I hear many argue that making cuts only sounds good in theory...until someone personally feels inconvenienced by the results. Perhaps that's true. Selfish interests make budget cuts difficult. But I'm not so selfish as to demand money for a life choice like the one I made last year. This New Baby Tax Credit affects me personally, and I'm willing to sacrifice it. I honestly wouldn't holler a bit if the next President decided to eliminate the costs of paying parents for doing what parents are supposed to do: raising their own babies.

What about those energy-efficient windows we installed two summers ago?  We bought them because we liked the look and we wanted to save money on future heating bills.  There was no need for Uncle Sam to contribute on top of that. Also, though I believe tax increases are not the sole answer to our current problem (because taxing all citizens at 100% of their income still wouldn't sustain the government at its current spending rate), it seems a little bizarre that Luke and I have never owed Federal taxes due to our income being too low. This can be said regarding a good portion of the country. But we live here, and we enjoy the protection of the armed services, the right to vote, and the privileged title of American. I'm willing to start contributing a percentage of our earnings, provided the revenue isn't wasted on needless programs and more freedom-killing laws.

-----
We've heard we "can't balance the budget on the backs of college students." We can't sacrifice programs meant to help the poor, the elderly, those just-starting-out, or those representing the "99%" of the population.  But where CAN we make changes? 

I had a baby in 2011, and it's my job to raise her with or without the tax incentive. Let's talk specifics. Is there anything you're willing to give up?

The Selfishness of Big Corporations?

I am a member of the 99% of Americans who have bills to pay and mouths to feed, making less than $500,000 a year.

I'm also a member of the considerably-less-than-99% who will pay those bills and feed those mouths without stopping to blame corporate America for some ill-specified grievance.

Oh, I know it's "greed" at the root of all America's troubles. I agree, "Greed" (a close cousin of "selfishness") creates big problems, including poverty on one side and gross excess on the other. But the misunderstanding comes when we claim big business executives are the only greedy ones, all while saying, essentially, "give the wealth to ME!"  

Protestors of big business greed don't really specify HOW to "better distribute" wealth to the 99% other than taking it from the nameless rich. This is because writing their demands would more clearly highlight their foolishness:

1. We want someone else to create jobs. 
2. We want someone else to come up with a good idea.
3. We want someone else to take a risk and invest in it.
4. We want someone else to contribute to a company's growth until it turns a profit. THEN
5. We want that person to divide those profits with us.
Oh, and ...
6. We do not want this person to become "rich" in the process...

Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it?

Luckily, we already have a perfectly fair way of "distributing wealth" in this country. Those who contribute a desirable service, good, or idea get rewarded for that contribution. Those with nothing to offer must go to school or teach themselves a valuable skill OR, as many college-drop-out-billionaires have done, come up with brand new business idea and grow it yourself...

Or protest. It's America, you have the right, too. But don't expect me to honk my horn in support when I drive past the courthouse.

I am the 99% of people not classified as "very wealthy." But I am not selfish enough to demand punishment for those creative, hard-working, and daring enough to push into the 1%.

Square Circles: Undefining Ancient Concepts

-------

I was thinking today... Why do all circles have to be round?

It just doesn't seem fair, restricting "circularity" that way. What if a triangle wanted to be round, too? Or a square?

I realize the very definition of what it means to be a circle--since eternity--requires roundness. And, I know most people say anything with angles just isn't a circle. It's "impossible." But think outside the box with me! Get with the 21st century! Just because we've always defined something one way doesn't mean it can't change...

From now on, I'm going to push for acceptance of the "square circle."

I'll picket at the courthouse and call my congressmen. I'll talk about square circles every time I'm in public. I'll put "square circles" in the newspaper and on TV, so everyone can see square circles are funny and they have good fashion sense. Actually, they're really not much different from regular circles.  (Or, as I sometimes differentiate, "traditional circles.")

Come to think of it, just putting "square circles" and "traditional circles" in two different categories constitutes inequality. Why should there be a separate title for circles with angled-tendencies? Notify the press! Spread the word! Using a special adjective for one circle or another is narrow-minded and bigoted. It's time to move on and forget we ever prevented square circles from being circles at all...

Sorry if I'm going on and on about something you think is unimportant (or even downright nonsensical). My aim isn't to offend. I only want to be heard. And to have a couple holidays devoted to circularity. And to have my agenda taught in schools. And to be signed into law.  Is that so bad?

I guess you could say it's very dear to me--the issue of square circles.
Or, as I like to call them:
"CIRCLES."  

Insurance

To what extent should Christians prepare for the "just-in-case" scenario? Where is that line between faith in God and taking unnecessary risks?

It's complicated. And, I have no doubt, it MUST be an individual decision.

This topic was brought up by a friend, who is weighing the pros and cons of vaccinating young girls against HPV--a disease contracted through sexual contact which often leads to cervical cancer. Without dispute, two individuals who come together as virgins and remain faithful to each other will not get HPV. But the question becomes: how often does that scenario play out? Can you be sure your child will conform to the plan?

Everybody knows teens experiment with sex, while STDs among them reach epidemic proportions. So, wouldn't a caring mother elect to vaccinate her daughter out of concern she will make a mistake?  Shouldn't I, as a Christian, teach Cami what God desires and then prepare for the worse?

I don't believe so.

Personally, I believe the vaccine is unnecessary if I'm trusting God has a plan for her life. I believe encouraging my daughter to get a vaccine reveals to her that I don't trust her--which sends a mixed signal. That said, I should mention my own mother argues with me.

When I was 20-years-old, I visited the gynecologist for the first time, for a premarital check-up. (This was about 6 months before the wedding.) The doctor really tried to sell me on the Gardisil (HPV) vaccine, and I remember being frustrated by the way he worded things:

 "It only takes having sex one time to catch it!"
"So some people are just born with it?" I asked for clarification.
"No, it's an STD. But it's spreading like crazy, and having sex with an infected person once puts you at risk."
"But, my fiance and I are virgins," I told him.
Again, he repeated, "The virus causes the most common cases of cervical cancer, which could put your unborn children in danger. Is it something you're willing to gamble?"
Finally, I demanded a straight, this-is-the-situation answer: "If two people have sex with ONLY each other, for life, is there a risk for HPV?" I asked.
"No."
"Well, then that sounds like a prenup to me. Thank you, I will opt out." 

I felt comfortable with my decisions, but my mom wasn't happy. She asked, "Are you willing to risk your life on the belief that Luke will be faithful?!" I was dumbfounded. Uh, yeah, that's why I was marrying him. It wasn't just my physical life at stake--my emotional and spiritual health were being invested in him as well. We would become one flesh, eternally united, dependent on each other in every, single way. This way my vote of faith in him--and in the God who oversees our lives. But Mom made the point many, many others are making: "What's wrong with just-in-case protection?"

-----
Now I'm a mother, too, and this issue will present itself AGAIN when Cami is about 9 years old and a candidate for the shot.

The control-freak in me wants to make SURE my baby stays out of trouble. I want to take precaution to guarantee her safety. But the Holy Spirit in me knows that's impossible.

First of all, none of us takes EVERY precaution to ensure physical safety. Kids die in car wrecks all the time, but we still drive with them. Kids choke, but we still feed them. If we wrapped our children in cotton and never let them out of the house, we'd be considered paranoid. So, clearly, there is a fine line between good, protective mother, and clinically insane. So, which risks are worth risking?

Of course, those who say I can't be sure my daughter will remain a virgin until marriage are correct. But those trying to keep their daughters from every pitfall cannot do so, either. Thankfully, it's not my job to worry about it! I'm supposed to teach Cami Jo what God expects of her, and then trust HE will guard her heart and body. Even at 9, I can have an age-appropriate conversation with her about the shot and why Mommy is refusing it. Something to the effect of: "If you follow God's plan for your life, you won't need to worry about getting sick." The rest is up to her...and her Savior.

But, I recognize than many--even other Christians--feel differently, and that is why I stressed the need for an individual choice. This push to pass a law requiring the vaccine for all girls assaults my parental rights. Throughout history, mothers have disagreed about what is best for their children, and no law forcing us to make the same choice will solve the problem. (Some people think feeding a kid fast food is akin to child abuse. Should we outlaw it? Some mothers think it's appropriate to let a boy wear dresses. Should we make a national vote of it?)  

But, specifically about the vaccine. How do you feel? And, while we're at it, how do you feel about Christian couples signing prenuptial agreements? They promise to be together until death, but prepare for the possibility of breaking that promise... Is this wise or wrong?

It Could Be Better Spent

I'm a little frustrated with the criticism I've heard on the lavishness of the Royal Wedding, coming from people who argue the money "could  have been spent better."  I recognize literally hundreds of thousands of dollars went toward Kate and William's ceremony, but who are we to decide whether it was "too much" of their money? The Middleton's and the royal family paid for the entire thing, except the English-taxpayer-funded security, and whether or not the cost was "worth it" is relative to the means of those families.

So, why are we tempted to look at the choices of others, cluck our tongues, and decide their luxuries are excessive? We, who don't have as much, label their ceremonies "too expensive." But those with less than us could judge us the same way.

I referenced Lisa Samson in a post a few days ago, with her quote, "Just because I write words that bring people closer to God doesn't mean I don't have to lift my finger to help those who are in need."  During that same interview, she talked about her tendency to "judge people with granite countertops."  She told me granite represents excess to her--for whatever reason. It's the status symbol which seems inappropriate to her. How people can justify paying extra for them when the money could be better spent? 

BUT, she recognized not everyone is convicted about granite countertops...and, more importantly, there always will be something we do which another person considers "excessive."

You who think the royal wedding was "too much:" did you elope in a courthouse? Or did you invite guests, buy a few flowers, eat cake, and even go on a honeymoon?  Was even THAT necessary? Do you have more than one car? More than one outfit? More than one pair of shoes? How do you justify those things when there are people who have none?

I agree, resources are wasted daily across the globe. And ALL of us can do much, much, much more sacrificing than we do, for the benefit of the truly needy.

But here's a crazy thought:  instead of obsessing over our neighbors across the pond, and how they spend their money, why don't we start with our own excesses?

CANI Get Free Money, Please?

We are very busy around here this week, painting walls, assembling wee-furniture, and organizing piles of stuff in preparation for the arrival of McBaby approximately 4 weeks from now. But, since Luke ran to the store for some more tape and another screw to replace the one for the crib we lost, I have a couple minutes to share the reading/thinking I've been doing lately.

Here's an article about the correlation between the reality show Supernanny and the attitude of entitlement among Americans today: the Supernanny State. If you read it, pay special attention to the quote by Thoreau at the end...

His words, like the entire article, make us consider the difference between helping people and enabling them.

It will appear I'm switching gears with this next link to an article on Credit Card Reform, but I'll try to bring it full circle. The lady featured, a Democrat, wants to pass legislation to reduce the "fine print" involved with credit card and loan applications in order to simplify the process for consumers. She argues that competition can thrive only if we understand what the various contracts say in the first place, in order to make the most informed decision possible.

Now, generally, I don't have a problem with this idea, even though I haven't heard from the opposition, yet. (It's possible there is more to the bill than "simplifying"--which keeps the Republicans from jumping on board. I'm interested in reading a Conservative's perspective on the issue before I support the legilsation.) However, at first blow, I like what this lady has to say. Who could be against straight-forward language to help us make better decisions, right?

But, I'm afraid this legislation only will help people like me make decisions more quickly--but won't actually reduce the occurrence of loan default or home foreclosure. I believe there is more to the financial crisis in America than simple "ignorance" or "misunderstanding" of the fine print. And I think CANI provides a pretty good example.

What's CANI?

CANI stands for Childcare Alliance of Northern Indiana, and it helps low-income families (almost always single mothers) cover the cost of daycare services. A percentage of the students in my classroom are able to attend thanks to financial assistance from CANI.

In exchange for filling out government paperwork, making a few phone calls, and proving they need help, mothers receive a plastic card, which they are supposed to swipe upon dropping off their child and picking him up from the daycare center. The electronic machine on the receptionist's desk functions like an old fashioned time clock, by keeping track of the number of hours the student spends in childcare. Then, the information is sent to the internet, where a representative of the provider (for instance, me) can make sure everything was recorded properly. Assuming all works properly, CANI will pay the provider of services (the daycare) directly for the amount of time recorded by the electronic time clock.

However, not all works properly every time. Sometimes parents are running late and forget to swipe the card. Sometimes, parents simply don't feel like doing it. Whatever the case, the time clock allows parents to correct errors and "catch up" their records up to 14 days after missing a sign-in or sign-out. But, this handy function only helps those who are...how do I say this?...reliable.

Rather than speaking in hypotheticals, let me just describe for you exactly what my job became--as the teacher--not too many weeks back. No, I wasn't spending hours creating lesson plans and teaching kids to read. Eventually, I found myself spending HOURS trying to "help" parents fulfill their card-swiping responsibilities, just so our daycare center could get reimbursed for our services.

Every Monday morning, I would look at the online records to discover that--look!--five or so children were not signed in/out AT ALL last week. Our records showed they came to school every day, but the CANI records showed they didn't attend at all. If left as it was, we wouldn't receive a dime for those services... So, I would write down every single date for which I saw a discrepancy, and give it to the parent in the form of a letter.

Dear ______,

Your child was not signed in/out for the following days, March 12-16. Please use your CANI card and adjust the records the next time you are in the building. We do not receive payment for services unless this is done properly.

Thanks.

So, parents would catch up the records for all five students by the next day.

HA! Just kidding!

Usually, the parents would corner me the next day (or several days later) and say, "I don't remember what time I brought him in or picked him up on those days. Could you remind me?" And, being a helpful individual, Miss Amanda would spend another hour or two writing another group of letters. This time, with the daycare records in front of me, I would compose something like this:

Dear _____,

Our records show your child was here the following days/times last week:

3/12/11 In at 8:30am, out at 4:30pm

3/13/11 In at 9:00am, out at 5:00pm

3/14/11 In at 8:30 am, out at 5:00pm

3/15/11 In at 8:00am, out at 2:00pm

3/16/11 In at 8:00am, out at 5:00pm

Please adjust these days/times with your CANI card as soon as possible.

Thanks.

I would write personalized reminder letters like this for all students with discrepancies. And I used very plain, straight-forward language, as you may have noticed... So, of course--now knowing what was expected of them--the parents would jump into action and fix the errors...

Except for the ones who lost their letters. (Eventually, I began photocopying all the letters I wrote each week, so I could keep the originals and make MORE copies when parents "couldn't find" the first one.) Also, there were times parents would take the line "as soon as possible" very liberally, and their "first opportunity" to swipe their cards would come AFTER the 14 day period offered by CANI for such corrections...

So, what does the daycare provider do then? CANI required my boss to fill out "discrepancy worksheets" for any days/times we provided services, but for which the parent never swiped their cards. Each day required a seperate form. So, there were times my boss filled out 10-12 worksheets to send to the CANI headquarters. And THEN they may be returned to her with a note that said, "You missed box 2" or "You used blue ink instead of black." (No, I'm not making this up! This is a government agency, remember?)

So, let's recap: an agency called CANI--in cooperation with the daycare I work for--agreed to offer financial help to deserving mothers, trying to feed their families or go to school or whatever. These women just need someone in their corner! So, help was provided in exchange for swiping a credit card twice a day. Unfortunately, when this became too tedious, parents simply neglected to swipe the card, andthe job of jumping through hoops and hunting down our money fell to teachers like me and to directors like my boss...

Needless to say, Miss Amanda became fed up. So, she spoke with her boss and said, "Enough."

I suggested we start a new policy, for which I was willing to write precisely one letter a week--one which I could photocopy five or so times and which required zero personalization. And, it ended up reading something like this:

Dear _______,

Today is Thursday. Your child's CANI card has not been swiped at all this week. You have until tomorrow (Friday) at closing time to fix the errors, or we will be forced to charge you personally for the time your child was here.

Thanks!

Now, I was a little less abrupt than that. And, my boss and I explained to each parent, face-to-face, why we needed to change policies. We told them, nicely, that we couldn't continue losing money and spending so much time dealing with paper work, so we were looking for a better way to keep parents accountable. And, for a few weeks, the threat of being charged personally ensured that EVERY child was signed in/out consistently!

Until...

I suppose it was bound to happen, but eventually, a couple of mothers decided to test our sincerity. Monday morning rolled around, and I discovered that the records of two students had NOT been adjusted before we closed on Friday. So, I told my boss about it.

I'd love to say she issued swift discipline, but--actually--I don't know the rest of the story. She mentioned calling the offending parents, and I'm not sure what happened after that. But, I don’t think they were charged. There are many sweet-natured people in the world who have a hard time assigning consequences, even after a story like the one I just told. So, it wouldn't totally surprise me if those mothers continue to receive chance after chance, all in the name of compassion and good will.

So, I ask you, Readers, as I look out the window expecting to see my husband pull into the driveway at any moment, what IS the root of "neediness" in our country, which Thoreau encourages us to attack?

Parents want to raise respectful, selfless children, but many of them, as the Supernanny article points out, would rather be "nice" to them than to discipline. Similarly, there are many people—like the lady in the second article—who are concerned with American debt the state of the housing market/credit card industries. Yet, we continue to bail out those who sign contracts they can't keep. And, though the fine print has complicated things, there remains people like me who pay their bills regardless and who only scold themselves if they signed a contract they didn't understand... Simply neglecting to pay isn't an option for a responsible person. Instead of giving me hope for a debt-free America, I believe a “reformed credit card system” only will help those who already intend to do honest business in the first place. But I fear even very plain, straight-forward language won't prevent irresponsible people from being irresponsible...

So, what should be our response, as individuals AND as a country, when people fail to uphold their end of a bargain? How far should we "nice" people go to "help" those who are in need?

And at what point does helping become enabling?

We Want "Change"--But We Don't Want "Different"

Netflix's instant watch feature now offers old episodes of the TLC show "17 Kids and Counting," and....I watched the entire first season. Yes, I fell trap to the addiction, granted more than a couple years behind the rest of the country.

For those even further out of the loop than I, the show follows a smalltown, Christian family who have 17 biological children. Actually, I believe they have 19 now--but there were only 17 during the first season, when the mom, Michelle, announced she was pregnant again.

Overall, I found it very refreshing to watch a family working together, getting along, and making the most out of their lives.

Since the Duggar Parents were closely involved with the show's production, the family was portrayed in a good light for the most part. All of the Duggars recognize their uniqueness, but TLC never seemed to insinuate their lifestyle choice was bad.

Not like this person.

"The premiere episode of “17 Kids and Counting” tracked the Duggars’ “Today” trip to New York. While the family toured the city, the producers of the TLC series prompted the children to deliver their streaming impressions, and the results are very “Green Acres.” They cannot get over all the hustle and mayhem. “In Central Park there’s actually children there,” one of the boys says. “The rest of the city I didn’t see too many children, but Central Park there was a lot of kids.”

Jim Bob brought his prejudices with him, believing you can only hail a taxi if you’re waving money in your hand. Another boy is entranced by the large screens in Times Square even though some of the ads are “raunchy.” The Duggar children are not allowed to watch cable television, only obliged to appear on it."

I'll pause here for a moment, since I saw this episode. (I saw all of them.) The only prejudice involved belongs to the author of this article, who assumes a smalltown man has prejudices about the city. Jim Bob and his oldest son both tried hailing a cab for several minutes with no luck before Dad finally pulled out a wad of cash and convinced a driver to stop.

Also, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, some of the ads in Time Square are raunchy. The kid was right.

Continuing...

"A call to parenthood that would cause 99.9 percent of American couples to sneak out in the middle of the night and leave their children with a lifetime supply of juice boxes does not even appear to overwhelm the Duggars, and that has the effect of making them seem denial-prone or indifferent, even as they are shown to be paying considerable attention to the small nation state they oversee.

The Duggars home-school their children and create whole domains of responsibility rather than simply doling out chores. The laundry room, as Michelle puts it, “currently that’s Jinger’s jurisdiction.” Michelle never seems to raise her voice or even grow tense. Jim Bob manages to keep his hair perfectly combed. This is all quite mesmerizing, as if a 300-pound person suddenly landed in an ice rink during a figure skating event and performed a quadruple axel without incident."

See the article for the absurd conclusion about what close-knit family life portrayed on television supposedly does to the audience.... (Spoiler: The show "exploits divisions" among viewers.)

Obviously, I take offense over the tone this reviewer adopts. But I'm even more concerned by the fact that controversy and division HAS developed around the show, for reasons I truly cannot understand. Here is a short list of criticisms I've found from various bloggers, tweeters, and commenters. (Incluing this blog dedicated solely to commenting on the family: duggarswithoutpity.blogspot.com)

-The Duggars are exploiting their children, using the "TLC gravy train" to support them.

-They don't believe in dancing. (Weird!)

-Their children expect to find future mates through courtship (Weird!)

-They don't watch TV and have limited access to the internet (Weird!)

So, it's America's business that the Duggar's are weird?

I could defend each individual criticism of this family, but I don't think I'll waste the time. Instead, I'll admit all the controversy kind of makes me want to follow suit and do away with my TV. When paternity tests and out-of-control kids are the norm on daytime television, and Oprah and Dr. Phil make their money giving theory-based advice to moms at the end of their rope, but a family actually MAKING IT is torn down, I'm not sure I can continue to watch...

Personally, I believe kids should be aware of "raunchy" stuff and then be given good reasons not to participate in it--rather than made to believe evil doesn't exist at all. (After all, how can we expect to combat immorality if we don't even know this particular enemy is lurking.) Growing up, I was given straight answers for any questions I had as well as access to the internet, TV, books, articles, movies, and whatever else so I could learn to answer questions about WHY Mom and Dad believed what they believed. Oh, and we danced.

But, I would like to point out that today's parents are terrified their kids are going to get pregnant/get someone else pregnant. They've heard the entertainment industry can convince young minds of anything (that is, if a cartoon character on a package of cigarettes doesn't). Parents are confronted with statistics about violence in song lyrics, video games, movies, etc. And, even if their kids don't do drugs or bring a gun to school, parents have bought the idea that all kids will get into trouble. It's just what they do. The best WE can do is hand them condoms and set up internet monitoring so we can be aware when they're misbehaving. And, over coffee with friends, we can cluck our tongues and lament, "something has to be done about our youth."

But, then, why do we criticize the Duggars for their abnormal children? The Duggar kids are not sexually active, nor are they violent. They aren't disrespectful, like a normal teenager. They aren't rebellious and impossible, like "normal" kids.

Meanwhile, the parents are self-supporting--raising all of their kids with their own money. (And they were doing this BEFORE the "TLC gravy train" pulled into the station.) And they've developed a way to divide responsibilities which makes their household run like clockwork in a manner the "Desperate Housewives" can't fathom. In fact, I find it interesting that the author of the above article compared the Duggar's to a nation-state... but was NOT suggesting we could learn something about fiscal AND personal responsibility from this debt-free, neighbor-loving group. Instead, the writer only obsesses over their strangeness...

I agree, the Duggar's are weird. But, in a fallen, depraved world which causes many to step back in alarm and demand "change," why is that a bad thing?

A Feminist for the Rest of Us

First of all, I'm wondering if anyone caught my attempt to parallel this post's title with a Seinfeld episode? (The one about the Fesitvus?....Anyone?...."Fesivus for the rest of us"???) Okay, maybe it was a stretch. But I tried.

Anyway, I wrote a post several weeks ago about a feminist organization's dissent toward the practice of promoting marriage. They believe the government should mandate pay increases for women, as well as subsidize childcare costs and housing costs, rather than encourage single moms to team up and work with a partner. (This is despite the fact that research shows married women are happier, children being raise by both parents are more stable, and people working together to take care of their own expenses used to be the whole point of living independently in a free society. Nope. We're supposed to shut up and pay up to help single women.)

Generally, every time I hear a female politician speak, she champions this belief that women need the government to rise to their potential. And it makes me want to scream. They march in the name of feminism, but they turn women into the most helpless creatures on the planet--incapable of moving up without taxpayer handouts. Meanwhile, women like me who have educated themselves, who will bargain with their bosses over compensation if we're unhappy with the payscale, and who choose a marriage partnership for better financial security (and to give our legitimate children a sound growing environment) are told we're uncaring for expecting others to do the same.

This is why I tend to hate feminism. It's not that I hate the original intent of the "movement"--but I loathe what it has become.

Then, I found this woman. Though she's female and talks politics routinely, I didn't want to scream at her. Technically, as someone concerned with women's issues in welfare, family dynamics, and abortion, she must be a "feminist." Yet I actually LIKE her! It's a strange adjustment.

This lady understands government programs first hand. She admits she once treated Uncle Sam like a husband, after being caught in the self-entitlement beliefs of the early 70's. ("I deserve it! I need it!") But eventually she became a Christian and realized she could do far better for herself than any politician could give her. She escaped the system and began a business of her own. (Also, she got married.) Now, her organization shows others how to break free of government dependence and discover that Uncle Sam is no replacement for a solid, self-supporting family.

Please follow the link and then listen to her interview. We need more strong women like THIS in the world.

I Don't Need a Man! Except Uncle Sam...

This is why I struggle to rally behind most "feminist organizations."

For some reason, to be concerned about women's rights in America, you also have to be radically against the idea of traditional families. Supposedly, a real advocate for women fights for her right to have the job she wants, to have as many children as she wants, to have her own house, etc.

But to suggest the need for a partner to accomplish these goals is anti-feminist.

Some highlights from the above article:

-"the government shouldn't promote marriage."

-"children should be considered a public expense."

-Lives would improve if pay for women went up "much more than if people simply got married and stayed married."

On the other hand, of course, it's okay to promote reliance on the government. We're supposed to offer childcare assistance, housing assistance, and welfare/food stamps when necessary. That's only logical, since life is expensive and everyone needs help sometimes. But, don't suggest that help should come from a loving, supportive life partner.

(sigh) when will women realize that the overall condition of their gender has NOT improved since the adoption of a selfish, "I don't need a man" mentality?

Get Off God's Lap

I have become increasingly disappointed with women's devotionals. Apparently, every one of my sister's in Christ is a D-personality, task-oriented, hurried and harried, and pulled in all different directions. And, devotion writers have responded by delivering the message, over and over again, "Jesus is the safe place to curl up with a nice cup of coffee and unwind."

We are handed the story of Mary and Martha, under the assumption that all Christian women are Marthas, wearing themselves out in service and simply needing more down time. We are given the example of the woman with the bleeding issue and told we just need "a touch" from Jesus' cloak, like she did. And, through these stories and personal examples of "PTA meetings, soccer games, church responsibilities, and laundry" the writers of women's devotions constantly praise our activities while inviting us to the Jesus Spa. There, we can "step back," "take a break," and "spend a little time--just you and God." Change nothing else! This is all you need to live a complete, Christian life.

Part of my issue is that I can see this misguided advice for what it is because I do not have PTA meetings, soccer games, or loads of other typical, American-mom responsibilities, and I know from experience that loads of freetime/me-time isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, I keep busy with my job at the daycare, house-keeping, and other details. But, ultimately, I find plenty of down time and chances to spend in God's Lap, and I've found He doesn't want to massage my shoulders and let me return to the things which are breaking me down to begin with.

So, my main problem with the so-called solution to "get a little God" is this tactic presents a Christianized version of the message the world sends ALL women: "Be more selfish."

"Yes, you are superwoman, and the hand which rocks the cradle rules the world. But everybody needs time for themselves. So, take a minute and relax! You deserve it! Then you will feel prepared enough to go right back to the draining, lifeless activities which brought you here..."

I probably should clarify I don't mean to suggest that prayer and time with God inherently are selfish. Only let me explain, with no exaggeration, that eight out of ten devotions I get in my email are telling me to take more time for me. Every time I'm looking to hear a word from God, I'm told the word is "rest, sit down, take a load off." And I just have to wonder when God is going to tell me what He told his disciples:

"GO!"

"Don't just sit here, waiting for Me to make you feel better. I've already promised to give you whatever you give me--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. That includes time and energy. If you're feeling drained and tired all the time, perhaps your goals aren't the same as Mine. So, sit down long enough to get your instructions. Then, GO! I'll go with you, but go."

A hot drink and bubble bath can fix a lot of things. And if you are an over-worked Martha, you won't be able to go anywhere until you've spent time recouperating. But, no amount of rest will substitute for the fact that we were created to do things for the Kingdom. And, if you aren't fulfilled by the meetings, games, and chore list, may I suggest the very core of your system is broken--beyond what a quick trip to God's Lap can "fix?"

Take it from someone blessed with the opportunity to snuggle up and listen for God's voice with frequency--He isn't waiting like a pit crew to polish your hood, change the worn tires, and send you out for more of the same. He won't affirm your daily, spirit-killing routine, just because you turn him into a half-hour coffee break. And, shock of all shocks, He doesn't always agree that you are a hard-working, selfless individual, deserving of more, more, more. You can hear that from any commercial or talk show host in the country.

Rest in God's arms when the battle gets heated. But don't take His comfort as a license for selfishness. Don't run back to home base looking for peace, when you really need to get out of your comfort zone for awhile.

Go, look for opportunities to turn that selfishness into service, and you may just feel less "busy" and more "energized" than ever.

Go.

"Endowed by the Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights..."

Today, I came across this article about the bottom-line difference in thinking between Liberal ideas and Conservative ones.

Who or what should determine what's right and fair? Is there a higher power--resulting in a universal "right" and "wrong?" Or are the desires and emotions of individuals the most important factor in law-making?

As with many other things I've discovered, selfishness lies at the center of this issue...

Everybody Loves a Comic.....or Not.

Some of you may remember the time I chose to keep my mouth shut instead of arguing with a disrespectful teenager. His status updates on Facebook became increasingly profane, and I was tired of reading them. But, rather than confront his ignorance and risk hurting the way he sees Christians, I simply removed him from my friends list quietly. (Well, quietly except for the post I wrote here.)

Today is a story of another Facebook issue...and a different response I chose: logic and a bit of humor. Turns out, if somebody actually is wrong, being witty makes that person even more angry than calling them names and possibly slapping their mother....Though, I've never slapped anyone's mother, so maybe I'll post again the third time this happens?

Anyway, here's the story. I have a handful of politically-outspoken acquaintances, and--for whatever reason--they tend to be Liberal-minded college freshmen. Read: I get along with most college freshmen. Even some Liberal-minded college freshmen. But few things are more irritating than a 19-year-old regurgitating his professor's lectures and NBC's headlines daily on your newsfeed.

Okay, continuing. Most of the time, I read whatever emotionally-charged propoganda is posted by one of these individuals, and move on with a roll of my eyes. Sometimes I blog about the reasons I disagree with their views. But, yesterday, I felt the need to ask, "Are you SERIOUS?" And I meant the question. "Seriously?!"

A young pup we'll call "Joe" posted a link to the Arizona shooting story and announced, "Looks like Sarah Palin got her wish."

Now, I'm not Sarah Palin's biggest fan. Maybe she just needs a new publicist. Actually, she probably was much more likable before she had publicists at all. But, her biggest issue is the same as mine: feeling the need to respond with a statement every time someone slanders her. As a result, she became the Conservative Lindsay Lohan--always ending up in the news with a family scandal, always on the defensive, and never sounding very smart.

At any rate, I agree with the critics who say Palin is not ready for Presidency. But, that's neither here nor there. I could not figure out, having read Joe's post, how even a punk kid who devours leftist ideas like cake at his 4th birthday (incidentally, not that long ago) could think Palin and the Arizona shootings had a link.

So, I asked: "Are you really suggesting that Palin wanted 6 people killed in Tuscon today? I mean, REALLY?" Just a few minutes later, I got a response, which I would quote if I could. (I'll explain why I can't later.) But, the paraphrased version is: Sarah Palin posted a map of the US on her website with the heading "Take back these seats in 2010" with crosshairs marking the House seats she wanted to see occupied by Republicans instead of Democrats. The representative shot in Tuscon (Gabby Giffords, Democrat) was marked on that list--with crosshairs above her district. Therefore, the "atmosphere of violence" Palin helped create makes her at least partially responsible for the shooting--"whether intended or not."

Well, I'd already involved myself, so I decided to offer my own take on the situation. I suggested anybody willing to kill in ANY capacity is out of his mind. Murderers are unstable at best and completely duranged at worst. You cannot blame any one person, on either side of the aisle, for the actions of a madman.

To drive the point home, I offered the classroom example I use a lot. If one of my students says, "Jack made me mad, so I hit him," I still hold the hitter solely responsible for the violence. Furthermore, I would be even less impressed if the student said, "Another person hates Jack, and so he drew a picture of me hitting Jack, which I found and interrpreted to mean I should hit Jack. So I hit him." I mean, I'd be impressed by a preschooler's use of the word "interrpreted," but I still wouldn't buy the rationalization that the artist of the picture is responsible for the crazy conclusions or violent actions of the Hitter. And I honestly couldn't believe that Joe wanted me to buy that in the Palin case.

I asked him if he holds the Quran responsible for terrorist attacks, too, since extremists routinely justify acts of violence using its text--and since Holy Books can be likened to moral "maps" like the one Palin used. Shouldn't we blame the Quran for creating the "atmosphere of violence" regardless of "whether it was intended or not?" Or should we agree that, whether its the priest who kills abortion doctors or crazies yelling "Allahu Akbar!"--only the psycho killer is responsible for the psycho killer's crime.

Joe mentioned something about the Quran being an ancient document, so it doesn't count...(?) And he agreed he won't blame Palin specifically until the Arizona gunman says "I saw her map and thought it meant 'shoot'". But, if the gunman DOES try that excuse, Palin is partly guilty. Period.

At this point, I was done with lengthy, logic-filled prose. And I decided to let him have the last word. In response, I simply would hide his future posts to prevent them from making my eyes bleed. But, I happened to scroll down his page and come across a note from another friend of his which I couldn't pass up. It read:

Dear Death,
We will exchange Dobby* for Justin Beiber*.
Sincerely,
The World

(*Dobby is a cute, elf character from Harry Potter, who almost teleports away from an enemy, but is stabbed fatally just before he disappears. Justin Beiber is a real-life popstar, adored by junior high girls and considered talentless and annoying by just about everyone else.)

I remembered my dad told me the best way to make a point sometimes is to use humor. So, I wrote:

"Careful, guys. You are creating an atmosphere of violence around Justin Beiber. And, whether you intend it or not, some lunatic could interrpret this to mean you want Justin dead. If Justin gets stabbed while trying to disapparate, you will be partly responsible."

hehehe. I still giggle thinking about this. Because, my dad also warned that a witty response is similar to the Bible's words about an act of kindness done for an enemy. You know, the whole "heap burning coal on their heads" thing? I knew the more clever I was, the more it would get under Joe's skin...

But I expected him to write back and tell me why my analogy--like the Quran one--didn't apply in this situation, and then I was going to drop it. Really! I would thank him for being the expert on "How to Assign Responsibility 101," and I'd promise to return next time I had trouble discerning the absurd from the rational. But I wasn't going to try and convince him he was wrong any more.

Unfortunately, Joe only wrote "act your age" on my wall.

And then he unfriended me.

Note to self: well-written arguments, example stories, and a jab at the end= immature.
Unfriending someone on Facebook= acting my age.

I guess I'll go back to that response next time (unless I decide to slap someone's mother).

But, here's a lesson in the meantime, Kids. Everybody loves a comic. Unless the comic makes too much sense.

UPDATE: Found this article interesting and applicable. "Many college students are found lacking critical thinking and reasoning skills..." and cannot resist being swayed by emotional testimonies.

He's Not Sharing!

If you haven't heard, the American economy is in somewhat of a pickle. There exists only a handful of tyranical, evil-spirited humans we call "the rich," and the rest of us are innocent and struggling. Wouldn't it be just wonderful if someone could take the money from the rich and give it to those who REALLY deserve it? Like me?

Read this article if you want to learn more about what awful, stingy, horned monsters the wealthy are....

Or, allow me to describe the preschool version of the same issue which plays itself out in front of me on a daily basis:

Little Johnny walks into school with a brand, new toy. Most of the other kids admire it from a distance--telling Little Johnny how cool it is and maybe asking to touch it. But, Tiny Tim doesn't want to look or touch. He wants to HAVE the toy. And, luckily, he's armed with the Buzzword of Most Classrooms...

"Miss Amanda, Johnny won't share!!!"

Now, perhaps if I were power-hungry, I would enjoy the opportunity to solve this problem. After all, my preschoolers--like American voters--cannot fix issues themselves. (Right?) They need some sort of authority to step in and make things fair, because they aren't capable of making their own decisions. It's a good thing preschoolers have teachers and Americans have politicians to take control. And, since the definition of "fair" is NOT "keeping whats yours" but rather, "surrendering whenever Timmy is mad," I would force Johnny to share.

However, I am not power-hungry, and my aim is NOT to educate a bunch of co-dependent, open-handed future citizens. Instead, I usually reply:

"Tiny Tim, if you work hard when you're a grown up, you can make lots of money and buy a cool toy like that for yourself."

-----

The adult buzzwords are similar to the classroom's. SOME teachers would force Johnny to give up his toy in the name of the righteous principles of "sharing," just as some politicians act swiftly at the mention of "poverty," the "poor economy," or the "wealthy class." The unbalanced wealth in America is causing many citizens to buy the argument that what we really need is a strong, authoritative teacher to yank the toys away from the wealthy and give them to the deserving, struggling Tims.

Except for one thing. In America, we have the right to be selfish.

Morally, I spend a lot of time talking about the evils of self-obsession and looking-out-for-number one. In fact, I believe selfishness is the single most destructive problem in civilization. But, if even God Himself will not force us to do right--but, rather, gives us the freedom to love ourselves more than others--why do we believe Washington should be the Moral Police? Do we really want to give politicians control of the money--trusting THEM to make the "fair, balanced" decisions?

If I were a kajillionaire, I like to believe I'd be generous. As a God-fearer who wants to obey the command to care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan, I hope I would give endlessly. Even now, as a person who isn't starving, I try to keep my pocketbook open when confronted with the needs of another. But, it's none of my business whether Kobe or Madonna or Trump are charitable with their money. God doesn't force me to love my neighbor, and I can't force them to love theirs, either.

As adults in a free country, Americans are NOT helpless, as I implied earlier, and we do not need somebody to regulate our finances, even when we disagree with the financial choices of another. In a free country, anyone can start a business, make a killing, and keep the entire haul for himself, if he wants--no matter how much Tiny Tim wishes that person would share.

Risen From Apes

I took a long hiatus from television this past month, but I managed to see part of a talk show today, during which a husband tried to convince his wife to "just accept" his girlfriend of five years and adopt an "open relationship." Let's all share! True to form, and in the same fashion as the Tyra incident, the audience flew into an uproar at the situation.

But, in my opinion, the husband and the guest author who supported him made the more logical arguments, based on the beliefs of our culture. If it had been a formal debate, the husband gets the trophy.

The guest author had written a book about "negotiating infidelity," in which she recommends couples draw up a contract regarding permissive extra-marital affairs. Example: "You can visit strip joints and look at porn, without meeting my wrath." Or, "You can have sex with other women, as long as you don't cuddle afterwards." Supposedly, this prevents that pesky "cheating" technicality. She says, if your man has needs and urges, a loving mate would make allowances for him to fulfill them. And, obviously, the husband agreed whole-heartedly while the studio audience booed and hissed.

But, here's the argument, made by this author, which temporarily disarmed those in the room: "We are risen from apes, not descended from a fairy tale. Why do we expect monogamy?"

Silence.
Because--if there is no God--we shouldn't expect those we love to act anything more than animals.

So here is my ultimatum, readers: By all means learn the art of selflessness and becoming a servant if God is on His throne. Help your neighbors, love your spouses, and kill the prideful, self-loving part of your spirit, as an act of worship to the Lord. Show restraint and will-power in honor of the Prince who turns life into a fairy tale. And please, keep reading my blog to learn how I'm doing (or not doing) in this area, if it inspires you to do the same.

But, if there is no God, don't let me rain on your parade. Don't listen to my rants about education and the government and anything else which is sure to end with a conclusion about what your responsibility is. Why take responsibility? Why control yourself? Why conform to social restraints, like monogamy and trustworthiness? God's existence or nonexistence affects everything, and if you've decided He's a myth, then go hog wild.

And I sincerely wish you luck and the least amount of pain possible as you try to extract love and kindess from other apes like you.

He Made Me Kill Me

Ellen, Tyra, Oprah, and your local news anchors all want you to hop on board and stop teen bullying. With several headlining teenage suicides being broadcasted the last few weeks, the philanthropists are waging war against the teasing that causes these deaths.

Wait, causes them? As in, "The bully made him commit suicide?" Are we, the public, really accepting that conclusion and writing checks for various End Bullying campaigns?
If so, why have we abandoned the age-old playground chant, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me..."?

Look, I'm not condoning the bullies' actions. And, if I ever catch my kids being rude or taunting, they certainly will hear an earful. However, bullies have been around forever, yet the suicide rate in this decade is higher than ever. Could it be this generation of teenagers is less mentally stable than the one before, and maybe they haven't been taught to handle stress properly?

I don't think that's a crazy assertion, if you consider other headlines. These days, parents march into the classroom and chew out a teacher if they don't like the curriculum. This is a generation which prefers to file lawsuits for "pain and suffering" or "defamation of character" rather than letting things go. And, most worrying, these kids are represented by lawmakers who would love to make "hate speech" illegal--which means punishing anything that offends a minority group.

All of these scenarios speak a very loud message: if you don't like what's being said, STOP IT HOWEVER YOU CAN!

Americans--and possibly the world in general--have lost the ability to ignore anything. Our skin is so thin you can see our chicken-hearts beating right through it, and we cry "no fair!" whenever our panties twist. I talked in a previous post about our tendency to use laws to fight our moral battles, and this is a similar situation. Except--though we theoretically could outlaw the building of mosques should we so choose to defame the Constitution--no number of laws will ever stop "hate speech."

As we become more sensitive and less adept at ignoring things, the list of "inappropriate" or "offensive" things will grow. Newspapers and authors of books will be sued for statements which historically were protected by free speech and press. And, really, it isn't hard to imagine a day when opinions like "homosexuality is wrong" or "Jesus is the only way to Heaven" fall into categories like sexual and religious discrimination. Your beliefs could be illegal.

If you've read this blog since the beginning, you know I place high priority on individual responsibility. When we learn to control ourselves and take care of others, we'll make the biggest impact on our little worlds. But that leaves no room for blaming others. You can't point fingers at teachers when your kid can't read. You can't waste time holding grudges or--worse--letting them fester until you simply must take them to court. And you can't buy the statement, "The bully will make me kill myself."

My heart goes out to the families of the teens who took their lives. But these anti-bullying campaigns, with their star power and ample air-time, remain misguided. Instead, we need to cultivate strong individuals who know how to shrug off negativity and ignore the jerks muttering "hate speech."