I copied the latest newsletter from Family Leader - one of the ten thousand newsletters I get on Child and Family issues - because I think this plea for activism is really worth the time.  I laid down some pretty frank words in my email to Sen. Arlen Specter.  As I see it, the religious conservatives in this country have given our votes to the GOP for a reason and since fiscal conservatism is a failure,  we at least ought to be holding them to account on the culture and values issues.  I've got a big case of "What have you done for me lately" and I reminded the honorable Senator that the morally traditional Republican base has shown allegiance but that this allegiance isn't blind.  These guys need to be aware that our votes are not to be taken for granted.  This country is long overdue for some tightening of the loophole filled laws with respect to child pornography, child abuse, parental neglect, not to mention the elephantine issues like elective abortion and same-sex marriage.  While I believe that all of these issues are fundamentally states' issues, there is no denying that the political pendulum continues to swing toward Federalism.  Perhaps, with South Dakota's new abortion ban, that will change but regardless we have to hold our Washingtonian employees to account.  Please contact Arlen Specter.

FYI:  Since I copied this page directly, the links are ineffective.

		National Update Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues. From: Maurine Proctor Washington, D.C. Take Action: Tell Your Senators to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation Child pornography.  Behind every picture there is pain-an innocent exploited.  Some of these may be children of poverty, lured to help support their family.  Many of them are victims of predators.  All of them need our help-and we have a chance to do something about it. Senators Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback introduced legislation in December to strengthen laws protecting children from sexual exploitation.  But it is sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee-stalled. Your help is needed to pass this important legislation which adds muscle to the enforcement of child pornography laws.  We'll tell you how below. First, some background. On March 15, the Department of Justice announced new arrests of persons who produce and traffic in child pornography.  Exploitation, however, occurs not only through the graphic "underground" material involved in these arrests, but also in material considered more "mainstream."   Correcting Current Law Current law prohibits producing visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct involving minors.  However, the new "Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005-S.2140" corrects some major deficits in the current law.  The new law would require producers of pornography to keep age-related records regarding those acting in the creation of all sexually explicit material.  This includes depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct as well as simulated sexually explicit conduct if it involves minors. The new law also requires that failure to produce this information for inspectors would be considered a crime.  It also defines more clearly who a "producer" of child pornography is. Because the continued existence of child pornography perpetuates the exploitation, the law must hold accountable some who may not have actually held a camcorder or arranged a photo shoot. Vulnerable children need the protection of this law. Act Now Email or call Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Ask Senator Specter to support the "Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005." It deserves a vote in committee.  Click here for his contact information. Email or call all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asking them to vote for the "Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005" so that it can be considered on the Senate floor.  This is a bi-partisan issue. The names and contact information of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee can be found by clicking here. S.2140 Corrects Defects in Current Law S.2140 requires age-related records regarding all sexually explicit material.  The current statute applies only to depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct.  S.2140 applies the record keeping and inspection requirements to producers of simulated sexually explicit conduct because producing such material is also illegal if it involves minors.  This means that some producers will now have to keep age-related records for the first time. S.2140 more effectively defines what it means to produce sexually explicit material.  Child pornography is different than adult pornography.  Because the continued existence of child pornography perpetuates the exploitation, the law must hold accountable some who may not have actually held a camcorder or arranged a photo shoot.  S.2140 more effectively defines the term produces and minimizes unintended consequences by including three categories of activity and excluding five others.  S.2140 makes the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct consistent with other statutes.  The current definition of actual sexually explicit conduct in 18 U.S.C. §2257(h)(1) includes only four of the five elements of the definition in 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A), the main definition provision.  S.2140 ensures that the definition in the record keeping statute conforms to the rest of the child pornography statute. S.2140 makes refusal to make records available for inspection a crime.  The current statute requires maintaining age-related records and making them available for inspection, but makes only failure to maintain records a crime.  S.2140 criminalizes refusal to permit inspection. Call or email your senators and ask them to support the "Protecting Children from Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005-S.2140."

Heard an interesting bit of news today while shampooing my floors.  Fox news was on in the background and Brian Kilmeade was arguing with a latino about the immigration issue.  I missed the guest's name but here's the essences of what he said:

He was inviting Latinos to boycott all businesses on a certain day - didn't catch that either.  Both Dayside hosts lost their cool and started accusing Sr. Whoever of trying to hurt the US economy. 

So, here's the question:  if it's going to do so much damage to the economy for them to avoid shopping and public transportation for ONE DAY, then how much greater would the damage be if they were rounded up and shipped home to Mexico, Honduras, and Panama. HELLO?!?

Personally, I think this is a great way of reminding the hard liners that these people profoundly impact our economy.  If we could round up every single illegal and deport them immediately - can you even imagine how many apartments and mobile homes would sit empty. How much less would be paid in water and heating bills.  How many fewer boxes of cereal, gallons of milk, packages of chorizo. That's a lot of taxable spending.  When I lived in Georgia, I volunteered among the Latino community and many of these folks were illegal immigrants.  There was a whole barrio (probably 750-1000 people) made up of several trailer parks and small houses that were entirely occupied by these migrant workers.  The men travelled up and down the coast picking whatever was in season or working in factories that had seasonal needs.  They paid rent, shopped, ordered pizza.  I took many of them back and forth to the doctor where I watched them pay in cash for services.  I ran into them at Wal-Mart Christmas shopping and I celebrated baby showers and birthdays with them where many nice presents were exchanged. It wasn't just that. I frequently turned down offers to be taken out to lunch and I often refused gifts offered as a show of gratitude for the times when I carted pregnant wives here or there or dropped folks off at their church services or the market. 

The military tried this same practice once - I can't remember where but the story goes that back before direct deposit when soldiers where getting paid directly, the commanding general of an Army post was frustrated with the complaints of the local community.  "Those soldiers just cause problems!  All they do is drink and keep the prostitutes in business."  The Post comander ordered that all the troops be paid in silver dollars so that the town outside the gate could see the real impact.  He spoke to the complaining civilian community.  "Every time you see a silver dollar in your cash register - you remember a soldier put it there."  It only took one pay period before the compaints stopped.  Water bills were paid in silver dollars, groceries, electric bills, phone bills, everything.  It became clear to all very quickly that in spite of the difficulties of hosting the soldiers - there was a real and positive economic impact.

Many who are taking a hard line approach to the immigration issue have had negative experiences and are all too familiar with the negative press about crime and gangs among the inner city illegals.  But if you reject the bad news coming out of Iraq as filled with bias, how can you accept the news about the Bronx or Chicago's south side without question.  I'm not suggesting that there aren't problems - clearly there are.  But there's a lot of good going on, too.

If illegal immigrants boycott our stores to give us an idea of the real impact they have on the American economy, we shouldn't consider this a vindictive act but an eye-opening experiment. 

The following is a partial list of recently charged criminals who should be seeking legal counsel from the LaFave defense team.  After all, if you can molest one of your students and get away with it, you certainly ought to be able to hide your husband's body in the trunk of your car for a few days.  What's a little death and decay among manic-depressives?

Angela Marie Ferguson (39) Tacoma, Washington who killed her husband and hid him in the trunk of her car.

Unnamed bad mother, New Port Richey, Florida who got paid $600 for letting a neighbor molest her 7 year old son.

Maurice LaGrone Jr.,  Bloomington, Illinois who helped his girlfriend drown her 3 children.

Marquis A. Daniels (17) Tampa, Florida who shot a man in the hand and then went joy riding until he met with a very sudden stop.

David Jordan (44) New York who killed a local preacher and civil rights activist for allegedly inviting him (somewhat forcefully) to break sodomy laws.

And if that isn't enough depressing news, read this before taking your zoloft. 

Hey, Rummy, while we're trying to get more good news out about Iraq can we try to get a little out about America, too? 

Al Jazeera publishing company out of Dubai, UAE (yeah - the ports deal place)  has a very interesting online magazine. 

From their "About Us" page:

About Aljazeera.com
Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established in 1992 in London. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

Aljazeera Publishing disassociates itself from the views, opinions and broadcasts of Jazeera Space Channel TV station.

Interestingly, this e-zine capitalizes on the notoriety of the other Al-Jazeera to publish this:  "Conspiracy Theories".  That, I suppose is their way of "covering major developments presenting facts as they happen".  Okay, if you say so.  At least they labelled the page correctly.

Read the story here   and for the al-jazeera version click here  (How's that for fair and balanced?)

An article published in the Washington Post on March 26th gives cause for alarm for anyone concerned about the trend of abandoning traditional family values in America.

Joy Jones begins her insightful article with anectdotal evidence of the decline of marriage among the African-American community.

Jones predicts the trend away from marriage will continue to spread into white America.

Couple this news with Pew research results indicating that fewer Americans are opposing same-sex marriage that were doing so just two years ago and you have to wonder if the marriage insitution is going the way of the dinosaur. 

Alabama high school Spanish teacher Brett Drummond faces a felony charge and a couple of misdemeanor charges after buying porn for two male students.  The news came to light after one of the boys told his parents.  Gotta wonder what the defense is gonna be - Was this homework? Were any of the articles in Spanish?

What makes this the most absurd news blurb of the day is that Mr. D confessed to some of the accusations and yet is still "on paid administrative leave pending the results of the investigation."

What The Freak? He's still getting paid????? Just my honest opinion but this guy should be on unpaid leave and if exonerated paid retroactively.  I'd hate to ruin the life of an innocent man but if this guy has admitted some guilt here, he shouldn't be a tax payer burden. Innocent until proven guilty isn't the same as employed until proven guilty.

Well, the folks who brought us doctored Mohammed cartoons are at work in Iraq.  Hoping to drum up some support, they are now rearranging battle sites to create fake atrocities.  Could this be the work of some Danish Imam?

US troops defend raid, say Iraqis faked "massacre"

With all of the uproar about America's "porous borders" and the fear of terrorists entering the country as illegal aliens, the country is slowly becoming polarized on yet another issue.

Unlike most conservatives,  I find myself comfortably in the middle when it comes to immigration.  I've listened to Bill O'Reilly's rants and I've heard screeching voices on the airwaves hyperventilate repeatedly, "but... but... they broke the law!"  Sorry, guys,  I'm just not buying it.  Here's why:

Everyday millions of Americans break the law.  They speed on back roads and through neighborhoods.  They jaywalk. They eat a grape off the produce stand without paying for it.  And yet, no one is out looking for past offenders.  These lawbreakers get away scot free. We don't punish a lot of prior bad acts.

The same principle applies to any punitive measure we could legislate with respect to immigrants.  Yes they broke the law to enter this country.  Okay, they got away with it.  Let them apply for citizenship.  Demand proof of employment, charge a fine, and make them register.  Any undesirables - criminals and such - would be weeded out in that process.  Economically it makes sense that the more people we have putting into the national coffers, the better we all are.  This is increasingly true as baby boomers age and caring for them becomes more of a burden than subsequent generations can bear. 

Last night, Bill o'Reilly continued his personal battle for putting troops on the border.  He also declared that citizenship should be earned.  I'm left wondering how Bill's ancestors earned entrance into the United States other than stepping off the boat onto Ellis Island in the right century.  There is room and enough to spare for people who contribute.  This nation was once welcome to all who would seek freedom and a better life - how can we turn our back on the very principal that led to the founding of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth.

Yes, yes, I understand the "post 9-11" mentality.  Registering people who pass through open doors is a whole lot easier than trying to seal up an infinite number of cracks.  In fact, with people legitimately entering the country, registering, and seeking citizenship, the number of those trying to sneak in would decrease monumentally raising the odds exponentially that the border patrol could actually catch the folks we don't want here.

Think about it.

Sean Penn, actor, political genius, left leaning Barbie doll sadist.  Yep, he makes me run right out and join a Barbra Streisand sing-along!

From the contactmusic.com news page:

There are a lot of names being hurled at anyone or anything even remotely religious these days.  The so-called religious right in America is described as bigotted and backward and attributed every negative characteristic possible by an increasingly secular society.  Manger scenes have been banned, Easter eggs are becoming taboo and even those little crosses on the side of road that mark the tragic demise of a car crash victim are coming under fire. Often it feels as though anyone who admits to any religious devotion might as well just walk away from public discussion because once you are identified as a person of faith, you are suddenly considered ignorant, illogical and unworthy to participate in intellectual debate.  Heaven forbid you admit your convictions color your politics.  Such heresy!

The complete disregard for all things sacred and the irreverence of previous generations has spawned an atmosphere of absolute disgust for all matters of faith.  Even among those who tolerate the whimsy of the faithful, there is a sense that all things, especially piety must be taken with moderation, as if, like vitamin A,  too much were a bad thing.   Much of the  displeasure that Americans are feeling toward religion and religious devotees is a byproduct of the opposition that the religious right holds to many liberal and seemingly American ideals.

The faithful abhor unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, adultery, permissiveness, lasciviousness and all sort of freedoms that democracy would allow - if only for the will of a majority.  Why, after all, do we oppose such practices?  If individuals are enjoying personal and private freedoms, who are we to impede them their pursuit of happiness?  Some churches have even endeavored to 'keep up with the times' by changing policy and doctrine to allow for shifting political winds.  Why can't that darn religious right just let people explore unfettered freedoms?

The answer lies not in who we are or what we believe, but in who God is and how we perceive him.  As people fundamentally tied to the Judeo Christian doctrines espoused in the Bible, we believe that God is, was and always will be the ultimate authority on moral law.  What he says goes.  Whether or not you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, one thing is for certain, Christians believe that God gave commandments and that he alone is the source who draws the line between moral and immoral.  If we go about changing those laws and supporting politicians who set about to redefine societal norms, then we pit ourselves against the Almighty.  Not an enviable position.  To do such undermines everything we believe.  When man presumes to define right and wrong and dismisses eternal edicts, he redefines God as an arbitrary, powerless, irrelevant being of little or no import and relegates Him to the realm of mythological creatures.  You cannot do that and still be a believer.  It's paradoxical.  Either He exists as He describes himself and we, followers, are bound to obey or He does not, in which case why bother with the pretense of ritualistic sacraments that have no meaning.

In essence, we do not oppose gay marriage (Fred Phelps is an exception here) because we hate homosexuals but because we believe in a designed, purposeful existence that includes marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children, who are to be trained up in His teachings.  It is not because of who homosexuals are, but because of who we are.  We oppose abortion because we believe in the God who says He knew us before he formed us in the womb.  Whether or not you believe that, is not the issue, we do.  And because of who we are, we cannot help but oppose the practice of ending an innocent human life.

The religious right has become a stumbling block to many bits of liberal legislation and while the discourse is heated and often tempers flare, I ask those who do not believe to understand the magnitude of what you are insisting that we compromise.  To concede to the politically correct environment of our day and give our vote to those who would arbitrarily abolish the few vestiges of an earlier more religious American nation would be to turn our backs on God himself.  It would be abolishing God.

While some politicians and even many churches have sought a middle ground - a level of compromise - with secularists, the religious right cannot. To do so is to concede that God is but a figment and that man is his own supreme authority and that would be to worship at the altar of humanism. 

While there is no real consolidation of American religious zealots, among ourselves there is disagreement and often infighting, one thing is certain, we recognize the supreme authority of an eternal God while also respecting the beauty of the American Constitution and the noble concepts that were written into her.  We concede to the will of the majority and we fight within the system to alter those things that offend our moral sensibilities.  Do not make the mistake of thinking that we cannot intellectualize our positions. Or that we cannot understand yours.  But ultimately, in very real terms, giving secular ideals precedence over our faith is not about defining "sinful" behaviors or passing judgements.  It is about allegiance to the ruling authority of our lives;  a father, an exemplar, and a King.

We consider ourselves His subjects and pilgrims in a strange land but also consider ourselves compelled by His laws of integrity and morality to obey the civil leadership to which we are bound.  We render unto Caeser every time we pay our taxes and send our sons and daughters into battle and with each act of compliance to laws, even those that offend our religious sensibilities.  But we cannot and will not simply turn over our votes, silence our voices and walk away from the political arena.  There are things that we simply oppose.  And to be true to our faith, oppose them we must.

An 8 year old was suspended from second grade for sexually harrassing a female classmate.  Seems during a game of tag, jr. may have grabbed the little gal by her hind end and that act combined with the fact that he had sent her a few love notes in class got him sent home for a day.

Priceless quotes from the Morning Journal report:

''It's not a disciplinary action,'' Schnurr said yesterday, adding the allegation will not be placed in the student's permanent record. ''We don't want to put something in the permanent record of a youngster who may not understand what they did wrong.

(oooh the dreaded permanent record!  This kid could give his mother forty whacks and his father forty-one and it'd still be expunged at 18 - what the heck is a permanent record, anyway?!?)

''Apparently, they had to treat it as sexual harassment,'' Barth said, adding the girl has been friends with her son for a long time. ''And then he was given a day off of school because of passing notes that say ÔI love you.'''

Johnson said the incident was harmless and referring to it as sexual harassment is what was ''inappropriate.'''

''Little kids are going to do stupid things like that,'' he said of his son passing love letters.

(Passing love letters is "stupid".  How about "passing love letters is a normal part of development" and though eight might seem kind of young, if you've watched an episode of Jimmy Neutron, you know, that even cartoons are dealing in themes that are too mature for their average viewership. 

Another thought: If I were the second grade teacher, I'd be glad they were writing!  I'd say,  "Hey!  you want to write?  Give me 20 sentences about why Suzie Q is such a hottie and make sure you use this week's spelling words!")

The school system Dean speaks:

''It's our job to teach students at a young age that inappropriate behavior is unacceptable,'' Schnurr said. ''The student did something wrong, admitted he did something wrong and received the proper discipline.''

He added it is unfortunate that this discipline is not emphasized at the student's home.

(Huh?  The kid didn't steal a car and drive to Vegas.  He passed a love note and then may have grabbed the girl's butt during a game of tag.  To excoriate the parents as if jr. wasn't getting home training is ridiculous.  What parent sits down with their 8 year old to explain 'sexual harrassment'?  For grabbing Juliet's bottom, Romeo deserves a talking to and some form of punishment simply to deter future lapses, but punishment for writing love notes is absurd.  On Feb 14th the teacher probably passed out heart shaped red construction paper and taught them to write I love you and now it's a crime?)

The overreacting parents are now considering litigation against the overreacting school system that is assuming something inappropriate happened in the gym simply because a few weeks prior Jr. wrote "I love you" on a sheet of wide rule and passed it to the pig-tailed blonde in the front row.  Sounds like everyone is overreacting.  

Advice to the parents:  Don't sue.  Take the high road and teach your kids that stupid people often make it into positions of power but that isn't reason to pursue the contemporary fix-all approach of taking people to court.  Keep your kids in this school.  Go to every PTA. Stay involved.  Report every infraction - if the school board doesn't listen, the media will.

Advice to the principal and school board:  Crack open a book on human development and then sit down with one of my favorite nursery ryhmes to rethink the stupid position you've taken.  Here's a copy.  It's on me.

Georgie Porgie pudding pie

kissed the girls and made them cry.

When the boys came out to play

Georgie Porgie ran away.

Tony Blair speaks out denouncing the trend toward anti-Amerianism in European politics.  Apparently, much like America's liberal left, Europeans would rather condemn US intervention in the world than acknowledge the slow and painful but steady push toward global democracy that our nation has engaged in since its inception.  Blair says:

"Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.

"The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged."

The real problem is not that the world doesn't want us engaged.  If we isolate ourselves, we are accused of cold indifference and selfish disregard.  The problem is that the world wants us engaged on their terms.  Each nation wants a portion of the American economic pie without strings attached.  But requiring nothing of the international community would be akin to extending our "welfare state" domestic policy across the planet.  In essence, we would be subsidizing ideologies that are fundamentally at odds with democracy and capitalism - the two driving forces that created the thriving bastion of affluence and liberty we enjoy.  If we intend to preserve the freedoms we now have, we must wage war, ideologically, economically, and even at times militarily, against every state or institution that preaches or practices oppression. 

You all know how much I support the military!  I was born into - grew up around it - and married into it.  Nevertheless, I am well aware that the qualifications for being a good soldier and a good person do not always simultaneously exist within the people in uniform.  Many of our best and brightest serve and some of our weirdest manage to enlist as well.  Centcom has outed a guy calling himself Rakan Ben Williams, who claims to be an al-quaida operative within the US Army.  Whether or not his emplyement claims are legit - he is one funny guy.  Meet Ben:

“Boycott NBC station, and get rid of its Jewish director, Fred Silverman.  Fight INC station and its Jewish director, Leonard Goldstein.  Take revenge on the CBS station and its Jewish director, William Bailey.  Search for truthful media that brings to you the truth as it stands. Unfortunately, however, you will not find one and do you know why? It is because your apostate country fights honest media.  Even the smallest Internet site could not escape from its grip. Search the web for the publications of the mujahidin to learn about their pure truth, which was marred by your agent television stations.  If you could not do that, at least watch Al-Jazirah television to get 20 percent of the truth if not less.

Wow!  Ben really hates the MSM - are we sure he's an operative and not just some long lost relative of Michelle Malkin?  Just thinking out loud here.  Ben will be happy to know that the guys at the Pentagon watch Al-Jazeera, not sure they're buying the propoganda, though ;-)

WuzzaDem got a hold a of the church sign generator this week and this little treasure is the end result.

Just ask the good folks at the St. Paul, Minnesota city hall!  This isn't a war on Easter - it's simply a rejection of green plastic grass and colored eggs. 

  Here's a newsflash for the PC nuts in the Twin Cities - most Christians don't consider bunnies, plastic grass and dyed eggs to be real symbols of Easter... 

Over at Moving Out, Moving on, Susan Murphy-Milano shares an experience she had this week in the classroom of a public school.  Of course, having been there and done that for a few years, so many memories flooded my mind.  There is so much right about a culture determined to educate their young and yet there is so much wrong with the way we choose to go about it sometimes.

As a public school teacher, I worked under the auspices of a government mandated program - ESL.  I saw how any kid with an non-anglo, ethnic last name (regardless of whether they had ever even heard a word in any language other than English) were immediately funneled into the program if they underperformed.

Classroom teachers, from K to 12, were overwhelmed with too many students, too much apathy, and a system that throws money at problems instead of offering solutions.  These teachers couldn't wait to get kids into "special" programs because it meant they'd have a more manageable class room for several hours a day.  I knew teachers who had anywhere from 30% to 50% of their class in various specially subsidized programs. 

Any kid surnamed Diaz or Rodriguez would immediately come to me.  The basis for determining a need for services was inherently prejudiced - since it was based on any familial experience with a foreign language.  If Grandma spoke french, you were likely to get in.  Much of that was simply the need of the program to justify it's own existence.  That's the innate problem with most beauracracies. 

Some of my kids were third and fourth generation US citizens and their parents couldn't speak a word of Spanish, German, or Korean.  They didn't need ESL, they needed qualified teachers, smaller classrooms, and caring parents. To me it didn't matter why they came - my obligation was still to get them reading, writing and speaking English.  But it highlighted a waste of funding that could have been better spent by adding regular classroom teachers and reducing class size. In my experience, I'd guess 80% of my students didn't need ESL.

In spite of being the more severely challeneged linguistically, the kids who were actually from other countries, benefitted most from the ESL program. They still had the work ethic of their native lands and didn't feel any sense of entitlement about their education - they were respectful and valued the opportunity to attend school. 

And their parents!  I dreaded having to talk to them because I knew that if I had to discuss an issue with a parent from, for example,  the Phillipines or Venezuela - those kids were going to be hearing about it at home for the rest of the year.  In my experience, the foreign parents rode their kids so hard that they couldn't help but succeed and the American parents asked "What are you, teacher, going to do to get my son/daughter to pass this grade?"

Once, I even met with parents of one of my high school classes and asked them to commit to reading a book from the course with their children so that parents could reinforce to their own children the value of a good education.  Some of the parents were absolutely incensed!  They considered it an affront to be asked to participate.  The parents who refused to sign the commitment letter were the very same parents whose kids consistly underperformed and showed apathy for learning.  They were the same kids who were disrespectful and had other behavior issues.  BTW, these weren't my ESL kids, these were suburban American kids.

The problem with education in America isn't a lack of special programs, it isn't a lack of funding for seminars and continuing education workshops, it isn't even figuring out how to tap into little Johnny's particular learning style.  It's too many kids per classroom, too few interested parents, and a system that places higher value on shiny new computers than phonics and a good dictionary.  The problem is a system compelled to teach character because so many parents aren't doing that at home.  The problem is one of cultural values and fiscal irresponsibility.  It's compounded by the fickle fondness that educators have for novel teaching techniques and classroom management methods.  For a program with the noble goal of educating our young, the public school system in this country continues to fall miserably short of its aim.

The thing about being a victim of prejudice in modern society is that as societal conditions continue to improve, you have to find reasons to be offended.  This can be a challenge in a country where the ubiquitous condemnation of racial, gender, and sexual bias is incorporated into nearly every media interaction.  You can hardly get through a magazine or a 30 minutes television show without hearing a sermon on tolerance.

What this means for our contemporaries who are inclined to designate themselves martyrs for one discrimination suffering group or another is that as our culture adjusts to the idea that all men really are created equal, their claims of discrimination have to get more and more outlandish, often to the point of absurdity.

Last night, ABC's Primetime aired another episode of their "What should you do?" series.  The shows are designed to inform viewers and arm them with appropriate responses to difficult confrontational situations.  There was a segment in which actors portrayed a couple fighting in a park.  As the boyfriend character became increasingly abusive, and the girlfriend increasingly upset, there was conjecture about whether or not passersby would bother stopping to intervene.  One of the actresses, a beautiful young African-American posited that another African-American would be more likely to come to her aid.  To ABCs credit, they showed what actually happened.  A middle aged black woman walked right by, shaking her head.  Upon questioning, she commented for the cameras, "They should just keep that at home.  People walk here and there are kids playing."

Shortly, thereafter, as the experiment continued, a middle-aged white woman came upon the quarreling lovers.  She walked right up, interjected herself in the situation, and offered companionship to the young black actress until she found another park patron with a cell phone.  Unfortunately, ABC didn't bother to redress the earlier comments made by the actress.  In fact, at this point the commentary took an entirely different turn and the issue of race fell by the wayside.  No acknowledgement for the white woman who saw not the color of the victim but instead her distress.  And no discussion with the obligatory "expert" about the racism the young black actress showed in designating apathy and a lack of empathy as characteristics of the entire white race.  Interesting.

There are many so entrenched in the fight for equality that they have become blinded to the obvious and steady decline of racial tension.  There isn't a person alive in the US today under 40 or so who has experienced segregation.  By the time most of today's 40 year olds entered the workplace, in the mid eighties, the sounds of shattered glass ceilings were echoing across the continent.  Mr. Mom was chaging diapers and women and minorities were getting PhDs and promotions.  In fact, the disproportionate numbers propelled by affirmative action left many white men, some of whom never knew a segregated world, reeling from shock at being "un" and "under" employed. 

The specter of the past haunts every culture.  Blacks fight prejudice, Whites feel compelled to pay for slavery even though no one alive today ever practiced it, and some women reject all signs of feminity in protest of the limited choices of yesteryear.  The sad reality is that fiercely holding onto a ghost does as much damage to ourselves as it does to our enemies.  When we refuse to recognize progress and encourage our own people to hold bitter grudges against supposed offenders, not only do we do irreparable damage to our group psyche but we undermine our own cause. 

How can there not be a backlash by people forced to pay for the sins of others?  How can there not be hopelessness when your cultural identity centers around being victimized?  There will be some who's knee-jerk reaction will be to call me a racist or a bigot.  That is how these victim perpetuators operate - it is their craft to attack others in lieu of addressing arguments.  Ironically, most of the folks calling for punishment in America against any presumed discriminators are the first to call for education and humanitarian aid in countries that sponsor terrorists.

They call for gentle reforms and for compassion in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet want to use legislation and the judiciary to punish anyone in a majority American subculture that doesn't bow to their demands.  Christians, white men, heterosexuals - all feel they are under attack by very vocal minorities.  And the the rising swell of social backlash is on the horizon. 

Ultimately, those who cry for tolerance may find themselves standing like the proverbial person beating a dead horse.  After the horse is gone - there stands alone in the remnants of the bloody affair a violent man holding a stick.  And no one wants to listen to what a man like that has to say.

Copyright © 2006, WGNO

Remember the phrase "too stupid to come in out of the rain"?  Clearly, there are literal applications for those words.  Not smart enough to arrange for appropriate evacuation is only the beginning of the mayor's issues.  Now he wants to give away 23 million dollars instead of earning 5 million.  Either there is a problem with competency or corruption.   But no matter,  the funds will be meted out undoubtedly from monies funnelled into the state via federal tax dollars (i.e. your hard earned cash)

I'm sure Ray sends his heartfelt thanks, America.

As long as I'm pointing out leftist lunacy, it's no secret the conservative talk radio airways are on fire with condemnation of the Law and Order: SVU actor and his anti-military comments.

My response is simple:  remember the phrase "Consider the source"?  We are talking about a man who pretends to be what real people are.  His makes a living by pretending to be or do something.  Okay, that's generally the behavior of a small child but whatever floats your boat, man.

  Look at me!  My career is playing MAKE BELIEVE.  I get paid for it.  Living in another world and repeating someone else's lines is just what I do.

So, c'mon, Rush, Sean, Laura, anyone else out there railing on this guy, quit foaming at the mouth.  Every villiage has an idiot - and America has a lot of villages.

Speaking to Wolf Blitzer, Democrat Harry Reid declares that America has been in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII.

Well now, let's take a look at that Harry:

7 Dec 1941    Pearl Harbor is attacked

11 Dec 1941  Congress declares War

2 Sept 1945  Japanese surrender in Tokyo harbor on the deck of the Missouri

Now the way I count it, Mr. Reid that adds up to nearly four years of active combat.  As of this writing, the troops have been at war with Iraq for just over 3 years.  Even if you add the 5+ months between the passing of the Iraq War resolution (Oct, 11, 2002) and actual ground combat - your are still wrong by roughly 4 months. 

The dates above don't include the skirmishes prior to Congress making the WWII official nor do they account for the fact that we had already established a "shoot-on-sight" policy (17 October 1941) against German U-Boats after the attack of the US destroyer Greer.  This timeline also fails to account for the allied effort to "send guns not sons" a slogan associated with the land-lease bill proposed and finally approved in May 1941 which provided arms and financial backing to the struggling European democracies who were losing the fight with Hitler. But, we'll let Reid fudge those extra days...

Now, if Bush had made such an erroneous statement, he would be assailed on certain liberal websites as being a liar.  Mr. Reid, I will not make such a charge - I will instead presume that you are ignorant of the facts and repeating, like most people in this country, rhetoric for which there is no factual basis.  My advice for Reid and many of his ideological peers is to crack open a book that doesn't have George Clooney, Michael Moore, or Susan Sarandon on the cover, break out your dictionary, and get educated.

Giving Reid the benefit of the doubt with regard to his intellect and education, we can presume that he is purposefully using only dates regarding actual combat in Europe - the term World War II would not be accurate and his referencing the conflict for comparison would be disingenuous.  In this case, he would be guilty of participating in America's new national pasttime:  spinning. 

but your dog tags are destined for Iraq.  In spite of the best efforts of anti-military voices in America, the Army is meeting its recruiting goals so well that AIP has been suspended.  That's right, the Assignment Incentive Pay deal, special pay offered as an enlistment option to young men and women who take the oath and don the uniform, is no longer available. 

Instituted just as the summer recruiting slowdown hit, the program drew a steady stream of enlistees into the service.  In January, the scope of the special pay was narrowed to recruits in designated specialties who signed on for 36 months or more in one of 17 brigade combat teams.  As of March 17th, new recruits will not have the option of the extra $400 a month.

It turns out, the whole Iraq thing isn't scaring kids away from the military after all.  Better get more speaking engagements on the calendar, Cindy, looks like your message is going unheard.

This video stands alone.  All I can even think to say is "Stuck on stupid".

Little did I realize that I was commemorating the death of Stephen Decatur,  hero of the Barbary Wars last night when I posted about the skirmishes of the early 1800s.  Then again, maybe my subconcsious was putting that history degree of mine to use. 

W. Thomas Smith Jr. has an excellent writeup over at Townhall that paints an amazing picture of the American hero whose famous words call all to patriotism.   “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong.”

Just after the turn of the nineteenth century, with Thomas Jefferson in office, the pirates of the Barbary States were reigning with horror off the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and the Atlantic Ocean.  Attacking American and European vessels at will, the pirates captured our ships, taking our men prisoners,  and selling them as slaves.  The European response to the disruption of trade routes and the unprovoked aggression against men and ships was mostly a matter for financiers.  Denmark paid the pirates and their government sponsors a large sum of money to keep the peace as did many other European nations.  Initially, the American response was simply to endure the attacks because American merchant ships were bringing significant revenue and goods back to the burgeoning new nation.  Trade for the US had never been better, in spite of the attacks, and thus the piracy went unanswered for some time. 

"Not long after Jefferson's inauguration and Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith's assumption of office, the US Navy had been reduced to just six ships and a handful of officers and men."

"Jefferson's dream of a miniscule navy guarding America's coast as proper for a frugal and peaceful people evaporated in the face of renewed Barabry raids on American vessels in the Mediterranean.  Soon the attacks by Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers forced the land oriented president to reverse himself and call for a naval force to deter the Barabry powers.  Navy monies were doubled."

"Trouble with the Barbary pirates did not end until 1815-1816 when Naval squadrons under commodores Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge used a show of force to compel Algeria, Tunis and Tripoli to desist.  The Barbary Wars of 1801 to 1805 demonstrated graphically that naval power, especially when projected into an enemy's home waters was a very effective protection for national interests."                    (Morris, History of the US Navy)

"Exasperated with these pirates,  the United States sent a fleet to attack them.  Decatur, a young officer, steered boldly into their harbor one night;  burned one of their vessels [actually the Philadelphia, an American vessel which had been captured], and, before the pirates could get themselves together, sailed coolly out, and was soon beyond their reach.  Many other brilliant attacks were made upon them, until the pirates began to understand they had a new sort of foe to deal with.  Peace was declared, and there was no more trouble with the pirates for a time."                (Pratt, American History Stories Vol. II  reprinted from the original school textbook of 1890)

There are enough parallels between the events of the early 1800s and the fight against terrorists that began in the last century and continues today to fill the pages of a book but that is work for another.  Consider the following points:

1) American military forces had been deliberately weakened by dovish politicians prior to being drawn into war by terrorists in both instances. (Bush 41 and Clinton failed us there.)

2) Appeasement was a policy for most of Europe and even for the US.  It failed and only led to a continuing escalation of attacks. (Khobar towers, USS Cole, WTC '93, embassy bombings...)

3) A growing economy, the object of America's focus caused politicians to turn a blind eye and ignore the growing threat. (It's the economy, Stupid!)

4) Only when the threat materialized into an unavoidable and economy threatening menace were we compelled to act.  The men of the Philadelphia languished imprisoned for three years before the US paid a bribe for their release.  (Whatever did happen to the bombers of the USS Cole?)

5) The Barbary Wars are largely unappreciated by historians and academics.  And most Americans have probably never even heard of them.  In reviewing my college history texts to verify dates, I found 2 whole sentences dedicated to Jefferson's war.  It wasn't until Madison's administration that the Barbary issue was finally put to rest.  It took the interim years to build up a navy capable of dealing with the pirates and the states that harbored them.  Anti-war sentiment presently, runs largely in the same circles and will undoubtedly be reflected in war coverage daily as well as in the books our children read.

6) There was land action against the states that provided safe haven (sound familiar?) to the pirates.  You're familiar, I suppose, with the Marine Corp hymn "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

7) Fighting our enemy, in the Mediterranean sea, in his "home waters",  provided us with victory.  Time will tell with the war on terror.  But clearly history does not support taking a purely defensive position.

I'll leave the rest of the analysis to you folks out there in blog land, if you're interested. 

Kurt Kleiner, reporting for the Toronto Star, made a splash this week with an article describing a UC Berkeley study done by Jack Post of the psych department.  Apparently, the academic followed some children over the past 20 years and has discovered that whiny, insecure children grow up to become conservatives who hold rigidly to traditional values.  The well-adjusted preschoolers all grew up to be confident and resilient liberals.

Some obvious questions about the study come to mind:.

1) Who designated the terms whiny, insecure, confident, resilient and self-reliant?

2) Who determined the criteria for categorizing each child?  Clearly, the children at 3 and 4 years old did not refer to themselves in those terms, although to read the Star article, those precocious budding leftists might very well have.

3) Where does parenting actually come into play in the behavior of a young child?

4) Considering these were local Berkeley children and given that conservatives in that community are an overwhelming minority, is it entirely possible, that the perceptions of those responsible for assigning such descriptives to the children are responding to the natural inclination children of to gravitiate toward strictly defined boundaries versus the local parenting paradigm which includes instructing one's two year old to call the folks Bob and Susan rather than mom and dad?

Could there be a little bias in the study?  Hmm...  We'll never know.  And yet, I've a sneaking suspicion (that would make me a paranoid, whiny conservative, I suppose) that the science here bears some resemblance to the grade school game we girls used to play where we wrote down the names of all the cute boys, crossed out certain letters and then added the numbers of other letters to determine if we were indeed "meant to be".

Kleiner makes a token attempt at addressing the fundamental oddities of this study by haphazardly throwing in a  quote by University of Arizona professor and social psychologist, Jeff Greenberg into the article.

`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best'

While Kleiner's bias as a (cough) journalist is undeniable, the study really does deserve attention and despite his motives, Kleiner does us all a service in bringing it to light.  The reality is that science, for all of its good points, is a weapon of great political power and when wielded as it is in the Jack Post study, reveals the weaknesses of science as a method of examination and of psychology as a means of reasonable explanation of most human qualities.

All in all, the article, the study, and the furor being caused on liberal blogs exposes an amount of bias that could no more be quantified than the level of whininess of a four year old.  But hey, good try. 

Food for thought:  I'll believe that liberals have grown up to be bright adults when they get around to removing the Kerry Edwards bumper stickers from their cars.  After all, if even the MSM knows he lost, how bright can they be?

Sometimes our country mates forget themselves and stand ready to wholly condemn the military because of politcal differences with the civilian leadership - for those, like the better than 60% of San Fran residents who are anxious to "shelter" their children from the men and women in uniform - let this page serve as a reminder that

The men and women who do this,  

also do this .

And this, 

and this,  

and this, 

and this,  

and this,  

and this  

and this  

and this

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation" 

President George Washington

As I rummaged through some old papers this morning, I came across a few inspiring bits of wisdom that seemed to serve as a timely reminder of the war we are all waging. I say "we are all waging" because one way or another, whether we are actively battling for a particular side or watching from the sidelines and simply living as subjects of one paradigm or another, we are all involved. This quote reflects my position and accurately describes where I have chosen to stand on the battlefield.

"Yet we must not be intimidated or lose our composure even though the once morally unacceptable is becoming acceptable, as if frequency somehow conferred respectability! One of the most subtle forms of intimidation is the gradual normalization of aberration. Alexander Pope so cautioned:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (An Essay on Man, epistle i, l. 217.)

Today, lust openly parades as love, license cleverly poses as liberty, and raucous sounds mockingly masquerade as music. Evil even calls itself good and often gets away with it! While I would not shrink the circumference of freedom, the size of that circle is not the sole measure of social well-being. Hence, to exult, as some do, over how much decadence is permissible at the edges ignores the erosive effects of such grossness upon all within that circle.

Yeats’s descriptive imagery fits:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

(William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming,” st. 1.)

Attributed to historian Will Durant are these relevant words: “If the hunger for liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty.” In this connection, how can there possibly be a disturbing loss of individual impulse control without a corresponding loss of collective freedom?"   N. Maxwell

Apparently, Ann has some method for talking to liberals and  I'm up for some pointers if she'd like to meet for lunch and give me advice.  I'm not just running into liberals - I seem to have a knack for finding the creme de la creme of the entire subculture.  That's right,  I see stupid people.  They only wee what they want to see.  They're everywhere and they don't know they're stupid.

Actually, it could be that the stupid people I'm seeing are really just the same few stupid people in various incarnations.  That's the trouble with anonymous and semi-anonymous blog commenters.  you never know who is really behind the keyboard.  (Not true on this site... that's me up there in the left-hand corner.)  For some reason, the method of choice for some Conversation Cowards, is to jump onto a blog, attack the writer or other people who comment instead of addressing issues.  Interestingly, these foul-mouthed, expletive hurling, name-callers seem incapable of making real arguments so when faced with an opportunity to express themselves and defend their positions, they immediately resort to plaayground bully antics.  They shout insults and try to scare away anyone who poses real questions or presents a different point of view and in the process expose themselves as both morally and intellectually vacant.

So until Ann responds to my invite,  I'll just give you the tricks, I've picked up online...

Everything I needed to know (about liberals) I learned on the blogosphere.

10.  If a liberal calls you a name,  your argument hits home.  Go ye therefore and teach all nations.

9.  If you get banned from commenting on a liberal site,  you're making too much sense.  Have pity for those who cannot handle dialogue.

8.  If liberals continually change the subject and refuse to address the issue at hand, you are winning.  Be a good sport.

7.  If a liberal blogger makes you the subject of parody, laugh with them.  After all,  if they aren't able to handle logical discourse, you should at least appreciate their sense of humor.

6.  Should a liberal actually engage you, be prepared for a lecture about the Bush administration, whether or not that is the topic of the blog.  While this may be fun for sparring it will only serve to derail you from the actual blog issue.  Refuse to get sucked into their vortex.  It isn't healthy.

5.  Often, when confronted with reason, the liberal will introduce peripheal issues and refuse to aswer your questions.  Redirect them as many times as it takes.  They love this.  Addressing them by name repeatedly  helps keep them focused as well.

4.  When liberals shamelessly plug their own sites, it is a cry for attention.  Indulge them but don't engage them - they will just edit away anything they disagree with anyway. 

3.  When liberals attack you personally,  it reflects their own frustration at not being able to converse on an intellectual level. Show them empathy.

2.  When you show deference and respect to liberals who are irrationally dogmatic,  you will never get the same in return.  Learn not to expect it.

1.  When a liberal responds to your logic with profanity, it is because they aren't smart enough to counter your argument. Feel embarrassed for their mother.