Clearly Nebulous

Prez: Done Apologizing to Afghanis? Write a Letter to Iran

It was the lead story on MSNBC's website today: Pres Obama sent a letter to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, apologizing for the inadvertent burning of Qurans at a NATO base in that country.

In the third day of rioting over an act the Afghani faithful consider highly blasphemous, two U.S. soldiers were killed, bringing the total dead to at least seven. 

MSNBC reports that Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

But the killings of the Americans is anything but inadvertent, as the Taliban has called for the deaths of Westerners in retaliation. No word on exactly how many deaths are called for...

What are the odds that Karzai will apologize for the overreaction of these radicals and hold them responsible? Not bloody likely. Once again it will be about us turning the other cheek while they slaughter our citizens over the slightest offense. *sigh*

 

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith and is sentenced to be executed in Iran.

As long as PBO is in a letter-writing mood, why not pen a note to the Irani government about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who has been sentenced to die for converting to Christianity? Fox News is all over the story, too, and reported on their morning show how a final verdict came down yesterday.

While CNN reported on Nadarkhani's case in January, there was no mention of this latest development. (That was one story more than MSNBC, ABC and CBS who apparently find no interest in this tale of Christian persecution.)

If you want to remain apprised of this man's fate, you can sign up for alerts from "Tweet for Youcef" on Twitter.

 

Teachers are asking the Wrong Questions

...of the wrong people.

A former classmate I've mine posted a link to a blog post in which a Kansas teacher was expressing his discontent over what he felt was the overreach and unreasonable expectations of the federal government in regards to school systems and teachers.

I don't mean to invalidate all of his queries. He raises some very good points. It is very difficult to make assessments when it comes to teachers -- one can't know exactly what each and every teacher faces every day with each individual child and their specific needs.

Sincerely -- no offense to the 90% of good teachers who are working so hard and for whom I am extremely grateful, but I think he is asking the wrong questions to the wrong target audience. The main question, which should be asked of the teachers' unions, is: In what other profession do you not have to pay consequences for poor results?

 

This commentary by Bill and Melinda Gates -- champions of effective education -- is a worthy read regarding this topic...

Yes, teachers all are dealing with so much, and can only do so much -- the fact remains: If school districts were able to fire the worst 10% of instructors, we wouldn't be posing these questions -- because our students' performance would be back at globally competitive levels.  That is, good teachers would have easier jobs -- would be able to achieve their goals more easily -- without having to first "fix" the damage/neglect done by the bad teachers.

Now, of course, this is not an easy task, evaluating which teachers need to go. Teaching is a noble profession, but it is not for everyone. We all need to stand up to the unions' refusal to accept any kind of standards in order to remain employed. Don't allow good teachers (who happened to be hired after the bad teachers) to lose their jobs -- let go of the "lemons" first, not the ones with the shortest employment. 

It's a win-win for the students -- and the good teachers that are so essential to their success!

Oh, So *Now* BO's Interested in Fair Campaign Funding

 

Isn't it interesting that the President -- who I'm sure everyone believes is in favor of campaign finance reform (you know, because those poor Democrats have to figure out a way to fight those mean ol' Republicans and their pocket-lining fat cats) -- is now throwing up his hands and saying that he'll just have to (ow, ow, twist his arm) take super pac money in order for things to be "fair"? 

Obama supporters received an email from his re-election staff saying:

"[W]e can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC....

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won’t be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans."

As if.

Obama 2008 wasn't the least bit interested in fairness. In 2007 he vowed to accept public financing and to cooperate with his opponent to make sure that they both ran campaigns within those limits. John McCain took that promise to heart and accepted the public funds -- and then Obama broke his pledge. In that way, Obama was able to raise as much money as he pleased (at least $700 million, some of it under shady circumstances) and outspent McCain by at least 5 to 1.

Most sources are saying that Obama could raise over $1 billion -- with a "b" -- for this campaign. I dare say he'll easily surpass that now with this super pac money and once again employing the sketchy tactics that were used last time without consequence.

And who said there should be two sets of rules? Why hasn't the Great Obama Brain Trust figured out a way to off-set super pac spending? One of the left's biggest targets -- who I'm sure they scoff at in the smarts department -- was able to figure out a way to deal with attack ads by outside groups.

 

Senator Scott Brown put his thinking cap on and came up with a way to deal with outside attack ads -- why hasn't President Obama come up with a solution to super pac money in the presidential election?

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts knew that super-rich outside sources would be trying to influence his re-election race. So he and his people came up with a brilliant solution which (after some tweaks) was eventually agreed to by his opponent. The deal reached has each campaign agreeing to donate half the cost of any third-party ads to charity if an ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name.

Though there have been complaints of "loophpoles," they are really only about on-line websites. The bulk of attack ads are on television, radio, and by mail/email, which are all covered in the agreement.

So why can't the GOBT figure out something similar with regard to super pacs? Because Team Obama is not interested in fairness. Once again it will be no holds barred, take no prisoners, win at all costs. No "change" just "more of same."

 

 

Campaign 2012: Blatant Media Bias Moment #1

Actually it was probably "Moment #2" but I didn't write about the first one when it happened: The out-of-context blast over Romney saying "I like to be able to fire people" -- made even worse, when often misquoted as "I like to fire people."

But how many people know the full statement:

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, 'You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.' "

Don't we all agree with that? But of course, with the msm spin, it became more fodder for the "Romney-is-so-out-of-touch" meme.

Yesterday the Washington Post and other media had front page headlines "Romney : I'm not concerned about the very poor."

AOL featured The Huffington Post's unfair headline -- it was everywhere! 

 

Again, unfairly out of context. In case you didn't see the exchange with Soledad O'Brien, it was: 

Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

O'Brien: "There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'That sounds odd.' "

Romney: "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.... The middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them."

Soledad O'Brien is sticking to her beliefs about Romney's disconnect, even after he explained further.

So basically this is how I look at it: If I was at a girls' night out and I told everybody that one of my middle children was going through a troubling time -- that I wasn't worried about my oldest and I wasn't concerned about my youngest -- that my focus was currently on that middle child...

If one of those women turned around and gossiped to others that "Colette says she isn't concerned about her little boy."

Would that be fair?

Sure, charitable moms would hear it as "Colette feels that her little boy is doing ok right now." But what if that gossip framed me as being an out-of-touch mother who has a disconnect with her youngest child? Wouldn't even fair-minded folks potentially think ill of me?

And that's the current bias that the media is showing toward Mitt Romney. Sure, they try to make the argument that the poor are not ok. Romney -- and everyone else -- knows they have their challenges too, and he even declared he would make any necessary repairs to their safety net.

But they have no interest in being fair. Romney may not be the nominee yet, but the mainstream outlets are already circling the wagons to protect the POTUS. One can only hope the electorate will be smart enough to see through these tactics of mischaracterization.

 

 

Now it Truly is SGK *for the Cure*

Pro-lifers were rejoicing yesterday that the Susan G. Komen Foundation finally decided to stop giving funds to Planned Parenthood, joining other groups that have awakened to the shady business practices of the abortion provider and also made the move to cease giving revenue. Count me in as one of those who just wasn't comfortable supporting the foundation because of their relationship with PP.

It seemed ridiculous that a charity would be giving more than $650,000 last year to a group that makes a multi-million dollar profit. The reasoning was that the donation to PP was used for breast cancer screenings. However, this did not mean performing mammograms -- as one might easily think -- but more often simply being handed a pamphlet and discussing breast cancer risk factors and how to perform a self-exam. PP would then refer clients to a clinic where they could get a mammogram.

Planned Parenthood could easily hand out pamphlets without the funds from Komen. PP should be giving money to SGK, for crying out loud!

 

So I could see where abortion advocates would not be pleased with SGK for eliminating .07% (eye roll!) of PP's budget, but you would not believe some of the comments left on the Foundation's Facebook page yesterday. Claims that they would no longer support Komen -- or patronize any of its big donors -- because it was "caving in to conservatives" and "abandoning women over politics."

Seems to me it's those abortion advocates who are abandoning the cause of the fight against breast cancer, all because of their devotion to their sacred cow of abortion. But hey, if they are truly concerned about PP not having the money to provide those screenings, they can simply take 7 cents of every $100 they are going to give to Obama's re-election campaign to make up the difference.

Or an even more radical idea -- put an end to all abortions at Planned Parenthood, stop the sleazy practice of overlooking child abuse and statutory rape, and make it all about providing necessary services to women.

 

Mind Over Manners? Not in Our House

They keep saying how ugly the upcoming presidential election campaign is going to be.

Why?

Why do so many accept this premise? Believe me, I know first-hand exactly how bad it got in 2008. But don't they see the potential for a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps they were disheartenend by how short-lived the truce was, which President Obama called for after the shooting in Tucson, AZ. Both sides point fingers at who ended the "new era of civility" before it really started. Seems to me that everyone is guilty of letting it continue.

So how do we counter these senseless acts of unkindness? I believe that, like charity, civility begins at home. Parents need to "teach their children well" that they should mind their manners in the political arena as well.

This is all too real in our house. While there is no love lost for the current man in the White House around here, we have instructed our children that they are to refer to him as President Obama. This has proven to be a challenge to our sixteen-year-old. Her obvious animosity may have taken root when she -- like so may others -- was called a racist simply for stating her support for John McCain in 2008.

Despite our guidelines, I know that she will slip up occasionally. And I also know that she is a part of a generation that feels an unreal sense of anonymity in social media that allows them to be extra rude, thinking it's "funny." But we monitor her accounts, and she has been prompted to delete posts that are disrespectful to anyone.

Now perhaps a college student is too old for such supervision. But I would hope that I will have taught my children better than the young woman who tweeted a rude comment about Sen. Sam Brownback at a Youth in Government program. She tried to portray it as a freedom of speech issue and refused to write the apology her school was demanding.

 

Like too many policians these days, Sen. Brownback conceded to a lack of decorum. 

 

Of course she had a right to say it. And the school should not have required an apology to be sent. But when something gets back to someone -- even if it was only intended for your friends, and it was only a "joke" -- a truly conscientious person would know that some kind of redress was called for. I know I would tell my children it's the right thing to do.

But instead, this young girl stood her ground, supported by her mom who said she raised her kids to be "independent, free thinkers." And then Sen. Brownback backed down from expecting an apology, and instead apologized to her(!). 

 

Ahmir Thompson -- obviously a friend of #44 -- thought it was "tongue in cheek" to play "Lyin' A-- B----" when Michele Bachmann appeared on a latenight show. This is the attitude we must direct our children to reject.

So as long as being a free thinker is more important than being a decent human being -- especially by those who support the man who called for that new era of civility in the first place -- this will be an uphill battle that Sisyphus would not have preferred.

As for me and my house -- we will choose the path of propriety.

"Glee"-Fully Wrong and "Counting" on What's Right

No, I don't watch Glee. I know there are moms who enjoy the show and think that if they watch it with their teens (or even pre-teens) that it often opens up a conversation, blah blah blah. I truly feel you're kidding yourself if you think there's no harm done in allowing your daughters to view this for-mature-audiences-only drama.

Yes, I tuned in last night because a high school couple was deciding whether to have sex for the first time. A topic this mom (and her husband) will be revisiting many times in the coming years, what with 3 daughters currently in high school and 2 more in middle school. One thing I know: We will not be relying on Hollywood to contribute anything substantial to this conversation.

Okay, so Glee is not as bad as say, Gossip Girl (whose first season I did watch, by myself). The writers of Glee went to great pains to make sure that the story line was truly earnest, ensuring that the couple's decision (spoiler alert -- not really) to go ahead and have sex -- that it was given "meaningful" thought and was under the "right" circumstances.

 

Rachel felt that four whole months of not fighting deserved celebrating -- by having sex for the first time.

Pure Hollywood wishful thinking. Who knows how many of those involved with the production of this show actually faced this decision in high school -- and maybe some of them did have sex at that tender age and emerged unscathed. But once again it appears to be retro-rationalization by those who want to justify their own risky, indulgent behavior.

All right, I won't play pop psych here. But come on -- why else would they produce such drivel? Because "teens are facing this every day" and they hope to "guide them to making good decisions"? Because having sex when you are still in high school -- when the circumstances are "right" and you do it in a "responsible" way -- is not a threat to your future? Wrong on all accounts.

I don't care how many forms of birth control you use (apparently both Rachel and Finn had things "covered") and I don't care how in love you think you are at the age of 16, 17, 18... Just because it "feels safe" and will be "unforgettable" because it's with someone you "trust" -- there are so many other issues surrounding being in a sexual relationship that go beyond that "one special night."

One character did give lip service to waiting (acknowledging that her pregnancy was not the only bad consequence) but Rachel relied upon the advice of a couple of friends/frenemies whether or not to enter a situation fraught with so many pitfalls. Where was the conversation with a parent? (The only parental involvement I saw in the show was the old story of parent-diasapproving-of-child-performing-in-a-play with other-parent-giving-their-resounding-approval.)

Amongst all the physical and emotional aspects to be discussed, where was the most important discussion about what will happen when she gets pregnant. Yes, when. I'm teaching my daughters that it's really the only way to be truly responsible, by approaching it as an eventuality not merely a possibility (which is easily ignored). All three "choices" are life-altering. Why would anyone in high school want to complicate their lives that way?

 

Sky-diving is about as risky as things get for the Duggar girls. They know premarital sex has far more uncertainties.

Instead, the show I watched with my daughters was (the apparently soon-to-be-retitled) 19 Kids and Counting. Though I may not totally agree with the extremely conservative path to marriage of that family -- e.g. I will allow my daughters to date, and kiss boys before they are married -- I would rather have my girls exposed to the admirable guidelines they follow. That potential boyfriends need to speak to the parents first. That suitors should have the same values they do. That a physical relationship is not the most important thing between a man and a woman, and is best put off until they are married.

I would rather have my daughters watch real young women who are being taught to fix their own cars and handle their own finances and save grown-up things for when you are actually a grown-up -- than any LA-LA Land fantasy.

 

 

The Littlest Casualties in the War on Drugs

A strong strance against the use of recreational drugs hasn't always made me popular. But having a father who was a Chicago police officer -- knowing that a drug user or dealer could easily mow him down -- I felt there was no way I could ever partake in good conscience.

So when I hear liberals, libertarians, or some conservatives talk about legalization, I really get my Irish up. All one has to do is hear read the stories -- not about the drug runners fighting it out with each other nor about the amounts of money being spent on the drug war -- but about the truly innocent casualties to realize what a mistake that would be.

                                                                 

I'm talking about the children of those who are trapped in the grips of drug addiction -- that is, addiction to legal prescription drugs. One can only imagine how widespread stories like this heartbreaking tale would be if we were to legalize cocaine, heroin, etc -- even marijuana.

"It is unclear how long the girls [ages 4, 3 and 18 months] had been shut in the room, but Robinson said it was probably at least several hours, adding that the children were hungry and filthy and the room was covered in feces.

[The parents] had been in the throes of drug abuse, using legally prescribed painkillers. When a neighbor came to help... [they] were passed out in their bedroom.

As darkness fell that night, the younger sisters became scared. The oldest girl used mattresses and a pile of clothes and toys to scale the wall... She got a few cupcakes from the kitchen, tossing them to her sisters before escaping the house.

The girl arrived at her neighbor’s door barefoot and carrying a flashlight.

...The neighbor went [and] freed the children and cleaned them in a bathroom. Then she took them to her house for dinner before calling police."

The parents have apparently been in jail since the incident in March and have undergone rehab and want the children back. They will probably not only get the children but also serve no more jail time, only probation. Lucky for them their 4-year-old was obviously quite intelligent and had a will to live -- otherwise the story may have had a very different, tragic ending.

God help those poor girls, and God help many more just like them if even more "prescription drugs" flood our streets.

 

This is what you get when you google "cops find children alone in apartment drugs."

 http://tinyurl.com/433ybwp 

China through the Eyes of a Mom of 6 Girls (and 1 Boy)

Most unexpectedly, I took a trip to China this past spring (thanks to a last-minute invite my husband received to join a press junket sponsored by a Chinese organization promoting good business relations with the U.S.) I have always had mixed feelings about the nation of China -- finding its modern political policies deplorable, but recognizing what an amazing cultural history it has. I knew an excursion there would be a challenge, but my personal feelings added to my apprehension.

You see, in January of this year I had discovered the organization All Girls Allowed. As a pro-life feminist I had long known about China's one-child policy, but this new group is revealing just how harmful this abhorrent program is.

Duly reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review, AGA was founded by one of the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chai Ling. Having been forced to abort twice, Ling is bearing witness to the coercive actions of the Chinese government and the devastating impact it is having in the lives of Chinese women and their families. She and others recently testified before Congress, in hopes that the U.S. administration would decry this wide-spread trampling of human rights.

So I prepared for my trip wanting to bring along this shirt I purchased from AGA to show my solidarity. My husband had already said (only half-jokingly) that there was a 50/50 chance one of us would get kicked out of the country if we expressed our views, so I decided against it.

 

This shirt says how at least 40 million young women are currently "missing" in China, since that is how many more young men reside there, even though there should be an approximately even ratio of males to females. However, the Chinese government itself says that the one-child policy has limited their population by hundreds of millions.

 

But I did bring along a picture of all of my children, as did my husband. We both showed the photo to as many people we could -- not to rub their noses in it, but to add to the debate in a small way. We felt our responses to their reactions could spread the notion of just how wrong this policy is.

Very often my husband was congratulated on finally getting a boy. He would say that each of his girls is a treasured gift as well. A couple of women I talked to expressed their desires to have a large family, but then very matter-of-factly stated their government's policy. They seemed so impassionately resigned that I have to admit I was stymied, not knowing what to say...

As I searched in vain for days for any pregnant women, and saw many little boys and fewer girls -- as I observed the majority of parents with only one child in tow, often escorted by grandparents, recalling the "Little Emperor Syndrome" and how it is spreading beyond the borders of China -- I grieved for all the little girls who were deemed "undesirable"  and "unworthy" and therefore "disposable."

 



I met this exuberant young woman in Tiananmen Square. She seemed so excited to meet me... but the honor was all mine. 

 

As I saw the beautiful smiling faces of so many young Chinese women, I wondered if they knew how "lucky" they were. If they feel like a treasured gift, like each of my daughters -- or merely a burden to their families. If they will remain under a regime that someday might rip their own daughters from them. Or if they will rise up to declare and reclaim their dignity and their value to their countrymen. 

I returned from my trip with so many amazing memories. And a tenacious resolve to help those smiling faces increase in number, not diminish. 

 

Make a donation to All Girls Allowed here. 

 

Hail to these Homecoming Queens!

One downside to going to an all-girls high school was that we didn't really have the true experience of homecoming: The pep rally, the football game, the dance, the homecoming court, etc.

I never really thought much of having missed out, but now that my own daughters are attending a public high school -- and one boyfriend is a contender for Homecoming King -- I can see that it is really something to experience. 

And this year there have been two Homecoming Queens crowned that are worth crowing about. First is a young woman who gets that you don't have to compromise your talents or your femininity. She's just as comfortable wearing a football helmet and a tiara. I'd like to see her as a future Miss America -- and as a member of the USA World Cup Soccer Champions!

 

 Not only was Brianna Amat crowned queen, but she kicked the game-winning field goal!

The other young woman was always known around the school for being a real sweetheart, and a true blue fan of her high school football team. She and her parents were simply thrilled that she made the top four. Watch as Mariah Slick -- who just so happens to have Downs syndrome -- is announced Homecoming Queen with her dad by her side:

 

And by golly, why couldn't Mariah be Miss America someday?

I was pleased as punch to show these stories to my daughters as evidence that it ain't only about fancy hair, piles of make-up, and a slinky dress. It's about the character of who you are that leads to the kind of success you can be proud of.