Parenting, Sex, and the State

I attended a previewing for parents of a sex ed video to be shown in a certain grade level in a particular public elementary school. Alarmingly, in a school with at least 100 (maybe more) children in the subject grade level, I was one of six parents to attend.  Of those six parents, four were husband and wife.  In other words, four children/families were represented.

Now, regardless of whether your values with respect to sex are more traditional or progressive, wouldn't you have expected more parents to care about how sex was being introduced to their children by the STATE for the first time?

Maybe for all of our pomp and waxing poetic about our love and care for the little ones in our country, we really don't give a damn about them...  even those who inhabit our own homes.... 

Hate, Stupidity & Racism

I think robust debate is good for our country, for strengthening our values, and for sharpening the application of our values. In an effort to promote legitimate debate between you and me by avoiding caricatures of each other, I suggest the following:

1. Stop calling me stupid when I disagree with you.
2. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am hate-filled. Just because I am pro-life and am not pro-gay marriage doesn't mean I hate gays and women. Just because you oppose the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam or every war doesn't mean you hate soldiers.
3. Stop calling me a racist if I don't buy what our current President is selling.

My question to you: What do I do that caricatures you and hinders our debate?

Don't Tread on Me

I did not attend a Tea Party, but I watched the coverage (in all its forms) with interest. Here are two observations about the coverage:

1. Fox News covered these with interest. Promote is too strong a word to use, but its probably close to the right one.
2. CNN, NBC (in all its forms), CBS and ABC ignored these at best and generally ridiculed (see "tea bagging") what they did cover. I wonder what the coverage would have been like had the primary message been protesting a war.

Why did the media (and many elected Democrats) choose to ridicule these gatherings? It appears to me as though this was a legitimate grass roots movement (via email and blogs) of a significant portion of the populace that was mad as hell at their elected officials (Democrat and Republican) over spending.

I didn't hear our President address these Tea Parties directly. (Maybe he did.) I did hear him talk about how great his tax plan is and we should't worry and we'll have a kinder and gentler April 15 from here on out.

Here's what I think he should have done: He should have held a press conference and had a Bill Clinton moment. "I feel your pain." He should have acknowledged the outrage and asked for patience and trust. Now, maybe that would have only impressed me, but at least he would have been engaging We the People with respect. Is that too much to ask?

My question to you (don't everybody respond at once): Why are some folks ridiculing the Tea Parties rather than debating their message?

Right Wing Extremist

See this report:
http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf

My question to you: How far to the right do you have to be before the DHS determines you are extreme?

TR

Teddy Roosevelt used to say, "Over, under or through.  NEVER around."

My Question to you:  Knowing me as well as you do, why do I love this statement so much?

Sell By...

In 1947, out of a concern that FDR's four terms provided the Executive branch with too much power, the Legislative branch proposed a limitation on any individual serving as President to 2 terms or 10 years, whichever is longer. This was ratified by the 50 states in 1951. This appears to me to be a wise and textbook use of separate powers to place a check upon one and keep in balance all of the branches of government. Its nice that We the People had a say, too.

Consider this: at least 25 senators have served for 34 or more years. In last year's Senate, two senators had served for 36 years, two had served for 46 years, and one, Robert Byrd, had served for an astounding 50 years.

My question to you: Should we impose term limits on our Senators? If so, how long?



* By the way, Term Limits, by Vince Flynn is outstanding!

Protocol

This last week, our President bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia. This further stirred up the conservative hornet nest. Frankly, it doesn't sit quite right with me either because our President is not merely a man, but a repersentative of these sovereign United States.

Two hundred and some odd years ago, then Ambassador, John Adams, performed the same humble motion before the King of England, against whom he had recently taken up arms. History's verdict is that Adams' conduct enabled (maybe too strong a word) the young nation to survive by doing much to repair the wide rift between the nations. At the least, Adams contributed to postponing the next conflict with England.

My question to you: Is there a difference between a President and an Ambassador bowing before a foreign king?

UPDATE: Apparently the current administration is reading (but curiously not posting on) my blog! Now, no bow ever occurred - regardless of what you think you saw: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html

Apologies

Our new President is making it a priority to "mend fences" and un-hurt feelings in Europe and the Middle East. Without a doubt, many countries who in the past had been our friends have a less-than-favorable opinion of us as a result of our previous President and his policies.

My question to you: While humbling yourself and apologizing is an effective way to fix problems here in the West, is this an effective and persuasive technique for a Western power to employ in the Middle East?

Chapter, The First

The 18th Century Thomas Paine said that society is mankind's tool for furthering his pleasures.  On the other hand, government is a necessary evil for retarding mankind's evils.  Therefore, common sense dictates that the minimum possible amount of government is the ideal. 

My question to you, oh heretofore silent reader:  Is "small government" a fundamental principle of the founding of this American Experiment?