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