Problem: Mission to Mars

In 2007, NASA -- the National Aeronautics and Space Administration -- received federal funding in the amount of just under $17 billion. You read that right: $17,000,000,000.00. Comfortable, yes? Not in the space exploration industry, but still, we're talking $17 billion.


Part of NASA's current plans include a mission to Mars. Manned. That is, a 5 year round trip (plus 18 month stint there) for x number of human beings. Lots of people are behind the idea, including the MMS, or Michigan Mars Society (at the University of Michigan), who kindly provided financial justification for such a trip on their website. Check out http://chapters.marssociety.org/usa/mi/politics/funding.html. According to the MMS, the "total cost of a human Mars mission is $25-55 billion dollars over a ten year period," which is "much less than the $80 billion we spent going to the Moon." (We spent 80 BILLION DOLLARS to go to the MOON?! I'm not yet 30, mind you, and didn't live through the Apollo missions or enjoy their ho-hum-wow factor, but we spent $80 BILLION DOLLARS for...WHAT?) They continue: "At $3-6 billion per year...that number is only 1%-2% of the US defense budget or only .2%-.4% of the total federal budget." Whew. I thought we were going to be spending a lot! But here's the kicker: "For less than a half a penny of every dollar you pay in taxes, we can put human beings on Mars." Oh, AWESOME! So, let's say, just because it's a number, we in our household pay $3,000.00 yearly in federal taxes. A few quick calculations (at half of one cent, because "less than" doesn't mean much to me) and...our young four-person family shells out about $15.00 a year...to put people on Mars.

$15.00 a year isn't much, right? At least, according to the MMS, it isn't much. And it's completely worth it, right? According to the NASA Advisory Council, TOTALLY! Why would I, Jane Schmoe American, want to keep that $15.00 to use on, say, baby diapers, when I could be helping to send John Doe American to MARS? I mean, imagine the far-reaching effect a mission to Mars would have on MY LIFE! It...it...well...it WOULD impact MY life, wouldn't it? Even a little? Hm. Of course, the NASA Advisory Council thinks the idea is brilliant. And do you know who is ON the NASA AC? James Cameron! (Who is James Cameron, you ask? The director of Titanic Terminator 2, Aliens, and The Abyss, writer of most of the same, and 3-time Academy Award winner for some of the same, to name a few of his more popular films.) Oh, gee! James Cameron! All his astounding interplanetary knowledge! Offering just a tad of slack, he DID major in physics...but then began a truck-driving career post-schooling to fund his screenwriting dreams. So, back to the sarcasm about his vast wealth of Martian understanding. People, his being on the Advisory Council causes me to want to rule against ANYTHING NASA presents, just by virtue of his involvement in and irrelevance to space exploration.


What, I ask you, do they expect to find on Mars to make a 6 1/2 year trip WORTH my $15.00 yearly? An opportunity for colonization? Alien life? Uh...you know, I can't even think of anything else they might find to make such a trip worth it, and chances are, they won't find either of the two of which I did manage to think. Even if they DID find alien life, we're talking microorganisms here, which, no matter how well-encased, have the potential to end life on Earth. And colonization? It's a well-established fact that that would be an absolute impossibility based on the conditions there.

Then there are issues to sift through for the astronauts and their families: who goes, and do they have families left behind on Earth (spouse, children) that they're effectively abandoning for 6 years in the name of science (while on board a ship with a mixed-gender crew who are expected BY NASA to at some point copulate), and how do they keep fit and sane and healthy on their journey, and what happens if and when the ship or the landing or the equipment encounters problems and we find that the entire crew died a meaningless and pointless death? When is "in the name of science" no longer an acceptable excuse? Does NASA, then, approve of families being separated and spouses potentially committing adultery thanks to six years in close proximity with the opposite (or same) sex? Do they condone sending human beings on a generally pointless mission with the understanding that these people could lose their sanity, die, or both? All for...what?


It's not as though our astronauts are Columbus anymore; in fact, I'd feel better if they DID stick to our planet. We have hundreds of thousands of miles of ocean as-yet unexplored, and that which could be most beneficial to us as a race undoubtedly lies in our oceans rather than in our atmosphere. My $15.00 each year would be better spent investigating our oceans...or helping to prevent our polar ice caps increase our oceans' size. At the rate we're destroying our Earth, astronauts could leave on a mission to Mars and return to an uninhabitable planet. I can't complain about prior space exploration, though...the Moon landing was not only for the sake of exploring our universe, but for the sake of American morale and to prove our technological superiority to our Cold War enemies.

But those enemies are (generally) allies now...our universe is largely a realm of head-scratching novelty to our race...and our morale as a people could not be much lower, but would not be bolstered by humans on Mars.

And let's face it. Ever seen Everest, the IMAX film? Neat, novel, I'd give it 3 of 5 stars for its scope, grandeur, and documentary reporting...but only 3, because I was generally pissed off by the people being followed up Everest. Why? At one point during the film, the climbers reveal their sadness at the death of a close friend, who had died recently on Everest's slopes, leaving behind a wife and children, all for...what? That question is never answered. All for what? All for SELFISHNESS. The individual who died, not to tarnish his memory, had ALREADY climbed Everest, ALREADY made the summit, and died during a successive trip. WHY? WHY, I ASK YOU? Pure, unadulterated selfishness.

The correlation: we, too, would be heading toward Mars on a mission of that same selfishness. We want to see. We want to visit, to explore, to succeed. No matter the cost, whether the cost is monetary, or other, more important "costs" are associated with it. Is investigation -- no, curiosity! -- worth such costs? Will it EVER be?

The time for exploration is not necessarily ended -- don't mistake me -- but should be indefinitely suspended until which time as we can be certain that there will be a living, peaceful, functioning Earth to which our astronauts can (potentially) return.

So, what's our solution? First, come to understand what NASA DOES do for us that IS worthwhile. You'll feel better about your tax dollars. Check it out here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/index.html Then express to NASA your desire that they focus on those positives and (at least temporarily!) abandon any plans for a Mars mission here: public-inquiries@hq.nasa.gov They respond in 10-15 business days. Be sure to put your subject in the subject line and do NOT include attachments. Or, fill out their online communication form, here: http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html Finally, email your senators, house reps, (contact info for your state is easily found via Google,) and then write to the Office of Management and Budget for the White House to request that funding for NASA intended for use on a Mars mission be denied, and instead redirected to the project of your choice (I chose global warming)...or, if you wish, that funding for NASA be altogether reduced. (I asked only the former.) Also, I would suggest FAXING your letter to the OMB, as they are still experiencing a major delay in receiving mail since, believe it or not, Sept. 11, 2001. Their fax number is 202-395-3888. We may not be able to prevent a Mars mission (or the outrageous cost of the R&D to get there), but as Jane Schmoe American, I'm doing my part to make my opinion known.

Okay, you got it. Problem solved.

Mommy

Problem: Gay Pride

The first weekend of October is the weekend our family stays away from Disneyland, thanks to "Gay Days," a non-Disney-sponsored activity comprising (last years quote) approximately 30,000 gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals wearing bright red t-shirts descending on the park en masse. This year we were certain to find other things to do -- even though we pay over $1000.00 a year for premium passes so we can enjoy the park on Saturday mornings as a family -- because the last two years we've lived in Anaheim, we've mistakenly shown up on Gay Day, to our great dismay.

Much like General Pace, (see previous blog entries,) I believe homosexuality is inherently wrong, that gender is predetermined and granted to us by God, and that same-sex marriages are a mockery of the institution given to us by the Lord. Fine. But I also have a close female friend with a girlfriend, and am happy to give my money to Disney, notorious for extending benefits to homosexual partners as well as legal spouses. Another individual's sexual partner selection is NOT my business, and there are a great many homosexuals who would scream just such a chant. Those same individuals, however, wear obscene t-shirts remarking on their sexual preference to Gay Days and hold parades and activity days like the one held in September in Folsom, California (an hour outside of Sacramento, oddly enough where there exists the California state penitentiary), comprised of what they claim were 400,000 people reveling in homosexual sadism and masochism via "leather pride day."

Allow me to repeat: your sexual preference is none of my business. So please DO NOT MAKE IT my business by throwing it in my face!

Mass media understood that covering Leather Pride Day in Folsom would make a bad showing for gays -- photos can be found online of men spanking one another with leather paddles while wearing leather thongs, and of leather-clad gays performing oral sex on one another along the parade route, among other things even less mentionable -- so the activities were not aired on television, nor printed in newspapers. Still, in an area where numerous young families have moved thanks to inexpensive housing, this occurred, and families were forced to either stay at home or leave the town for the day, so as not to expose their children to such behaviors.

Mass media also refuses to cover Gay Days at Disneyland; no one wants to see 30,000 gays taking over a family park, offending the thousands of other people who were not aware that homosexuals had designated that weekend as 48 hours of Disney fun for gays everywhere. Imagine being the parent of a couple young children thrilled to see Mickey and visit Disneyland for the first time in their young lives -- looking forward to Disney living up to their Year of a Million Dreams campaign and enjoying their first-ever Disney experience -- and discovering that everywhere you look, men are groping one another, women are french kissing each other, and t-shirts with perverse pictures and expressions are on a couple hundred people your children encounter throughout the day. Last year, when we mistakenly showed up to Gay Day on a Saturday morning, some of the bright red t-shirts I saw included a giant arrow pointing to the head of the wearer with the phrase "Male Depository" beneath it, and a stick-figure picture of two men in a variety of male-to-male sexual positions. I only thank God that my son was two at the time, and could neither read nor understand the point of the pictures on the t-shirts. But I could...and so could thousands of other children in the park that day. Among the worst offenders was a t-shirt graced by the statement "I love ----", (use your imagination) in computer-esque characters.

I am offended even to type these things.

And more offended at having to be subjected to the "pride" shown by homosexuals. Not only do I not want to see overt displays of homosexuality, I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE IS GAY! They are still the children of God, still capable, competent, caring individuals, and every bit as much a human being as am I. I do NOT, however, feel a need to tolerate an individual's need to display obscenity.

I would be JUST as offended to see a man spanking a thong-clad woman in public...just as offended to see a woman groping her husband in line for a ride at Disneyland. But here's the thing...we DON'T see those things! We don't get together for Straight Pride parades, don't celebrate Straight S&M day, and don't have Straight Days at Disneyland. It is just as unnecessary for a gay man to put "I like men" on a t-shirt as it is for me to put "I like men" on mine. NO ONE CARES.

I AM intolerant, and I'm happy to say it. I do not tolerate public obscenity...but I'm also happy to say that I'm am unprejudiced in my intolerance. I am unwilling to tolerate obscenity from anyone, be they black, white, gay, straight, tall, short, well-studied or entirely foolish. Free speech? Fine. Corrupt the minds of my innocent babes? I'm the mama bear, and you're dinner.

How do we solve the problem? Speak your mind. You don't need to judge the people, but there is no harm in asking someone to cover the expression on their shirt while your children are present, or to abstain from sexually oriented acts while you and others are present. Use your freedom of speech to request a removal of the indecency, or to ask that certain activities cease. Be prepared for a slew of swear-words and a great deal of anger to be directed at you, but if you can handle it, don't hesitate to speak up.

However, do not criticize, because people putting on such displays are generally looking for a fight. They want to be obscene and unchallenged so they can go home and laugh about it, or better yet, obscene and challenged, so they can have their say. A non-threatening, non-judgemental request to abstain is usually best.

Have gay friends? Broach the topic. You may find that they agree completely and are willing to make that opinion known to other gay friends, or that they see your point of view and will limit their Gay Day t-shirt to being red and reading "Gay Day 200-." It's worth a shot, right? At least, it's worth a shot for my kids. I'm sure yours are just as worth it.

Problem solved,
Mommy

Problem: Inappropriate vs. Appropriate

They've done it again...first it was Paris Hilton washing a car and eating a burger, and now it is actually two different ads: a VERY young teacher in a room full of teenage males striking stripper poses on a classroom desk while her students sing about her smaller-than-average backside, and another woman in a man's white button-up shirt rolling around on the floor eating a burger and listing off the "things" she wants "you" to "do" to her, ie. kiss, touch...and she stops short of skipping straight down the list to "number 1."

We know who these ads appeal to. And in this case, it extends even further to the Van Halen "Hot for Teacher" generation. HOWEVER...we find, once again, that the world around us cannot seem to tell the difference -- or, worse yet, refuses to admit to a difference -- between that which is appropriate for the viewing public and inappropriate for same. Carl's wants the business of young males. They've got it. They had it back when their ads displayed massive and inexpensive sandwiches dripping with condiments to "really fill up a man," if you will. "If it doesn't get all over the place, it doesn't belong in your face." A little disgusting, but cute, and excellent for the market they wanted. Doesn't Carl's Jr worry now, though, that they're hurting themselves by making women into chattel? Religious individuals everywhere boycotted them during the Paris ad campaign, and now those same individuals, PLUS teachers everywhere, PLUS many women will boycott them, too! But they have made their decision. They have shot their commercials, and paid for those commercials to be circulated. They didn't bother to consider (or don't want to consider) the appropriateness of the ads...they just know that "flat buns" sell flat buns.

The stations that play these commercials have taken that money, used it to pay their execs and their cameramen and their mailroom attendants, what-have-you, and have slapped those ads up on the screen for their viewership to do what they have been paid to do: give the ads airtime. Not once did those stations bother to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to air the ads; instead, they let the public decide whether or not to watch the ads, passing the buck to us. I appreciate that they want to let us decide...and I do decide, where particular shows and programs are concerned. I am very selective in the television I watch, and in the television I permit my children to watch. I cannot, however, be selective about the ADS they watch. I cannot keep my television from playing an inappropriate ad during a family program unless I leap up or grab the remote and switch off the television...often by which time the damage is done.

I can, however, protest the ads to my local television stations. And I have. I can purchase a DVR or a Tivo for the few programs I want to see, record them, and then play them for my children at a later time, fast-forwarding through commercials. I can also abandon television watching altogether and stick to movies...and BOOKS.

I have options. The first option I listed, however, is always the most important: make a statement. Again, STAND UP for yourself. The station won't do anything about their ads unless someone says something, and even then, it often takes more than one...but imagine that I am the one, and you are number two. Or number twenty-two. Or maybe just the one that makes the difference.

Now the solution: It is not wrong to decide that something is inappropriate for you and yours, and it is not wrong to state that you find something to be inappropriate. There are, of course, circumstances where your opinion is not required, is not helpful, or is none of your business, but at the times when it is required or helpful and is your business (ie. involves you directly), feel free to comment. In fact, feel it a necessity to comment.

Your business should be just as important to Carl's Jr. as Joe Schmoe Frat Boy, because they really do have a great Jr. Western Bacon Cheeseburger...which cheeseburger I will not be enjoying until a) these ads are off the air, and b) my diet is completed, just a few pounds from now. So there, Carl's...and ABC, NBC, CBS, what-have-you.

Problem solved,
Mommy

Problem: Pride at Being PC

Though the vast majority of Americans loathe and detest "Political Correctness," a concept that has stuck with us the last 15 years (to my great dismay), we still fear to speak our minds for fear of offending...someone. God forbid we should have any honest opinions...but that's another problem. There are those, you see, who take the opposite tack: rather than fearing that they are not PC, they are terribly proud at just how PC they are.

KBIG 104 is a Los Angeles/Orange County station here in sunny SoCal. They play a variety of music, and as a result, I would stop on their station every once in a while as I flipped through stations on the radio of my car while running errands. And just about that often -- every once in a while -- I would find a song I liked and could be comfortable playing for the listening ears in the back seat. They have a program called Community 104, an online community where you can gather "points" in exchange for prizes or entries into various sweepstakes; points accumulate when you answer questions correctly, submit "code words" they disseminate over the airwaves, or by using "click-thru," whereby you click links on their website and are taken to other websites, receiving an average of 25 points for clicking. (Sweepstakes entries, etc, "cost" anywhere from 200 - 20,000 points, depending.) As a courtesy to those who pay to have their sites linked, and who thereby allot me points, I generally invest a minute or two examining the product or service offered by the organization to whose webpage I've been brought.

Now comes the email exchange:

Recently I logged on and did the “click-throughs”, which I always take the time to look at as a courtesy to the organization offering click-through points; I was mortified to come across a photo as soon as I clicked on one item that was a group of young gay men dancing together in their underclothing. I do not belong to your community for that sort of thing. Please remove me and my account from your system immediately and know that I will no longer be listening to KBIG 104, no matter what you play.

Cordially,
Jessica

Response:

Jessica,

We appreciate you listening, for being a Community 104 member, and for taking the time to look at our client's websites when "clicking thru" for extra credit.

We regret that you found the Lucky Sundays website offensive. 104.3 KBIG is proud to embrace all people and we regret that this alternative lifestyles page made you want to stop participating in our rewards program. We are very active with many organizations, charities, and communities in the Southern California area. We try to use the radio station to reach out to as many people as possible. We just got done with a two-day TUNATHON raising money for Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, and we just supported AIDS Project LA through Summer Party 2007. We look forward to once again dedicating October to Breast Cancer Awareness.

If you no longer want to be a member, please hit the unsubscribe button next time you receive our Newsletter. The unsubscribe link is at the bottom of the image. If you click on that you will no longer receive any information from us.

All the best,
104.3 KBIG Promotions
818/566-4777

My response:

I appreciate all the service you give the community, but I belong to your online community not because you “are proud to embrace all people,” but because you are a station I listen to. I don’t care if you support a variety of lifestyles – more power to you – but I am offended by the idea of two indecently dressed young men prominently displayed on my computer screen because I clicked a click-through, not realizing what “Lucky Sundays” would be about. I have a Disneyland annual pass and attend regularly with my family; homosexuals do not bother me. I would be equally as offended if you had a click-through that brought me to a website that would grace my computer with a scantily clad woman dancing with an equally scantily clad man. If I want to donate to CHLA, AIDS, or Breast Cancer, I can do so directly; I don’t need to find half-naked men dancing in close quarters to feel close to my community. I wish your community were different. It doesn’t have to be unaccepting…just APPROPRIATE.

Thank you for humoring my point of view, and I will certainly unsubscribe at my next opportunity.

Jessica

So, there it is, ladies and gents; what they said to me was basically, "You're intolerant. We're PC, and proud. So if you want out of our 'community,' unsubscribe yourself. We ain't doin' nothing." By the way, they gave no response.

The problem at first was that KBIG apparently does not know the difference between appropriate and inappropriate material. The problem rapidly became a matter of pride; this woman is a biggot, and we love all people...especially the ones we can tell that she hates. But the problem for me was STILL that they did understand how innappropriate their link was, and THEN that they thought themselves better than their audience because of all they do for all the people whose lifestyles they warmly accept.

Unfortunately, many people, organizations, groups, and politicos refuse to label anything as black or white; everything is gray. But again, this is a problem for another blogline. The problem of which I currently speak is when those people take pride in their unwillingness to judge righteously. And isn't that the bottom line?

Political Correctness, in most instances, is just a matter of people being unwilling to take a stand...to exercise their God-given power to judge righteously for themselves what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, whether out of fear or out of stupidity. The most obscene part of all that, to me, is when those people take it a step further and tell me how evil or intolerant I am for deciding for myself that something is inappropriate for me and my family...when those people place themselves above me, touting their willingness to "embrace" that in which I have chosen not to have part.

Solution: When this occurs, STAND UP FOR YOURSELF. We have the right to decide what is or is not appropriate for us, and if something is being thrust upon us, we have not only the right but the DUTY to push back! (We don't have to slap, kick, bite, and scream, but refusal to take part is just as effective!) If my children are watching a children's television show and on comes Paris Hilton washing a car with a Carl's Jr. hamburger, you can bet I'm going to contact the station playing the ad! If someone calls me intolerant for loving individual homosexuals as my brothers and sisters but not embracing their homosexuality, you can also bet I'm going to explain that I can love the person but hate the behavior! And if someone places themselves above me for embracing things I find inappropriate, I certainly plan on holding my ground!

HOLD YOUR GROUND. Be who you are, believe as you believe, and when challenged, you may listen and love, but remember who and what you are: an individual with individual ideas whose ideas should be just as respected as the people "embraced" for their ideas. Demand the respect they give "other lifestyles", for yours is a lifestyle, too, and their refusal to designate black and white does not make them better people...only more foolish.

This will always be a problem; being PC, it seems, will forever be PC. The best way to "solve" the problem is to deal with it on a case by case scenario, and to do that, we must stand up for ourselves. So...Stand up.

Problem Solved,
Mommy

Problem: General Pace's Immoral Acts Comments

Ah, political correctness. Absolutely the BANE of American society. POOR GENERAL PACE. If you think that sounds sarcastic, IT'S NOT.

Let me tell you about this man and this situation.

General Peter Pace was, until recently, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Army. Exactly 6 months ago today, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, General Pace made known his personal opinion regarding military personnel and their actions. He stated, and I quote, ""My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct, that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct and that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." The Tribune conducted this interview, by the way, to discuss the reasons that the military prosecutes extramarital affairs, and to challenge the military's dismissal of approximately 10,000 servicemen and women in relation to the "don't ask/don't tell" policy currently in place. General Pace's response is as stated above.

He was, of course, immediately lambasted by the press, the gay community, and any and all left-wing activists watching the interview or catching wind via the press. He was also summarily fired, or, to put it kindly, retired immediately.

Perhaps he should not have offered his personal opinion about the don't ask/don't tell policy and shown more his support for the policy itself rather than express his own views...fine. But the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group representing military personnel affected by the policy, absolutely demanded an apology for his opinions the very next day: "Gen. Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," said the group's executive director. "Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve Gen. Pace's praise, not his condemnation."

General Pace, however, was not condemning those servicemen and women. He did not say "all those who are gay and are currently serving in the military will burn in hell for all eternity." What he DID say was that he believed homosexual acts to be immoral. That's it. HE believed. There was no condemnation in his commentary. Only opinion.

Perhaps the world did not want his opinion. He offered it anyway. It was an honest explanation of why he personally supports the don't ask/don't tell policy, and I admire him for it. But what I admire most is that he did not back down, even under penalty of losing his position among the Joint Chiefs: he explained that he could not apologize for his own personal opinion, and only admitted to a poor choice in timing.

God bless the man for sticking to his guns. He, unlike so many of the rest of us, was not concerned with who he might irritate or who might disagree with him; instead, he was concerned with expressing an honest and sincere opinion, and whether or not you agree with him, you've got to admire him for stating a clear, non-judgmental and non-negotiable attitude in regards to an issue where he has had, for himself, to make a righteous judgment. He did not judge those who were homosexual and serving in the military...only their acts did he judge as inappropriate and immoral, and each man must judge the acts of others for himself in order to make something of himself. Without a man deciding black from white, there is no growth. He took a very unpopular stand, and paid a steep price, but never once did he condemn the homosexual troops now sacrificing for our country.

Let us support him in the best way we can. The solution to his comments as far as the government was concerned was to call for the General's early retirement. The solution for us, 6 months later, is to do as he did (though, preferably when an opinion is requested or required): make righteous judgment of the behaviors of others (and ourselves, where necessary), and do not hesitate to express our own personal views -- being our individual views and those of none other -- as to the morality or appropriateness of those actions. To do anything less would be to shame the man who was and is our example.

Problem Solved,
Mommy

Problem: Teen Mommies

Before you ask, YES, this is a problem. There are many grown women not prepared to be mothers, so the very idea that an irresponsible teenager who selfishly refused to abstain from adult activities or who couldn't figure out how not to get pregnant in the first place being "ready" to parent is ludicrous. Teen mothers are statistically highly unlikely to finish high school, and as much as 80% of teen mothers end up on welfare. (see pregnancy-info.net) I could spend most of this rant specifying ways in which teenage girls and boys are not capable of being of true parenting, (I admit that they may be able to keep a baby alive, but there's a difference between sustaining life and truly parenting,) but any adult parent and most adult non-parents will not find it a stretch when I claim that a 15 year-old girl makes for an assuredly incompetent parent.

The problem is that when these children are suddenly begetting children themselves, we give them the option of keeping the child. I know a woman who had her first baby at 15; her eldest daughter had her first baby at 15 as well (a girl), and I fear that that poor child is doomed to repeat the actions of those before her. The woman's second daughter has repeated the grievous mistake, and in fact planned to do so when her elder sister gave birth and she saw how wonderful it was to have a baby. At 15, she had her first, and summarily decided with her boyfriend that "they wanted their kids to be about a year apart in age." She is now VERY pregnant with her second child, and is not yet seventeen. What will become of the children she has borne and has yet to bear? I'm certain they will survive babyhood and early childhood, but at what age will they opt to become parents? Mightn't they have a better chance if they were adopted by a competent pair of adults?

What I am about to say is controversial, at best, but we're solving the world's problems here, right? Scan an adoption service website, and you will find it replete with wonderful, wise, wealthy, and above all, loving couples desperate to begin a family...only their organs will not permit it. Meanwhile, in the last year for which we have statistics, courtesy of the Census, 2000 saw our country producing 821,810 teen pregnancies, not including all those that ended in abortion. Yes, folks, you read that right: OVER EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND teens became mothers that year.

So here's where I up-and-get controversial. By offering the following, I provide a solution to three problems: responsible, married adults who are unable to conceive will have greater opportunities to adopt, underage pregnant women will have a greater opportunity to finish high school and be, therefore, less likely to become dependent upon welfare, and unborn babies will have the opportunity to be raised and loved by stable, responsible adults. Ready? If a child is under 18, or will be at the time they will give birth, and were not legally married with permission of their parents prior to becoming pregnant, a mandatory adoption policy should be enacted. Youths will be paired with childless parents eager to adopt, social services will be present at the time of birth to acquire the baby and transport it to adoption facilities, and the adoptive parents can take the baby home. If the youth giving birth is comfortable doing what is best for the child they have borne, adoptive parents may be present at the hospital; otherwise, adoptive parents will receive the baby at the aforementioned facilities.

The exception to the rule is a signed affidavit from the parents of the pregnant youth accepting complete parental responsibility for their grand baby; this will be an unpopular movement, obviously, and there needs to be a legitimate loophole for grandchild retention, but as a general rule, the babies of children should not be raised by the horrendously foolish youths who conceive them.

Okay, people...let rip with the criticism. I stand by my solution.

Problem solved,

Mommy

Problem: Lying (mostly to our Spouses)

A friend and I had a discussion a while back: we have both experienced of late friends, acquaintances, and even family members lying to their spouses, and are both relatively offended by such behavior.

She related an incident from her own experience. While sitting with a number of women from the women's organization at her church, the topic turned to "how to buy things without your husband being aware." The women discussed their different tactics: put part of the purchase on a credit card, withdraw cash for part of the purchase, and write a check for the balance of the purchase, or even withdraw small amounts of cash over time to "save up" for a very calculated "indiscretion." One woman had recently purchased a very expensive handbag that she'd happened upon in a store window at the mall, and, having set aside small amounts of money over time, opted to buy the unnecessary item then and there on a whim, using her secreted cash and two credit cards to split the purchase balance. She then laughed about how her husband had never noticed, and she'd walked away with a new Coach handbag. Her husband, whose income and hard work allows this woman to stay home with her children, is completely in the dark as to her unreasonable expenditure, for which his direct effort has paid, and further is now the subject of laughter and ridicule at a Christian Women's organization! SHAME ON THOSE WOMEN.

A friend of mine has lied to her husband for years about her children's activities; everything from where they're going and whether or not they came in at the prescribed hour to covering for wrongs they have committed. (Her children are a bit older than mine, obviously.) Their wrongs have run the gamut, but are not necessarily the breaking of laws; instead, they are the bending or breaking of household rules...the defying of family standards and values. The problem with her hiding these things from her husband is threefold: first, she makes her husband look like an idiot and a tyrant to their children. He doesn't know what's going on, and is therefore stupid, or he's such a tyrant that the consequences of his finding out about their foolishness would be so dire that he is not allowed to know, and is instead to be feared. Second, she turns herself into a liar, in need of the protection of her children, and therefore weak, or she becomes to her children more comrade than parent, and is therefore more foolish than her children. Third, she is teaching her children the value of a lie instead of the value of honesty; that the breaking of household rules is perfectly acceptable as long as a) her children are not caught, and b) they can lie well enough to cover up their rule-breaking.

I have sought, in my marriage, to be as open and honest with my husband as possible. Unfortunately, this is not always feasable: "Honey, you can't wear that outfit in public because it looks like it was put together by a blind four year-old." Tact is sometimes preferable to completely honesty, as a bit of diplomacy can be much, much kinder: "Honey, why don't you try the black shirt with the tan slacks instead of the gray? I've always liked the black shirt on you." At the same time, it is trying when one is forced to confess their shortcomings or mistakes: "Honey...I hit a pole in the parking lot today and dented the front fender of the car," or "I burned dinner...again...so we're having pizza...again."

Thankfully, I married well. I do not fear being beaten when I confess that the car has been dented thanks to my idiocy (which, my husband kindly reminds me, is not idiocy...just distraction), nor do I fear verbal abuse when I admit that dinner is once again in the trash instead of on the table. I do not fear injury to my son when I explain to my husband that my 3 year-old had a potty-training accident...again...this time on my husband's side of the bed, or when my son topples a vase given to me by my husband that he was specifically told not to play with and it is smashed to dust. I trust my husband; I love my husband. He treats me and my children like we are the most important people in the world to him...and we are. I would never have married any other sort of man.

And so I am honest with him. I can imagine, referencing the first woman in this rant, that her husband is an equally wonderful man, out supporting a family, excited to come home and spend time with the family he loves enough to slave for...and the second woman, well, I know her husband, and he's one of the best men I've ever met, right behind my husband, Dad, and father-in-law. I am horrified and offended by what she has taught and is teaching her children about their father.

I am certain that this occurs in the realm of men, as well (although Coach handbags are probably not the source of their laughing conversations at their wives' obliviousness). I use women as the example, again, only because that is the realm with which I am most familiar.

So, the problem is that husbands and wives the world over lie to their spouses. We have all done it, or maybe we've just hedged once or twice, but everyone can do better. If you can brace yourselves hard enough to extract the mote, yank it out. I'm sure, reading this, you did what I would do...think of other people who fit this bill. The question is, do you? Do I? Whether or not I like to admit it, I'm not splinter-free.

The solution? First and foremost: reflect. Can you do better? Yes, you personally. And me. We're in this together, remember. Secondly: Can you train yourself to be disgusted by other people's conversations about how to lie to their spouses? Can you teach yourself at least not to take part? Or even, heaven forbid, to change the topic? Or speak up on behalf of your spouse, and on behalf of the spouses unable to be present to defend themselves? Can you share with your friends how sad it makes you that they perpetrate such dishonesty amongst their friends and family members, particularly as it is directed at the person they are supposed to love and protect most completely? I hope you'll be willing, because unless we speak up, unless we each individually do better, and unless we are willing to risk in order to better our world...we won't have that which we seek: a better world.

So take some time to examine your own "honesty percentiles." Shoot for 100% (tact and diplomacy excluded.) And then don't put up with anything less than 100% from those you love most, be it kids, parents, spouses, friends, church members...because it's up to us.

Problem solved,

Mommy

PS...if you don't understand the relation of the photo...it's a "doctored" photo, original included, so we can all see just how easy it is to lie...in all types of relationships and lines of work, media included...

Problem: Settling in Marriage

Anyone know the divorce rate these days? According to a 2002 Census Bureau report: "About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women's first marriages may end in divorce for these age groups. The likelihood of a divorce is lowest for men and women age 60, for whom 36% of men and 32% of women may divorce from their first marriage by the end of their lives."

What is the problem here? For some, or for others, or for many or few, reasons for divorce vary: Poor communication, financial problems, lack of commitment to the marriage, dramatic change in priorities, infidelity, financial difficulties, failed expectations or unmet needs, addictions and substance abuse, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, lack of conflict resolution skills...in other words, "marriages fail" because people fail. Perhaps it is "person" that fails; perhaps it is "people." The point is, there is no such thing as a "no-fault" divorce, though recent legislation provides that clause as an out for divorcees these days.

A friend of mine felt very distinctly prior to marrying that she was making a mistake; she went through with it, citing the time, energy, and expense invested in her impending wedding, and a short time later divorced her ne'er-do-well now-husband. From that brief marriage came her amazing and wonderful son, so all was not wasted, but had she listened to herself (or the Holy Spirit or her instincts, whatever one would deem those feelings), her life would have been very different. Another friend married due to pregnancy, and not too long afterward divorced. Again, life would have been drastically different for her had she chosen another path and listened to that which her heart already knew: a baby was not reason enough to shackle oneself with the wrong man. Finally, a friend in college was preparing her for wedding, and I was assisting her in zipping up her wedding gown on the very day, moments before she walked the aisle, when she noted cavalierly, "If this lasted more than a couple years, I'd be shocked." Turned out she was not shocked; a couple years later, they parted ways. I, however, was shocked: she knowingly tied herself to a man that she apparently planned to separate from at a later date. Since when is marriage the same as having a boyfriend? Since when is dissolving a marriage as easy as breaking up?

A note of apology: all of the above examples are of women who made poor decisions. Men also make poor decisions...it just so happens that being a woman and talking with other women, these are the examples I have to provide. But I digress.

We, as human beings, are entitled to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit...or, should you prefer, we have instincts, consciences, a sixth sense. When we feel or we know that something will not work out for us, WE SHOULD NOT DO IT. Forget time and expense invested in wedding plans! Forget the honeymoon plans! Pack away the dress, return the tux, burn the invitations! Raise the child on your own...put it up for adoption...make visitation or joint custody arrangements now, but don't get married if you know, deep down, it won't work! And please, please, please...above all, NEVER SETTLE. Living a life surrounded by good friends or extended family is FAR better than the pain that comes from loving and quitting or loving and being abandoned, from being stuck with someone you don't love or who doesn't love you. It's also far better than the pain that comes to children whose parents cannot get along, who unwittingly torture their children with their cold bitterness and bickering.

There are, of course, those who approach marriage with the right idea, feeling that everything will work out beautifully, confident in their impending union, and for some reason or another, the marriage ends in divorce. They did their best. But to enter into a marriage with the feeling -- even an inkling -- that things will not work out? That eventually the marriage will dissolve? Denying one's own instincts is not doing their best...for themselves, or anyone else.

Getting married? Having second thoughts? Unless you're just generally afraid of commitment or have extenuating circumstances that impede your ability to love/trust/feel comfortable engaging in a long-term union, perhaps you really should rethink your decision. Have a friend who announces minutes before they are to be married that "this won't last long"? SMACK THEM UPSIDE THE HEAD. I wish I had. She really did some damage to the man she married, and I feel rather at fault for that. I don't feel sorry for her...but I sure do for him.

As my father would say, "To thine own self be true." Problem solved.

Mommy

Recanting on Morning-After

First and foremost, it's been some months since I took the opportunity to review the worlds' problems; forgive me, I've been busy being a Mommy.

That said, even Mommies make mistakes. I recently had cause to do some research into the morning-after pill, thanks to a grumpy rhetorical question I posed a pharmacist while filling a prescription for one of my children. It seems I was wrong.

The morning-after pill is NOT an "abortion" pill; it does not eject a forming fetus from the uterus or break down a fertilized egg. Instead, it is meant to be taken immediately after sex, (or within 24 hours,) and only prevents an egg from being fertilized in the first place. There are, indeed, abortion-type drugs available, but not yet in the United States, thank heavens. Instead, much like birth control, the morning-after pill is a preventative measure for the woman who perhaps was being responsible and whose condom failed, or for those who still wish to take responsibility for their actions by not creating a baby in the first place.

It would be far better, admittedly, to have been on birth control from the start, or (above all) to abstain from sexual activity until the woman is in a secure, married relationship, but life is seldom idyllic; the reality is there are women who will have sex when and with whom they wish, regardless of the consequences. I personally would much rather have a woman prevent a pregnancy than terminate one, so though I myself will stick to birth control, if a woman wishes to take responsibility and spend $40 to make certain that no baby is had (and therefore cannot be terminated), I support their decision to take preventative (rather than destructive) measures, as should we all.

Problem re-reviewed and solved,
Mommy

Problem: Abortions as Birth Control

A neighbor in my apartment complex caught me on the way to my car last night, my kids in tow. She asked after my now-three-month-old, and then confessed that she herself was 8 weeks pregnant. I immediately went to congratulate her, but she turned down my congrats, explaining that the father had a 15 year-old and wanted no more children, and that her 3 year-old's father (her ex-husband) helped with the 3 year-old, but she'd have no support mothering the new baby. I interjected that adoption would be a worthwhile option, and she agreed that it indeed might be an option, but was thinking that it might be easier to terminate the pregnancy.

I was broken-hearted. We have some close friends who've been trying for the last 3 years to have a baby with no luck...friends when we lived out-of-state who adopted for the same reason. To intentionally destroy a perfectly viable fetus with a high probability of surviving to infancy is unthinkable to me, on behalf of my friends, and for another reason altogether.

My husband and I talked about the situation last night, and he encouraged me to direct her to a group called LDSFamilyServices, a religious organization headed by the Mormons that assists in matching newborns to stable two-parent families. He also put forth the following rant, and the second reason that the abortion of this woman's fetus is reprehensible:

We hear every day about fathers who refuse to fulfill their duty to their children. They fall behind on or refuse to pay their child support, they have nothing to do with the child but will not relinquish their rights so that a more responsible man might adopt the child, they neglect, or worse, abuse their children, or generally just refuse to take responsibility for their seed. People are up in arms, calling for these men to be just that: MEN. "Take responsibility for your child!" they shout. "Help to raise your baby!" yell chant. "Pay your child support!" they demand.

And have every right to do so and say so. It is imperative that a child receive any and all due love, affection, and support from their father.

But do we ever say to a woman who has discovered she is pregnant and is considering abortion, "Take responsibility for your actions! Bring this baby into the world so that it can be raised by competent, loving, and unfortunately barren parents! Be a WOMAN and do the right thing!" Never.

Is the emotional state of a woman so fragile that to demand that she take responsibility for her neglecting to use birth control would injure her irreparably? I've been pregnant twice; I'm the first to admit that a pregnant woman's emotions are off the charts. However, it seems to me that she would BENEFIT from taking responsibility and be far more affected knowing for the rest of her days that she disposed of a perfectly healthy, growing fetus.

There are those who argue that teenagers are too young to be able to handle the demands of pregnancy, and further of giving up their own flesh and blood. Others would argue that abortion must be an option, even if only for cases of rape and incest. Finally others state that a woman has a right to choose and therefore abortions must be available. Allow me to address these three arguments: (Warning: This is quite candid...) If a teenage girl is old enough to spread her legs for a lover, she is old enough to take responsibility for the outcome of that action. If a woman is raped or involved in a forced incestuous relationship, she is not at fault and has nothing for which to take responsibility...however, it might do more to sooth the individual after such an awful occurence to know that they did not, then, terminate the new life within them -- the beauty in the murk -- the child who could still enjoy a happy life within a happy, devoted family who would think nothing of how the child came to be; only that they love and adore the child and are glad to be able to include the child in their family. Still, I could not demand that she take responsibility, as she did not act. And as for having the choice, fine. Abortion is a necessary evil for cases such as rape and incest and must be available, and in our world of fair and unfair instead of right and wrong, it will always exist as an option for those who refuse to take responsibility...but it is WRONG, and it's a sick and horrific quick-fix for those who do not wish to be responsible until AFTER the fact.

So the problem is clear: women who abort their babies do not and are not encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. The solution, then, is equally simple: pregnant women considering abortion should be encouraged to do the right thing, which is simply to take responsibility for their decision to have sex, whether they used protection or not. (If you're having sex, you risk pregnancy and disease. That's the way of things.)

Do you know someone who is pregnant and alone? Tell them to be women and take responsibility. Are you pregnant, scared, and considering abortion as an option? Be a woman. Have the baby you created. You don't have to keep it...in fact, it might be better if you gave it up to a loving, stable two-parent family. But don't look for a quick fix for your "problem." You chose the path on which you walk; now be responsible for your decision.

Finally, go to www.itsaboutlove.org to visit the LDS Family Services program for more information, or even, as a woman looking to give up a child to the family of her choice, to perform a search for eager couples with and without children who are looking desperately to adopt. There are some intensely heart-warming stories there, and some wonderful options for adoptive parents that the mother herself can choose. And then choose the right: have the baby.

Problem solved.
Mommy

Problem: We aren't as smart as 5th Graders

Jeff Foxworthy's new gameshow premiered this evening, and it is sure to become a hit because it does what we Americans do best: make fun of our shortcomings. But this, my fellow Americans, is not always a positive attribute. Allow me to point out the problem.

Dear Europe,

It's official: the average American can't keep up with a 10 year-old. We don't know anything about our country's history, though we're constantly arguing that we are the best and most forward-thinking around, thanks to our history. We can't construct a proper sentence, to say nothing of our understanding of how that sentence is formed, ie. "What is a pronoun?" -- "Um, uh...I know this one." We are an embarrassment to our predecessors, and whether or not you like to admit it, those of us who are Anglo-Saxons originated primarily from you. But don't worry about us. 20 years from now Sweden will be a super-power and the United States will be a third world country. Just look at our educational system!...but that's another topic.

Dear Mexico,

Don't bother sending us any more illegals. Our educational system is no better than yours, and our adults can't keep up with your 10 year-olds, either. You'll have a better life if you stick it out down there, because we'll be trailing you by 2030.

Dear Japan,

No need to write you a letter. As evidenced by Mr. Foxworthy's show, you haven't had anything to worry about since, what, 1945? While we were busy having our elite send people to the moon, you were busy having your elite drive your youth to excel, and now they have obviously surpassed us to a point that has you so far beyond us, we cannot even comprehend it; if we could, we'd be too embarrassed to fly the flag...not that anyone knows what the stars and stripes mean, anyway, unless, of course, you ask a 10 year-old.

So do I really NEED to point out the problem here? Not only are we a bunch of fools so behind in our adult eduction and so unmotivated in its pursuit that our 10 year-olds best us in all things intellectual, we throw it up on our televisions screens for all the world to see just how pathetic we are, and then we LAUGH about it. We laugh hysterically while the rest of the world shakes their heads at our unbelievable stupidity, then nods at its predictability, then shrugs, because they've known all along that America has been happily and obliviously flushing itself down the toilet for years now. And once again, we have the audacity to wonder why so many people worldwide hate Americans. I don't condone their hatred, but when a Swede sees a 40-something American unable to define "pronoun" and they themselves know the meaning of the word in English, you can imagine their frustration at the United States' position in world politics. And honestly, I'm as baffled as they are.

So, here's the solution: (This is a two-parter, so bear with me...)

1. Complain to your network television stations. I love Jeff Foxworthy, don't get me wrong, those rednecks are really funny...but the concept of the show is both insulting and inappropriate, given the relations we currently have with so many other countries. Ask Fox to remove the show from programming.

2. Up your own motivation, and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If we can't keep up with our kids, we're in serious trouble, and if we WON'T keep up with our kids, not only will our country suffer because of us, we're setting such a terrible example that our country will suffer because of our kids, too. You're never too old to learn new tricks, or at least to brush up on old ones. Let your children see your desire to learn and to excel, and Lord willing, it'll trickle down and water the blooms that are our weed-choked children.

Unfortunately, part 2 will take a while and a lot of determination, but there really are no easy fixes, are there? Start with 1, and take 2 to heart. I will.

Problem solved.

Mommy

Preventing vs. Terminating a Pregnancy

It's official: it is now easier to end a pregnancy than to prevent one. My younger sister was at the pharmacy yesterday picking up her birth control prescription when she noticed a sign near to the pharmacy window. It stated that only women age 18 or older with a valid California ID would be able to purchase the "Morning After" pill. My sister paused for a moment to consider what the sign was actually saying, and then asked the pharmacist if it was true: could an 18 year-old girl enter the store, approach the pharmacist, provide their driver's license, lay down their money, and receive the pill without a prescription? The answer was a solid "yes." Mind you, in order to attain the birth control my married sister was picking up, she had to have seen a doctor and been giving a prescription. Not so with the abortion pill.

And let's be frank, here..."Morning After" pill is just a cutesy name for a drug that causes you to miscarry the newly-formed fetus in your womb, making it effectively an "Abortion Pill". Tactless? Perhaps. Honest? Definitely. And about time.

So any 18 year-old with a vagina (or teenager who has an 18 year-old friend willing to make the purchase for her) who opts to share it with one of the male species in an irresponsible fashion (we can discuss the fornication later) can "make up" for her mistake by handing two $20 bills to a pharmacist to terminate the new, unsuspecting, eager life within her.

Yes, folks, $40. The cost of an over-the-counter abortion these days. Women's rights advocates everywhere are thrilled: a woman can finally terminate a pregnancy on her own terms. Those same advocates are shaking their heads at my reference to the term "eager life", stating that a fetus is not a human being and cannot be considered one. BRIEF INSERTION: How quickly does a fetus grow and develop? How long does it take for an egg and sperm to develop into a fully-fledged, functioning human being? Not long at all, of course, which leads us to believe that that life is desperate to make it out into the world, so eager that the grow at what outside the womb would be an alarming rate. Interestingly enough, too, a newborn will fight for life like crazy; flail its arms and struggle desperately to come out from under a blanket to breathe, cough and choke and vomit its own lungs clear of fluid, sleep when overly-hungry to shut down their own discomfort...babies are eager creatures when it comes to living, and no less so because they are still in-utero and no bigger than a postage stamp. Women's advocates would argue otherwise, but those of us with any decency and even the most remote respect for life should cringe at the thought that that eager little spirit, willing to undergo massive growth in a comparitively miniscule amount of time, could have its mortal body wiped from the face of the planet by a selfish teen with $40 to spend.

So what do we do? How can we prevent such a pill from being available to anyone with a government-issued ID and a measly sum of money? Please, email your senators, your state House reps, your governor, the White House, the drug companies...anyone you can think of who might be responsible for having made this poor decision. Ask that the drugs only be available to those with a prescription. It won't prevent women from using it, of course, but it WILL make it more difficult to attain.

Your senators can be found here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Your House Rep here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Your Governor here: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/govemail.html
The White House here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Pharm co's here: http://www.barrlabs.com/contact.php

Please be part of the solution. I'm sending my emails now. Problem solved. (Or...nearly.)

Mommy

**Added 2/20: All above-listed organizations and individuals have now received my emails.**

Problem: The Self-Absorption of the American People

I was on the way to my folks' the other day, and ended up behind the largest SUV I've ever seen while sitting at a stoplight. There I was in my teeny little Civic, hoping to be able to see the light turn green through the Escalade's windshield, when my brain finally registered the bumper stickers on the car in front of me.

First, a disclaimer: This country is great because we have the freedom to speak our minds, however empty they may be, or however stupid the thoughts that flow from them. That said, perhaps we should be a bit more aware of how we appear to other people and instead of claiming not to care what others think, attempt to better our images...and even ourselves.

So the first bumper sticker I see is as follows: “Some days all I want to be is a missing person.” I think to myself, Dear Lord, please don't let that person be a parent, because as much as I sometimes feel that way, for the sake of my children who love me and would be devastated if they knew I felt that way, I don't say it. And I hope the individual in front of my had no one to devastate with that comment. Also, if this individual was having that much trouble dealing with life, why on earth would they want to share that with the general populace? Sympathy? Empathy? And what a terribly self-absorbed sentiment; this individual wants nothing more on certain days that to abdicate responsibility to those around him or her. Charming.

Perhaps you have seen the offense little anime bunny with all the awful things to say. If you haven't, congrats on escaping it, but if you have, you'll know the image that decorated bumper stickers two and three. Bumper sticker number two: “Let’s focus on me.” Wow, if the first sticker didn't point out how self-absorbed this individual is, this sticker just plain states it. Pardon me while I scrunch me nose and sigh with disgust. The only people I know with this attitude that I choose to spend time with are my two year-old and nine week-old, the nine week-old because she doesn't know better, and the two year-old because, well, he's two. But you have to be at least 16 to get a driver's license, so...where's this person's excuse?

The third bumper sticker was even better...or not, as it were: “I’m not spoiled. I deserve all my stuff.” Really? According to the Cadillac website, the 2007 Escalade STARTS at $55,400. You DESERVE a $55,000 dollar vehicle? On what grounds? What does a person have to do to deserve such a vehicle? Raise two children to adulthood with a set of values and a love of education? Send ten hardened criminals to jail for life? Donate the balance of their income to the American Red Cross? Serve a five-year term with the Merchant Marines? Sacrifice a loved one to war? What merits DESERVING a ridiculously expensive vehicle? The fact that one makes enough money to afford it? It boggles my mind that the individual in possession of such a bumper sticker is not embarrassed to be so. Worse than that, I am embarrassed for this person. Horribly so.

The last bumper sticker was the most priceless. Ready for it? You won't be. It was this: "God Bless America." Indeed. But in combination with the three other stickers, it exhibited a far different message than the customary meaning of "God Bless America." Instead, it infered that America was worth blessing because the person in the car in front of me was allowed to be a self-absorbed schmuck.

The problem is clear. The solution is even moreso. We as Americans need to focus less on ourselves and more on those around us. We need to be willing to serve, to sacrifice, and to silence our inner complaints before they escape from our mouths. My great grandparents didn't have the luxury of analysis, or the time to complain...they were too busy caring for their families and supporting one another to worry about themselves. What is wrong with us? We may not be able to fix others where this problem is concerned, but we can contribute to society our own beings...adjusted to be less self-absorbed, and more family-and-community oriented. This solution is individual and internal, but every bit as important to solving the world's problems as ending pollution or ridding the world of dictators. After all, don't we have things like pollution and dictators because of extreme self-absorption? Fix yourselves, and set an example for others. It's difficult and it sucks and it requires constant vigilence and course corrections, but it's so much more worth it and looks so much better than driving an Escalade with a "Let's Focus On Me" bunny sticker. Problem solved.

Mommy

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Release

As a Christmas gift to her fans, J. K. Rowling released the title of her new and final book in the seven-book Harry Potter series: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Only a month or two before, Warner Brothers announced the upcoming release date of the fifth Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Now, only a few days ago, Scholastic Books announced the upcoming release date of Deathly Hallows. The movie comes out July 13th this year, and on the 21st, one week later, Deathly Hallows hits book shelves.

After each of these announcements, rabid Christians everywhere went wild. It seems they came out of the woodwork to decry Harry Potter once again, and to persuade the millions upon millions of readers to abstain from viewing yet another film or purchasing yet another book, this final book with an admittedly dark title. "Harry Potter is evil," they scream, clutching the crosses round their neck and praying for the fate of the twelve year-old readership. Read the "information" on the following site about Harry Potter and you'll understand their argument. http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/HP-Movie.htm

The problem, then, is not the Harry Potter series, but the Christians who would condemn J. K. Rowling to hell for her imagination. As a Christian myself, I am left constantly to wonder WHEN members of the Christian faith will cease their rantings and use gentle persuasion! We should understand better than anyone that God has granted us all with free agency -- the right to make our own decisions, good or bad -- and regardless of one Christian's opinion (Bible-based or not) that something is right or wrong, who are we to make that decision for others?

You're wondering whether or not I'm for or against Harry Potter, I can tell. Personally, I think it's a fun story, and I'm hoping that good triumphs over evil when I read my pre-ordered seventh book. I only answer the question, though, because those of my faith would harp on the issue until I "confessed my evils" before they listened. And those reading this now who are against Harry Potter have undoubtedly tuned out. But if, for just a moment, they will continue to read, keep this one idea in mind:

WHEN YOU RANT AND RAVE ABOUT A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BOOK AND MOVIE EMPIRE LOVED BY MILLIONS, YOU LOOK LIKE A NUT!!! Though inside the faith, many are willing to call themselves "Jesus Freaks" and evangelize their local postman, the term "Jesus Freak" to the rest of the world is NOT a compliment! Such things terrorize the very people we would hope to convert to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and send them running for the hills to escape the rabid Christians. It is such tactics that have driven the cross from our public places, not the ACLU, the atheists, and the anti-Christs. (The ACLU is indeed the devil, but we'll address that as a seperate problem.) WE SCARE THE GENERAL PUBLIC. That's the problem. And Christians are often so in-your-face about it that those not of our beliefs feel a need to silence us for fear of having to listen!

The solution is simple: should you choose not to enjoy Harry Potter, FINE, more power to you in utilizing your free agency, but if you wish to encourage others to abstain, please do so using gentle persuasion. With the exception of overturning the money-changers' tables and driving the animals from the temple mount, (which was a necessary display of the passion of God in cleansing His own house, the sacred edifice of the temple,) Christ led by example and with gentle loving kindness. So, that covers the rabid Christians. For you not-so-rabid Christians who DO read, and for those of you who are not Christians but enjoy his Potterness, please, try not to be so easily offended. Whether you like it or not, or understand it or not, the up-in-your-face believers truly only wish to protect you from what they perceive to be unwholesome. They may not know the best way to go about trying to "save your mortal soul," but cut them some slack; unless they're televangelists, they really are sincere. Problem solved.

Mommy

To Boycott or Not: Hollywood

I have two brothers-in-law who have decided to personally boycott Hollywood. One has not seen a film in the theaters (or even rented one) in over two years now. Kudos to him for his willpower; Night at the Museum just looked too dang good. But back to the topic at hand.

I respect their decisions. For a while, I felt I should follow suit, for two reasons: first, Hollywood's elite are basically ultra-liberal idiots with a penchant for expressing their ultra-liberal opinions, utilizing their own fame to make certain they're heard, and then protesting the public's involvement in their lives. Second, Hollywood puts out a lot of crap. The fact that it's crap on film makes no difference to me...crap on film, in print, or on the airwaves is still crap.

So the question is this: Are we as a People responsible for letting Hollywood know how disgusted we are with their stars and their pictures? Perhaps. But let's explore this a bit further before we solve the Hollywood problem. (Unfortunately, the solution cannot involve shutting up the stars or removing the crap from the strands of 35mm film, so we'll have to accept that the solution to the Hollywood problem is to boycott, or not to boycott, if either of those can be considered a solution.)

Let's address the problem of Hollywood's liberal idiots. Why do we give these schmucks the time of day? Seriously...what are their credentials? Have they served in public office? Do they have doctorates in Poly Sci? Arnie I'll listen to, and if Ronald were still around, I'd be all ears. BUT...Sean? Alec? Susan? Tim? Ben? You listening? Good. We don't give a good gosh darn about your opinions! Not a single flying fart! Are you getting me here? You are not important. Your opinions hold no water with me. You are my court jesters; you live to entertain me, and when I cease to be entertained, your pay will be directly affected. Cease your ranting and go act in something, because you're boring me with that liberal dribble spilling from your pie holes. SHUT IT! Enough said.

And now the problem of Hollywood's crap: Johnny Depp stars in Blow. ALL ABOUT DRUGS and the people who sell them. Pardon me while I wipe the tear from my eye. Right. Five minutes on cable television was all I needed to see to know that I will never be able to relate to the topic of that film, and never want to relate to it...or even witness it to extend my understanding. Does that make me intolerant of the poor, poor drug dealers in the world? DARN RIGHT IT DOES. Why are they trying to teach me to pity Death's salespeople? And then there's Brokeback Mountain: a film about gays deceiving everyone they love, destroying their own families, blaming their misery on others' intollerance, Gyllenhaal picking up a gay prostitute in Mexico, and finally getting snuffed by a bunch of "White Anglo-Saxon Protestants", his old coat kept and wept over by Ledger. Why do we want to see that? Why, please tell me, why was this nominated for an Academy? Because it was gritty? Have we no better criteria than GRIT? Finally, another case-in-point: Sundance Film Festival's inclusion of "Hounddog," (see picture above) a film starring sweet little Dakota Fanning...being raped (albeit relatively off-camera) as a supposed nine year-old by a twenty year-old. Yes, the scene is overly-hyped...or is it? According to Sundance, the film then never comments on the rape. It is never discovered by the character's parents, never brought to light, never punished. It just messes the poor kid up and she turns to the music of Elvis to make her feel better. This was put into production WHY? Fanning's parents permitted her as a twelve year-old to feign on-screen rape WHY? An audience would want to run out and see this movie WHY? Dear God, Hollywood! Can we not go back to the days of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" with our script-writing? Not duplicate the suspense of "Wait Until Dark" without the sick images? Not teach tolerance without thumbing through the skeleton suits in the ever-touted Gay Closet? You know why "Crash" won the award, Hollywood? Because it was beautiful, poignant, and in your face...without beating your face against the liberal poster on the brick wall. A little more responsibility for your art would be nice.

But that's like asking Hussein to take responsibility for genocide...ain't gonna happen. So where does that leave us? Do we boycott Hollywood? Not necessarily. My brothers-in-law can do as they please, and still I respect their opinions...but I'm still going to go the movies. I'm still going to fork over $10 to see Harry Potter work his magic, keep my subscription to Netflix, and run to the local Video Express for the occasional new release. Why? That's my solution: watch what I want to watch, let the court jesters entertain me, fork over my cash ONLY when I deem a film worth forking for, skip watching and shake my head at "Hounddog" and send a disheartened and disappointed fan note to Miss Fanning, (yes, I really did!) and roll my eyes when next Alec Baldwin appears on my television set to offer his opinion on the next Presidential Candidate because really...who cares what Hunt for Red October's Jack Ryan has to say about the next leader of the free world? Get off my TV and back on the big screen to divert my attention for the next 90 minutes, you schmuck.

Boycott Hollywood entirely...or not, and be selective instead. Up to you. Just realize that the stars won't shut up and the movies will continue to contain crap. Problem solved.

Mommy

Solving the World's Problems...

So, here I am...a stay-at-home Mom, (also known as a housewife, homemaker, soap-watching-bon-bon-eater,) and I've been thinking...Republicans rule the airwaves, but Democrats are taking over the Blog scene. It's time to change that.

Now, I'm not a die-hard Republican by any stretch, but as a stay-at-home Mom, I'm certainly a traditionalist, and a conservative one, at that. Born and bred a Christian, I have two small children and a strong set of values to pass on to them. And I'd also like to hand over to my children a world without fear, without crime, without pollution, without poverty...and though the liberals would claim that that makes me one of them, I can't think of a Republican (or, in my case, registered Republican for voting's sake but actual Independant) Mommy alive who doesn't want all those same things for her children, whether it takes war or politics to get that world.
But we are hindered. We cannot currently give that world to our children, and unless things change -- drastically -- we will not be able to give that world to our children in the future. What hinders us? The list is endless...

Poor education in our schools -- illegal immigrants' drain on our social security -- so many "Americans' " refusal to learn and use English -- terrorism, gangs, dictatorships, and other groups and individuals who use hatred, fear, and death as a means to their sick ends -- recidivist criminals back on the streets after a hiccough in prision -- racism, and our refusal to accept that minorities can be as racist or moreso than the majority, as well as the related fear had by the majority that they will be viewed as racist -- the lack of available health care to the masses -- the backlog of cases in our courts, and amount paid to a lawyer determining the trial's outcome -- the lack of motivation and respect exhibited by the upcoming generation...

The list goes on, and I, personally, am terrified. So it's time to address each of these problems and offer non-partisan solutions...but those solutions must be replete with VALUES...the values held by responsible, concerned Americans who respect our country, our flag, and our God, or at least our right to believe or not to believe in Him.

Here I'll be hashing out solutions and letting them be torn down once more by you, the reader, so often wiser than I with perhaps a different background, different experiences, and better ideas. I'll be re-working those ideas and submitting them to you once again for approval. Finally, I'll be submitting our solutions to those in authority to act -- city councils, mayors, governors, state Reps, Senators, law enforcement agencies, schools and school boards, and finally, our country's figurehead himself, Mr. President (whoever it is as the solution is reached). The email and physical addresses for these folks are available, and they will be hearing from me...from us...from those who are sick of sitting by and want so much to do something.

Join me over the next few days, weeks, months...years, even...as we devise real, workable, cost-effect solutions to our problems, city, state, region, country, and world-wide. I look forward to your input, and to getting to know you.

Mommy