Archive for the ‘Parenting’ Category

I know I said that the blogging was off for a while, but this question has been burning its way through my brain for a while now, and I’m simply just dying to find the answer.  So here goes:

Just what exactly is it that Pres. Obama is supposed to deliver us out of?  The sweeping rhetoric during most of his campaign, and the rallying cry of his fervent followers is that Pres. O! will right what is wrong, and deliver the downtrodden people of America from….what?  In all seriousness.

Everyone seems to point to the last “eight years,” as though only in the last eight years has our country devolved into some sort of nightmarish monster, and Pres. O! is the dragon slayer come to rescue the defenseless villagers from the menace of….what?

Why just the last eight years?  Because there was a Democrat president before that, so of course things couldn’t have been that bad?   It’s the sole responsibility of one Republican president that drove this country into the ground in just eight years, and only through the vision and greatness of O-ba-Ma! can we hope to recover?

So please, in all seriousness, if there is some minority reader out there, a black or hispanic or some other group who feels that Barack Obama is somehow this Ghandi or some other visionary who will lead you out of your circumstances, please tell me what exactly those circumstances are.  Because I’m just not seeing it.  Or at least, I’m just not seeing how Pres. Obama is somehow the magical cure for whatever ails you.

Is Barack Obama going to somehow resolve the problems of innner-city single mothers raising teens at risk from gangs and drugs?  Will he solve teen pregnancy once and for all?  Broken marriages, unfaithful husbands and wives?  Will he somehow magically bring economic prosperity to areas suffering from urban blight and business flight?  How?  What makes him so different that he will somehow be able to miraculously solve problems that have been plaguing Presidents – both Democrat and Republican – for the last 30 years or more?

How will Barack Obama “finally” free the black men and women of this country from their chains?  And of what are those chains made?  What oppression do you suffer?  And how is it Barack Obama that will fix it?  I’ve seen t-shirts with His image overlaid with those of Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman.  Harriet Tubman, who helped slaves escape to the North, and Freedom.  MLK who helped break down long-standing racial and social barriers, the catalyst to sweeping changes in integration and equal rights for minorities.  And so now Barack Obama steps up and ushers in the next era of…what?  He can’t help free the slaves, get blacks the vote, or secure equal access for minorities.  IT’S.  BEEN.  DONE.  ALREADY.

So, what is this next great barrier, this next level of oppression that B.O. is supposed to break through, to bring freedom and release from?  What EXACTLY is it that he is saving you from?

Please help me understand.

So, we’re all sitting around the dinner table, having a variety of discussions as we often do, and the Medium Sized child throws this one out on the table and lets it flop around for a second:

“Dad, what’s ‘abortion?'”

GULP! Cue slightly stunned and discomfited pause the Imperial Wife and myself. Uh……

“Hon, that’s not really a good question to ask at the dinner table.”

“Hmmm.  Okaaaaay…”

But, we could tell that that only made him even more curious.  So, after one of those quick eye contact/meaningful glances between the two parental units, resulting in the requisite unspoken agreement, the Wife lays it out there:

“Abortion is killing a baby before it’s born.”

“…Oh.”

He didn’t ask any follow up questions.  Kind of a conversation killer, I guess.  That, and I suppose that it’s pretty much self-explanatory.  I asked him where he heard about abortion, and he said it was in one of the news stories he read during class. 

I guess it’s one of those inevitable questions in today’s day and age, but it’s certainly nothing you look forward to having to do:  explaining to your children that there is a whole industry out there dedicated to killing babies before they are born.   I have to wonder how that gets processed in his mind, where does it get filed?

This after years of telling him how we had nicknames for him in the womb, how I used to read him Frog and Toad stories with my head resting against my wife’s pregnant stomach, how I used to love feeling him press against my head with an elbow or foot as he moved around in there.

I’m rather hoping that the whole concept of abortion always bothers him as much as it does me.

After reading about the big hullabaloo down Tejas way with regards to a certain polygamist cult, I began to find myself a wondering…

Whyizzit that when a black man has multiple children with multiple women, it’s just a sad statement about our culture, perhaps a failure of the system to properly educate on birth control and benefits of monogamy, etc, etc, etc,

But when a white Mormon does it, it rates a raid by the ATF and HHS?  Isn’t this dude really just one really prolific BabyDaddy?

Mah brutha from anutha mutha and all that?

Seriously.  Why, when its some poor minority dude knocking up multiple women without marrying them, we shake our collective heads and cluck our tongues ever so dispiritedly, but we send in SWAT to get a white guy with a big compound?

I’m not saying either one is right, I’m just a tad perplexed about the seeming disparity in treatment.

 

If you haven’t heard of it, which you just might not have, since when I “Googled” it I didn’t get a single hit from a major media outlet, SB 777 is an amendment to the State of California’s Education Code which, among other things, removes the following definition in the original:

“Sex” means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being,” 

and replaces it with:

“Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

Now this has got the Religious Right all in a tizzy about what it will mean for our school children, to be exposed to all those icky, gender-confused GLBT types who can’t seem to figure out which symbol on the bathroom door applies to them, yada yada yada.  As usual, they are fighting the wrong fight.
 
The essence of this amendment, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger on Oct 12th of 2007, is to expand the definitions of the types of minority and special interest groups to be protected under the “hate crime” umbrella (committing a “hate crime” is a felony in California).  More than that, it moves beyond the quantifiable aspects into the realms of perception and feelings.  It includes people who might be “perceived” as being a member of a certain type of group, or even one who “associates” with a certain demographic.  In other words, it’s not even so much about what you actually did or said, but rather it’s about how your actions or words were perceived by the other person.  
 
While the implications of the removal of the distinctions between the sexes, and the permitting of individuals to “self-identify” their sexuality or gender regardless of physiology are troubling, they are far and away minor and tertirary issues when compared to the real core of what is contained in this legislation.
 
The Bottom Line Up Front is this:  This amendment codifies into law the increasingly widespread practice of denying access to public facilities to groups which hold “discriminatory” views.  The Boy Scouts, for example, have been under fire the past few years for their policy of not allowing avowed homosexuals to be Scout masters.  This stance has resulted in the loss of access to facilities to which the Boy Scouts have historically had longstanding relationships.
 
SB 777 mandates that public/government funds cannot be given to or used for any group or organization which does not hold to the tenets of Sec. 200 of the Education Code, which states:

“It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.”

This becomes important farther down in the bill where it states:  “

51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.” 

72014. No funds under the control of a community college district shall ever be used for membership or for any participation involving a financial payment or contribution, on behalf of the district or any individual employed by or associated therewith, in any private organization whose membership practices are discriminatory on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 66270.

This is significant in that providing discounted access to facilities to groups such as the Boy Scouts can be and is interpreted to equate to financial benefit or largesse.   Thus, under the terms of this statute, since the Boy Scouts portray homosexuality in a “negative” light (by failing to promote or encourage it), they are now BY LAW prohibited from receiving any financial assistance or benefit from State educational institutions.

The rub will come when the kind of great legal minds that found Roe V. Wade in the Fourth Amendment determine that providing “free” access to conference rooms or classrooms to groups who don’t toe the correct ideological line, is in effect helping these groups avoid paying rent anywhere else, and so are providing an indirect financial benefit, which, of course, will be determined to be in violation of this statute.  Don’t think so?  Google “9th Circuit Court of Appeals” and get back to me.

Inevitably, it will be taken one step further.  Student organizations on a college campus which receive any money in the form of operating expenses, a budge for office supplies, or again, free access to university facilities, will now have to “qualify” for these benefits by signing some form, as a part of their charter, that states that they are in compliance with section 72014 of the California Education Code.

Also of note, teachers cannot present any curriculim which portrays any of the groups mentioned in a negative light.  By reading the tone and phrasing of this amendment, portaying a group negatively equates to failing to portray them positively.  Nor can teachers include in their syllabus any materials which might promote one lifestyle over another, as this “portrays negatively” competing views.  Homosexual couples must be placed on an equal footing with hetrosexual couples, and will undoubtedly be required to receive equal amounts of exposure.  Read 72014 again.  “…any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias.”  Not just “discriminates against,” but “promotes a bias.”  In other words, ANYTHING which might ultimately lead to a certain group or culture being viewed in a negative light by someone cannot be presented in a classroom, in an assembly, or by a guest speaker.

Ultimately, at the quantum level, what this means is that you cannot prohibit or condemn anything.  All viewpoints are equal, there is no right or wrong, there is only how I chose to be perceived, and that has to be okay, no matter what.  By trying to prevent someone from “expressing their sexuality” or ” expressing their cultural identity” or “exploring their unique gender identity” you would be expressing a negative stereotype.

On the plus side, under section 212.3:

” ‘Religion’ includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.” 

So, for all the the rabid atheists out there who are tempted to refer to “those religious people” in a negative light, Atheism and agnosticism are ALSO defined as religious views.  On the down side, read that again verrry carefully.  “ALL ASPECTS of religious belief, observance and practice.”  You cannot, by law, discriminate against a person because of any religious belief, which, like their sexuality, can be totally self-defined.  Thus, anything goes.  “It’s part of my religion” can readily becomes a justification for all manner of behaviors.  “It’s part of my sexuality,” immediately limits what actions can be taken by a school administrator for any manner of activities.  And of course, the always popular, “It’s just part of my cultcha.”

This law or amendment removes almost every traditional boundary, limit or restriction on personal behavior in our schools.  As the list of the protected classes grows, the resources that you have left to maintain discipline and order in your schools declines exponentially.  However, the true significance of this is not that boys might get to use the girls’ bathroom, but that it ties the concepts of “thought crimes” and “hate speech” more strongly than ever before into the State’s felony “hate crimes” statutes.

This is a dead win for the “moral relativity” crowd.  All views are equal, there is no truth but what I decide it to be, and you have to respect MY definition or be branded a bigot and a hater.  And now, more than ever before, you can lose your job and/or go to jail if you don’t. 

While on the surface it may sound great — “Hey, what’s the big deal, this means nobody get’s discriminated against!”  — the primary groups which traditionally have sought to espouse moral restraint or the drawing of clear behavioral limits and boundaries are the conservative religious ones.  Thus, the groups most likely to run afoul of this revised code are those who hold “traditional” values and are reluctant to permit or encourage behaviors contrary to their faith and bylaws.  So while at first glance you might think, “Great!  This means liberal teachers can’t bad-mouth Christians or conservative groups anymore!” historical precedent suggests that this isn’t how the statute is likely to be enforced at all.

In other words, it’s not that no one gets discriminated against…just those who won’t get on board with a moral or spiritual free for all.  And by law –in California at least — this type of discrimination is now not only permitted but required.

My seven year old daughter complained the other day about how one of the boys in another class was bugging her.  I guess he was trying to get one of his friends to ask my daughter for her phone number.  Yeah.  Apparently he wants to “date” her.

Date her?  She’s in 2nd GRADE!!!!

I was rather hoping not to have to face this particular specter for some time yet.  B.J. is his name. I’m sure he’s a nice kid.  Yeah. Right.  Probably a future drop out and drug dealer.

I can’t imagine what a second grader thinks is involved in dating.  Probably sharing your Cheetos at lunch or something.  Now, I must admit to being somewhat torn between thinking, “Oh, isn’t that cute” and the alternative of,” Why that little…what’s he think he wants with MY daughter?!  Why I oughta….”

I think I’ve discovered an easy fix.  I’m gonna go all old-school on him.  If he wants to date MY daughter, he’s gonna have to ask ME first!  HAH!  That oughta fix his little red wagon.  Kind of a pre-screening.  If a boy is interested enough in my little girl to face up to a grumpy old fart with a mean scowl and poor disposition, well then he might be legit.  Might be. 

I suppose there might, just MIGHT be a few good boys still out there; but in today’s day and age, I’m not really all that confident.  I don’t cotton to no playaaz.  What with me having been a bit of a playa myself in the day, I hold a pretty strong bias common to most men of daughters against the intentions and moral fiber of most of the male species.  Yes, even in the 2nd grade.

I always figured that about the time she comes of age for that whole..{{grrk}} dating thing, I’d start keeping a baseball bat and a Bible by the door.  When the young feller comes a calling, I’ll pull him aside for a brief chat.  I’ll say something like, “Son, my daughter was raised in a Christian house with Christian values.  So I’m gonna offer you a choice, my boy,” as I hold up first the Bible, then the Bat.  “You follow one, or you get the other!”

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Understanding that my readers come here for definitive answers on many of life’s issues, (well, that and pictures of Jennifer Lopez, of which I’ve posted only one, but still seem to get a lot of traffic from the search engines, but I digress) I offer you here the once and forever answer to that eternal question, “Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?

The answer is:  It depends. 

If you are a follower of Evolutionism, then it clearly has to be the egg.  Because under evolutionary theory a transitional species — say some hybrid between a turtle and a duck perhaps — one day grunts out an egg, inside of which rests an embryo whose DNA got just a little bit scrambled when some recessive gene traits lying dormant in the parents were all intertwined in the process of conception, and suddenly, POOF, one day, out pops a proto-CHICKEN instead of turtle or a duck!  So clearly, in the evolutionist worldview, the egg has to have come first.

To a Creationist, however, it is has to be the chicken.  For if you created the egg FIRST, you’d have no creature around to warm and incubate it, nor feed or nurture it upon birth. Thus it is counter-intuitive to create an egg which would, from the get-go, be exceedingly non-viable. So clearly, to the Creationist view, it has to be the chicken first.

However, this doesn’t address the issue of the fact that in most natural settings, an offspring born which radically differs from the source parents pairs, or which is in any way deformed or the “runt” of the litter, is often abandoned, neglected to death, or presumptively killed and/or eaten by the stronger siblings or the dominant brood pairs.  Small wrinkle in the egg first theory.  But hey, after all, it is still just a theory, right?

I saw this link over at Hot Air via Protein Wisdom.  I glaced briefly through the linked site, but more than anything, I was struck a bit thoughtful by the choice of terminology:  “Radical Christianity…”

What exactly is “radical”Christianity?  I’m sure that many youth groups are all about, like, a totally RADICAL Christianity, dude.  But somehow, I suspect that’s not what we’re really discussing here.

I mean, can you imagine seeing this in the news: 

“A flight to Denver made an emergency landing today after five evangelicals suddenly stood up as the plane was on its final approach.  They began waving Bibles and speaking in tongues.  Some passengers are said to have heard them conmdening homosexuality and demanding prayer be allowed in schools.   Air marshalls fired Tasers and other passengers helped subdue the radical Christians who had threatened to, uh……”

Hmm…Radical Christianity.  You know what it is, right?  Radical Chrisitians are too often merely those who have the temerity to hold to their beliefs even in the face of equally “radical” social engineering.  Radical Christians probably believe in wacky bizzarro stuff like the literal truth of the Bible as the word of God, repentance, the crucifixion and resurrection, the existence of Jesus Christ and the truth of His nature as the Son of God.  You know, all that hardline Bible-thumper stuff that makes people so..so…..uncomfortable.

Radical Christians don’t bow to the pressure to conform the tenets of their faith to what is socially mandated by progressive do-gooders.  They don’t “go along to get along.”  I’m not saying that there aren’t Christians and denominations that DO roll with the socially fashionable.  It happens all the time.  But, by the very act of conforming, they preserve themselves from being labeled as “radicals.”  Nonconformists.  Intolerant, haters…you name it.  Go with the flow; stay “mainstream” as any cost, even if the stream is taking you over the falls.

I propose that a whole lot of the progressive social engineering taking place in our schools, offices and town halls is far more “radical” than the ideology of those groups who choose to maintain and practice traditionalist beliefs.

Crazy policies like the “No-touching” rule in Virginia schools.  This is not “protection.”  It is an implicit acknowledgment of the failure of our society to teach our children mutual respect, compassion and care.  The very things which the progressive mouthbreathers condemn Christians for failing to apply, but which are the very hallmarks of Biblical Christianity.  We forbid them from touching each other because violence has become so prevalent that they can’t be “trusted.”  Yet, we can’t teach Biblical values in school, can’t pray or hold Bible studies on school grounds because it might make someone uncomfortable; might be seen as “threatening.”  We’ve taken away “Do Unto Others,” and replaced it with an oppressive sterility that treats our children as criminals and monsters. 

Which is exactly what many of them are becoming…thanks to the overly permissive social engineering which equates spanking with child abuse, verbal correction with emotional abuse, and red ink on school papers as damaging to self-esteem.

Some go so far as to suggest that failing to enroll a child school is a form of neglect. This school of thought has be used repeatedly to bring pressure to bear on homeschoolers, many of whom are Christians who feel {justifiably} that it is far more abusive to submit their children to the undisciplined, out-of-control environment in so many schools, where drugs, violence, gangs, teen pregnancy and unchecked bullying are so pervasive.

But since these government schools are where the social engineers are best able to exert their influences, they seem to have a vested interest in making sure that little Johnny is there to learn to tolerate homosexuality, and get Sex-Ed in the forth grade, even though one definition of child sexual abuse is: “Inappropriate interest in or knowledge of sexual acts.” Rainbow Party anyone?

According to a 2001 article in the Salt Lake Tribune on, “When is Spanking Child Abuse?“:

Assessing mental harm to a child as a result of spanking or paddling may be more difficult than assessing physical harm. The bill defines mental harm as an impairment of a child’s ability to function within the child’s normal range of behavior.

Gayle Ruzicka of the Utah Eagle Forum, who otherwise spoke in favor of the bill, said determination of a child’s normal range of behavior could be ambiguous.

“Who makes that determination?” Ruzicka said. “Especially if the child is not in school.” (emphasis mine)

Apparently it is the schools that are best equipped to determine what is “normal” behavior for a child, not the parents. Yes, that’s right.  The substitute teacher with a two-year Associates Degree in Early Childhood Development, and no kids of her own.   Regular resident expert, that.

Look at this list of emotional and behavioral effects of child abuse, and tell me where we find these problems running the most rampant?  That’s right.  Public.Freaking.Schools.

I guess I just wonder how long it will be before other words start slipping into the social lexicon to describe such non-conformist, backward-thinking Christians?  Will there come a day when failure to enroll your kids in government schools will get you branded as a “militant” Christian?  How many Christians will some day be on a “watch list” for no other reason than they refusing to compromise their beliefs by knuckling under to demands that they openly endorse homosexuality or abortion?  How long before someone is arrested for refusing to put away their Bible because it “might” offend someone?

Sure, that may sound like hyperbole, but if you really look at the trends of how Christian groups, educators, students and even families are being treated, especially in higher academia, it’s not quite such a stretch.  It seems like Christians are one of the few special interest groups routinely denied access to many facilities under the “separation of church and state” nonsense.   Which is just baby-talk for religious discrimination.

I don’t think that Christians are “becoming” radicals.  They always have been.  It’s just that before, it seemed like we had a lot more “sympathizers” than we do nowadays. 

The progressive managers of our crumbling Society demand every more stridently that Christians change to fit their ever-changing mold.  And yet the Christians refuse to kneel at Ceasar’s altar. 

And we all know how THAT turned out last time….

It has been suggested by one of my more astute, and I must assume Liberal (yes, we know, redundant) readers that my body cavity is occupied to a large extent by excrement.  Feces.  You know.  Shit.

 Therein lies the dilemma in “engaging” some of the more liberally minded.  So entrenched is their certainty in their cause and worldview, that the only possible reason they fathom for disagreement is that the other person is either a) woefully uninformed, b) deeply misguided, c) clinically delusional, and/or finally… d) full of shit.

The root problem is that there is little disagreement about the actual facts.  The quantifiables.  The existence of these progressive, forward-thinking programs and curriculla is not in doubt.  Clearly, as they are openly and aggressively promoted by the socialist progressive cause.  At issue is the wisdom, intent, and ultimate outcomes of these programs on our society.  Opposing them — much like a great deal of the modern liberal dogma — is met with some ad hominem attack.  “Of COURSE, you think that.  White, Christian conservative.  Ptooie.  Clearly YOU’VE got no credibility here, because all you want is a theocracy, and pregnant women chained to the sink. “

See though, the thing is, I’m not woefully uninformed.  I see what’s happening.  I read the news.  And I read between the lines.  I make the linkages that so often those behind the scenes don’t want revelealed.  Which naturally gets met with a tisking and a poo-pooing about consipiracy theories, and don’t you care about the children, and a women’s Constitutional right to chose.   Tax the rich, ‘cuz being rich is bad, unless you’re a liberal movie star, and then come on over to our $1,000 a plate lucheon to raise $23 million for Hillary Clinton, because she’s a friend of the poor.  And Air America speaks for the people, even though not enough of the “People” listen to it to keep it on the air.

Yeah, I’M the one whose chock full ‘o the brown stuff.

But, in the interests of fair and reasoned discourse, I offer a variety of links in the way of substantiation.  Things I’ve stumbled across, or been steered towards:

Provacation Alert – Islam in U.S. Public schools – The Velvet Hammer has already done my work for me.  Check out all the links on Islam “appreciation” in public schools.  You know, those hallowed halls, those stalwart bulwarks against the instrusion of church into State.

Hostage drill at NJ school features mock ‘Christian terrorists’ – You can’t profile Muslims, and everyone is shaking in their Birkenstocks at the thought of “offending” the men and women of Islam, but I guess we are free to call conservative Christians “terrorists” without pause.

Check out these links:  http://www.tedweb.org/about_ted.cfm
http://www.academyofselfknowledge.com/
http://www.wmea-world.org/Campus/trans_ed/welcome.htm
Then check out these: Clinton ally pushes ‘transformational education’
Transformational Education: What is it?

It’s about “positive outcomes” and “building a responsibility-based culture” and ” multicultural awareness.”  Like I said, it all sounds good, and who wouldn’t want that, right?  What are you against responsibility?  Until you peel back the wrapper and see what lies beneath.  New Age.  It’s spirituality.  But wait, isn’t that BAD in schools?  No, just Christian spirituality.  Not buddhist, zorastarian, or others.

Cooperative Learning
http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/cooperativelearning.htm
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/cooperative/front_cooperative.htm

“It is a way for students to learn essential interpersonal life-skills and to develop the ability to work collaboratively– a skill now greatly in demand in the workplace.”

know that one’s performance is mutually caused by oneself and one’s team members.

Back in my day, we called cooperative learning “cheating.”  Tongue in cheek aside, this is a group-think, socialist mentality being fostered and promoted in our schools.  We all move at the pace of the slowest learner.  Excellence only results in your being fed back into the collective to “motivate” the slower ones.  And no one moves on until everyone has “mastered” the desired “outcomes.”

Outcomes-based education and “School-To-Work” and “Goals 2000″ are all the same thing, just repackaged every time someone blows the whistle on it.  It’s not about educating children, making them well-rounded individuals.  It’s about tuning them for certain careers, as determined by the system.  It’s about optimizing workers for the collective. 

Sex education curriculums in secondary education are based in large part on the “research of Kinsey and Masters, two researchers whose studies have been extensively debunked, and who were big proponents of the early sexualization of children.

It’s not so much that I am full of anything, as it is a standard methodology for the progressive mindset – marginalize the dissenters.  Use coercive guilt tactics, or bring public pressure to bear to quell rebellion.  There are elements of these curriculums which tell administrators and teachers how to deal with “problem” parents who won’t get on board.  It’s part of the “consensus process” which values agreement and conformity over truth and absolute values.

So, the information is out there.  It’s just a question of how you choose to interpret the data.  I suggest that new age group-think philosophizing, the early sexualization of children, the culture of disposable humanity brought on by the billion-dollar abortion industry, and the setting aside of personal accountability to an immutable Higher Power in favor of accountability to an every-shifting group morality, are just a few of the hallmarks of our cultural decline.

Authorities: Fifth-graders posted lookout, had sex in class

The students were arrested Tuesday at the Spearsville school in rural north Louisiana, authorities said. Two 11-year-old girls, a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year old boy were charged with obscenity, a felony. An 11-year-old boy, the alleged lookout, was charged with being an accessory.

The class, which had around 10 other students, was alone for about 15 minutes, he said.

“When no teacher showed up, the four began to have sex in the classroom with the other elementary students in the classroom with them,” he said.

Son. Of. A. BITCH! 

It’d be too easy to make some “rural Louisiana” joke and write it off to inbreeding.  But I suggest that it goes much deeper than that.

This type of thing is, to me, the clear and unequivocal fruit of modern “progressive” social engineering policies.  It’s a hallmark of the utter breakdown of traditional morality in this country.  And this, I lay firmly at the feet of the liberal/socialist saboteurs working diligently and fervently to break this country down and build it back up again their way.

So-called “Rainbow Parties” are becoming more and more prevelant, yet seem strangely under the radar in the mainstream media.  The long-standing school of thought in “modern”/progressivist sex education is that children should be encouraged to “explore” all aspects of their sexuality at a fairly early age in order to identify their prefered “genre”, and thus be able to “fit in” with their burgeoning sexual peer group.

All of these ideas, concepts, and symptoms are the fruit born of allowing the progessivist agenda to hold sway in our school curriculums, from the elementary grades clear through the curriculum which trains our teachers.

Our children are taught that “morality” is such an “absolutist” concept (spoken of, of course, with much derision and disdain), reserved for those kill-joy fundamentalist Bible-thumpers.  Truth is relative, and morality is self-determined, based on what is the best for your self-esteem.

Let me ask you.  What exactly does it do for your self-esteem to have group sex in front of a bunch of your classmates?  How are you defining yourself, and being defined?

That this kind of episode occurs, that in the space of a few unsupervised moments, these grade-school children would engage in open and unapologetic SEX in the middle of a classrom is so bizarre and unconscionable that I can’t even begin to process it.  I’m so steaming mad I can hardly see straight.

Fifth graders should be flirting, maybe.  Passing notes, learning to interact and understand the opposite gender through trial and error.  You know, the “old fashioned” way.  Not dropping trou’ and giving it up to some random kid in math class the first time the teacher’s back is turned.

WHAT ARE WE COMING TO AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION?

This is why I oppose the progressivist philosophy.  This is why I use modern liberalism as verbal toilet paper.  It’s no longer about achieving the same end through different means (if it ever really was).  Liberals and conservatives are not just using different methods, they are attempting to achieve fundamentally different goals

Liberals, and in that pool I include most mainstream Democrats, are trying to undo the republic formed and created by our Founders.  These progressive social engineers truly believe in their collective hearts that the bold, self-determinent, and Biblically-based morality wired into our Constitution and Bill of Rights was at best misguided, and at worst, corrosive to true personal liberty.  Of course, by liberty, they mean freedom from moral restraint, accountability, or social censure — the three underpinnings out of which our Founding Fathers believed that their Republic sprang.  Read their writings.  Jefferson, Washington, Franklin.  So many others.  Time and again they assert that the nation was designed for a moral people, bound by the rule of law and restrained by their belief in a higher moral accountability, either to God, or at least to each other.

Modern progressivism has none of that.  Its foundation lies in the removal of restraints, or embracing whatever manner of social malfeasance is dictated by the fickle whims of the prevailing new-age philosophies of the moment.  All of which seem to be oriented on a steady, and every more aggressive erosion of our traditional (and dare I suggest, historically successful) ethos.

I no longer believe that modern-day Republicans are the guardians of our future either.  Yet, for all their flaws, I do not see in them engaging in such a direct and dedicated effort at destroying the very fiber of this nation as I see in the liberal Democrats.

I’ve had enough.  For some reason, that article was the last straw for me.  I don’t know what I can do.  I’m not sure how best to proceed.  But I’m moving off the sidelines.  Blogging ain’t enough.  Whinging on and wringing my hands gets me nowhere. 

Maybe too much has been going on for too long and we’ve already rounded the bend. However, I honestly don’t see much difference in the Beslan attack on a school full of kids, destroying so many young lives, and the more insidious, but no less deadly attack on our children by the evil corruption of modern progressive education and the radical liberals infesting our adminstrations and elected offices.

I’m done taking it.  I’m going to do something about it.  Not sure what, but something is better than the nothing I’ve laid on the table to date.

 Update:

Like I said.  Bastards.  But remember.  They support the troops. Yeah.

This was supposed to be a five day trip.  In, three days of work, then out.  Back by Saturday, easy.  Back in time to take my seven year old daughter to her very first Girl Scouts’  Father-Daughter dance.  She’s been literally counting down the days, for almost two weeks now.  At breakfast, and then again at dinner, “Only 12 more days ’til the Father-Daughter dance!”  Her Nana had dusted off the poodle skirt SHE wore to HER first father-daughter dance, spruced it all up, add added a new poodle (who really looks a bit more like a Lhasa Apso) and sent it by mail.  So thrilled that her grand-daughter would be wearing it.  Almost like passing down a wedding dress, to hear Nana gush about it.

I made the mistake of promising her I’d be back in time.  I should know better by now in this business.

Well, we’re not really sure how the scenario is going to play out, Major.  We really need you to stick around and help trouble shoot.”  From the Colonel.  My boss.

So, I have all the next morning to dread and visualize the phone call I have to make.  I’d rather charge a fortified bunker with nothing but a bayonet than make this call.  But I do.

Mom puts her on the phone.  Her jubilant voice all excited to talk to me.  “HI Da-deee!”  Drawing out the eeeee like she always does, two distinct syllables.  The crushing weight in my chest just bears down that much harder hearing the simple,  exuberant joy in her voice.

Well hon, I’ve got some bad news….”  I break it to her, try to explain why, hope she understands.  There’s nothing but that awful silence on the other end, a silence which drags on for an eternity.  Then, a small, quiet voice.

But you promised.  You promised you’d be back in time.”  My heart just crumbles into a smoldering pile of slag. 

More silence.  I even have to ask “are you there?” after a bit.

Yeah.”  A pause.  “Well, do you wanna talk to mom now?”  Auurgh.  Twist the knife.

She doesn’t cry, she doesn’t scream or throw a fit.  That would almost be better.  Just the small, half-choked voice, heavily tinged with disappointment and betrayal.  And you know what the sad thing is?  I’ve had to do this before.  My credibility is just about shot. I didn’t miss anything so significant as the F/D dance that time, but still, building their hopes up, then changing the plan because the situation has changed after I get there, and They “really just need me.” 

Yeah, well, I’ve got some other people that need me, and just between you and me, I personally believe that they need me more, there Mr. Boss.  But it’s not always that easy, is it?

I really hate this job sometimes.