Mare's Mess

This morning I heard about the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision and I was dismayed.

The Virgin Queen said it best:

Our government has just declared that the inalienable right to own property is now subject to the whims of the mob and those who have more money and power than you.

Vox Day says:

This effectively ends all pretense of American property rights, since state and local governments now have the ability to hand over a desired property to anyone with the requisite political influence.

Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

A very sad, frightening and unfortunate decision, indeed.

The first time I read “The Three Minute Abortion Debate” it was a little uncomfortable because at one time I was the insufferable liberal. And yes, I did sound that stupid when arguing about abortion with someone. You can’t really blame me. There is no logical conclusion to the pro abortion argument. That’s why “pro choicers” end up dancing around the subject by bringing up how “pro lifers” care more about unborn kids than born ones and how “pro lifers” are such hypocrites. These things may or may not be true, but they are simply diversions from the real issue -- why is it OK to kill a baby?

Let me offer some examples of the brilliantly illogical things you hear from pro abortionists:

“It’s just a clump of cells”

So are you, can I kill you?

“What about all the poor women who will die as a result of unsafe and unclean back alley abortions?”

What about all the poor boys and girls who die as a result of “safe and clean” abortions and end up in back alley trash cans every day? At least if a woman has an illegal back alley abortion, that’s her choice. The boys and girls have no choice in the matter. I thought you liked choice! Unfortunately, the choice to kill someone who’s existence we find annoying isn’t one of the freedoms we have in this country.

“It is possible that a fetus is unable to perceive pain at any time during pregnancy.”

Can I drug you until you’re unable to feel any pain and then kill you? Why not? It’s probably painless.

“Children who are unplanned are more likely to be abused, and children born unwanted face increased risks of poor health, poverty and neglect.”

I have one word for you – adoption! If you don’t want the kid – for goodness sake, give it to someone who is dying to have one. As Bruce Bethke said, there is no such thing as an unwanted child in America today. There are people waiting in line for years to adopt. And it’s amazing how many are willing to take drug addicted babies, babies with major health problems and babies of any race. Most adoptive parents are willing to pay all the medical expenses incurred by the birthmother and many will compensate for wages missed while carrying the child.

But, let’s say adoption wasn’t an option. Is death really a better fate than possible abuse, poor health, poverty and neglect? If so, let’s round up all the abused, sick, poor, and neglected kids today and put them out of their misery. We can give them drugs so it will be painless!

I’m sure I’ll think of more ridiculous abortion utterances, and maybe I’ll add them when I do. If I’ve insulted you, I’m truly sorry because I can totally relate to your groundless sense of righteous indignation. But maybe I’ve made a dent in the indoctrination you’ve suffered. It took people like me to finally pull my insufferable self out of the fog, and I’m glad to provide that same service for others.

When I first found "Fred on Everything" I loved him. Then I found I wasn't very interested in anything he's written since then. Today (see Pitying the Poor) he backed up my thoughts on poverty. I think he nails the problem and I gave the explanation for why the poor are the way they are. How fun!

As he so often does, Vox rocks once again!

. . .the libertarian Right is opposed to the war because it and many things inspired by it are violations of libertarian principles. The Left opposes it because George Bush is for it.

You may recall that both the libertarian Right and the Republicans were against the Balkan war as well, while the Left was for it. As is all too often the case, of the three parties involved, only the libertarian Right is consistent in applying the same principles to different situations.

Found this blog entry about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune has recently posted an editorial supporting the right of Democrats to use the filibuster to block President Bush's appointee votes in congress. What makes this interesting is that in 1993 and 1994, when Clinton was president, the Star Trib advocated a "crusade for changes in Senate procedures that would prevent an obstructionist minority from delaying action indefinitely." Back then they referred to it as "the putrid flood of verbiage known as a filibuster". When this apparent contradiction was pointed out to Jim Boyd, Star Trib Deputy Editor, he replied in an email by saying, "I think you actually have caught us in a contradiction. We can change our mind, as we did on light rail, but in this case, we really didn't. We simply missed the precedent and, like a court, if we make such a shift, we owe readers an explanation for why we did it." I won't hold my breath waiting for the explanation.

This is why I can't stand Democrats and Republicans who have no principles. They are for whatever furthers their cause/party/agenda and against whatever doesn't, period. Whenever they give an explanation for anything, you can bet it's meaningless. I've mentioned this before (I'm too lazy to come up with new examples), but pro-choicers cry, "My body, my choice" when that principle only applies in this very specific situation. Besides abortion, they love to have the government make all kinds of choices about your body and your life for you. The pro-lifers wail about the sanctity of life, yet they're glad to fry someone when they see fit. These people don't seem to care how stupid they may look or how empty their arguments may be. Drives me insane. It's why I love the Libertarians, because all we are is one big fat principle (it's also why I hate them because they continue to be a great principle but politically impotent, but that's another post). Of course, if Libs ever become a powerful political force and become as vacuous as the Dems and Reps I'd dump them too or become their loudest critic. I think principles are worth fighting for, but not unprincipled political parties or their mindless supporters.

From 1993 to 1996 I taught at a middle school in Norfolk, Virginia. It was an inner-city school – about 90% of the students were black and about 75% of them lived in public housing projects. When I first got the job, I was terrified. I didn’t have “To Sir With Love,” “Stand and Deliver,” or “Welcome Back Kotter” in mind when I decided I wanted to be a teacher. I pictured more of my own school experiences. I really had no idea what to expect and I wasn’t sure I would be able to handle it. But I needed the job so I took it.

It turns out I could handle it. I loved the kids and they loved me too. Of course, there were a few kids who were really special to me and one of them was Julia. Julia was an awesome kid. She was smart and funny and so sweet. Sometimes she hung out with me after school and she spent some time at our house hanging out with Matt and me. Julia would talk to me about everything. I got to know her family and when Julia was diagnosed with Lupus I spent time with her and her family at the hospital. That was 11 years ago and Julia and I have actually kept in touch off and on over the years. She sent me a graduation announcement when she graduated from high school. She was so proud that she was actually graduating, and I was proud of her too.

A few weeks ago I got a phone call from Julia. I hadn’t heard from her in about 5 years. The last time I talked with her she had called because she was going to Norfolk State but she was having trouble paying for her next semester. She wondered if she could borrow some money from us and she would pay us back. Julia had never asked for money before so I knew this must be important. I talked with Matt and we decided we’d help her out. We also agreed that we would consider this a gift and not expect to get it back. Julia insisted that she would pay us back one day and I told her that was fine. After sending the money, I didn’t hear from Julia again until this recent phone call.

Julia’s phone call brought back lots of memories. I remembered the time that Julia and Patrick, another one of my student’s, became boyfriend and girlfriend. One day after school they had both stayed to hang out and I went down to the office for something. When I came back they were kissing in my room – a very sweet kiss, not groping and mashing. They were both embarrassed, which tells you a lot about them because I had students who could have been having sex when I walked in and they wouldn’t have been embarrassed.

I also remembered the boy who had been sucking on a penny and started choking on it in the middle of class. He got up and went out to the rest room. I could tell something was wrong when he left so I followed him right into the boy’s room and saw he was choking. I gave him the Heimlich and it came out. From that day on, I would tease him by asking if he could give me some change for a dollar. The thing that stood out about that incident was how this tough kid would rather go to the restroom by himself and possibly die than to ask for help and be vulnerable in front of the other kids. This was a common mindset.

I also remembered the nicknames. Julia’s older sister was “Bug” and that was just her name. I don’t know that I ever knew her real name. One kid had the nickname “Pac-Man.” I called to talk to his mom one evening when I was having trouble with him in class and his mom yells, “Pac-Man, get down here! Mrs. Sears says…” It just cracked me up that his mom even called him Pac-Man.

One of the most frustrating things about this job was the administration. It reflected badly on the principal if there were too many detentions or suspensions, so these things didn’t happen very often. For the most part, we weren’t left with a lot of disciplinary options. One of the other frustrations was grading. I could have easily failed at least half of my students if I was giving the grades they actually deserved. But I couldn’t do that because that would reflect badly on me. So I had to adjust my grading scale a bit, but even with this quite generous curve, I was sometimes told that I was failing too many students. The principal actually called me into his office one day and asked me if I’d seen the movie “Dangerous Minds” (it had just come out). I told him yes. He said that we sometimes have to use atypical strategies, like in the movie, to help these kids be successful. By continuing to fail these kids over and over again we were just beating them down so we needed to help them up by giving them grades even if they didn’t earn them. It made no sense to me and I pointed out to him that in the movie Michelle Pfeiffer never gave her kids grades they didn’t earn, she just inspired them to want to earn them. I was just waiting for him to tell me that I needed to start going out and playing pool with the kids after school. He didn’t seem to hear my comment and let me go to “think about what he’d said.” It didn’t really matter what I did because when they turned 16 (they should leave middle school at 14) the principal passed them on to high school anyway because he didn’t want 16 year olds in the building causing trouble.

I think most of us can figure out the effects of giving kids passing grades when they aren’t doing the work to earn them. We have kids passing through the system who should be learning how to be competent people, but aren’t learning anything. But the worst result is kids who know they haven’t earned the grade they’ve been given. Instead of boosting their self-esteem it actually creates laziness, self-doubt, and self-loathing. The first response is, “Why should I put any effort into this when I will pass whether I do it or not.” But the next response is “I must not be capable of doing this so they have to give me the grades since I’m not able to earn them on my own.” The actions for this thought are the same, “Why try,” but the effect on the psyche is much more damaging. They begin to doubt themselves and believe they can’t earn anything on their own unless someone gives it to them. It’s a miserable state. If you went to the projects in the middle of the day there were people and kids just wandering around doing nothing because they’d been conditioned to believe that’s all they were capable of and why bother trying to do more when the bills would be paid for whether they did anything about it or not. It’s a sad and depressing place – and actually the buildings were quite new and the grounds were fairly well cared for. What made it sad and depressing was the feeling of hopelessness that hung heavy in the air.

I see the government’s welfare handouts as nothing more than giving passing grades to people who didn’t earn them. On the surface it’s easy to say, “Oh, they have such and such situations in their life so we need to take care of them.” Sounds like someone who really cares. In reality it’s patronizing and does nothing more than create laziness and self-loathing.

Whenever the government attempts to distribute wealth to make things more equitable, it usually has the opposite effect. Take minimum wage, for instance. Sounds good on the surface. Make those greedy corporations pay their employees more money. That will move the wealth around. The fact is, minimum wage doesn’t effect corporations a whole lot. They’ve got deep pockets. But minimum wage (along with other big government regulations and taxations) kills small businesses which hope to one day be able to compete with the big corporations. Since small businesses are so impeded, the corporations have their competition taken care of for them and the money stays right where it is. The intentions may be good, but, well, you know the rest.

The same is true of welfare. I’ve heard people compare the welfare and public housing system to plantations and slavery. It’s been said that if you wanted to create a system that will keep the down and outs down you couldn’t do any better than the American welfare system. Destroy their psyche so they don’t believe they’re capable of doing more and that’s where they’ll stay! It makes me furious when people think I’m greedy and cold-hearted because I don’t want the government to take care of the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the people who condone and support government welfare are the cold-hearted ones. I think the poor do need help and guidance and role models, but all of this should be given by churches, communities, organizations, and individuals – not the government. The effect on the receiver is going to be completely different if the money is seen as an entitlement, something they are given just because they exist, than if it’s given by someone as a gift. Someone believed in them and gave them a chance even though they didn’t have to.

When Julia called me a few weeks ago, she told me that shortly after receiving the money from us she had done some jail time. A woman she worked for had been writing fake checks and got Julia in on the action. Julia said that at first she did it because she needed to pay off bills and she justified that she wasn’t stealing the money from a person, it was just coming from the bank. But she admitted that it was so easy that she got greedy and that’s why she got caught. She was embarrassed and felt badly about the money that we sent her. Of course there are people who will even take advantage of gifts given out of caring, but just as Julia wouldn’t have done what she did if it took money from a person, most people aren’t going to screw over someone with a face and a name who cares about them. But take advantage of Uncle Sam – why not?

Julia said that her life was back on track now. She has a job and is working to be on her own and she said that someday she’d repay the money we sent her. I didn’t tell Julia not to worry about paying us back. Although I don’t ever expect to get it, how awesome it would be if someday she got to the place where she was able to. How proud she would be and what a sense of accomplishment. Wouldn’t it be great if what kept her going was that she wanted to be able to repay Mrs. Sears that money someday because Mrs. Sears believed in her?

Julia, you will always have a place in my heart and in my prayers.

God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

Someone sent me a link to a commentary by Peggy Noonan which started with this quote. It was written in regards to Terri Schaivo. I couldn't help but be reminded that many of the people who are so adamant about saving her life and who would agree whole-heartedly with the above quote in this context also support the death penalty. Can someone please help me out here? I'm serious. Is each human life precious and of infinite value - or is that just true until we mere mortals decide it isn't?

I don't know that I have any strong opinions about Terri Schiavo to share, but here are a few thoughts. If I were in a persistent vegetative state I certainly wouldn't want to burden my husband, my kids, or the state with the immense hospital bills to keep me alive. That said, I certainly wouldn't want to make that call for anyone else, even though I think most people would feel the same way.

I would like to make a living will for myself which would alleviate everyone from having to make such horrible decisions on my behalf. But I don't think I'd want to starve to death (I've heard it's not very pleasant) and I think that would be my only legal option if I were in a similar situation. I would want some humane lethal injection, quick and easy. Seems really crazy to me - I could make a living will saying I give permission for the doctor's to allow me to die a slow, painful death by starvation, but I can't give them permission to allow me to die much more humanely.

On the radio today I heard a quote by Bush saying that this was a complicated situation and in complicated situations he prefers to err on the side of life. This must be a recent development on his part, but I was glad to hear of it.

you probably won't like the latest by Bruce Bethke called Rethinking the Death Penalty. He does a pretty good job tearing down the death penalty plank by plank. It's not the strongest argument I've read, but it's pretty good. Ever since I read the abortion debate by him he's had on his site that the next essay would be about the death penalty so I've been anxiously awaiting it. It's not nearly as well written or as succinctly argued as the abortion debate piece, but still worth a read.

I read recently that 99% of the indecency complaints made to the FCC in 2003 were made by one organization and its members, the Parents Television Council. Thank goodness someone is diligently keeping track of the smut on the airwaves for us. But I'm especially thankful that the PTC was kind enough as to gather all of the most indecent moments from each television week and to post them in one convenient place for us. Now I no longer need to spend hours of television viewing in search of the small moments of titillation. Want to hear a member of Motley Crue saying the f-word on Jay Leno? You got it! Want to see gratuitous teen sex on Life as We Know It? They've got that too! They haven't updated this page in a month or so. We can only hope they'll be back in action soon.

Gotta give Jim at Right Thoughts the credit for pointing out this one!

I had posted this link on a friend's blog but realized that I hadn't ever posted it here. This is was originally a speech given at some Libertarian convention. The speakers/writers give their reasons why their Christian beliefs coincide more closely with libertarianism than liberalism or conservatism. I thought it was really interesting and thought-provoking, so check it out.

After all my online pro-life rants, I found myself posting this comment on Matt's blog:

If someone is hurting or taking my kids and my only way of stopping them is
to kill them, you can be sure I would – in a heartbeat. Not sure HOW I’d go

about doing that, but I would if I had to.

When I re-read what I'd written, I have to admit that I was taken aback. Had I just said I would kill someone? After proclaiming that killing someone is a sick act? I won't go into all the background behind this comment, but now I had some thinking to do. If you consider what Jesus taught; loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek; it's hard to reconcile even self-defense. I had never put much thought into the idea before and just assumed that defending yourself or others was justified. I know our court's and our culture justify self-defense, but does Christ? I don't know.


I did just a little online research to find what Christians had to say about this. I have to say, those who defended the idea of self-defense (or defense of others) had pretty weak arguments. They used mostly Old Testament passages - not that I think the OT is completely irrelevant, but it's annoying how people pick and choose OT scriptures which back up their ideas, but then choose to disregard 90% of the commandments in it. The New Testament passages were pretty vague. They pointed to one where Christ told the disciples to get themselves swords (don't know the complete context as I didn't have time to go back and read the entire passage) so he must have been condoning their right to self-defense. But there is some disagreement among Christians as to whether or not this was meant to be taken literally. One Christian writer even went so far as to say that it is immoral to stand by while someone is being raped or murdered and not defend them, but they gave no scriptural backing for this belief. I guess I think this is true too, we are called to help those in need. But does this extend to killing if need be? In one essay the writer even quoted Jesus in John 15:13 "The greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." This was supposed to uphold the principle of using violence in defense of others. Yet it doesn't say "The greatest love is shown when you kill someone to save your friends." Just that you're willing to lay down your life. Jesus laid down his life and he didn't defend himself so this verse doesn't seem to make much sense in this argument. And then there was the whole, "If Christians lay down and let evil people win then the world will be run by evil people." There's definitely logic in that, but there was, once again, no scriptural backing for that mindset. And there are non-violent ways to resist our enemies without killing them.


The writers who expressed the opinion that it is wrong for Christians to kill under any circumstances gave much more compelling arguments. Not much more than the principles I stated earlier. How do you love your enemies by killing them? Jesus even instructed Peter to put back his sword when Peter was trying to defend Jesus. He went on to say that, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." (Matt. 26:52) And it's hard to deny what Jesus is saying when he says,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell
you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles." (Mat.5:33-41).

And Paul says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye". . . On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." in Romans 12.


There were actually more scriptures against violence, but I'm not going to take the time to post them all. I think the ones I've given are pretty convincing. And I actually went into this search hoping to find some defense of self-defense. I was surprised that I wasn't able to find it. And I hadn't remembered Jesus actually refuting the eye for an eye philosophy, but now that I found it I'm certainly going to remember it as I hear capital punishment advocates throw that one around quite a bit.



So what does all this mean? I have to admit that my world is a bit shaken. I'm grateful to have men and women in the military who are willing to give their lives to protect me, but can I condone their killing of our enemies? I don't know. I'd still kill someone to protect my kids if I had to. God and I will just have to hash that one out later if need be. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe so.

Bet you didn't expect me to ever say that! But add Robertson's declaration from an April, 2000 NY times story as my third reason why Christians should not support the death penalty.

Declaring that the death penalty discriminates against members of
minorities and poor people who cannot afford competent lawyers, the

televangelist Pat Robertson recently called for a moratorium on
executions.

Jerry Falwell (boo hiss), on the other hand, was quoted that same month as saying, "While courts do make mistakes, I do not believe the mistake level is at the point where we need to rethink our whole system." I'd like to know why not. In 2000, Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan imposed a statewide moratorium on executions after 13 death row inmates there were found to have been wrongly convicted. I wonder how many it would take before Falwell thought it was time to rethink the system. I guess 13's not so bad. Not so good if you're one of the 13.



So in summary, Pat Robertson is way cooler than Jerry Falwell. I bet Jerry's never even prayed a hurricane away.

Came across this article by Bruce Bethke and thought it was a thing of beauty. I could make lots of comments about it, but I'll just let it speak for itself.

Too late. I've been corresponding with a dear friend in regards to my inflammatory post about Christians and the death penalty. This conversation has led me to want to clarify my position.


My main argument against the death penalty is that we are human. We have and will make mistakes when it comes to convicting people of crimes. Knowing this, if we continue to support the death penalty I think we are guilty of murder. If one innocent person is executed, we are murderers. The Bible talks a lot about the death penalty. The Bible talks about a lot of things that Christians today certainly don't embrace. Do you still think we should stone rebellious children? Should we put to death people who work on the Sabbath? If a man has sex with a woman and her mother, should all three be burned alive? I'm sure Christians would say absolutely not. Yet if we're going to have the death penalty because "the Bible says," then this is how the Bible says we should do it. Contact your legislator now and let's bring the country back to God. The point being, since we don't hold to these instructions from God anymore, why do we continue to hold on to capital punishment at all?


I have to give the most weight to Jesus's words when trying to find the answers in the scriptures. I think he made his opinion pretty clear when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People are going to have their own ideas about what Jesus meant by this (and I'd love to hear them), but in my humble opinion, he's saying, "You are mortal and sinners, just like this woman. You are in no position to be making life and death decisions like this until you are sinless and all-knowing, like me." God is capable of being a fair and righteous judge because he knows all the facts when making his judgements. We aren't even close.


My secondary argument against the death penalty is the whole "eye-for-an-eye" bologna. Should we then rape rapists for their punishment? No, because rape is a sick act and we would be sick people to rape rapists. Similarly, I think killing is a sick act and we are sick when we kill killers.


But besides those two things, I'm all for the death penalty.


Hmmmmm. What should I take on next? Why does the holiest Christian holiday have a pagan name? Why I gave up Lent for Lent? Why are there so many lame worship songs? No, I won't even go there!

I've had several ideas for things I wanted to blog about this week. Many of them would require more research than I'm able to put in to do them justice so I've scrapped the idea. But I've got to release my pent-up frustration so I'm giving some mini-rants here with little or nothing to back them up, but I'm still getting my shots in.


The following are things that make me crazy:


- Christians who support the death penalty. The gall to call yourselves pro-life, when you clearly are not, is hypocricy at it's worst. I can't stand ideology that makes Christians look like unthinking, cold-hearted and hateful people.


- Similarly, people who call themselves "pro-choice" when in most instances they don't want people to have the right to choose at all. They'd rather the government make many choices for you. As hypocrital as the "pro-life" title. Why is it "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion, but the same doesn't hold true for wearing helmets and seat belts. How can you people possibly live with yourselves? Pick a principle and stick with it!


- People who are afraid of the government becoming Big Brother. They don't want the government invading our privacy, but then turn around and want this same government that they apparently distrust so much to be Big Daddy and to run (or heavily regulate) every major institution in our society. Let's keep the distrust alive! Keep Big Brother and Big Daddy at bay.


- People who complain that the Right is trying to push their moral agenda down our throats while trying to do the same with their agenda. I have a little more respect for conservatives on this issue because at least they'll admit they're trying to force their morals on us - where the Left would never in a million years admit that that's what they're doing.


Here's a quote from one of the most controversial and intelligent bloggers I know (and I know at least a half dozen of them), Vox Day:

It seems some people - most people - never learn. History teaches that the government you control today is the government that those you fear most will control tomorrow. Every muscle that you enjoy flexing today is one that will eventually be used to punch you in the face.

If we decide we want the government to carry out moral agendas, then we have no room to complain when the other party takes control and pursues their own.


- People who point to the Constitution when making their arguments, yet blatantly ignore half of it on any given day.


- This one goes along with my last gripe. I heard the KC Star TV reporter on a local radio show the other morning. He was complaining about the FCC's fight for decency on the airwaves and claimed it was really a 1st amendment/free speech issue. Then he turned around and said that if the FCC is really interested in doing something good for society it should do something about all the commercials we have to endure when listening to or watching what's on the air waves. At first I thought he was just making a joke, but then he went on to talk about how there used to be a law limiting the amount of commercial time a station could broadcast in an hour (16 min., I believe). He thought this was a good idea and should be reinstated. Wait a minute! Weren't you just singing the praises of free speech? When someone owns a station and they decide what they want to broadcast on that station, isn't that a free speech decision? Typical liberal response. Cloak yourself in the first amendment, unless it's speech that annoys you.


That's all I have time for today. But never fear. There's much more anger teeming under the surface of this sweet, innocent face that has yet to reveal itself. I'll unleash more wrath on another day, but now I have to go play with my children.

I know this title is a quote from some movie because Matt is always saying it in the actor's voice. Don't know the actor or the movie, but I thought it was an appropriate title for this entry.

This will probably be a series of posts which detail religious discussions I have with Maly as she loves to talk about God and all things associated with him. It's almost weird how much she talks about it. Her fascination has now moved on to the devil. It all started a few months ago when she was listening to one of her tapes that had the song "Let the Sun Shine In" on it. That song has a line that says (can't remember the exact line now) "something, something, something,. . . all about the devil and I've learned to hate him so." She asked me who the devil was.

Mom (not sure how to answer this question, but winging it): He's a really bad guy who tries to get people to do bad things.
Maly: Where is the devil?
Mom: He's like God - we can't see him but he's everywhere.
Maly: Does the devil live in my heart like God?
Mom: No, he doesn't (what else can I say about that?)
Maly: Good cause I don't like him.

Since that conversation, Maly has often asked me more and more questions about the devil, slowly building her knowledge-base on the subject (if you want to consider the answers I give her as knowledge). Yesterday Maly was giving me the 3rd degree about the devil - who he is, what powers does he have, why God made him, etc. I felt really uncomfortable answering her questions because a) I'm not sure about the whole devil thing myself, b) I don't want to freak her out, c) I'm wondering why she's obsessing about the devil. After a long series of questions and me struggling to answer them she finally said "Why doesn't God kill the devil?" I told her that someday he might (again, really uncomfortable with my answer). Then she asked, "Why doesn't he do it now?" I thought that was a really good question and told her we'd have to add that one to our list to ask God when we see him. Whewwww!

Another funny thing about Maly is that she's so fierce in her beliefs about God. I'm not sure where she gets this, because I've never been particularly emphatic when talking about what God can do - I've just been very matter-of-fact. She'll ask me some crazy things like "Could God make me as big as him?" "Could God give me wings so I could fly?", etc. I just answer questions like this with, "I don't know. I guess he COULD." Maly gets very defensive and says (very empahtically), "Yes he can! He can do anything!" OK, OK! We had a discussion about why God doesn't give us everything we ask for. That seemed to satisfy her for the time being.

Now I just brace myself for the next round!

OK, I just read "Fred Endorses Hillary" (ditto - can't make it link directly to column so find it on left and click on it) and had to recommend it. I haven't laughed this much in a long time. If Matt suddenly died in a mysterious accident, I would marry Fred. I hope that doesn't happen, honey, but it's just smart to have a back-up plan.

I've finally discovered the world of blogs. I'm like a kid in a candy store and spending way too much time these days reading blogs. My kids aren't suffering. I still spend the same amount of time with them. But my domestic duties have suffered - and believe me, there was no room for error to begin with there! But the kids like frozen pizza, and it does cover each of the 4 food groups. Matt says he could eat taquitos everyday - let's find out.

My newest and favoritest discovery so far is Fred on Everything. He is hilairious and offensive. I read his column "The Last Necessary Column On Politics" (can't get it to link directly to that column so you'll have to find it in the directory on the left side of the page - it's called libsandcons.shtml - and click on it) today and LITERALLY laughed out loud. Maly kept asking me what was so funny, but when I read it to her she didn't get it. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative you will find find something that will make you chuckle. If you're neither, you'll find lots to laugh about.

Most of the blogs I've been interested in have been libertarian-leaning, which makes sense. I have found some conservative ones that are pretty interesting. But I've got to say, I have found no liberal-leaning blogs I would say are the least bit interesting. Most of them that I checked out are just a bunch of bitter, juvenile, Bush-hating whinings. I would really be interested in some intellectually stimulating liberal blogs. It's a pretty sad state when Ward Churchill is the most interesting liberal I've heard from lately. Send your suggestions. But first, read Fred!

Afternote: Apparently Fred on Everything isn't a blog, just a website. How sad. I tried to enter him into my bloglines feeds and was denied. Guess I'll have to get to him regularly the way I found him - through Vox Day.

I had a discussion with a friend today which was spurred by the liberal-bashing I did yesterday. The conversation mainly revolved around helping the poor and who would help them if the government didn't. It led me to do some searching for how libertarians would answer that question. I found a couple of articles that were so reasonable and well-written that I wanted to share them with the thousands of readers who check my site regularly.

First this one by Libertarian Nation (huh, huh? click the words and you go to the link - isn't that amazing?)

Then the official Libertarian Pary response.

I'm getting so good at this - here's another one just for kicks.

Just a note of clarification. I don't find liberals and conservatives to be annoying as people - some of my best friends are liberals and conservatives. It's their view of government that I find annoying. No hard feelings. I'm sure there are plenty who find my ideology annoying - and probably find me annoying as a person too.

Mare

In the interest of fairness, I thought I'd post this quickie (guess it wasn't so quick after all) rant on liberals. I don't see much difference between liberals and conservatives. Both have decided that their ideas of right and wrong should be legislated. Gay marriage and flag burning (both naughties) are examples of conservatives attempting to legislate their morality. But liberals are just as guilty, and much more successful. They believe that it is right to take care of the poor, so they make laws which gives me no choice, but take my money and distribute it to some more deserving soul. I'm all for taking care of the poor. I just resent being forced to do it in the way the government sees fit. If my wealth (what little of it their is) is taken from me by force to do good, doesn't that rob me of the sense of satisfaction that comes from making a decision for myself to do good with it? And on the receiving end - when the government gives my wealth to someone it is seen as an entitlement. This often leads to dependence. When someone is helped because of the love and compassion of others, then the receiver is more likely to have a sense of gratitude and accountability. And if so much of my money wasn't being sucked into the tax machine I could make a lot more of these win-win monetary decisions.

Liberals also think everyone should have equal opportunity to employment. I just don't remember reading that in the constitution. But, nonetheless, here come the laws to prevent discrimination in hiring. If Oprah Winfrey decides she wants to hire all black women - I say, go for it. If I own a business and want to hire only good looking men with tight buns, that should be my perogative. And if someone has property that they want to rent, but they choose not to rent it to homosexuals or unmarried couples because of their religious beliefs, that should be their decision to make. But no, liberals have no respect for private ownership. They know what's best!

And don't even get me started on hate crime legislation.

So you can see that both liberals and conservatives are equally annoying (well, I'll admit, liberals are just a little bit more annoying). They both think it's a good thing to use the government to further their view of right and wrong. I've given only a few examples - there are many! The problem is, it's not the government's job to determine what's right and wrong. The only wrongs the government should be concerned about is if someone's rights (as in constitutional) are violated. It's the government's job to protect our rights and then give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what we want our world to look like.

Now you're probably saying, "Yes, MaryEllen, I've seen the error of my ways. But If I can't turn to the Republicans or the Democrats to make things right, where can I go?" That's easy.

http://www.lp.org/

I haven't learned yet how to turn a word into a link. But when I do - look out!

More Libertarian propaganda to come, I'm sure.

This issue isn't necessarily timely, but it's been on my mind for months now and I haven't had an outlet to let my thoughts out - UNTIL NOW! (lightening, thunder, maniacal laughter)


Do we really need a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between a man and a woman? A constitutional amendment? First of all, the Social Studies teacher in me would like to point out that marriage falls under the domain of state government so it should be up to each state to decide. But since the federal government has decided over and over again for some time now to get involved where it shouldn't, I'll let that go and just explain why this amendment is a really bad idea in and of itself.


The idea for said amendment is backed by what's known as "the religious right" - it seems they want to protect the sanctity of marriage in this country. What no one seems to be saying is that marriage, as carried out by the government, is not a sacred institution. It's a state function - like getting your driver's license. Two pagans can get married and even have a pagan ceremony. Couples can run off to Vegas for a quicky wedding and get married, giving it as much thought as what they'll wear the next day. Clearly, not everyone who marries is forming a holy covenant with God. Christians know this and yet I bet the thought never occurred to anyone to create an amendment to protect it. . . until now. This is where we have to admit that Christians are a bit freaked out by homosexuals. We never gave a flying fig what two people got legally married until people of the same sex wanted to. No wonder Christians are so often viewed as bigoted and hateful. Now all of a sudden we've got to keep marriage holy? State marriage has never been holy.


The justification I've heard some Christians make for such legislation is that if homosexuals are allowed to legally marry then it will make that lifestyle appear acceptable. Do we really want Uncle Sam telling us what is moral behavior and what isn't? I think adultery is reprehensible. It is selfish, cruel, and it often destroys families. Will I teach this belief to my kids as they grow up? Yes. Do I need such behavior outlawed to back me up? No. Do we want laws against sex outside of marriage, or lying? I don't, but it's not because they are acceptable behaviors. It's just none of the government's business. The role of the government should be to protect people's rights, not to tell us how to live our lives. I'm not even sure how the government got into the marriage business, but I don't think it's a legitimate governmental function. I guess that's a post for another day.


My recommendation to Christians - be more concerned about the marriages being performed in our churches than the ones the government is performing. These marriages should be holy covenants. As far as state marriages, unless we really want to make every legally-marrying couple sign a contract stating that their union is a holy covenant between them and God then we really aren't trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. We're just being bigoted and hypocritical.


How's that for getting things started? Don't worry. Liberals will be frequent objects of my scorn in the future as well.