Soccer Mom: Unplugged

The State of the Union address is over for another year and once again we are left to analyze and decipher every word of the president's speech.  We are forced to listen to news analysts evaluate the number of 'interruptions for applause' there were during the speech.  And pundits will talk for days about who stood for which ovation and who managed a photo op with the leader of the free world.

What is interesting, however, is the sound that we don't hear.

We don't hear the voices of democratic politicians stepping up to offer an alternative agenda.  We hear "No. No. No."  But what is absent is "Let's do this."  The party of opposition has nothing to offer. 

The National Democratic Party has become a shameless group of pandering whiners whose only concern is how to keep themselves in power.  Part of the proof is in the fact that only a small handful of moderate dems applauded when the president outlined legislation designed to aid American workers.  Democrats don't support workers.  Workers pay taxes and they want their money back!  Dems support the unemployed and underemployed because these groups like government handouts.  They also support the overemployed - rich men like George Soros who bank in Switzerland but demand that the rest of us regular working joes pay for entitlements they think poor people should have.  

The face of the republican party has become that of the middle class suburban worker.  People like me, one generation off of the tobacco field.  Those of us who are first generation college grads and who know the power of upward mobility because we worked for it and had parents who sacrificed long hours of blood, sweat and tears to offer us a better life.  We are children of parents who thought that a government benefit was the last option, not the first.  Parents who believed that no job was too menial if it put food on the table and clothed their children.  We are the children who went to church and learned that just as we are responsible for our fellow men, he is also responsible for himself and has the ability and the obligation to become better through his own hard work.  That puritan work ethic that established this nation's first lasting colony, runs deep in our hearts and souls and colors our ideologies. 

Tonight, the President of the United States of America, a republican by party, has offered his ideas about national and international issues.  And yet, the ultimate power behind enacting any legislation that reflects these ideas remains in the houses of Congress.  Will the democrats offer alternatives or will they stonewall?  From where I'm sitting, here in my DC hotel room, all I hear is the sound of silence.

An article in the Washington Post today is making the rounds among liberal pundits.  The article reports on a study that was done to uncover racial biases among voters based on political party.  It's assertion (at least as it is being floated down the digital river) is that republicans in this country are measurably more racist than american democrats.  Huh?

I included some excerpts from the article below (in italics) and my response to them - because this was just too easy to rebutt.

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did. 

That wouldn't be perchance, because we are the party opposed to racial profiling aka affirmative action, would it? Maybe it is because the Democratic party has used faces like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to move forth it's agenda.  When most republicans think in terms of voting blocs, it is not because republicans are homogeneous but becasue the FEW select causes that the DNC rallies around are special interest causes - the party that republicans vote against has created the public persona of a multi-ethnic, feminist, peace at all costs, homosexual as its poster child.  I am sure that biases against homosexuals would run much stronger in republicans as well as biases against some other American minorities.  Not because replicans are any more hateful than their liberal counterparts, but because liberal, and to a degree, even moderate democrats, have accepted these groups as allies in the war against conservative America.  Of course, you are much more tolerant of the players on your own team.  I don't say this to suggest that all blacks are democrats, all gays are liberals or even that all feminists are in that party.  I am saying that the DNC has done a very good job of creating an us vs. them mentality in its marketing of liberal ideologies and it has placed these demographic groups squarely in the crosshairs of the ad campaign.  They (the DNC) have put a black face on their party.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

Another misleading and not at all causal relationship.  Keep in mind that most "red states" outside of the south have a very small population of African-Americans.  Biases are bound to be more common in communities where the only understanding you have of black folks is Chris Rock's sitcom or reruns of "What's Happening".  Assuming a link between racism and republican voters in this case is misinformed at best and misleading at worst.  It ignores the true causal relationship which is exposure.  Certainly, there is another reason voters in Idaho may harbor some racist feelings that isn't related to supporting President Bush!  There are whole counties, school districts that gave Bush virtually 100% of the vote who don't even have a numerically mentionable black citizenry.  There is no way you can eliminate the lack of personal interaction with blacks as a major source of any bias they register.  These same cities, towns, counties and states may be more rural, also an indicator that they lean toward more conservative social and moral views linking them more appropriately with a party that holds pro-life tenets and opposes gay marriages.  They are more likely to own guns and to prefer sending their children to a public school where their children are allowed to repeat the pledge of allegiance.  These values have nothing to do with racism.

Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said the results matched his own findings in a study he conducted ahead of the 2000 presidential election: Volunteers shown visual images of blacks in contexts that implied they were getting welfare benefits were far more receptive to Republican political ads decrying government waste than volunteers shown ads with the same message but without images of black people.

For starters,  any ad with images is exponentially more powerful than a ad without. this is why 30 second television commercials aren't shown in text format.

Also this could very well because the images are easily correlated to the recognizable images on the nightly news.  By percentage, there are more African-Americans on the welfare rolls.  The congregation of this demographic in run down government houses populated by crack dealing gangsters and prostituing junkies is an exaggerated image played over in television and movies day after day after day.  Hollywood uses that image as a backdrop (you'd think African-Americans would be more offended!) for more crime shows than I can name and, that fact stated,  there is an undeniable emotional reaction to the loaded visual stimulation of black americans living a tax payer funded life. 

There are ideological reasons, as well, that republicans react with more feeling to such media depictions.  Unlike, the democrat's philosophy (everyone is a victim) which embraces the caretaking mentality of condescending paternity, republicans espouse the view that each human, regardless of color or gender is responsible for his own life and choices.  They view self-reliance as an attainable ideal worth aspiring to and the "american dream" as merit based achievement instead of a government leveled playing field. 

This ill ill-conceived study, as all studies and experiments do, began with a hypothesis.  Somewhere in a university professor's office or perhaps, between puffs on his pipe in his own living room, an academic came up with the idea that anti-black sentiment could be linked to the republican party.  As a lifetime conservative who, admittedly has some biases but amazingly few against black americans,  I'm wondering, who's the real racist, that academic or me?

Isn't it interesting just how far some people will go to stifle the voices that speak from across the aisle?  A Canadian journalist took pen in hand and slammed right-wing bloggers this week, even going so far to accuse them of being responsible for last week's election results.  His characterization of conservative Canadian bloggers is less than impressive and demonstrates an overwhelming bias.  An internet backlash to his ignorant rant is beginning to swell.  Apparently, liberals are sore losers on both side of the border.  When are they going to recognize that his does nothing to help their cause? 

The boxes are neatly labelled and stacked up against the wall in our living room.  One more day and we'll finally be leaving this little apartment in northern Virginia.  My husband's temporary assignment at the Pentagon will be over and we will return to the home (at an undisclosed CONUS army post) that we have enjoyed for the past 3 and a half years. A few months more and we will begin life as a "civilian" family.

As I look back over the past few years, I can honestly say that the title of Army Wife is one I have grown to appreciate more and more.  Growing up in a military town, I heard all the sappy tributes to wives who kept the home fires burning and I couldn't understand what would possess a woman to willingly enlist for such duty.  Though I knew them as teachers, church companions, and neighbors, I never really understood them and I swore never to join their ranks.  Funny how ironically things turned out. 

For the past decade, I've been supported by these women, befriended by them and at times carried by their friendship.  Many of them have been the hands of God in my life, reaching out and offering a lifeline when LTC soccermom was across the ocean, in the desert or dodging gunfire in "Sniper Alley", Sarajevo.  You can never really understand the beauty of these women until they show up at your house, cry with you, help you with your dishes and send care packages to the man you love - a man they man not even know.  They pass on their wisdom, their own stories of struggles and separation and they stand unfailing beside you as you wonder how you'll find the strength to manage a move alone, or help your children adjust to yet another strange town.  They hold your hand as you worry about how you will help your children remember their father when they can't see him or hear him every day. 

I love these women.  These beautiful women whose strength and character is forged in the fire of adversity and who refuse to become bitter but instead look around them and offer a hand to whoever seems to be hurting or struggling.  I haven't met an Army wife yet who doesn't undervalue her service to her country, her husband, her children and her community.  Each and every one, I've known, truly believes that her experiences are nothing when compared to the trials of others. 

Thank you Tracee, LeeAnn, Jackie, Desrae, Cindy, Michelle, Jen, Marlis, Beth, Katie and too many more to mention. I love you.

And to my favorite Army wife of all, a special thanks.  Thanks Mom for holding me in your arms while I sobbed the first time he went to war.  And when I fell to pieces every time the orders changed and suddenly he wasn't really coming home.  Thanks for coming to my aid every time I called, frantic and afraid.  Thanks for giving me your strength when I had none of my own left to carry me through.  For being a calm harbor and a safe supportive place to go when I didn't think I could go on.  You are my hero.  (Proverbs 31:28)

You've got to hand it to everyone's favorite war critic, Cindy Sheehan, she doesn't do anything half-heartedly.  That includes jumping off the proverbial deep end.  Now, she is entertaining a run for the Senate against Diane Feinstein (D) to demonstrate opposition to the current Senator's continuing 'support' of the war in Iraq.

Of course, Sheehan's comments ruffled a few feathers in the Feinstein camp which quickly replied, "We don't like George Bush, either, so there!"  (Okay, that is a paraphrase.) 

Sheehan, who assured the press that she had no illusions of actually winning, questioned the liberal Feinstein about her voting record (in support of funding our troops overseas).  Apparently, Sheehan's loathing of the 43rd U.S. president has now been extended to the American troops, who she wants to see go unpaid, without victuals, and unarmed/unarmored.  Even her "Just bring 'em home" mantra requires what Feinstein agreed to: money.

Thankfully, I'm not living in California, and faced with the difficult decision of casting my vote between these two (umm) uniquely qualified women, but then, I'm not exactly opposed to watching them duke it out either.  If Republicans were smart, they'd drum up support for Ms. Sheehan and try to divide the vote.  If Hollywood is any indicator, there are plenty of folks living on the Left Coast who would flock to her camp.  And Republicans have won in Califrnia before, so it's not an impossibility.

It's just me thinking out loud here but does anyone get the feeling that this misguided mother is undermining her own cause and laying her singleminded naivety bare for the world to laugh at, oops, I mean, see?

There we were, sitting at lunch, barely enough room at the table to put the plates, silverware and glasses when it happened. (It's hard to seat six in a restaurant booth.) I told my sons, all of whom were playing with little toys they had brought into IHOP to keep themselves occupied, to put their toys away so there would be more room to eat comfortably.  My older two boys complied but child three, Mr. Fiercely Independent who just turned four this month, got tremendously upset at the infringement on his personal freedom.  We gave in to avoid any unpleasantness (knowing from experience that he will soon outgrow the need to hold onto his toys 24/7) and he continued to cry.  Turns out, even after he got what he wanted, he was crying because he felt we had unfairly treated his brothers!  Now, let me be clear, my older boys were not feeling vicimized in the least.  They had no idea what the fuss was for. 

It hit me right then and there that unless we hold a serious intervention, my little boy may grow up to be a lawyer for the ACLU.  I was beside myself until I remembered that I was the same way as a child.  I remember screaming at my dad when I was little for punishing my brother when he broke the family rules.  Perhaps, my son will follow my example and grow out of this behavior as he comes to understand that sometimes we sacrifice our rights for the general welfare.  Hopefully, he will come to understand as he matures that he is simply not entitled to everything.

Unfortunately, I can only hope, because there are so many people in this country who haven't outgrown this inclination.  There is a huge subculture in America made up of people who believe that they are simply entitled to everything.  They feel that they deserve cable t.v. or satellite, new cars, trend setting clothes, to own their own home, and a host of other things.  And unfortunately, there is another group out there determined the defend the "rights" of the entitlement demanding crowd.  They shout to them, "You are victims.  You deserve more "  and then the clincher, "Follow me and I make sure that you get yours."  These social terrorists are so busy decrying injustice and convincing others that they are victims that they they fail to see the real damage they are doing.

The real damage comes in the form of an undermined constitution.  Instead of guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are now supposed to offer life, liberty and hi-speed internet.  Equality of opportunity now means not just a hand up through school loans and job placement, it means taking the opportunities away from others because they aren't the right ethnicity or gender.   It comes in the form of an overtaxed working class and a wealthy class that has to skirt the law, banking off shore to keep from paying nearly half of their income in taxes.  It comes in the form of a people devoid of gratitude for what they deem they deserve and a people resentful of being stripped of what they have worked hard to obtain.  It breeds divisiness and dissension and is fostering a new civil war akin to the communist revolution in which a gang of activists legislate a redistribution of wealth so as to pad their voting bloc.  It comes in the form of selfishness - people who would give out of good and noble motives feel raped as they see, reflected in their paychecks, that what they would have offered freely is taken by force.  It comes in a pandemic of unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and a nation of mentally drained and overwhelmed workers who feel the ever increasing weight of out of control government programs on their shoulders.

The movement of victimology (creating victims out of ordinary citizens) and it's compatriot, the entitlementarian club, allow for judicial miscarriages such as the "twinkie defense" and foster the perfect breeding ground for hate of anyone who mas more.

As reasonable people, who realize the sense of purpose that comes from working hard and earning an honest wage, the dignity of laboring and the honor of knowing that you really deserve what you have, how long will we wait for this terrorizing faction to grow up?  How long will we foot the bill, like indulgent parents, for those who refuse to mature and accept responsibility for themselves?  At what point do we push those spoiled little birds out of the nest and make them fly?  And how long do we allow those coniving few, the victim builders, to scream fire in a smoke free theatre?

For now, I'm going to leave this problem in your capable hands, America, I have three children and a four year old victim's rights advocate to put to bed.

Today, I encountered what was quite possibly the nastiest exchange I have had in my adult life!  Some of you warned me it would happen but I truly didn't see it coming.  It was with a stranger who commented on a blog.  

Imagine yourself standing in front of the Campbell's soup section in the local grocery store and scanning for tomato soup when out of nowhere someone runs up and starts screaming at you, shouting expletives and cursing the wretched state of the meat department.  Wouldn't you call the manager and, perhaps, the local mental health facility?

And yet this is is the style of too many people who post comments on weblogs. They jump into a conversation and use expletives, never really addressing the topic du jour, but being incendiary and obnoxious.  Didn't their mothers teach them not to call names?

It is an interesting phenomenon.  For some reason the anonymity of the internet has driven all civility from our culture - our online culture anyway.  Why is that?  Here we are with unlimited time to think about and edit our posts.  Seconds, minutes, hours to evaluate the effect of the words we choose.  Best of all, if someone says something we don't like, we can choose to walk away - something that in a physical confrontation might not be socially acceptable or even feasible. 

Here, with time and so many options at our disposal we could be our best selves.  Putting forth reasonable debate about complex issues and seeking the truth behind the difficult dilemmas that our society, our government and the world faces.

What a shame that even though our faces are to the screen all anyone gets to see is our backside.

Another example of the sad truth about the American press:

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html

Aaron Brown, lamenting the lack of integrity in the news media,  acknowledges what we all ought to already know.  The media is not a public service.  It is a paid group of professionals whose livelihoods are based on keeping our attention.

That task has become increasingly difficult.  Americans change channels enough times during a half hour news program to make thumb pumping an aerobic exercise.

Apparently, to keep up with the fickle American viewer, news sources are forced to jazz up what they do report and present it according to the rules of  entertainment rather than the guidelines of journalistic integrity.

Now we have reporters interviewing other reporters as a substitute for any legitimate news.  We get two people with peripheal expertise (at best) debating the merits of public policy and candidates giving speeches designed specifically for soundbite-ability.  We get a Cliff's Notes version of serious news and it's always interjected with analysis (because, as you know, we are too stupid to analyze it ourselves).  This sound bite culture makes for misunderstanding and allows for spinning.  The political polarization in this country is a direct result of a 30 second commercial marketing style of the news. 

The evidence is in the fact that from blogs to newspaper articles, from water cooler chit chat to televised interviews, reporting invariable centers around the most trivial of details and the most irrelevant of side issues.  Consider how much time was dedicated to discussions about New Orleans Mayor Nagin's "chocolate" city remark or the deluge of drama released when we discovered that Bill Bennett rolls the dice occassionally.  And of course, we've all just got to know what is on the presdient's I-pod.  

The American press has become a free market nightmare.  Driven by profits and trying desperately to capture the biggest market, "anything that's fit to print" has taken on a whole new meaning.

Okay, maybe the "freakin'" was a bit much.  I usually try really hard to keep it clean. LOL.

Just surfing around and discovered that the sponsor of website JustHillary.com is none other than New York Post's political editor.  Objectivity is out the window.  Kudos for at least announcing his bias.  Wow.  The site maintains that it is dedicated to news and info about the Queen Democratic bee and that it is critical as well as lauditory but I'm thinking that unless she gave birth to you, paid your taxes or pulled you from the flaming wreckage of a downed 747,  you have no reason to dedicate your online existence to her.  Can you say WEIRD?

Add another one to the Gimme-a-break file.

For so long now, the radical pro-choice forces in America have described anyone pro-life as a right wing nutcase.  They want you to believe that anyone who opposes state sanctioned abortion (and the expenditure of our tax dollars for it) is a person who would kill doctors and blow up clinics.  This idea is completely false. 

True there is a mentally ill right fringe.  There is also a left fringe that may (or may not) benefit from electro-shock therapy.  Some on that end will kill humans to protect trees and chickens.  Either way killing to enforce your ideology is WRONG.

The simple truth of the matter is that most moral conservatives object to ELECTIVE abortions.  Our objection is not with rape victims, victims of incest, mothers whose lives are endangered by childbirth.  The problem we see is in condoning (and paying for) abortions for people who were just too lazy or stupid to purchase a condom. 

YOUR failure to plan does not constitute MY emergency. 

I understand that many pro-choice activists spout false concern for the unborn by proposing that it is better to abort an unwanted fetus (or blastocyst - if you catch it early enough) than to bring a child into the world who would be unwanted and probably uncared for.  Aside from the very viable option of adoption, there is the simple truth that any mother can tell you.  Many pregnancies that are unwanted at first, produce beautiful children that you can't help but love from the minute their little legs kick inside your womb.  In fact, that maternal instinct that NARAL would deny the existence of, kicks in so often that by month nine and after hours of labor, many young women who planned to give up those "unwanted" children find themselves struggling to follow through with that decision.

Due to complications with my pregnancies, I was fortunate to become very well acquainted with a wonderful ultrasound tech in the military hospital where two of my sons were born.  She confided during one of my many visits that most of the women who came in for "dating" (to find out exact gestational age of the fetus) were young african american soldiers who wanted abortions.  She also told me that most came in regularly and that she had seen one patient 7 times.  (Now to give you an idea - the Army moves people roughly every 3 years so that's 7 times in 3 years.)  They were simply put, using the abortion procedure as a form of tax sponsored birth control. (What's really sad is that the military hospital prescribes condoms, the pill, almost any birth control - to include IUDs for FREE!)

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO!   Elective abortions. 

The truth is I believe free-will is one of the most undeniable of human rights.  I am fiercely pro-choice.  But I believe the choice is made BEFORE you have sex not AFTER.

You don't have to be a monster to be an American president.  But Bill Clinton was. 

1- He changed the policy in Somalia where US forces had been acting in a purely humanitarian capacity, putting soldiers in the unenviable position of nation-building and hunting down warlords.  When the mission changed and MG Montgomery asked for more firepower - troops and equipment, Les Aspin said "uh-no."  This left our guys high and dry and a month later 18 died, 80 were wounded and some were desecrated posthumously, having their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

2- By the way - he left them so unsupported that we had to borrow tanks and armored personnel carriers from Pakistan and Malaysia.

3- In the Balkans, Bill engineered the Dayton peace accords and interjected American troops into a region of the world with absolutely no US interests.  While our soldiers have done a magnificent job staving off the civil wars that erupt periodically, the five year mission that Bill advertised has already turned into a ten year excursion.  There is no exit strategy for the military in this region because the peace (if you can call it that) is so tenuous that we can't afford to leave.  We now have what appears to be a permanent American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.  (And the cost of that venture reached 15 billion before he even left office. Bill's policy was to exagerrate and outright invent atrocities - fabricating a genocide that never happened in Kosovo.  To resolve the apparent imbalance (Bill made muslims the victims in that fairy tale) mujahadeen were imported from the Middle East to fight. 

4-  Bill bombed Serbia against the will of congress (they actually voted not to authorize him to use such force) and in doing such was the first US prez to act in direct opposition to congress. 

5- Under Bill's direction the US Information Agency purported that hundreds of thousands of Albanian Muslims had been slaughtered when in acuality there were no mass graves.  "The Spanish forensic surgeon Emilio Perez Pujol, who was dispatched to uncover evidence of Serbian atrocities, reported that 'we did not find one - not one - mass grave.'" (This quote taken from Thomas Woods Jr's 2004 book)

6- I won't even detail the bombing of El Shifa - the pharmaceutical company.  When he wagged the dog because Monica was giving testimony  before the grand jury.  Suffice it to say that the soil sample used to show that El Shifa was really a WMD manufacturing plant in disguise, like so many other things in the Clinton White House, never showed up.

7- Also according to Woods' count Clinton "dispatched the military overseas an amazing forty-four time during his eight years.  The American military had been deployed outside of our borders only eight times in the previous forty-five years."

Now, there are things about the current war that I don't like.  Finding WMDs would have done a lot to quiet the naysayers but WMDs or not, I would have sent guys in to take out Saddam.  The footage you can link to from my last post is more than enough reason for him to be out of power.  Not to mention gassing the Kurds.  But there is one thing you cannot deny no matter how many rumors, how much innuendo and how many brazen and outright lies are fabricated about George W. Bush, you know where he stands every step of the way.  He never said the transition would be easy.  It hasn't been.  He said Saddam was a ruthless tyrant and a homicidal killer.  The bodies and mass graves are numberless.  He said that we thought there were WMDs or the capacity to produce them.  WMDs have been found (not in the quantities that the press and the liberals demand - but then again, what amount would truly satisfy them?).  You could pick apart the details but every piece of intelligence that this president saw (and that has been made public) could have gone either way. We all knew from day one that the relationship with Al-Queda was circumstancial at best.  What the president listed in his address as evidence of a connection between Osama and Baghdad was never strong. 

So, if you felt you were deceived going into Iraq, then you just weren't paying attention.  If, on the other hand you are just plain disgusted with the US military being sent around the globe like a world cop,  I'd suggest you give Bill Clinton a call.

The problem of arguing about the war in Iraq is that no one ever addresses the real issue.  What is the cost of action versus inaction?  If you are interested, the Foundation for Defending Democracy (I think I got that name right) released some new videos today of torture carried out under Saddam.  These are extremely graphic and there is an advisory not to watch them with children present.  I couldn't even get through them - had to leave the room.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/videosof.html

While I was never in favor of being the world's police force - I can't see the morality in standing idly by while people are tortured and murdered.  With or without WMDs, this has to be the right thing to do.

Ordinarily, I applaud the initiative and courage of teens who jump into the public forum and share their ideas or fight for a cause.  Even when I don't agree.  This time, I think it has gone a little too far.  The ACLU has gotten involved, aiding a young man who wants to convince his local school district that a "no-shorts rule" is unfair.  His argument:  If girls can wear skirts, boys should be able to sport shorts.  I don't argue with his point - it's valid enough.  But where I draw the line is at him dressing in drag everyday (supported by the ACLU) to draw attention to his cause. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182730,00.html

If girls in midriff baring shirts, too-short skirts and other revealing clothes are sent home because their clothes are deemed a distraction in the school environment, it certainly can't add to his classmates ability to concentrate when little Johnny is seated next to them in a pink chiffon number he picked off the shelf at Kohl's.

Couldn't he just wear a t-shirt with male legs shackled or something to advertise his fight with the school district(or print  up and distribute flyers).  Next thing you know boys will be getting vasectomies just to show that they also deserve a "choice". LOL!

This is one for the gimme-a-break file.

The media and anti-military types are so quick to publish any sort of improper conduct in our soldiers, sailors and airmen but what they often forget to acknolwedge is that the folks in uniform are a sub group drawn from the general pool of the American populace.  The military is a microcosm of our entire nation.  There are jerks all over America - unscrupled types who do not recognize the lines of legality or morality.  If that "class" of people makes up ten percent of all Americans then it will make up something like 10 percent of the military.   There are no morality questions on the ASVAB.  If there are losers in uniform, then look to the losers in civilian clothes who raised them.  And perhaps, the loser culture that fostered their growth. 

While the military are held to a higher standard of punishable offenses (the UCMJ), like any other code of law, it has to be broken to be enforced - you don't notice how many are keeping the rules, you only notice the offenders.

While 90% (perhaps more) of our soldiers are decent people, and a large bit of those truly honorable folks, nearly ALL honor one thing and that is the comitment they made to take care of this country and to take care of each other.

You don't have to be a good person to be a good soldier.  What we honor is their willingness to serve the nation, to place the call of duty and the defense of our lives and freedoms above their own.  And that alone is worthy enough of our thanks

I hope the liberal left has the sense to distance itself from this guy.   

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

For those of you who are unaware - poll numbers and approval ratings are based on PERCEPTION.  They reflect the perception of the questioned. 

Falling poll numbers are not proof that ANY president is an idiot - they are proof that people think he is.  Big difference. 

At the turn of the 21st C, people thought, in overwhelming numbers, that they might lose financial data and other significant information in Y2K.  (Go back and look at those polls!  LOL)  During the last century, American children with AIDS were precluded from attending public schools because of what a majority of people perceived.  Japanese-Americans were interned and whites nationwide (not just in the South) refused to go to school, swim, eat, or use the same toilet as blacks.  All because of what people erroneously thought.  Pretty crazy, eh?

Approval ratings are thermometers to measure how hot or cold the political winds are blowing. Or perhaps, how hot or cold the blowhards are blowing.  They do not measure reality or truth in any way.  Facts are way too complex to be measured by the musings of a society with limited purview and access only to redacted, filtered information (my own musings included).

And that my friends, applies to both sides of the aisle!

It seems as though the Liberals in this country are determined to attach ill-fitting labels to those on the other end of the political spectrum.  "Runs with scissors".  "Does not play well with others".  "Cowboy refuses to work with the global community." 

Let me set the record straight here.  There are requirements to be involved in any community.   In the case of the "global community" you must actively participate in community affairs.  You can't just sit back and observe. Unless you are the U.N.  The far left is screaming that the current administration isn't playing well with its neighbors around the world.  They want us to make nice and ignore the little inconveniences of living next to homicidal maniacs.  That is not being a participant, that is being sidelined.  There are only two options.  Isolationism or involvement. 

Involvement through the United Nations is an oxymoron.  The U.N. clearly is only nominally involved.  The word of the U.N. means nothing. Ask any soldier from any U.N. country.  They all abhor the idea of serving under the U.N. banner because they are never supported and are usually left without any clear guidance or effective rules of engagement.  What you saw in Hotel Rwanda - that is the absolute truth of it!  You can't send peacekeepers where there isn't already peace to be maintained.  My husband served in Bosnia and the U.N. troops had to accept fire and could barely even defend themselves - they were left to be shot at and killed without any rule of engagement that allowed them self-defense.  Those weapons you saw brandished on the news reports were merely decorations.

Contrast that with the entry of U.S. troops under the auspices of NATO.  They came in with rules of engagement that allowed them to return fire and defend themselves and others.  The already present soldiers (French, Italians, British, Russians, Ukranians, Poles and others) were THRILLED to remove the blue U.N. helmet covers (an actual fabric cover that they wear over their own national helmets to identify them as UN forces) and replace them with their camoflauge covers - identifying them as NATO troops.  Units (of many natioanlities) held formal cermemonies to remove the blue toppers.  Morale in those units instantly improved and no longer were they being targetted.  Ethnic groups were separated into their various corners and the country began the process of rebuilding. 

Srebrenica is a prime example of how effective the U.N. was NOT! (Check out wikipedia: Srebenica Massacre)

The point is.  Either we are a member of the community, which means being there for the ups and the downs, or we sit by idly watching and being vicitmized.  You choose.

The mothers who cradled the dead bodies of their young children in Beslen probably won't be clamoring to get in on the "Matriotism" movement.  In fact, they'd likely appreciate it if freedom loving soldiers took out the terrorist threat that left dead and wounded in the town elementary school.  Sheehan is either very naive or hopelessly indoctrinated. 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=589

Once again the war's most confused war critic speaks out.  This time to call mothers to action against any form of war.  This ignorant woman speaks out against nationalism in its most benign forms: the plege of allegiance and the national anthem.  How silly can one woman be. 

No mother wants to send her boys to war.  If you think that's hard, try being a military wife.

For that matter, no real man wants to go to war.  Those men who shout "hooah" are generally under 25 and half drunk.  Real military men don't want to fight and kill anyone.  They don't want their wives and children at home to bury them. 

But real men, real soldiers, take seriously the obligation to safeguard the freedom and liberties that we enjoy.  They recognize that no matter how safe we want the world to be, there will always be men like Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Castro, Lenin, and on and on and on..... 

Real soldiers, want to make life better in other countries where mothers like Cindy are burying their sons at a much more tender age than poor Casey was laid to rest.  Real sodiers know that over there (in that global community that Cindy talks about but hasn't really seen - unless you count that spring break to Mexico) children are bought and sold, maimed and killed, for nothing more than being on the side of the road at the wrong time. 

Real soldiers, real men, like my wonderful husband, have tender hearts for those suffering from oppression and willingly put their lives on the line to offer them a chance at freedom.

Real sodiers build schools where young girls, like Cindy, can be educated and perhaps teach their sons and daughters a better way of life.

Real soldiers build roads and bridges, establish power lines and bring food.  They offer medical services and schooling. 

Being willing to take aim and pull a trigger is only the beginning of being a soldier. A horrifying, unwanted beginning to be sure - but also, on occasion, very necessary.

Thank God for patriots who stood against oppression in 1776 (1775 actually) and who fought to free slaves (US) and Jews (Germany) and women (Afghanistan) .

She is right on one account, our government is not always the one wearing the white hat, we have made mistakes for which we continue to atone - but to wholly condemn our nation's defenders is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Were Sheehan around in colonial days, she would no doubt have been a loyalist to the crown.  Shame on her for assuming that those who have endowed her, with their very blood, the right to freely spew such uneducated drivel, are the problem!

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=589

Homosexual employees of the University of Florida may be required to confirm that they are having a physical relationship with their partners in order to get benefits.  This is what comes of sanctioning relationships other than marriage. How do you prove commitment?  Apparently, now it's simply a matter of intercourse.  How perfectly demeaning.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/LOCAL/201200329/1078/GATORS02

I may be off on this, but, my guess is that historically, records of marriages were kept to establish lineage, to regulate taxation and for census keeping.  The whole idea of romantic love and 'til death do us part was the domain of the church.  It still appears that most legal aspects of a marriage (between a man and a woman) are about establishing stewardship and caretaking responsibilities.  Ultimately, because the outcome of such a union, by design, would produce offspring.  Benefits are allotted to workers and their dependents.  I'm not sure about the civilian terms but in the military a soldier's wife/husband and children are referred to as dependents.  Check your tax forms -  there is only one slot for head of household.  This implies that one member of the family assumes caretaking responsibilities for the others.  How do you define these roles where no possibility of natural child bearing occurs?  Furthermore,  if benefits are allowed to "partners"  what about live-in girlfriends?  How long must you share the remote before common-law privileges apply?  This sure is getting confusing!  If a man with many wives emigrates from another country, do we honor his marriages?  Are all wives permitted benefits? 

Okay, now my head is hurting...

I'm thinking, if you are in love and want to be "married", go to a church, a synagogue, a beachfront, a forest glade, whatever.  The government has never cared about whether you even like each other - they only want to know who's responsible for paying for the taxes and the kiddos. 

There is no vast right-wing conspiracy because I would've been invited to join!  The truth is that as liberals in this country push an agenda that is further and further left of the new center (which is already too far left in many respects) they are creating their own backlash.  We church going, family oriented, reasonably tolerant and friendly people have been stereotyped as all being like Eric Rudolph.  And we're sick of it. 

And another thing.  I am so tired of people pretending to speak for me.  Feminists want to stand up for my rights (as if I'm some incompetent person incapable of making my own decisions), Congress wants to save me from my own affluence, the ACLU wants to free me from responsibility for spilling hot coffee in my own lap and GLAAD wants to free my inner Lesbian.  Get over yourelves already.

I here. I'm not queer. I can think for myself and I just plain disagree.  Engage me on the issues! 

Now, I'm not real pleased when anybody calls anybody else a prostitute.  It's just not nice!  BUT and this, my friends is a huge but, this lady has lost any right to my respect. 

I am an Army wife.  This year my husband will finish a 20 year career during which he has seen combat, dodged bullets and done some pretty awesome things.  As a woman, married to the military, I have had the recurrent nightmare of receiving the last phone call, opening the door to see the CNO (casualty notification officer) and having to raise four children alone.  Fortunately, for me that was not the case.  I feel for Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother.  I do not feel for the woman who a year after the loss of her son has used his name to further a political agenda.  I find it sad and pitiable that she has let her love for her son turn into a vengeful quest for political notoriety.  As a mother, I can't imagine using my child as a poster boy for such public display of animosity.  This is akin to the mother of a mentally handicapped boy holding him in front of the camera and yelling see this sick retarded child...  Her love for Casey has become  heartbreakingly confused with her hate for Bush.  She'll never remember her boy as anything else but an anti-war prop.  And sadly, no one else will either.

Time to rant.  I'm annoyed today ya'll.  I am finding increasingly that there is a fundamental bit of character that is absent from a growing number of our society - Folks just don't seem to have a sense of the interdependence of the individual and his community and thus they feel no personal responsibility for anyone other than themselves.

 I spent the morning alternately chasing my rambunctious daughter (she'll be one on Tuesday) around the church and sitting in the foyer outside of the main chapel.  Attending service has become an experience devoid of spirituality and none too relaxing either.  But that isn't what bothers me.  What bothers me are the well meaning neighbors who see me looking as if I had just returned from a track meet and ask why I bother even going or why I don't just send my older children to church without me.

You want to know why I go?  I'll tell you.  Because I made a commitment and I want my children to know that my word is good, whether I make a promise to God or to them.  Just because something is challenging, that doesn't erase the inherent value in it.  Inconvenience isn't enough to convince me to abandon something wothwhile.  Furthermore, I don't believe that "do as I say and not as I do" is a good parenting technique. 

Too few people recognize that we have an obligation beyond fulfilling our own selfish needs and desires.  Part of that is to extend the rights and fredoms we enjoy to all men present and future.  Another part of it is to instill,  along with an appreciation for those liberties, a strong sense of personal responsibility and integrity.  We must teach our children through word and deed that there is a daily price that must be paid for a decent and free society. 

I don't expect people to go to church if they don't find value in doing so.  But for heaven's sake, don't adopt the idea that the minute something becomes a little challenging or somewhat inconvenient, it immediately becomes worthy of abandonment.  So many of the things we do have impact well beyond our ability to foresee it.  Our dedication to ideals and our willingness to put ourselves out for a cause greater than self is one of humankind's distinguishing features.

Too many Americans have no sense of their responsibility to society.  They feel no obligation beyond feeding their own selfish motives. The dogma of the "me generation" continues to pervade much of the public conversation and the disgraceful fallout is evidenced all around us. 

Take, for example, the abortion issue.  The pro-choice movement in this country has assumed a persona not unlike the enabling wife of an alcoholic.  Absolving the drunk of his behavior and offering to hide the evidence.  This goes way beyond the fetus or the fmale body carrying it.  This affects all of us.  What message is being sent when we build a future generation that truly believes that they bear no responsibility for their own acts.  The people who espouse this are the same parents who are doing their kids' homework, putting together little Johnny's science fair project while he merely looks on.  Tell me, do you really think there is no harm in this?  Is there no victim?  When people aren't held to account for their choices (both wise and unwise) their sense of personal responsibility is undermined, their maturity is stunted and true adulthood remains elusive.  And now we live with a generation of adultolescents.   (I'm not talking about victims of rape, incest, or perhaps, the woman whose life is in danger.  I'm talking about elective abortions.  Using the process as birth control.)

What more detrimental idea can we pass down to our children than that they are completely expendable and that their very lives are a product of mom's capriciousness? 

This sense of "no harm no foul" is rampant in America and unfortunately, the simple truth is that there cannot be a foul without harm.  There are no victimless crimes, no no-fault divorces.  There is always responsibility to go around.  And accepting it is an important step in moving beyond the self-centered lives of small-minded people and into a larger world where real differences can be made and lives can truly be changed. 

Spy on me! Spy on me!  Please read my email, go through my mailbox, tap my phones.  Heck, I'll even give you names and number of my friends and family.  I'm pretty sure they've got nothing to hide and frankly, I think it's high time that somebody paid attention to us normal "silent majority" folks.  We can hardly get a word in between Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte and every one else out their whose opinions aren't necessarily popular, just LOUD. 

It is me or has anyone else out there gotten tired of being ignored just because we don't like to scream to make our voices heard.  (Although, my kids might take exception to that last remark.)  If you don't throw a couple of extremely vulgar expletives into every other sentence and make sweeping generalizations about the integrity or lack thereof of the current administration you are just not going to get any air time these days.

The funny thing is that the talking heads know that screaming at each other on the nightly news isn't going to resolve any of the nation's or the world's problems.  They are just playacting - performing to get us all riled up so that we will throw votes in one direction or the other.  Ever seen a street performer?  The little monkeys only sing and dance as long as the crowd applauds.  We, the people, have to refuse to get drawn into the ugliness of a public display that can only be compared to a bad episode of COPS. 

How about a little public DISCOURSE (heated or otherwise) that addresses issues and not individuals.  Here's my suggestion:  Unplug yourself.  Get out of the swirling vortex of American politics and culture.  Step back.  Breathe deep (young padawan).  And when you are able see clearly, reach back inside the chaos and unplug someone else.  It's that simple.  There's you. There's me.  We're an army! 

Vote your conscience.  Ballot your beliefs.  No more bloc voting - no more blind obedience to partisan pundits. Think, it really is patriotic.

Disclaimer:  Okay, I can't let anyone leave her thinking that I was a fan of the "Think, it's patriotic" slogan.  True story:  My husband and I were on I-495 and I saw a bumper sticker with that catchphrase.  That was about as close as I ever came to road rage! I turned to my DH (dear husband) and said "There's a liberal driving that car."  Sure enough, as we pass the car, there is a Kerry-Edwards sticker in the front along with a few venomous Bush attacking stickers.  Now, I don't have a problem with people wanting to express themselves through cheap and sticky car art.  I don't have a problem with people disliking the president - that is all part of the beauty of being free.  The issue here is simply that you can't validate yourself as a patriot by accusing others of being mindless.  If you are patriotic - wonderful - but dismissing others who don't agree with you as mindless lemmings is exactly why so many people see the liberal left (as some call it) in this country as a group of out of control elitists.  Just my totally honest opinion.  

As I see it there are few things less threatening to beaurocrats than people who care enough to get involved.  Apathy, after all, is always interpreted in Washington as a blank check.  The only thing I imagine that is worse for politicians is an activist citizen who refuses to be influenced by press releases, released redacted documents, legal disclosures and the sort of quasi propaganda that keeps the mainstream media in business:  someone who thinks for himself.  Someone who is unplugged from the Matrix of the American political feeding machine.  We are out here.  We're watching you.  And we vote.

Saturday morning dawns crisp and clear.  Another 'January Spring' day with weather in the 60s.  Perfect for a trip to Huntley-Meadows Park and a walk among the dead trees and brown grass.  Nothing like visiting a wildlife sanctuary in the middle of winter.  The kiddos are anxious in anticipation of releasing some of their pent up energy.  That and the fact that we promised to get doughnuts on the way.  As advertised, the trip goes well.  Kids running wild in the outdoors, little fish swimming in the murky water of the wetlands and ultimately getting eaten by the Canadian geese - all very adventurous.  As the song goes (for you country music fans)... there's no place I'd rather be.

A great morning with my family is just what I need after last night.  I was up late reading Drudge report and all the online news sources I could fit in and got carried away linking from one site to another and another and, well, if you got here, then obviously you know how that goes.  I was apalled at all the hatred that is spewed forth on the internet.  I wasn't so much surprised as just left with a real distaste for all the political muck-raking and mud-slinging and just plain meanness.  It's sad that in this world (and especially in this country_ where we have so much to be grateful for) people waste so much time and energy on hatred and bigotry.  Out of that distasteful experience, Soccer Mom was born. And so here it is, my own blog - a safe place to share my joys, vent my frustrations and make a few statements of my own on world affairs.

Welcome into my world.