Ways to identify the unhinged

It may just be my personal bias, but any opinion piece, or blog, or book that contains the phrase "They stole out country", or "They hijacked our Country" or "Lets fight to regain our Country", usually is written or spoken by someone who is more interested in celebrating victimhood, then serious political debate.

Unfortunately, or fortunately as your point of view may be, this is not unique to any ideological persuasion. I like to go to the front page of blogspot, and see the recently update blogs scroll by. I am amused how many of them are simply forums for ranting and feeling sorry for themselves. Don't misunderstand, they have as much right to rant as I do, but why the unhappiness?

A common theme is Bush is an idiot/bush stole the election/Bush is evil/Bush stole our country. Is your life so ruled by who is President? I can tell you I did not agree much with Pres. Bill Clinton. The difference is, my life was not consumed by it. I did enjoy debating and discussion with friends and co-workers why I disagreed, but I never felt like he stole my country. Many people on the right did. I didn't understand that sentiment either. The phrase "America held Hostage was never my belief. Elections are important things. Simply degrading the party you disagree with makes them seem petty and small.

One of my least favorite people with a talk show is Michael Savage. This is a man who seems to be intelligent, but uses his show as a three hour rant against people he dislikes. He seems to be a one-note samba about immigration. As I see it though, immigration is a complex problem, that is out of control because politicians of both parties have ignored it for decades. Simply ranting to send them all back is not workable, nor productive. If I had the answer I would be a rich man. I would however like to hear more intelligent conversation on the topic.

Another of my least favorite themes is non-religious people and atheists who can tell you will all sincerity and certainty, that all "born again Christians" are ruining the world, and they are doing it because they believe it will facilitate the return of Jesus. I cannot speak for all Christians, but I do speak for myself and know from others that many agree with me on the view that:
A. Jesus will come when he does, and is determined by God and has nothing to do with who is President of our country.
B. Christians have just as much right to attempt to elect people who agree with us as Atheists. The fact that Thomas Jefferson once used the phrase Wall of separation between Church and State does not take the right to peaceably assemble from Christians and Conservative Jews. (Funny how liberal Jews and Christians tend to be no risk to the republic at all).
C. No mainstream Christians are at this time lobbying for a Christian Theocracy, but it gets repeated constantly by the secular left that this is what we secretly want.
D. Secular folks like to talk about those fundamentalist Christians, but when confronted about specifics, can never put their finger on specific mainstream Christian figures with any kind of influence that espouse the views that they are warning against.

For today, I will attempt to be a better person. Hopefully if we all do this, it will make our country, our families, and our jobs just a little better, and then we won't have to "Take back our country".

Outsourcing Responsibility

I see this note today, Teen, Mom sue MySpace for $30 Million.


For anyone who does not know yet, Myspace.com is a gathering site frequented by teens and others. I have no accounts, or dealings with MySpace so I have no agenda, for or against them. Also in interest of full disclosure, my children are not old enough to be involved with MySpace and other such enterprises.

I have learned from others that MySpace has a great deal of good qualities. I have also learned that there are a great deal of bad people that use this service for their own sordid pleasures. It seems to be a playground for pedofiles. It also provides a great place for people to match up like interests.

There are people advocating for increased regulation and forced policing of this site. Let me say that any changes imposed by Congress should be carefully considered, and any heavy handed regulation should be resisted. That being said I think any site that hooks people up like this has to be careful, and has to take its responsibility very seriously. Efforts by the members of these sites are correct to demand more policing. If parents are not satisfied of the security, they should take measure to block their children from it. (Very good blockers seem to be available).

Now for the question of the lawsuit. We as parents are the protectors of our kids. We must protect them with every part of our being. Sometimes bad people still will get through and bad things will happen. In those cases, the guilty should pay. First of all the perpetrators need to be brought to justice. When law enforcement comes looking for help in this, the website management should help out where appropriate. If they do not help out, and something happens, then they bear liability.

Lawsuits that charge more should have been done are ambiguous and open to subjective means. I come back to parents. Maybe our kids should sue us saying more should have been done. You and I as parents have a responsibility to give your kids as much or as little privacy as is appropriate. It is not loving to give kids a long leash that allows them to enter into harms way.

When kid gets off a computer, his/her history list should be inspected. Maybe not every time, but sometimes. They should have an email account that you are the administrator of. Emails should not be looked at all the time, but they need to know you reserve the right to inspect them. Their passwords must be accessible to you. If not you need to cut off their access. Questions of kids privacy goes back a long way, even before internet was common. I do not believe you should go beyond what is prudent. That of course if hard to determine in an objective manner. If your kid is very adult, and responsible, little monitoring is necessary. If they are less responsible, more is necessary. Not monitoring them, however is asking for disaster. These are our children!!!!!!!!

I have recently come across a wonderful TV program on the TLC network, Shalom in the Home, hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. He helps families find ways to find more Shalom (peace) in their homes in time of trouble. On his website for the show are printed some Shmuleyisms. I found these to informative and thought provoking. Some of them have caused me to be much more introspective of my role in my children's lives.

God Bless us and our families.

When is it correct to amend the Constitution

When I hear people talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment, I frequently hear the argument, that they agree that marriage should be one man, one woman, but an Amendment isn't the correct way to do it. They say the constitution should be the last recourse.

I agree with that statement as far as it goes. There are no objective standards as to when we should amend. I don't think the flag burning amendment should go forward. My standard for amending the constitution is this:
1. The subject should not be able to be accomplished in any other way.
2. If the amendment is not accomplished a significant harm will come to the country and society as a whole.

Taking my earlier example of the flag burning, the activist courts have certainly taken away legislation as a route to accomplish it. On the second issue there is room for debate. While I think burning a flag is certainly reprehensible, I don't think it harms us as a society. I believe it says more about the person burning the flag, than society as a whole.

This brings us back to marriage. Activist courts have taken away the legislative avenue. Activist judges are deciding today whether to make gay marriage legal, by judicial fiat. Eventually nine people in black robes will rule that either the framers wanted or did not want gay marriage. The people will have nothing to say about it. The Defense of Marriage act passed under Bill Clinton is being challenged under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Many expect it will be overturned. If this happens it takes it away from being a State's Rights issue. Each state will have to recognize other states' marriages whether they want to or not. This being said my number 1 criteria is satisfied.

Criteria number 2. Will society be harmed if gay marriage is legal. Marriage and family have been the building blocks of our society. History of countries that have made gay marriage legal tells us that when opened up, marriage becomes less significant, not more. These states have seen lower and lower percentages of the population entering into marriage. In America we see inner city life becoming more and more of a war zone for those who live there, for all races and ethnicities. Positive correlation between this and low marriage rates in the inner city are impossible to ignore.

If we throw out the standard of marriage we don't make gay marriage legal. We leave all questions of what is legal up to the courts. This has been a disaster for many issues, such as abortion. Today no common sense restriction can be put on abortion without the blessing of our friends in black robes. We cannot allow this to happen to marriage.

That being said I believe my second criteria is also satisfied. Now, for those who believe we should not amend for this subject, if we should not amend for this issue, is there ever going to be an issue that rises to the level of an Amendment? The amendment process is there for important issues, and should be taken seriously, but should not be ignored. Remember prohibition? While I believe that amendment was ill conceived, it was the people who spoke and then spoke again to repeal it. Amendments are not easy to accomplish. It is much easier to get a group of judges to declare it so. That doesn't make it correct. Letting this happen for marriage would be disastrous for the American society. Crucial subjects in our society must be decided by the people and not the courts.

I would like to remind all that we can have gay marriage tomorrow. Just get the legislature to pass it. While I would disagree with the law, I would not discount the legitimacy of it. Decided by judges makes it questionable at best. Ever wonder why no legislature has acted on its own to make gay marriage legal? The people would react at the ballot box, either positively, or negatively, but the people would act, as it should be!!!