A Lesson in Socialization 8-)

Two women meet at a playground, where their children are swinging and playing ball. The women are sitting on a bench watching. Eventually, they begin to talk.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Hi. My name is Maggie. My kids are the
three in red shirts - helps me keep track of them.

OTHER MOTHER: (Smiles) I'm Terri. Mine are in the pink
and yellow shirts. Do you come here a lot?

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Usually two or three times a week, after
we go to the library.

OTHER MOTHER: Wow! Where do you find the time?

HOMESCHOOL MOM: We home school, so we do it during the
day most of the time.

OTHER MOTHER: Some of my neighbors home school, but I
send my kids to public school.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: How do you do it?

OTHER MOTHER: It's not easy. I go to all the PTA
meetings and work with the kids every day after school
and stay real involved.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: But what about socialization? Aren't you
worried about them being cooped up all day with kids
their own ages, never getting the opportunity for
natural relationships?

OTHER MOTHER: Well, yes. But I work hard to balance
that. They have some friends who're home schooled, and
we visit their grandparents almost every month.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Sounds like you're a very dedicated mom.
But don't you worry about all the opportunities they're
missing? I mean they're so isolated from real life - how
will they know what the world is like - what people do
to make a living - how to get along with all different
kinds of people?

OTHER MOTHER: Oh, we discussed that at PTA, and we
started a fund to bring real people into the classrooms.
Last month, we had a policeman and a doctor come in to
talk to every class. And next month, we're having a
woman from Japan and a man from Kenya come to speak.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Oh, we met a man from Japan in the
grocery store the other week, and he got to talking
about his childhood in Tokyo. My kids were absolutely
fascinated. We invited him to dinner and got to meet his
wife and their three children.

OTHER MOTHER: That's nice. Hmm. Maybe we should plan
some Japanese food for the lunchroom on Multicultural
Day.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Maybe your Japanese guest could eat with
the children.

OTHER MOTHER: Oh, no. She's on a very tight schedule.
She has two other schools to visit that day. It's a
system-wide thing we're doing.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, maybe you'll meet
someone interesting in the grocery store sometime and
you'll end up having them over for dinner.

OTHER MOTHER: I don't think so. I never talk to people
in the store - certainly not people who might not even
speak my language. What if that Japanese man hadn't
spoken English?

HOMESCHOOL MOM: To tell you the truth, I never had time
to think about it. Before I even saw him, my six-year-
old had asked him what he was going to do with all the
oranges he was buying.

OTHER MOTHER: Your child talks to strangers?

HOMESCHOOL MOM: I was right there with him. He knows
that as long as he's with me, he can talk to anyone he
wishes.

OTHER MOTHER: But you're developing dangerous habits in
him. My children never talk to strangers.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Not even when they're with you?

OTHER MOTHER: They're never with me, except at home
after school. So you see why it's so important for them
to understand that talking to strangers is a big no-no.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Yes, I do. But if they were with you,
they could get to meet interesting people and still be
safe. They'd get a taste of the real world, in real
settings. They'd also get a real feel for how to tell
when a situation is dangerous or suspicious.

OTHER MOTHER: They'll get that in the third and fifth
grades in their health courses.

HOMESCHOOL MOM: Well, I can tell you're a very caring
mom. Let me give you my number--if you ever want to
talk, give me call. It was good to meet you.

The Laughable Hypocrisy of Pro Abortion Democrats

Actually, truth be told, it is not the kind of laughable that is a happy laugh, but more of cynical chuckle, if there is even such a thing. Here you have a nominee for the Supreme Court, every president's right should openings occur on his watch, and never in the history of our Congress has there been such a ridiculous grilling such as there have been for Justices Bork, Thomas, Roberts and soon to come, Alito. This is especially appalling because the judges mentioned here are highly qualified, commanding bipartisan respect as well as have proven records of judicial prowress in judgment and restraint as opposed to activism (a Constitutional no-no that is actually in the Constitution, unlike abortion 'rights'). The Senate has gone so far past what their actual function in such a decision as to now act as if it is their decision who is appointed. In light of the bold fact that the Deomcrats held a majority of seats in the House when Justice Ginsberg was nominated and was overwhelmingly voted to the position she was nominated for, by President Clinton who had every right to do so, should make these Democrats ashamed of themselves for their behavior with the above mentioned judges as well as the ones they trashed such as Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, and Priscilla Owen. The hostility of the questioning (yes, I watch C-Span) was horrific and was all because they held conservative positions, and had nothing to do with their judicial records; as they came highly recommended. I am not sure why the Republicans allowed so blatant a supporter of abortion such as Justice Ginsberg to be spared the line of questioning that the Democrats give to those with conservative positions, I can only hope that they collectively realized a few things: that the President had a right to nominate who he wanted; that if the nominee was highly judicially qualified they should be appointed; that the filibuster is a power play by any group of men or women to simply get their way as they cater to special interests groups who contribute greatly to their campaigns as well as mobilize people to support them for election and re-election; and that try to trap an especially highly qualified nominee into word games so that they make a mistake that can cost them the appointment is infantile. Unfortunately there are plenty of Americans who could care less about someone's qualifications if the person doesn't support abortion on demand at any time for any reason and if at all possible paid for with tax dollars, of which Planned Parenthood, the number one provider of abortions in the USA receives MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to promote. It is indeed a great tragedy that people like myself are all fine and likeable up to and until I say that it is not a Constitutional right for a woman to abort their unborn child, though women who have not wanted to be pregnant for one reason or another through the centuries have done what they could to abort all along. Legal or legal, it is not right, it is wrong. I have read our Constitution and nowhere do I see that right at all, but then again, I didn't see a right to own a person either, as I searched the document for what justices used to support the right of white people to own black people, but more importantly, to say that black people weren't 'people' like white people!! This is the same stupid kind of decision, one that allows human beings with a certain belief to continue to do something terribly wrong under the protection of the law. Pro-choice is no choice for the unborn. Some choices are wrong.
In the meantime, as ultrasounds and continued scientific advancements clearly show the humanity of the offspring of our own human race, abortion promoters, including a large percentage of Congressional Democrats, have all but abandoned the rhetoric of a blob of tissue and products of conception arguments, instead focusing their attention and funds on women's 'rights'. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would turn over in their graves (if such a thing were possible) if they knew that abortion was considered an advancement of what they started oh so many years ago.
Now that it has been discovered in a document that Mr. Alito, oh shock!, has the opinion that the Constitution shows no right to abort the unborn, suddenly he is not qualified? How immature of these men and women, how hypocritical of them as well, and though I laugh and shake my head at them, it is not a laugh of joy, but a laugh of amazement that they actually think they have a right to prevent this man from being appointed to the high court?

The Shame of an American People....

...and government officials as well.

The history of FEMA is quite interesting, if one is willing to look past making President Bush their scapegoat for all things wrong with all things government.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the government responds in an idiotic politically pressured manner in giving away tax dollars with absolutely no conditions when disasters occur. So here we have people who have lived in trailers bought and paid for by the government (translation: all those who pay taxes) and eighteen months later have no place to go other than the trailers, which are temporary shelters, unless the tenants can afford to buy them.

The media frenzy continues to downplay the sheer mismangement as well as deep seated corruption in the government in the districts severely affected by Katrina, holding no one accountable on that level of officials, instead continuing the blame of one man.

What now? The trailer parks-brand spanking new trailers-are filled with people with nothing to do. Adults and teenagers alike need some purpose to drive them, to give them hope as well as a sense of well-being that comes from doing for yourself, not looking to the government to do for you. That is where I take issue with local, state, and federal officials in caring for those in need; nothing is required of them in return for the hand up, it instead becomes a hand out. Perhaps a reason why may be that if they dared ask something of those in need it would be played up politically saying that the President doesn't care for the poor.



In the meantime, what becomes of all this idleness? Crime. Always. And those who don't go the way of crime are trapped by it, and oftentimes also trapped by a way of life they have become familiar with and which offers no hope.

When FEMA sets up a meeting for people of the trailer parks to come together to take care of their community and only twenty-three people show up that gives one an idea of the level of involvment the people are interested in. Is that the President's fault as well?

Approval Ratings

I Just wanted to speak out on this 'approvals ratings' thing that the AP-Ipsos poll speaks about. Unfortunately to be a President, or to even run for president, is probably ninety percent sucking up to 'important' people, being very politicly minded, and spending a lot of time trying to appease this one or that, most definitely in your own party first! And in this day and age where the elephant in the room of every judgment call on all politicians is whether you agree or not agree with abortion, you can be sure that our president started out at a deficit in opinion polls; yes, even in his own party. We must remember that Republicans too, are pro-abortion. Take a look at Mr. Doug Forrester in New Jersey, Christie Whitman, Thomas Kean, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Guiliani, and countless outer well-knowns.

The people spoke out loud and clear in the election and he won fair and square (both times-sour grapes to Democrats) and those who voted for him are now speaking out that they don't approve of his job performance. Why? I wonder. Did he not give someone something they were hoping for? Not pick another for something they felt was deserved? There is always a political reason for disapproval, in my not humble opinion.

If we were to be fair-minded people, of any party and of any belief system, we would first realize that very few of us even know what is entailed in being a president of much of anything, let alone a nation such as ours. Yet we write editiorials, we take polls asking weighted questions on things we have no experience concerning, we spout off and go on and on speaking of so much that we do not know, and more often than not, we simply don't like the person just because they are against abortion, and we hate, and we insult, demean, degrade and speak ill of the person in the office of the head of our nation. It seems rather immature, some of the ways that grown and professional people act, whether they are right about something or not.

The thing about the media today is that it is well known that they have the backs of the Democrats, big time, and for that very same elephant in the room reason, aboriton, so all they do is feed the already frenzied Bush-hating people. I ask you, how in the world does that do our country and its people any justice? There is probably plenty good about the administration and their efforts, even if some of them are well-intentioned as the whacked out budget is, but that to point out the good, to work together on the bad, and strenthen our nation is not what the Democratic Party, as a whole, as well as our media, are about. It is the tearing down, the politicly motivated arrests, the stirring of the pot of dissatisfaction among citizens of our nation, that gives them their good feeling; good feeling being something that they seem to believe they are the only definers of should they play up a human interest story.

That is why I think very little of approval ratings polls. Shame on so many who disapprove of the job the President is doing because their disapproval is politicly motivated by their party loyalty, and shame on so many others who disapprove because they just don't like him and see the poll call as a way to say so without saying so; when for the most part they haven't a clue as to how what is entailed in being the president, let alone any ideas of how to do better whatever it is they disapprove of.