In Search of Noah's Ark
6 hours ago
Friday, November 30, 2007
The State Killed Kindness
"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no person can sincerely try to help another without helping themselves." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Here's an excerpt from an article I ran across the other day by Christopher Marion on LewRockwell.com.
The nature of charity – its very substance, its essence, its content, and its eternal worth – lies in its voluntary nature. No one said it better than Mother Teresa: "Our sisters are not social workers. They receive Christ every morning in the Blessed Sacrament, and then go out into Calcutta and find Him in the gutters." No bureaucrats need apply.
The Christian nature of charity requires freedom and gratitude on both sides: the recipient says "thank you for your gift," the giver says, "thank YOU for letting me help a brother in Christ." If it’s mandatory, it isn’t charity. Period.
Compare that approach to this scenario, which I witnessed recently: a woman marches into the local social services office, goes up to the (bulletproof) window, and demands, "Where’s my check!!" The clerk on the other side of the window scowls at her, tells her to sit down and wait, and continues to bide her time at her desk, contemptuous of the object of government charity that has come knocking at her door. Meanwhile, I, and every other taxpayer, know that we would go to jail if we refused to "contribute" the funds that the woman is demanding and the clerk is disbursing. Plenty of contempt, commensurate with compulsion, to go around. Seething hatred, not overflowing love – unless you happen to love Big Brother.
I especially like the third paragraph. THIS is what government mandated assistance brings...resentment. Charity should engender love and good will. People help their fellow man for the joy of serving their fellow man. Those that are the recipients of such voluntary acts of kindness appreciate the aid that's given....and all of society benefits. Government sponsored welfare programs have done much to destroy this. I was speaking with an aquaintance the other day about various charitable programs I'm involved with and her response was, "I don't get involved with any of that, that's what my taxes are for." Sadly, this is how many people feel. There's no need to commit acts of charity and kindness...that's what the government's for. Charity has been transformed into an extension of government, an extension that's done none of us any good. Any time charity is forced, it's no longer charity but becomes an obligation and an oftentimes unwilling one at that. Because it's an obligation, it becomes a right of those we're obligated to, hence the entitlement and resulting resentment. In the end, we all lose. Those who have, lose the opportunity to experience the joy of self-less acts of kindness and those who have not, lose the ability to feel the resulting appreciation.
Charity belongs within ourselves, our hearts, our homes and our communities, it does not belong in the hands of the governement. Government based welfare programs not only teach people that they are entitled to a handout, but they actually work against people becoming self-sufficient. The proverb "“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime" is as true today as in any other time.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mary Winkler allowed visits with daughters
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297395,00.html
Judge Rules Mary Winkler Can Have 'Supervised Visits' With 3 Daughters
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A woman who killed her minister husband with a shotgun can begin supervised visits with her three young daughters on Sept. 29, a judge ruled Wednesday. Judge Ron Harmon said he will draw up rules and locations for the visits within a few days and Mary Winkler can phone her children every other day.The visits will be supervised because of worries about Winkler's mental health, the judge said, and physical security for the children will also be provided if needed.Winkler, 33, was convicted of voluntary homicide in April for shooting husband Matthew Winkler, a Church of Christ minister, at their residence in Selmer, Tenn., in March 2006.A psychologist at Winkler's trial testified she suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome because of domestic abuse coupled with emotional damage from the death of a favored sister years earlier.Winkler told the judge she wants to be reunited with her daughters to help them deal with the emotional trauma of their father's death. The children are in the temporary custody of Matthew Winkler's parents who want to adopt them over their mother's objections."We can begin healing together and let God guide us," Winkler said.Daniel and Diane Winkler have filed suit to terminate Winkler's parental rights, and Harmon gave no indication when he expects to rule on the overall custody battle.Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, told the judge that Winkler's mental condition is still unstable though she has undergone counseling since her conviction and is taking medication."I have no confidence that we know where Mrs. Winkler is clinically today, let alone six weeks from now or six years from now," said Ablow, who has a syndicated TV show bearing his name.Winkler testified that she has seen her daughters only twice since her arrest last year, though she was allowed at first to phone children weekly and write to them.The children, 10, 8, and 2 years old, live with their grandparents in Huntingdon, a small town about 130 miles northeast of Memphis.Church members discovered Matthew Winkler's body and his wife and children were nowhere to be found. A nationwide search was begun for them and they were found the following day on the Gulf Coast.Winkler testified at her trial that she does not remember getting a shotgun from a bedroom closet but remembers the sound of it firing and her husband rolling out of bed.She said she had endured years of physical and emotional abuse and "just snapped."Ablow said the violence unleashed by Winkler and her reports of memory blackouts should prevent unsupervised visits with the children."Fresh from killing their father, to take the girls in her van with ammunition and a shotgun and to say, 'I just wanted to take them to the beach for a little more time," raises the question whether they were in grave danger," Ablow said.Winkler went to trial in Selmer on a first-degree murder charge but a jury convicted her of the lesser offense.She drew a three-year prison sentence and got probation for most of it, spending just over five months in jail and two months in a mental health facility.She said she is now competent to care for her children thanks to counseling and drugs for anxiety and depression.She said the children's paternal grandparents refuse to let her see the girls or even call them on the phone. Her father and other members of her family are also banned by the grandparents, she said."My children need 100 percent of their family," Winkler said.John Ciocca, a clinical psychologist called to testify by Winkler's lawyers, said denying young children access to a parent can be emotionally damaging."If these children continue to be kept from their mother without good reason, they can be harmed by it," Ciocca said.Winkler is living with friends in McMinnville, 65 miles southeast of Nashville, and has a job at a laundry.
My favorite parts? When she testified she wanted to be available to help her daughters deal with the emotional trauma from their father's death. Um, yeah, you mean the trauma SHE caused when she murdered their dad? THAT trauma? Then, her lawyers have a psychologist testify that a young child being denied access to a parent can be emotionally damaging. Wow. I wonder what kind of emotional damage is caused when they're denied access to a parent because that parent is DEAD. Murdered. Killed, in fact, by their very own mother. Interesting time for Ms. Winkler to start worrying about the emotional impact upon her children.
Judge Rules Mary Winkler Can Have 'Supervised Visits' With 3 Daughters
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A woman who killed her minister husband with a shotgun can begin supervised visits with her three young daughters on Sept. 29, a judge ruled Wednesday. Judge Ron Harmon said he will draw up rules and locations for the visits within a few days and Mary Winkler can phone her children every other day.The visits will be supervised because of worries about Winkler's mental health, the judge said, and physical security for the children will also be provided if needed.Winkler, 33, was convicted of voluntary homicide in April for shooting husband Matthew Winkler, a Church of Christ minister, at their residence in Selmer, Tenn., in March 2006.A psychologist at Winkler's trial testified she suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome because of domestic abuse coupled with emotional damage from the death of a favored sister years earlier.Winkler told the judge she wants to be reunited with her daughters to help them deal with the emotional trauma of their father's death. The children are in the temporary custody of Matthew Winkler's parents who want to adopt them over their mother's objections."We can begin healing together and let God guide us," Winkler said.Daniel and Diane Winkler have filed suit to terminate Winkler's parental rights, and Harmon gave no indication when he expects to rule on the overall custody battle.Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, told the judge that Winkler's mental condition is still unstable though she has undergone counseling since her conviction and is taking medication."I have no confidence that we know where Mrs. Winkler is clinically today, let alone six weeks from now or six years from now," said Ablow, who has a syndicated TV show bearing his name.Winkler testified that she has seen her daughters only twice since her arrest last year, though she was allowed at first to phone children weekly and write to them.The children, 10, 8, and 2 years old, live with their grandparents in Huntingdon, a small town about 130 miles northeast of Memphis.Church members discovered Matthew Winkler's body and his wife and children were nowhere to be found. A nationwide search was begun for them and they were found the following day on the Gulf Coast.Winkler testified at her trial that she does not remember getting a shotgun from a bedroom closet but remembers the sound of it firing and her husband rolling out of bed.She said she had endured years of physical and emotional abuse and "just snapped."Ablow said the violence unleashed by Winkler and her reports of memory blackouts should prevent unsupervised visits with the children."Fresh from killing their father, to take the girls in her van with ammunition and a shotgun and to say, 'I just wanted to take them to the beach for a little more time," raises the question whether they were in grave danger," Ablow said.Winkler went to trial in Selmer on a first-degree murder charge but a jury convicted her of the lesser offense.She drew a three-year prison sentence and got probation for most of it, spending just over five months in jail and two months in a mental health facility.She said she is now competent to care for her children thanks to counseling and drugs for anxiety and depression.She said the children's paternal grandparents refuse to let her see the girls or even call them on the phone. Her father and other members of her family are also banned by the grandparents, she said."My children need 100 percent of their family," Winkler said.John Ciocca, a clinical psychologist called to testify by Winkler's lawyers, said denying young children access to a parent can be emotionally damaging."If these children continue to be kept from their mother without good reason, they can be harmed by it," Ciocca said.Winkler is living with friends in McMinnville, 65 miles southeast of Nashville, and has a job at a laundry.
My favorite parts? When she testified she wanted to be available to help her daughters deal with the emotional trauma from their father's death. Um, yeah, you mean the trauma SHE caused when she murdered their dad? THAT trauma? Then, her lawyers have a psychologist testify that a young child being denied access to a parent can be emotionally damaging. Wow. I wonder what kind of emotional damage is caused when they're denied access to a parent because that parent is DEAD. Murdered. Killed, in fact, by their very own mother. Interesting time for Ms. Winkler to start worrying about the emotional impact upon her children.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Christmas Charity
I'm involved in various charitable activities throughout the year. I also try to involve my children as much as possible. I'm a big advocate of charity and the good it does. not only for others but also for ourselves. At Christmas time, we generally take part in an Angel Tree. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept, they're a Christmas tree whose sole ornaments consist of Christmas wish lists. Generally, the lists are from needy children who would otherwise recieve nothing for Christmas, but we've also taken part in a tree for the elderly. Last year, we did a tree for children and had each of my three children choose a child from the tree to shop for. We then spent the day finding the items on the children's lists. This is, by far, one of our favorite holiday traditions. As much as I've enjoyed the Angel Trees, this year I'd like to do something different; I'd like to do something for our veterans.
Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men in the United States are veterans. Over 50% of homeless veterans have a drug or alcohol abuse problem that either started or worsened during military service. The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans is between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000. Why such a gap? Because nobody's every really bothered taking the time to track it. As much of an advocate as I am for children, truly there are few groups of people in greater need of our notice and concern than our veterans. How sad, that these men who have risked as much as a person can risk, who've given their very all in our defense, go forgotten. Once they've given their all, they're tossed aside, no longer needed, no longer considered important. I think it's one of our country's greatest disgraces. That said, this Christmas, I plan to channel my charitable efforts towards our veterans. Having done a bit of research on the web, I've come up with the following place to donate,
United Veteran's Beacon House
http://www.vvnw.org/Veteran_Services/Beacon_House/uvbh.htm
It looks like an excellant project to help homeless veterans. Here's another great site with many different ways to support our soldiers, varying from letters and care packages to helping the wounded and disabled,
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html
As hard as it is to be homeless, to be alone, to be forgotten....at few times is it harder than at Christmas time. We need to take up the responsibility of seeing to the care of our veterans. We can never repay our soldiers for what they've given us, but the least we can do is show them that we care, that they matter and that we haven't forgotten what they've done.
Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men in the United States are veterans. Over 50% of homeless veterans have a drug or alcohol abuse problem that either started or worsened during military service. The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans is between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000. Why such a gap? Because nobody's every really bothered taking the time to track it. As much of an advocate as I am for children, truly there are few groups of people in greater need of our notice and concern than our veterans. How sad, that these men who have risked as much as a person can risk, who've given their very all in our defense, go forgotten. Once they've given their all, they're tossed aside, no longer needed, no longer considered important. I think it's one of our country's greatest disgraces. That said, this Christmas, I plan to channel my charitable efforts towards our veterans. Having done a bit of research on the web, I've come up with the following place to donate,
United Veteran's Beacon House
http://www.vvnw.org/Veteran_Services/Beacon_House/uvbh.htm
It looks like an excellant project to help homeless veterans. Here's another great site with many different ways to support our soldiers, varying from letters and care packages to helping the wounded and disabled,
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html
As hard as it is to be homeless, to be alone, to be forgotten....at few times is it harder than at Christmas time. We need to take up the responsibility of seeing to the care of our veterans. We can never repay our soldiers for what they've given us, but the least we can do is show them that we care, that they matter and that we haven't forgotten what they've done.
More on Bravery
The subsequent post is actually a comment left by Egghead on my Bravery post. I thought it was an excellant expansion on the subject and needed to be posted.
Egghead said...
I, too, enjoy your writing, Kim.
Amidst your discussion of bravery, though, I think you're touching on something a bit deeper. I think what really matters about bravery isn't necessarily bravery itself but what motivates it.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle described bravery as the virtue that lies on the continuum between the vices of cowardice and foolhardiness. But look at the motivations for acting brave rather than cowardly... one can do it out of shame for being a coward, or one could do it in order to achieve some sort of glory or reputation. One could even be brave motivated by anger, or hatred, or revenge toward another. But none of these motivations are really admirable, and I tend to think that most people, when seeing bravery due to these motivations don't get choked up, or moved to tears.
What, then, causes us to be moved by brave acts? In a word, love. Which is what you described. When one faces danger while telling others to run away, that protection is motivated by love. When our soldiers do heroic things on the battlefield, that's motivated by love. It could be love for their comrades in the military, "I have to save my buddy," or it could be out of love for their families back home, or it could even be out of love for their country.
Or firefighters running into burning buildings. That bravery is obviously motivated by love - even love of complete strangers.
THAT's why pictures of these heroes saving people is so moving. When we witness love, we cannot help but to be moved.
Well said, Egghead. I agree that it is the love behind acts of selflessness that make us remember them and pass along stories of them, and that leads to me inevitably crying whenever I hear of or witness them. There's no greater act of love than self-sacrifice.
Egghead said...
I, too, enjoy your writing, Kim.
Amidst your discussion of bravery, though, I think you're touching on something a bit deeper. I think what really matters about bravery isn't necessarily bravery itself but what motivates it.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle described bravery as the virtue that lies on the continuum between the vices of cowardice and foolhardiness. But look at the motivations for acting brave rather than cowardly... one can do it out of shame for being a coward, or one could do it in order to achieve some sort of glory or reputation. One could even be brave motivated by anger, or hatred, or revenge toward another. But none of these motivations are really admirable, and I tend to think that most people, when seeing bravery due to these motivations don't get choked up, or moved to tears.
What, then, causes us to be moved by brave acts? In a word, love. Which is what you described. When one faces danger while telling others to run away, that protection is motivated by love. When our soldiers do heroic things on the battlefield, that's motivated by love. It could be love for their comrades in the military, "I have to save my buddy," or it could be out of love for their families back home, or it could even be out of love for their country.
Or firefighters running into burning buildings. That bravery is obviously motivated by love - even love of complete strangers.
THAT's why pictures of these heroes saving people is so moving. When we witness love, we cannot help but to be moved.
Well said, Egghead. I agree that it is the love behind acts of selflessness that make us remember them and pass along stories of them, and that leads to me inevitably crying whenever I hear of or witness them. There's no greater act of love than self-sacrifice.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bravery
Let me tell you about one of my favorite scenes in a movie. It's from LOTR, The Fellowship of the Ring. Hopefully you've seen the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about. The scene occurs toward the end of the movie. It takes place when Boromir attacks Frodo and tries to take the ring from him. Frodo, escaping Boromir, runs into Aragorn. After a short exchange, they become aware of an enormous group of approaching orcs. Aragorn tells Frodo to run, unsheaths his sword and turns, alone, to confront the army of approaching orcs. I get chills every time I watch that scene. I can't hear stories of bravery and courage without crying. Anytime I watch a movie that merely portrays such acts, you'll find me in tears. Nothing's ever affected me quite the way that acts of bravery and courage do. Perhaps because I value few things more than character and integrity. I have a whole slew of real life hero stories. I share them with my children, inevitably tearing up as I relate the stories of amazing heroism and selflessness. Throughout time, without fail, when somebody needed to step up to the plate, there was a man there to do it. Men have protected us, fought wars for us, died for us...so that we could be safe or free. Now, I don't want to lend the wrong impression. I don't think it's a man's job to die for the greater good. I don't think men should be sacrificing themselves right, left and center. I just recognize the sacrifices they have made and I place great value upon their acts of bravery. I admire their bravery and strength of character so much that I've always hoped that, should the circumstances arise, I'd find it in myself. I've always held the belief that I'd rather die for something than live for nothing; that I should stand for and fight for what's right, regardless of the consequences. Throughout time, as women, we haven't had to make that choice too often, because when danger did come, there was always a man there to tell US to run while he stepped forward, alone, to face the battle. We owe much to the bravery of men.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Monster
I was watching a documentary a while back on Jeffrey Dahmer. For most of us that name is synonymous with evil. We all know he committed horrible, unthinkable acts. While I was watching this documentary, they had a section that showed pictures of him as a happy baby and as a little boy. When I saw these photos of Jeffrey Dahmer, the child, I started crying, and continued to cry through the rest of the documentary. The fact is, all of us begin this life as innocent children. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't start out as a monster, but as a sweet, little boy with infinite possibilities...who knows what events transpired that helped shape him into what he became. Don't get me wrong, I don't attempt to absolve him of any responsibility. There came a point, or perhaps several points, where he stood at a crossroads and had to choose. He made his choices and he deserves to pay for them...but I still remember the pictures of that little boy and can't help but wonder what went wrong.
We all start out life innocent. There's no such thing as a bad baby. A child is largely the product of his/her environment. Failures in the behavior of young children are often a direct reflection of failures on the part of adults who are responsible for them. It breaks my heart when I see the way we are failing our children. There is a reason kids are going on killing sprees. There is a reason why so many young people are lost and without direction. These days, children often spend more time with daycare workers, the television set and video games then they do with their parents. They are seldom taught instrumental lessons on being accountable for their actions. They aren't given boundaries, have little to believe in and no one to look up to...unless you count the "heroes" they find on T.V..
Having watched the Dahmer documentary, my outlook changed a bit. I don't minimize acts of evil, but I can't help when I look at the people who commit them, remembering that they were once innocent children. True, they grew up to be monsters, but I can't help but wonder what they might have been if their lives had been different. Just like I can't help but wonder how much different young people today would be if society wasn't so screwed up, if families weren't gasping their last breath, if fundamental morality hadn't been discarded......
I also watched a while back, the movie 'Monster', portraying the life of female serial killer Aileen Wuornos. You have no doubt after watching 'Monster' that, while Aileen Wuornos was a murderer, she was also a victim. Great pains are taken to show the horrible abuse she suffered as a child; great pains are taken to make the audience realize that, indeed, monsters are not born, but created. Now let's look at stories of male serial killers like Jefferey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. Yes, they too were monsters, but I don't remember anybody ever trying to humanize them. I don't remember efforts being made to show that they, too, were victims. Why is it that when female serial killer comes along, efforts are made to make people understand, even empathize with her, but we seem to be more than happy to label male serial kiilers as the monsters they are and just leave it at that? Aileen Wuornos deserved to pay for her crimes, just like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy did. They were ALL once sweet, innocent children just as they are all responsible for the actions, choices and decisions they made as adults. If we're going to bother trying to humanize and understand women who commit such acts; to comprehend the events that transpired and turned them into monsters, then why wouldn't we do the same for men? Perhaps it's because we're much too comfortable giving to men the title of 'monster'.
We all start out life innocent. There's no such thing as a bad baby. A child is largely the product of his/her environment. Failures in the behavior of young children are often a direct reflection of failures on the part of adults who are responsible for them. It breaks my heart when I see the way we are failing our children. There is a reason kids are going on killing sprees. There is a reason why so many young people are lost and without direction. These days, children often spend more time with daycare workers, the television set and video games then they do with their parents. They are seldom taught instrumental lessons on being accountable for their actions. They aren't given boundaries, have little to believe in and no one to look up to...unless you count the "heroes" they find on T.V..
Having watched the Dahmer documentary, my outlook changed a bit. I don't minimize acts of evil, but I can't help when I look at the people who commit them, remembering that they were once innocent children. True, they grew up to be monsters, but I can't help but wonder what they might have been if their lives had been different. Just like I can't help but wonder how much different young people today would be if society wasn't so screwed up, if families weren't gasping their last breath, if fundamental morality hadn't been discarded......
I also watched a while back, the movie 'Monster', portraying the life of female serial killer Aileen Wuornos. You have no doubt after watching 'Monster' that, while Aileen Wuornos was a murderer, she was also a victim. Great pains are taken to show the horrible abuse she suffered as a child; great pains are taken to make the audience realize that, indeed, monsters are not born, but created. Now let's look at stories of male serial killers like Jefferey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. Yes, they too were monsters, but I don't remember anybody ever trying to humanize them. I don't remember efforts being made to show that they, too, were victims. Why is it that when female serial killer comes along, efforts are made to make people understand, even empathize with her, but we seem to be more than happy to label male serial kiilers as the monsters they are and just leave it at that? Aileen Wuornos deserved to pay for her crimes, just like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy did. They were ALL once sweet, innocent children just as they are all responsible for the actions, choices and decisions they made as adults. If we're going to bother trying to humanize and understand women who commit such acts; to comprehend the events that transpired and turned them into monsters, then why wouldn't we do the same for men? Perhaps it's because we're much too comfortable giving to men the title of 'monster'.
Friday, November 9, 2007
In Honor of November 11th, Veteran's Day
I realize I'm two days early, but I anticipate being busy this weekend and don't want to miss the opportunity to post in honor of Veteran's Day and our veterans. This is for soldiers everywhere, that have fought in defense of their homes, families, country. I thank you for your sacrifice.
VETERANS DAY
Written by: Fred Lazzati
In the poppy fields where Veterans lie,
Row on row-side by side.
In the mist I hear voices:
"We are the Veterans of this land,
Fought for freedom,now we take our stand.
We looked those strangers in the eye,
All fought while others died.
We never looked back in the face of danger,
But we know we beat that fearsome stranger.
"I hear the enemy general's line saying:
"Charge! Charge! Don't let them in,
Because war is hell and hell is sin."
Then the erratic rifle fire ceases,
And silence, silence, silence.
We are the Veterans in ash we lie.
On burning grounds of poppy fields.
But we never stopped,
Because we would never yield.
We protected this land with our very best,
But now it's time for us to rest.
For we are many.
IT IS THE SOLDIER
by Charles M. Province
It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Is This Justice?
I'm going to tell you a story about a young couple that used to live by me. They were married quite young and had two small boys, a toddler and a newborn. The husband met a girl through his work and ended up sleeping with her. The girl had told him that she was 18. She wasn't. She was sixteen and she went to his boss and threatened to sue them. The company, looking after their own best interests, fired the man and informed the authorities. The D.A., although he had spoken to the girl and knew she had lied about her age (I'm guessing she became honest at this point because there didn't appear to be a financial opportunity any longer) decided to press charges. My neighbor was prosecuted and convicted of sex crimes and, following a stint in jail, he had to move out of his house away from his boys because he couldn't live in the same house as minors. He was only allowed to see them on supervised visits. His wife, heartbroken and devastated though she was, recognized it was a one time thing and decided to try and work things out. Unfortunately, living in seperate homes because your husband is a convicted felon and considered a sexual predator, isn't exactly conducive to 'working things out' and they did, eventually, divorce. The father can see his kids again, but now they live in seperate states and it's every other weekend and holidays. They had to sell their house and their cars and everything they'd worked hard to acquire because the kinds of jobs he could get with a felony sex crime on his record didn't make it possible for them to pay the bills. I'm sure there's at least one person out there who would read this and say, "Well, that's what he gets for cheating". For the record, I am completely against infidelity. Faithfulness and loyalty are two qualities I value dearly. What he did was wrong...but did his indiscretion warrant the ruining of his life? Keep in mind that if the girl had been 18, as she'd claimed, what he would have been left to deal with was his own guilt over his infidelity. Instead, he lost everything, his current job, his career, his home, his family....
Summary...aided by the D.A., a scheming, immoral girl was allowed to destroy a family and a man's life because that translates as "justice" in our legal system.
Summary...aided by the D.A., a scheming, immoral girl was allowed to destroy a family and a man's life because that translates as "justice" in our legal system.
Monday, November 5, 2007
A History Lesson
Serious food for thought...............
A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess.Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
Who said it ?
1. 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.'
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2. 'It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.'
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3. '(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.'
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4. 'We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground.'
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5. 'I certainly think the free-market has failed.'
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6. 'I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.'
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/20
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton9/2/2005
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote
A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess.Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
Who said it ?
1. 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.'
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2. 'It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.'
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3. '(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.'
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4. 'We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground.'
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5. 'I certainly think the free-market has failed.'
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6. 'I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.'
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/20
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton9/2/2005
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Anything For a Man
I'm going to tell you a bit about a woman I admire very much. Her and her boyfriend came to America from a foreign country to attend college. While they were here, they were married and she became pregnant. I don't know the details, but at some point during her pregnancy her husband decided he wanted out and filed for divorce. He returned to their home country and his ex-wife remained here to raise their child, a baby girl. This woman didn't pursue another relationship with a man until her daughter was 20 years old. Just to clarify, she was beautiful and fit, friendly and kind....she just decided that dating would mean bringing an unstable element into her daughter's life and that was something she was unwilling to do. She told me that she could always date after her daughter was grown, but while her daughter was a child, that was her one and only priority.
I remember hearing once, Dr. Laura Schlessinger saying that if you have children and you decide to divorce, that should mean that you will be single until after your children are grown. I thought it was a bit extreme when I first heard it, but it's making more and more sense to me all the time. They say that with every man a single mother brings into the home, her children's risk of abuse raises 20%. With that statistic, a woman who dates only 5 men while raising her children, will have raised their chances of being abused 100%. Looking at that number, I can very well support what Dr. Laura says. Looking at that number, one has to question the wisdom of mothers getting primary custody of their children in a divorce. I saw these statistics quoted on a forum once and a woman made a post trying to turn it around into an attack on men because 'they were the ones doing the abusing'. Just to clarify, because I wouldn't want to contribute in any way to the unfair stigma already placed upon men concerning abuse....the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise. The point of the statistics, however, is not about men. It's about the mothers who are supposed to protect them. An outside, unrelated party is not so much the problem as is the caretaker who brought that person into their children's lives.
There is no group of women I have a lower opinion of then single mothers who will do anything to have a man. No sacrifice is too great to keep a man in her life, not even if the thing she's sacrificing is her own children. I've known of women like this, women who will leave their children in unsavory circumstances so they can go troll the bars looking for a companionship. Women who will allow their children to be abused and mistreated so they don't have to be alone. As a mother, there is little that I have greater scorn for than a woman who will trade her children for a little comfort and male companionship.
I've heard the arguement...."So is a woman just supposed to sacrifice herself and give up her life for her children?" YES, she is. I don't even know how this got to be a question. That's what parenthood is...sacrifice. One of the defining characteristics of parenthood is supposed to be the willingness to give up anything and everything for the sake of your child. There is nothing I wouldn't do to keep my children safe, no sacrifice too great to guarantee their welfare. I would die for my children....I would sure as heck go without a boyfriend until they were grown if that were in their best interest.
Granted, I've never experienced the loneliness of being a single parent. I've never endured the stress of trying to raise my children on my own. However, if anything, I'd say that makes me more objective. I can look at the situation from the outside without personal bias. I can appreciate it being difficult and lonely, I've watched my mom do it for 18 years...but dealing with difficult and lonely is always a better option than risking the welfare of your children. Chances are I'll never have to deal with this because my husband and I both feel strongly on the issue of divorce. Once again, we agree with Dr. Laura and don't believe that divorce should be an option if you've brought children into the world, except in instances of abuse (real abuse). Here, we return to the concept of sacrifice. I would never pursue my own happiness at the expense of my children's. "I'm not happy" doesn't suffice as an excuse for tearing up your children's family any more than "I'm lonely" qualifies as a reason to endanger your children.
I remember hearing once, Dr. Laura Schlessinger saying that if you have children and you decide to divorce, that should mean that you will be single until after your children are grown. I thought it was a bit extreme when I first heard it, but it's making more and more sense to me all the time. They say that with every man a single mother brings into the home, her children's risk of abuse raises 20%. With that statistic, a woman who dates only 5 men while raising her children, will have raised their chances of being abused 100%. Looking at that number, I can very well support what Dr. Laura says. Looking at that number, one has to question the wisdom of mothers getting primary custody of their children in a divorce. I saw these statistics quoted on a forum once and a woman made a post trying to turn it around into an attack on men because 'they were the ones doing the abusing'. Just to clarify, because I wouldn't want to contribute in any way to the unfair stigma already placed upon men concerning abuse....the majority of men would never abuse a child, sexually or otherwise. The point of the statistics, however, is not about men. It's about the mothers who are supposed to protect them. An outside, unrelated party is not so much the problem as is the caretaker who brought that person into their children's lives.
There is no group of women I have a lower opinion of then single mothers who will do anything to have a man. No sacrifice is too great to keep a man in her life, not even if the thing she's sacrificing is her own children. I've known of women like this, women who will leave their children in unsavory circumstances so they can go troll the bars looking for a companionship. Women who will allow their children to be abused and mistreated so they don't have to be alone. As a mother, there is little that I have greater scorn for than a woman who will trade her children for a little comfort and male companionship.
I've heard the arguement...."So is a woman just supposed to sacrifice herself and give up her life for her children?" YES, she is. I don't even know how this got to be a question. That's what parenthood is...sacrifice. One of the defining characteristics of parenthood is supposed to be the willingness to give up anything and everything for the sake of your child. There is nothing I wouldn't do to keep my children safe, no sacrifice too great to guarantee their welfare. I would die for my children....I would sure as heck go without a boyfriend until they were grown if that were in their best interest.
Granted, I've never experienced the loneliness of being a single parent. I've never endured the stress of trying to raise my children on my own. However, if anything, I'd say that makes me more objective. I can look at the situation from the outside without personal bias. I can appreciate it being difficult and lonely, I've watched my mom do it for 18 years...but dealing with difficult and lonely is always a better option than risking the welfare of your children. Chances are I'll never have to deal with this because my husband and I both feel strongly on the issue of divorce. Once again, we agree with Dr. Laura and don't believe that divorce should be an option if you've brought children into the world, except in instances of abuse (real abuse). Here, we return to the concept of sacrifice. I would never pursue my own happiness at the expense of my children's. "I'm not happy" doesn't suffice as an excuse for tearing up your children's family any more than "I'm lonely" qualifies as a reason to endanger your children.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Are You Kidding Me???
Just a short rant here.....
So my husband was just watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. I try to keep my news to the point and avoid the onscreen back and forth debates, so I was kind of napping beside him on the couch...until I heard something that woke me right up. Colmes brought up Hilary contradicting herself regarding illegal immigration during a recent debate. He said that the guys on the stage (meaning her fellow democratic candidates) were kind of "beating her up" verbally over it and that women were pretty angry over the whole thing. What???? Is this not what they do in debates....look for a method to discredit each other? Apparently that's not acceptable if your opponent's a woman. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is she or is she not hoping to run for president? What's going to happen when the leaders of the world are upset with something she's done? Are we going to reprimand them for picking on a girl? Good heck, if she can't take a little heat during a debate over flip-flopping on an issue without women up and running to her defense, what's going to happen when she's president? Sorry ladies, it might work here, but I seriously doubt the rest of the world's going to care if you get angry when they verbally disapprove of President Clinton's (knocking on wood, knocking on wood) policies. If she's supposed to be up to running the United States of America, she'd darn well better be up to a little dissent over some of her comments by her competition. Mark my words though, if the unhappy day ever comes when Hilary is president we'll be seeing much, much more of this. I imagine the government will cease to function because they'll be too busy making sure nothing they do or say could be construed as offensive.
So my husband was just watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. I try to keep my news to the point and avoid the onscreen back and forth debates, so I was kind of napping beside him on the couch...until I heard something that woke me right up. Colmes brought up Hilary contradicting herself regarding illegal immigration during a recent debate. He said that the guys on the stage (meaning her fellow democratic candidates) were kind of "beating her up" verbally over it and that women were pretty angry over the whole thing. What???? Is this not what they do in debates....look for a method to discredit each other? Apparently that's not acceptable if your opponent's a woman. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is she or is she not hoping to run for president? What's going to happen when the leaders of the world are upset with something she's done? Are we going to reprimand them for picking on a girl? Good heck, if she can't take a little heat during a debate over flip-flopping on an issue without women up and running to her defense, what's going to happen when she's president? Sorry ladies, it might work here, but I seriously doubt the rest of the world's going to care if you get angry when they verbally disapprove of President Clinton's (knocking on wood, knocking on wood) policies. If she's supposed to be up to running the United States of America, she'd darn well better be up to a little dissent over some of her comments by her competition. Mark my words though, if the unhappy day ever comes when Hilary is president we'll be seeing much, much more of this. I imagine the government will cease to function because they'll be too busy making sure nothing they do or say could be construed as offensive.
This poor guy
I met a young couple the other day with three little boys. The father, who was in the military, was getting ready to leave in a couple of days for Iraq. As I chatted with them, I tried to think of a way to convey my thanks to him for putting his life on the line in the service of our country; I tried to think of a way to express my concern and my empathy for him and his family. As I was half listening to the conversation and half trying to decide the best way to express my gratitude and concern to virtual strangers, something happened that really made me sad. I was speaking to the wife and the youngest son, barely a toddler, decided he wanted to try and tackle the staircase. As he attempted to go downstairs, his oldest brother got in front of him and stopped him. The toddler got upset at this impediment and started crying. The mother saw what was happening and began reprimanding her older son for upsetting the baby. Upon this, the father stepped forward in defense of his son and explained to his wife that he'd told the boy to watch his brother and not let him go downstairs. His wife's response was to roll her eyes and yell, "Hello! Who's the adult here? You don't put your six year old son in charge of the baby, you do it yourself. My gosh! Am I the only adult around here. Can't I trust you to handle anything?" Then she turned back to me, rolled her eyes and apologized (I'm sure for the alleged stupidity of her husband and not her own behavior) and politely continued our conversation. I watched her husband throughout this and felt so bad for the guy. You could tell he was angry and embarassed, but too polite to start a fight with her over it in front of me. I, not only pitied the poor man, but I was also really angry. Here her husband's getting ready to leave for Iraq for a year, having to be separated from his family, who knows if he'll even survive, and THESE are his parting memories...this is the respect and appreciation he'll carry with him. I related this incidence to another person who speculated that perhaps the wife's behavior was atypical and merely an expression of her own stress and anxiety over her husband's leaving. Maybe...but who cares? Knowing what her husband was about to face, knowing what little time she has with him, she should have buried her own fears to be there for him. Ofcourse, noting the ease with which she derided him in front of a perfect strange, I tend to think this was typical behavior. I seriously doubt she gave it a second thought. This is, unfortunately, how many husbands are treated today. The message in the media is that men are to be treated like incompetants or like children. They aren't intelligent enough to do anything on their own and the average wife has little patience for their "ineptitude". It's amazing that men gave us the ability to fly and got us to the moon but still manage to be given the title of incompetant. Ofcourse, we all know they're not. This is the feminist ploy to empower women. Get them to look down on and belittle their husbands so they can feel better about themselves; and men, because they're too kind to respond in like, let them. You hear the word abuse tossed around quite regularly in conjunction with marriage, generally being attributed to a husband's treatment of his wife. This--meaning the behavior I described above--is abuse. It is verbal and emotional abuse and it happens all the time and nobody thinks anything of it. On the contrary, many people find it funny. After this humiliating experience, the duly chastened husband avoided further conversation and stayed with his sons. I tried to convey some of my feelings to him, with my eyes and sympathetic smile, but I didn't have the opportunity to extend to him my thanks and well-wishes. I can only hope that at some point, his wife looked beyond herself a bit to give him some of the warmth, love and respect he truly deserved before he left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
