Category Archives: Culture Wars

Decided to link to this blog piece, because it offers a “speculation” that I think needs to be truthfully answered by the FBI.  If this blogger’s “speculation” is true, then we most assuredly need a top to bottom review on how the FBI handles counter-terrorism activities and some serious accountability.  In addition, this administration’s policies on counter-terrorism need a serious overhaul.  The blog, The Diplomad 2.0, ran this piece April 25th titled, “Paying Our Executioners, or You Can’t Spell Massachusetts without Ass”.

The details to be fleshed out are:

When did Tamerlan Tsarnaev show up on the FBI and CIA’s radar as a potential Islamic extremist?

Why so many conflicting reports among  federal agencies (Homeland Security, FBI, and CIA)?

Was the FBI aware of or involved in Tsarnaev’s six month trip to Russia and how did Tsarnaev finance this trip?

Why wasn’t the FBI aware of when Tsarnaev re-entered the USA?

How many contacts with Tsarnaev did the FBI or CIA have, the dates of these contacts and the reason for these contacts?

Did the Russian government warn the US about the older Tsarnaev and if so, what actions were taken regarding this warning(s)?

Was the FBI using Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an informant?

Did the FBI’s purge of Islamic “unfriendly” training material hamper this Boston Marathon investigation (link here)?

The national press fleetingly touched on the fertilizer plant explosion that occurred in West, Texas Wednesday evening, leaving 14 people dead and close to 200 injured, but the Boston terrorist drama garnered almost 24/7 non-stop coverage.  During that much uninterrupted coverage a heck of a lot has been said about radical Islam, these two young Chechen immigrants, law enforcement, our legal system, our American resilience and also our American spirit.  If only a few spontaneous public singalongs of the national anthem (here) or Neil Diamond leading a crowd singing, “Sweet Caroline” (here) were all it takes to heal what ails the American spirit.  Sadly, this week demonstrated more divides in our American character, leaving us with more personalities than Sybil, the lead character in the 1976 made-for-TV movie, starring Sally Field as the young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder and ostensibly displaying 16 different personalities.  Of course, Sybil turned out to be a fraud (here, here, here),as does much of the commentary coming out of the left.

Salon’s columnist, David Sirota, wrote a whining, condemnation against “white” America, filled with angry diatribes against the unfair double standard in our treatment of “terrorists” and he expressed his hope that the perpetrator(s) of the Boston bombing be “white” Americans rather than foreigners with a Muslim connection (story here).  Much of what he states, including his title, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”, comes across as sheer racism.  Why would anyone “hope” that a terrorist be of a certain ethnicity?  What fuels that kind of warped mind-set?  The answer clearly is the multiculturalist elites in our society want to perpetuate a narrative of “angry, racist whites”, who trample upon all other ethnic groups.  As numerous pundits (Mark Steyn here) have commented, Sirota got his wish, sort of.  The perpetrators are “Caucasians”, direct from the Caucasus, but alas to burst his bubble of hope, they also hold a tie to radical Islamist indoctrination, the full details of which remain unknown.

In the coming weeks, these missing pieces will fall into place and many calls for more surveillance, less immigration, and wider police powers will echo from the political right, while the left will flim flam along with counter punches and rail about racism and take to the soapbox to warn about retaliation against Muslims in general.  Both sides offer no solution to the problem.  Exchanging liberty for a false sense of security that a police state offers is truly a deal with the devil.  More government encroachment into our daily lives will yield little in protection and cost us way too much of our precious freedom.  Pretending the Islamic extremism problem is over-hyped or mischaracterized, as the left is wont to do, leaves us wide open to more attacks and places us in a perpetual state of national delusion (as President Obama has done trying to downplay the radical Islamist threat).  The path to take lies in the middle – follow the laws we have.   We have within our legal arsenal the means to deal with terrorists of any ilk.  We need to start trusting in the Constitution again, instead of acting like each crime is some unique situation.

America remains stuck in a polarized political rut, where far too many Americans dislike, demonize and distrust those who hold differing political views.  We’ve become a nation where the national political operatives have invested decades in furthering this divide.  Several years ago I posted on a political chat room site where most of the chatters were regulars.  All of us were news junkies of the worst sort – the type who live and breathe breaking news stories and of course, we could regurgitate our political side’s talking points verbatim.  In the sense of shallow victories, this chat room provided many easy targets to hit against on both sides, but the sad part was no one was actually communicating.  Each side waited for the other to post their latest vitriolic attack, having their counterattack at the ready.  This format emulates the decades old TV formula of pitting political pundits from the left and right against each other, which creates more riveting TV, but isn’t quit so enchanting in real life where we need to work together with all types of people.    I quit posting there due to real life time demands and then a year or so ago, I stopped by that same chat room and lo’ and behold most of the same chatters were there, posting the same partisan drivel and yes, many remembered me.  I thought about how much time I had spent engaged in this partisan flame-throwing in this chat room (although I had prided myself on being a “polite” partisan).   I thought about how much time was wasted trying to score political points rather than trying to understand the other person’s point of view or God forbid, moving an iota from our entrenched viewpoint toward some compromises.  We live in a take no prisoners political climate,  where each side bolts to the extremes, rather than trying to find some common ground.

The solution to our American decline lies in finding that common ground.  America is a country founded by immigrants.  We must continue to welcome foreigners, to include Muslim immigrants.  We should all set the example of welcoming immigrants into our communities and help them assimilate.  The success or failure of  immigrants should not depend on them clinging to a small ethnic enclave within some major city.  We should make the effort to reach out a hand in our communities to welcome and help those new to our country, rather than eye them with suspicion.  And political partisans  sure need to start listening to each other rather than talking past each other.  Just act like you’re talking to someone in your family with whom you disagree – no matter how much you disagree; you’re still family.  We are all Americans – let’s remember that common ground more often.

One can only marvel at how President Obama and his political compatriots’  answer to every “problem” starts and ends with more government.  A Family Security Matters piece on April 10, 2013 (here) offers a new proposal for funding national public preschool.  He aims large and tries to kill two birds with one stone – to better prepare children for the demands of life in the global economy and alleviate the burden of child-care expenses for parents.   Decades ago, the feminists came up with some guilt-relief mantra to assuage working mothers’ anxieties and guilt about being away from their children so many hours.  They touted, “it’s the quality of time you spend with your kids, not the quantity of time”, meaning if you only saw your child a couple hours a day and you made those hours “quality time”,  all was well with your parenting.  We now have a nation of ill-mannered children, lacking manners, social skills, engaged in an ever widening array of anti-social behavior and the left’s answer is always more government programs.  “Bullying” is a national crisis – can you believe how absurd that is?  Let’s roll up our pants and wade through the mire of  trite excuses and rambling rationalizations and face the truth – too many parents abdicated their responsibility to train their own children!

Admittedly, I was an anachronism to my generation, because I yearned to be a homemaker as my “career” and my husband thought our kids would fare better with me at home, because he was gone a lot.  So, without government advisers, my plan was I spent time teaching them many things, taking them to the library on a regular basis, reading to them daily, teaching them to do chores, crafts, manners, play well with others – along with keeping them clean, fed and nursing all their bumps and scrapes and listening to them.  Never once did I long for the government to “provide” or “assist” me in caring for my children, because that job belonged to my husband and me.  Here’s a truth that may not be PC, but it’s the truth – your children are your responsibility.  Instead of  looking to the federal  government to care for your children – you should do that.

We’ve been spoon-fed this child-rearing slop, disguised as “expert” advice from yahoos in academia about how much children need to learn “social skills” in a school environment and how important it is to start kids early on all these classes and limitless array of activities to better prepare children for school.  Often, these pint-sized future “global citizens” from middle class America get jostled along with busier social calendars than most adults – dance class, sports, etc., etc.  However, in lower income families, often single-parent homes – these kids get shuffled around with whoever can keep them.  These mostly single moms lead lives where the overarching theme can be summed up as “chaotic” and one step away from the next “crisis”.  These are children in homes bereft of financial security, lacking strong family bonds, littered with an array of boyfriends and varying home living arrangements, food insecurity and often many other problems.  The political right fumes about “welfare moms”, failing to realize that for every one of these children there is some man who failed to be a responsible father.  These women often do not have the means to provide the basics, they often lack transportation, so even if they find a job, getting there can be problematic. Way too often they opt for less than reliable childcare options, because  paying for a day care is out of their price range.   No government reform will resolve this problem.  The solution is men need to quit finding excuses and step up to the plate and start mentoring young boys on how to become responsible men.    Instead of some bureaucratic federal expansion of Pre-k, what is needed are communities developing some innovative  programs where people come together to help struggling families gain some stability and get on the path to taking charge of their own destiny, rather then spinning in endless circles, getting ever more firmly tangled in federal governmental red tape.

Sure, even I fell for the “social skills” line to a certain extent, because we all want our children to be productive, happy members of the “human race” (not the same as  a “global citizen” – I assure you).  We want our kids to learn to get along with other people and so we fall prey to these “experts” advising us on child-rearing, when we’d really be better off to rely on our family and friends.    And of course, we want our children to learn and be successful students.

Once again, I’ll opt for home remedies to solve this problem.  What we need are more parents spending more time training their own children during the pre-kindergarten years. Here’s my libertybelle recipe for teaching and training young children (disclaimer:  I’m not an “expert”, just a mom who stayed at home with my four children and moved them frequently)  Oh, and my plan doesn’t cost taxpayers anything;-)

1. Be a good example for your child – be the leader of your family.
2. Put your child’s best interests before your own wants.
3. Start instilling values in your child at an early age – teaching children right from wrong is your responsibility.
4. Teach you child manners and to respect others.
5. Stop yelling so much and start talking with and listening to your child
6. Smile at and laugh with your child – developing a sense of humor is important
7. Read to your child.
8. Teach your child as many skills as you can and teach your child to approach life as a problem-solver (crucial to learning self-sufficiency).
9. Give your child chores to do (learning to be part of a team).
10. Less TV and more time spent playing outside.

And one last thing, that I’ve noticed is sorely lacking with many young parents – set up a daily routine and stick to it.  Children need security and setting up a normal daily routine – meals at the table, set nap time and bed time, and having a structure to their lives makes children feel secure.   Way too often I have seen children out in stores late at night or parents dragging small children around non-stop or homes where there appears to be no structure whatsoever.  Years ago a young mother asked me how to get her two young boys to eat a meal sitting down at a table and for a moment, I was stunned.  Children thrive in a structured environment and we all function better if we set up a routine and follow it.   My children moved from the high chair to the booster seat to the kitchen chair, with a set meal routine – and I taught them how to set the table for meals, so I asked her how they ate their meals now.  She told me they climbed all over the kitchen bar, crawled around the floor and ran around the house with their food.  The solution is don’t scream, yell or threaten to beat kids – set up a daily routine, set a good example and stick with it.

The hardcore  feminists, with their rigid orthodoxy when it comes to the “proper” way to refer to a lady, oops I meant “woman” hit the warpath again..   President Obama unwittingly walked into this fly trap of word choices, when he referred to Kamala Harris, CA’s attorney general as the “best-looking” attorney general in the country during a fundraising speech on April 4, 2013 (here).    One would think that after the Clinton years, where the prominent feminist mouthpieces found new and creative semantic contortions to salvage Bill Clinton  from the misogynist manure pile, their hypocrisy had reached its zenith.  They feverishly worked to convince people that his behavior was not  that of a “cad” (now there’s a word from the bygone days when “gentlemen” existed).  Instead, the fault rested with right-wing haters who exposed Clinton’s private conduct.  Now, President Obama for merely stating (what is obvious to any objective person ) that  Kamala Harris is a beautiful woman got that feminist hornet’s nest buzzing in outrage and of course, President Obama quickly apologized for his choice of words.    Despite the social conditioning from the feminist relics of the 60s, yes, people (and men in particular) still notice beautiful women and despite all the lip service to feminism, women spend plenty of time and money on their appearance and seeking male notice.  President Obama noticed what is obvious and the shrill feminist response should make rational people laugh these tired old feminist harpies off the national stage.  That a rather innocuous remark should illicit so much press and debate, demonstrates that the feminists will never be satisfied, as they keep demanding  an ever-widening array of concessions and adherence to their evolving “code” of what they deem acceptable “gender neutral” living.   Men and women really are not interchangeable parts in society, but on the serious sociological plane –  they will always be different and those differences should not be the cause of so much angst.

In the same week, a Princeton graduate, Susan Patton, came under fire for writing an article urging Princeton’s female students to seriously think about marriage and finding their catch (future spouse)  from the prospective pool of males who swim in the male undergraduate pond. (story here).  Once again a feminist furor arose.  How dare this woman suggest young women think about marriage, when career should be the defining role for these bright young women.  Of course, in perfect timing with this Princeton uproar and President Obama’s alleged “sexist comment”, comes Hillary Clinton droning on about how the clock is turning back for women in America, in a speech at the Women In The World summit, April 5th, in New York (here is a news report from the Washington Examiner).   Obviously she lives a life disconnected from the real world where many employers have shed full-time positions and opted to go with less of a benefit burden using part-time employees, as they await the full impact of Obamacare to hit their bottom line.  She’s yammering for equal pay and paid family and medical leave benefits in this depressing job climate.   Most women I know, unlike Chelsea and her friends that Hillary cites as her link to average women, want to keep the jobs they have, even if they are working well under their educational qualifications.

Frankly, many people, both men and women, seem pretty happy just to have a job these days and this clamor for more benefits comes from the mouths of out of touch wealthy women like Hillary, who have never had to struggle to make ends meet or struggle to maintain a home, care for their own children and work outside the home too.  Average women don’t have the luxury to sit in their ivory tower whining at symposiums about how much more the government should interfere in our daily lives; we do the best we can to manage our own homes, our own children and our own lives.  The more these agents of change have undermined traditional family values, the worse off way too many women are when it comes to finding a happy balance between family and career, with feminists at the ready to denigrate women who opt for less career and more family time.  Hillary’s advice is truly outdated, as thousands of young female college grads can’t find jobs and those who wasted money on degrees in useless fields like “women’s studies” face a very limited job pool and stiff competition in academia or think tanks that have use for that niche degree.  Perhaps college counselors should be advising young women on career paths where there is a real job in the real world upon graduation, instead of promulgating so many useless degree programs.  Forcing employers to pay full family and medical leave benefits, in addition to all the Obamacare demands will leave women with less jobs – in an already dismal job market.  It’s just the same tired old retreaded dogmatic feminist mantra, so they put their bras back on (thankfully) and young women are fully indoctrinated in feminist doublespeak, so when is enough “equality” ever enough?  For Hillary, it’s when she gets to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office (let me find a safe place to move when that happens), but for millions of other women, living life as a constant victim and as a combatant against manhood doesn’t hold any luster.  Most women want to get married and many even still want to have children, as part of their path to a happy fulfilled life.

Woe be it for me to point out, but despite the social engineering feminists of old, many smart young women still want to fall in love, get married and have kids.  How dare they yearn for more than smashing glass ceilings and blazing feminist trails that so animates these feminist relics and remains their same-old feminist chorus.    A man compliments a beautiful woman and the woman says thank-you – that should be the end of President Obama stating the obvious.  Kamala Harris is a beautiful woman.  Men complimenting women or treating them respectfully shouldn’t be the cause of a national debate on “sexism” and vice versa, a woman commenting about a handsome man shouldn’t cause a clamor.

From my viewpoint, I loved being a homemaker, which suited my strengths – taking care of people, baking, cooking, and I always liked domestic chores, even ironing.  And it provided many opportunities for me to do volunteer work in my kids schools and in our military community, which full-time working moms don’t have time for.  My parents pushed career choices and were all that is encouraging.  My Dad, who thought I should be a lawyer, was dismayed when I told him I didn’t want to do that and he asked me what career I wanted to pursue.  I told him that I want to be a homemaker and that is exactly what I did when the opportunity presented itself – best choice I ever made for me and my family honestly.  I respect women, like my sisters, who pursued careers and made some tough bargains to manage family and career obligations or my mother who took care of six children and still worked as a registered nurse at a local hospital, but we should be encouraging young women to respect different choices and to finally call a truce in this battle of the sexes.

Last night Bill O’Reilly launched into a tirade against his guest, Laura Ingraham, over some rumored feud between O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh over the gay marriage issue.   As rival, ultra-liberal network MSNBC defined the feud as Limbaugh commenting on  O’Reilly’s perceived flip-flop on gay marriage (here).  I watched O’Reilly ranting at Laura Ingraham and his rudeness at cutting her off  shocked me.  He repeatedly yelled that he is the one who embraces the enlightened position on gay marriage, citing he has always supported civil unions and thinks each state should decide the matter.  What struck me most was how he treated Ingraham, who has filled in as a guest host for O’Reilly many times over the years and been a frequent guest on his show.  His volatile emotional outburst got me thinking about how all these hot button political issues always rest on emotional appeals to “fairness” and being “open-minded”, where anyone opposed to the latest societal push leftward starts out already marginalized and pigeon-holed as a bigot.  Particularly telling was how two self-described devout Catholics, like O’Reilly and Ingraham argued over O’Reilly’s use of the phrase “thump the Bible”, a tactic which O’Reilly  castigated traditional marriage proponents for using.  Ingraham took offense to the term and based on the MSNBC piece, apparently Limbaugh commented on that too.  O’Reilly argued that the anti-gay marriage folks (supporters of traditional marriage) need to make a “secular” case against gay marriage (or maybe what’s really called for is a compelling argument for gay marriage).  O’Reilly condescendingly telling Ingraham that he was disappointed in her comments, demonstrates how these hot-button issues skid into emotionalism rather than serious debate.  O’Reilly wanted to make sure his audience knows he is “fair-minded”, making the debate about his enlightened views rather than seriously debating same-sex marriage.

Decades of legislation precede this latest push to redefine marriage, all wrapped up in tidy, “fair-minded” secular language.  If marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, then certainly same-sex marriage should not invoke much angst.  Legislation forces cultural change, leaving in its wake fractured social institutions and a growing number of morally-confused people.  Just a few examples to highlight my point, well, first last year Dr. Phil ran a show about a mother who wants the “right” to euthanize her severely-handicapped adult  children (here).  Dr. Phil and the mother framed the issue as putting these handicapped adults out of their suffering – an act of mercy.  The vast majority of the audience embraced the idea of murdering these two adults with severe disabilities.  Another “issue” that hit the news in recent years took the “viable fetus” argument off the table and in its place came the argument that between a woman and her doctor, should rest the decision to murder a child born from a botched abortion procedure.    That these issues are even up for debate demonstrates the slippery slope of the left’s march toward their utopian visions of a “fair” society, devoid of the constrictions of our narrow-minded, patriarchal forefathers visions of “equal protection under the law”.   And here’s a subject near and dear to my heart, our US military and the endless throes of integrating women and women’s issues on military planning and readiness.  We’ve witnessed a decade of  a cottage industry in the news business to promote and glorify moms deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq, pretending this is just peachy for all these children and that all these women have adequate long-term, 24 hour a day, childcare plans in place.  No one wants to look too closely at the reality of how children, especially very young children,  fare when their mother leaves them for a year.  It’s all wonderful, so don’t look askance at a mother abandoning  a baby, just smile and applaud these women who can have it all.  Juxtaposed next to these  happy human interest pieces are pieces like this Huffington Post article (here), citing that women in the military are twice as likely to divorce as their male counterparts.  Here’s a 2009 CNN piece on military children being at a high risk of psychological problems when parents deploy (here).

After being hit with the same-sex couple dying partner trope for years, even some conservatives like me felt my heartstrings being pulled and I relented and reluctantly moved toward a less rigid stand against “civil unions”.   No one wants to wear the bigot label, so the left’s relentless mainstreaming efforts work like magic over time and they know this.  Jonah Goldberg wrote  an excellent USA Today piece (here), where he explains how he feels about the gay marriage issue.  Goldberg approaches the issue assuming goodwill on both sides, which sure sounds nice and “fair”.  The only qualm for me rests on decades of experience watching how these cultural issues play out with political activists on the left.  Are they arguing for a chance to have cozy traditional marriages or are they intent of destroying the institution of marriage from within and turning it into a meaningless contract from which they can rewrite all laws pertaining to family matters in society?.  With one fell swoop do they intend to erase thousands of years of civilization’s lessons and remake society to their utopian vision?    Can religion, as O’Reilly argues, really be completely erased from the secular arguments or are the lessons gathered from religious teachings vital to our civic undertakings?  Do religious tenets of right and wrong form the basis of our laws?

Lots of questions left to ponder on the same-sex marriage issue and not much more than raucous political flame-throwing from both sides of the political spectrum.  The supreme irony lies with the left pushing free-love outside the confines of marriage for decades and now they’ve come back to wrestle the institution of marriage from the hands of religion entirely and under the new incantation, marriage will be “transformed” into some new institution.  That’s a certainty..  It wasn’t enough to urge women to abandon marriage as a evil remnant of our patriarchal bondage, now marriage is an institution that same sex couples aspire to, but oddly enough the left still isn’t too motivated to support heterosexual marriage.  Where are the left’s mouthpieces rallying for heterosexual marriage and purporting the virtues of marriage, if as they insist, marriage is a civil right now that must not be denied to same-sex couples?  Still here in the boonies waiting to figure out the devil in all these details.

After a relentless onslaught of “opinions” from the punditry flock, well I’m left sneezing from so many feathers being ruffled over the same-sex marriage debate that rages on and on and on.  The PC culture effort to mainstream “alternative lifestyles” confidently proclaimed victory with polling data, as this Slate piece asserted last week.   Considering American culture takes it’s cues from pop culture, Hollywood and mass media outlets, this change in public opinion comes as no surprise.  Americans worry about “fairness” and “equal rights” more than any other people on earth, so framing the issue of same sex marriage in terms of a civil rights struggle muffled most of the opposition, because it’s difficult to argue against an issue framed in those terms.  The demagogues on the left marginalize all opposing viewpoints, labeling opponents as hatemongers, who secretly have a white hood buried in their closet.  So, the beginning the argument on same sex marriage should begin by defining what marriage is and what’s the difference between marriage and domestic partnerships.  The same sex marriage activists insist they must have marriage.    The only certainty is that no matter what the US Supreme Court decides, without a doubt if the court makes any sweeping changes it will set up another Roe v. Wade scenario, where the decision will only serve to fuel more heated public confrontations.  It won’t settle the matter, because at heart a “legal decision” can’t settle cultural upheavals that only society, in time comes to grips with.

Starting at the heart of the CA issue, same-sex couples now do have all the “civil rights” as traditional heterosexual married couples, under their 1999 domestic partnership law and with subsequent modifications in the  intervening years.   So what’s at stake is more about forcing a change in the definition of marriage using the civil rights Jim Crow argument that “separate but equal” isn’t “equal” at all.  How this would be envisioned to work with regards to the rights of various churches and their religious tenets on marriage, confuses me.  Would churches be forced to perform marriage ceremonies, against their religious tenets?  Would churches be subject to being sued for civil rights violations for refusing to perform same-sex marriage services or for speaking out against homosexuality?  Perhaps my concerns sound absurd and alarmist, but after watching the relentless attacks on religious institutions over contraception last year, well, there’s always a large degree of deception with the left and their redefining traditional sexual roles in society.  Just as with the ardent feminists, equal pay for equal work and opening up career opportunities was never enough, insisting on a pervasive cultural indoctrination program that they waged  for decades.  “Experts” to tell us how men and women should interact, mass media deluges to reeducate us on the correct way to view sexual identity and women’s roles in society, and plenty of academics to fill bookshelves with how-to manuals on feminist living .

Once ordinary people started listening to these harpies, it became taboo to speak up for traditional female roles, like being a stay at home mother.  In fact, to this day the brainwashing is so persistent that many women feel ostracized for choosing to care for their own children.  As a mother who stayed home with my children and lived through the decades where absurd tropes were dished out to convince American families that it was just wonderful to shove the kiddos in daycare, I remember their mantra that what mattered was “quality time” (isn’t that one of the most idiotic phrases ever pawned on the unsuspecting public) over the quantity of time.  What matters to young children is a safe, secure routine and frankly most small children fare better in a loving home environment rather than a school setting and knowing that Mom is there all the time matters.   The argument that a paid daycare worker has the same vested interest in a child’s welfare as that child’s mother never rang true to me.   So, now we’re having same-sex marriage foisted on us and it’s either embrace it or be labeled a bigoted, hatemonger, worthy of  nothing but endless scorn and derision.  No one is allowed to say, “I do not condone homosexuality, because of my religious convictions.”  That makes you a religious zealot and a hater.  So, what these activist are after goes far beyond simply getting court rulings favoring same-sex marriage.  They are like President Obama, wanting fundamental transformation of America.

For decades the feminist mouthpieces presented “scientific studies” and a parade of “experts” to put forth their view that children are better off in daycare and with happy career mothers rather than being cared for at home by an unhappy drudge mother, who would rather be anywhere but at home.  Needless to say, one shoe doesn’t fit all and many mothers have no choice but to work, many choose to be at home, many choose career and many others choose some combination of either staying at home during the early childhood years and returning to work or working part-time.  All these “choices’ truly are personal choices and should be respected, although it always makes me chuckle to read about those home-schooled kid and how well they score when pitted against public school students – kind of hints that staying at home has some benefits.  Within most families, we all have mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, etc., who chose various routes to caring for their children and formed opinions. It took decades to see the carnage of the single-mother/absent father family model though and no amount of Hollywood glorification could bandage over the gaping wound it has left on society.  The family unit, as thousands of years of  civilization defined it – a husband and a wife, really does provide the most stable model, despite the dopey social dogma from academics.  Can children prosper in alternative arrangements?  Without a doubt many children do prosper, but that doesn’t really negate the argument that strong traditional family units create a social fabric with a stronger, more durable weave than all these other models.  A single-mother, unless she has the financial means to pay for a lot of help, most assuredly will struggle to manage all the duties inherent in caring for children, maintaining a home and juggling a career besides.  And strong, reliable  fathers matter a great deal to a child’s well-being too, no matter how loudly the feminists shriek otherwise.

Trying to explain traditional marriage as  more than a legal contract (as my one daughter explains it to me),  but as a covenant with God, where a man and a woman stand before God and pledge to become a team that has a mission sounds archaic.  Central to this belief system is the sadly lacking component, my Dad’s cardinal rule – “if you give your word, you keep it!”   The concept of an oath that’s for life does not fit well with our modern, me-first culture.  Sure, a lot of Americans still cringe at homosexuality being mainstreamed or they want to cling to traditional marriage as optimal, but even among these people, the vast majority abdicated walking the talk decades ago.  They divorce at the first hint of adversity and they feed at the trough of pop culture, leaving us with a society mired in  moral ambiguity and muddled values,  regardless what the US Supreme Court decides.  At this point our culture is so fractured, self-indulgent, historically clueless, and intellectually lazy that court rulings won’t much impact the deep morass we’re in.  In a society where everything you want to do is a “right”, the moral imperatives to look beyond your own self -interests begin to vanish. So, what’s next after same sex marriage is mainstreamed?