I just want to let you all know that I am shutting down this blog. I just don't have enough to say for one blog, let alone 3. This is my last post, here. I'm going to maintain our family blog. So, if you would like, please join me at Freedom Lovers' Academy.
Monday, March 15, 2010
I have been discussing an article about a gifted child with my brother-in-law. Now, I'm not sure what my opinion on the article in question is, since I believe that we really need more information about why the professor is denying the kid the class. There may be reasons we're not being told. However, on the surface, I am in support of this kid being able to take the class in question. Of course, my brother-in-law disagrees with me. That's no surprise, we usually disagree. I'm okay with that. If I agreed with everyone on everything, life would be very boring.
However, my brother-in-law said something that I had read in the comments of the article which, on its surface, seems like a good idea. He said that the child needs to learn to take no for an answer. For some reason, this really bugged me. Since I am one of those people who expects immediate obedience from my children, I could not figure out why this bothered me. After all, I expect my children to accept no for an answer. Why shouldn't this kid accept no for an answer?
After mulling this over for a bit, I gave my brain free reign, while I played video games. Suddenly, it hit me. We live in a country where everyone is encouraged to go after what they want, and so long as it is moral, ethical and legal, there is no reason for them to not reach for it. Yet, we're frequently told to accept no, or accept that our instincts are not as good as some other person's.
Where, then, do the achievers come from? Do you think they're taking no for an answer? How many books do you know of that are written specifically for the purpose of getting past no? In fact, there's even a book specifically titled Getting Past No. We spend all of our children's formative years telling them they have to learn to accept no for an answer, then we try to get them to stop accepting no. What a conundrum.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
We all know that I'm very pro-life. I'm very anti-abortion. The idea of a child's life being snuffed out, just because a woman doesn't want to have a baby, is totally outside my thought process. I just can't get past the idea that we wouldn't let her kill the baby after it was born. Why do we let her kill it before it is born? This is not a fight I fight on a regular basis. I truly believe that legislation is not going to stop abortion. T believe that it will take a change in our culture to be able to stop abortion. It will take women not being so selfish as to be willing to kill a baby so that they don't have to go through a pregnancy.
The other day, a friend said something to me that threw me for a loop. Ever since she said it, I just can't get my mind off it. This particular friend is pro-choice, but a huge fan of babies. (Like I said- culture change has to happen there.) She said, "The ultimate medical breakthrough will be when they can take a baby out of the womb of a woman who doesn't want it, and put it in the womb of a woman who does." Wow. That is so profound to me.
So, here is my proposal. What if even half the money that was spent in the abortion battle, was instead spent on medical research to make that possible? What if all the money that was spent on trying to convince pro-choicers that abortion stops a beating heart (they all know that, people), was instead spent on finding a way to transfer that baby to another woman's womb? What if all the money that was spent lobbying congress and for ads to keep abortion legal were instead spent on medical research? Would this be possible? Could we perhaps find that common ground that seems impossible right now? Could we save those lives and give women who want babies new hope?
I know it seems like a medical impossibility. But, surely we could do it. It would be worth the research.
Monday, February 15, 2010
So, now you know that I am anti-environmentalism. What you may not realize is that I'm, well, an environmentalist. That's right. In case you misunderstood the first post, my heartache is not with taking care of the Earth. It is with the rabid fundamentalism that I have a problem. I have a thing about fundamentalism. It takes over your whole existence. It changes who you are. It harms you, and reaches out to pull others into its midst. It is not a good thing.
Taking care of our Earth is our right, our privilege, and our responsibility. It is needed to protect this beautiful planet we call home. It is necessary to be able to walk the land that I love. Yet, I do not believe in man caused global warming. I do believe there can be a happy balance between the earth and mankind. I do believe that we can protect the earth, yet still have happy lives, devoid of erroneous sacrifice. There is always sacrifice in life, and that is not a bad thing. But, it should not come at the hand of someone else. The decision to make a sacrifice should only be made by the person sacrificing. Otherwise, it is not a sacrifice, but a deprivation. The two are not synonymous.
So, in closing, I would say to protect the earth. Hold it dear. Recycle, if you truly believe that is the best option you have. I would say, use less in the first place. But, you see, I don't hold the pulpit. Therefore, my ideas are not the ones followed. I would never think to slough off my responsibilities on someone else by buying 'carbon offsets.' On the other hand, I don't think that carbon is such a bad thing. So, perhaps I am just coming at this from a different perspective. Perhaps when people call me an 'earth mama,' they really see me for who I am, but don't know the frustration I feel with the title. I truly am an 'earth mama.' I truly love the earth, and the land that I walk upon. But, I really cannot get behind the environmentalist movement. It is just too radical.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
I've posted before, briefly, my feelings on the environmentalist movement. As far as I am concerned, any form of extremism is a bad thing. I am all about moderation. As you've probably noticed, I do not moderate my opinions after I make up my mind. However, I strongly (hee hee) believe that believe that all things are worth considering, and each decision, and view point, should be well thought out, and then passionately held. However, I also believe that "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." This is where moderation comes in. I have a lot of friends who disagree with me on the subjects of abortion, stay-at-home-moms, homeschooling, war, and yes, even environmentalism. However, I know that hitting them over the head will not make them agree with me, it will just make them mad.
The environmentalist movement tries to hit everyone on the head. They take all comers. There is no moderation. They attempt to blame global warming (now known as climate change- I wonder why?) on humans, without having proof. Then, they wonder why such a large portion of the population doesn't want to reduce their 'carbon footprint', especially since lowering their 'carbon footprint' would probably lower their electric bill, as well. They try to stop undergrowth burning, then wonder why people think they're crazy. (After all, wild fires controlled undergrowth long before man came along.)
Yet, I've always been an 'environmentalist.' Many wouldn't recognize me as such, because my environmentalism is moderated. It goes along with modern life. It is hard to live in a modern house, and not use electricity, especially when that house is so poorly built, energy wise. We have to live within our means, whether they be environmental means, or financial means. I am all about conserving gas, if only to reduce the amount of money we spend. But, I will not stop driving just because of the environment. I prefer to use renewable resources, because I LOVE the land. I hate watching Walmart build new stores, abandoning the old stores, which frequently go unused for years. I like supporting the local economy, because I support small businesses, and I usually get better service. I want to protect my precious land from urban sprawl (at heart I'm a farmer), and I truly believe that many of the people who build houses outside the city don't want to live in the country, they just want better neighborhoods and schools. I think urban renewal is much better for that. However, I don't think it's something that should be regulated by law. I think the grassroots movements in this area is where it's at. I like buying organic, because I truly believe it is better for my family and my land, but I also know I can't always afford to do so. It's a delicate balancing act. I am someone who would prefer to be completely self-sufficient, completely off the grid. Not because I don't want to use electricity, but rather because I want to be able to completely care for my family and myself. Many environmentalists, though, would snub that reason. Never mind the fact that it is just as environmentally healthy as the person who lives off-grid for environmental reasons. There are many things I want to do, but just aren't possible at this time in my life.
And, that my friends, is where the environmentalist movement looses me. You see, as a whole, it is extreme. It believes that everyone should stop all 'earth damaging' things immediately. I just can't see my way to do that. I have to think short and long term. Plus, I have to think logically. I have to realize that some of the things environmentalists call for (see burning above) are absolutely ridiculous. And, hopefully, the environmentalists will begin to see that moderation is called for.
Wow. I know that was really rambling, and probably did not get my point across, at all. It was just a stream of conscience post. I'm sorry. Please, comment so that we can talk, and maybe I can get it out a little better.
Monday, January 25, 2010
The ugly truth, as much as a lover as I am, is that I really have this desire to knock someone out, just once. That is really sad, and it is certainly not a martial arts attitude. But, it's the truth, and above all else, I value honesty.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
I am not waiting. I am not grieving for any one person. So far as I know, I have no friends or family affected (other than being sent there to help in rescue efforts) by the earthquake in Haiti. However, today I read this.
Relatives of Americans Missing in Haiti Angry
It made me extremely sad. I know that they just want to know. The waiting to know is almost unbearable. But, have they not seen the utter devastation? Do they not realize that it may take months, even years, to find everyone that was covered in the rubble? Do they not realize that their loved ones may never be found? Do they not realize that Haiti is a third world country and does not have the access to the things we do, in situations like this? Do they not remember how long it took to identify bodies after 9/11, and that not all the people were found? Do they not realize that rescue crews are doing everything they can to help everyone? I know that grief can make you crazy, but expecting a miracle just because miracles happen is too much. Miracles don't happen because we're the US. Our government is not the cause of miracles. That's a huge misconception.
I am so sorry for all the loss of lives, homes, and families in Haiti. I wish that I was still nursing so that I could donate breastmilk for the babies. I wish that they needed Gary. If Gary went down there, I would feel like I was doing something. As it is, I just have to keep living my life.
Edit: And, this is what I'm talking about. There is no way, with all the mass graves, that everyone will be identified. And, truly, I feel for these families. My brother drowned 10 1/2 years ago. He was identified by tattoos and a steel plate in his hand. None of his friends or family ever saw him. Sometimes, it is hard for me to believe he is really dead, even though I logically know that he is. It will be even harder for these families if their loved ones are never found. But, it's not the government's fault. It just is.