Clearly Nebulous

Supremely Stupid Searches

As if, as a parent, I don't have enough to worry about in sending my children to public school.

There are issues of violence and drugs in schools, though things are pretty quiet round these parts. Still, there has been an occasional incident of fighting, or girls subjected to inappropriate physical contact. In the latter case, it shouldn't have to be the school administration I have to worry about. And definitely not with the blessings of the Supreme Court.

Now my husband and I are all for a school administration having the authority to keep the school safe. In too many houses of learning across the land, teachers' and principals' hands have been tied in their efforts to maintain order in their classrooms. Out-of-control students and litigious parents have only made the situation worse.

We have made it clear to our own children that we expect them to cooperate with their teachers, as they have a hard enough job and they don't need to deal with any tom-foolery. We have made it clear to their teachers that they should call us if any disruptive behavior appears, so it can be nipped in the bud. Thankfully, this has very rarely been any kind of issue.

But in light of the case which will soon be decided by the Supreme Court, we had a very different conversation with our daughters the other night. The highest court in the land will be ruling on a case in which a young girl was subjected to basically a strip search by a school nurse trying to determine if she had concealed a couple of Advils in her underwear. She was forced to remove her clothing and then shake out her undergarments. There were no pills found.

It seems ridiculous to me that this has made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and in every story I have seen or read about this case, the obvious solution has never been mentioned.

The school has argued that it needs to keep the other students safe. From two pain relief pills? I don't care if the girl actually did have the medication. I don't care if they suspected she had crack cocaine, or an automatic weapon, or heck, even a nuclear bomb hidden on her person.

Subjecting that poor girl to a strip search was not only out of bounds, it did nothing to keep the student body safe. If there was an actual concern here, all they had to do was keep the girl away from the rest of the students until -- depending upon the suspected offense -- the student's parents or law enforcement was brought in.

If there was still any suspicion of danger -- remove the student from the school grounds. Why are we arguing whether or not a school can compel a student to remove her clothing? Why haven't government officials been able to come up with this no-brainer solution? Why haven't the great legal minds that have all been reviewing this case come up with this other indisputable recourse?

Because they are too busy proving how clever they are? Because they are more concerned about prevailing in a legal case than they are in the emotional well-being of the students?

So my husband and I informed our children that if this type of incident ever happens to them, they have our explicit permission to say no, and to demand to have us contacted. And if they bring in a police officer without us present, they also have the right to ask for us to be brought in, and/or a lawyer.

We have told them that, while the safety of a school is important, their dignity is tantamount. Supremely simple.

The Truth about Truth -- Sojourner was Pro-Life

Another pro-life feminist foremother was embraced -- perhaps "absconded" would be a better description -- by the pro-choice activists who honored her yesterday at the unveiling of a memorial in the nation's Capitol.

The accounts I have read in the WashPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042803936.html?sub=AR and on pro-abortion blogs praised the life of Sojourner Truth, acknowledging her activism for abolition, against the death penalty and for -- as they reported it -- the vague "women's rights."

Now we all know that when those two words are mentioned in public, a pro-abortion stance is implied. The reporters and attendees of the memorial conveniently failed to mention that Sojourner Truth -- like every single one of her feminist contemporaries -- was against abortion.

I thought it interesting that one of those pro-abortion blogs quoted Truth's most famous speech, not recognizing the obvious pro-life feminist message:

"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? ...I have borne thirteen children, and seen them most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain't I a woman?"

Sojourner Truth knew the strength of women. She knew they could do anything -- that childbirth and motherhood would not preclude them from accomplishing great things. She knew women did not need to dispose of their children to achieve equality.  She knew that those who do not acknowledge the humanity of the preborn are just like those who denied the personhood of black slaves. She called abortion what it is, and decried it as the evil it is.

So it was disheartening to see the likes of the uber-pro-abortion Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi acting as if they are deserved to honor this great champion of the oppressed. And when Michelle Obama declared that she thought Truth would have been proud of her -- a descendant of slaves -- as First Lady, she was only partly right. Sojourner Truth would have been pleased at the position, but appalled at the abortion agenda that helped put Obama there.

Do Your Part on World Malaria Day

Yeah, it was a big joke when there was a race for the first to have a millions "tweeps" -- twitter friends. But Ashton Kutcher won the crown and he made a silly situation mean a lot more when he promised to make a big donation to help fight malaria.

Malaria infects 300-500 million people worldwide annually, according to UNICEF statistics. Nearly 1 million people die each year from the mosquito-borne disease. The majority of deaths are to children in sub-Saharan Africa.

You can read more about what Christian organizations are trying to do at this link:

http://everydaychristian.com/news/story/1787/

and you can make a donation to World Vision's drive to buy protective netting at:

http://www.nightofnets.org/

I'm (going to be like) Ashton Kutcher -- and I'm awesome! You can be awesome too! Make a donation today!

You May Say I'm a Dreamer...

Some comments to my post about Sarah Palin's speech once again brought up some of the same old questions and arguments by the pro-abortion side. My response bears posting, and the pro-life arguments bear repeating:

One comment said "I haven't researched the history of the women's rights movement and how or where abortion comes into play..."

Feminists for Life has well documented that the every single one of the early feminists -- Susan B. Anthony and all her peers -- were against abortion. And not just because it was dangerous. They called it "child-murder" and they worked to advance the recognition of the strength of women and the value of motherhood.

It was in the early '70s that two men -- one a doctor and another a zero-population guy -- convinced feminist leaders (who had previously not considered abortion the sacred cow it now is) that in order to be taken seriously by the workplace, they had to be able to unburden themselves of the trifles of pregnancy.

They made up a number of abortion deaths per year -- they said 10,000 when there were actually 119 in 1970. No one bothered to check. Seriously, if anything was killing that many women, we'd know. They came up with other incredulous arguments -- like young women wouldn't be able to finish their educations. Says who?

A Supreme Court that meant well made a tragic and lawfully unsound decision.

So, pro-abortionists continue to argue that it comes down to women controlling their lives -- can you name any other right that supersedes the right to life in any other situation? (Not self-defense -- you are protecting your own life.) The government would not be controlling anyone's life, They would be acknowledging the right of an innocent person to live, and make taking that life an illegal act.

Which then shifts the argument, what if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy?This is a miniscule fraction of the million-plus abortions every year, and pro-life obstetricians have testified that there is always a treatment that can be tried to preserve both lives. (Sadly, the baby sometimes does not survive the treatment, but at least it's given a chance.) And how does that small fraction justify the other million-plus abortions?

So then the "women will still have abortions and they will be dangerous" argument kicks in. If abortion is made illegal, it will be because the right to life of the child is recognized. Is there any other type of murder that anyone thinks should be made legal because it still happens and those who perpetrate it think it's not murder?

Are "honor killings" to be allowed since those who commit them think they are justified and they will carry them out anyway, despite any laws?

Another comment noted:

"Who's to say that every woman who has an abortion will regret it? That's between her and God."

Again, I can't think of any law where we take into consideration that the guilty conscience of the person (or absence thereof) is between them and God. Why should this be the tipping point whether or not we should allow the action in question or outlaw it?

Another observation:

"It's naive to think we can educate and convince every pregnant woman to go through with the birth, then consider alternatives to keeping the baby. In this world, that's just too utopia-thinking. Can you save a few lives? Sure. Do you solve the problem? Not a chance."

Again, just because there will still be a certain group of women who will still seek an abortion does not negate the right to life of every preborn child.

And "save a few lives"? Try at least 700,000 every year. That's a low estimate of the number of women who say that they didn't really want to have an abortion, but felt they had no other choice. Call it a utopia, but in a land where we recognize the value of every woman and preborn child, society will be forced to deal with the ills that drive women to abortion, and those 700,000 women -- and many others who will realize their own potential and the potential of their child -- will not have to experience the tragedy of abortion. (Not to mention the men involved in these pregnancies.)

None of the "promises" that the abortion advocates said would be cured by access to abortion have been realized. Child abuse and battering of women has risen exponentially. Poverty still strikes single mothers the hardest as the responsibility of parenthood still rests mainly on their shoulders. Women still face discrimination in the workplace.

Doesn't it occur to pro-abortion advocates that some of these ills still exist because of the pervasive  notion that "Well, that woman 'chose' to have that baby. She made her bed now she has to lie in it." Often absolving the father, who is equally as responsible, and absolving men in general from recognizing the value of motherhood?

So maybe a world free of abortion is idealistic. But I also imagine a world without hunger, a world without homelessness, a world without so many problems. Pretty lofty goals. Does that mean we as a society should not strive for that ideal?

Sorry Perez -- Miss CA's Answer Improved her Chances

Perez Hilton, and Miss California Carrie Prejean herself, have said that her answer to his question cost her the crown. Though Carrie has said that she wouldn't change a thing and she would choose her faith over a title any day, I think she can rest assured that her response actually did not lead to a loss. In fact I think it moved her up in the standings to second place.

Let's look at the numbers. After the swimsuit and evening gown competitions, the standings were:

Miss North Carolina   18.668

Miss Arizona                18.381

Miss California            18.308

Miss Kentucky             18.010

Miss Utah                     17.700

Now, it's my understanding that the way that the final decision is made is that the judges assign a rank for the five finalists. The girl with the top ranking takes the crown.

The final question can make a real difference, as it did one year, back when the final three contestants were all asked the same question. (Abandoned because...? they got tired of the repetition? they didn't want to pay for the sound-proof booth anymore? who knows...) It was after Miss Universe had caused a stir for gaining weight. The Miss USA finalists were asked if she should have lost the weight.

The young woman who was far in the lead answered first and said she should have lost the weight. A non-answer from the second contestant was followed by a knock-out punch by Miss Hawaii who immediately started shaking her head and said that the woman was chosen for who she was and that was what was important. The audience roared. The first contestant went from top position to third, and Miss Hawaii was crowned the winner.

But for the most part, there is little change in the final results without a real stand-out answer like that, or a real clunker of a response. I think the judges look at their old scores and pretty much hold those positions. 

Let's see what each of the other contestants were asked this year:

Miss NC was asked about bailout money. She said that she didn't think companies should be getting so much... and not much else. Not really anything worth noting, and therefore no change in the judges opinion of her.

Miss AZ was asked about universal health care. What's interesting here, is that her answer was like what Hilton suggested for Miss CA. A non-answer where she didn't offend anyone. But I think the judges felt that Miss AZ should have said that yes, health care should be a right, and so her response hurt her.

Miss KY took a chance in saying that she would have spoken up about the Chris Brown-Rihanna situation. I think this hurt her, as she went against what celebrities believe -- you don't criticize or judge another celebrity. 

Miss UT said Hillary Clinton did the right thing in recommending millions for elections in Afghanistan. Like Miss NC, it was an innocuous answer that didn't hurt her.

Miss NC was so far ahead, I really don't think that she could have been caught by anyone, barring a lights-out let's-all-go-home answer. Miss AZ had a small lead over Miss CA, yet Carrie and her convictions leapt past Miss AZ and her politically-correct, offend-no-one answer. Similarly,  Miss UT (innocuous answer) passed Miss KY (unfavorable answer).

Hmmm. So Hilton thinks MIss CA's answer cost her the crown. I've heard one other judge who declared that she is in support of gay marriage and agreed. But the judges scores are secret, so we'll never know for sure -- but the proof is in the numbers: Miss CA moved up in the standings. Maybe Mr. Hilton is a bit wrong in assessing what those in Hollywood think about certain hot topics.

Bottom line -- I don't think a PC, non-offensive answer would have given Miss CA the crown. But she would have compromised her integrity. I think Carrie Prejean made the right choice and will be remembered -- and make more of an impact in the world -- than this year's winner, or any other prior Miss USA.

She stayed true to her faith and her principles. That's a winner in my book.

 

Sarah Palin's Choice

You could see this coming from a mile away... When Sarah Palin disclosed in a speech for a pro-life group how she struggled with the knowledge that her youngest child had Down syndrome -- you just knew what the headlines and the response from the mainstream media would be.

Palin explained how she was on a business trip and the thought crossed her mind that she could sneak off and have an abortion without her husband's knowledge. She described the thought as "fleeting." She then said she found the courage to have her son and is so glad she did because Trig is the joy of her entire family's life.

Predictably, the headlines ran the ilk of "Palin Considered Abortion" totally ignoring the thrust of Palin's entire speech and once again bowing before the altar of "choice." And today the Washington Post ran an editorial by Ruth Marcus that reverently toed the pro-abortion line.

Marcus says that if Palin and prolifers had their way, women "would have no thought process to go through" -- (Because you know, those who cherish all life would be thought police. Women wouldn't even be allowed to think!) -- that we would in essence be making the decision for all women.

Every once in a while the Post will trot out an editorial by some wishy-washy liberal who actually realized the value of the imperfect life within her, and brought her child with Down syndrome into the world (unlike more than 80% of women like her in America). Even though the writer recognizes the potential of her child and the joy that has come from their appearance in the world, she hails the fact that there is still "choice" for women. In other words, the women who pen these editorials know that imperfect people deserve life just as much as anyone else -- but if another woman thinks they don't, it's ok for that other woman to kill her child. Because it's her "choice."

Ah, yes. The "women need to think for themselves" and "the government shouldn't be making private decisions" canards.

Of course the whole point of championing life -- and the whole point of Palin's  speech -- is treated by the MSM as if prolifers are simply bossy cows. In actuality we're declaring the value of every human life, and the ability for women to overcome any obstacle.

Sure there are moments of weakness in which someone may look for what seems to be an easier way out of a situation -- a way no one will have to know about -- with the mistaken belief that it will somehow be a better option. Forgetting that she will know about it. For the rest of her life.

If a woman struggling to feed her children considered shop-lifting, we would understand. If an overwhelmed mother considered abandoning her children, we would see it was out of desperation. If a beaten women considered murdering her abuser, we would recognize the sense of self-preservation.

But we wouldn't legalize theft, child abuse, and murder in order to preserve those women's ability to "control their own decisions." We would steer these women to a food bank, a childcare relief service, and a women's shelter. Because we know that there is always a better way that a woman can see when not feeling despondent and alone in the world -- when she feels supported by her family, friends, and community.

Sarah Palin recognized her vulnerability, one that many women may know at some point in their lives. But she also recognized the dignity of all humanity. Thoughts may cross our minds, even unexpectedly, but the actions we take are deliberate.

What will we as a nation -- as a part of that humanity -- decide the fate of the imperfect will be?

Dog-ma Double Standards

Every time I think that the President is going to present a good example -- as he does by being a good family man -- I am disappointed.

The latest doggie debacle seems to be par for the course. When Biden purchased a dog from a breeder, I was certain it was to test the waters. After there was disapproval, I thought that the First Family would surely step to the plate and show the humane option of rescuing a pet from a shelter.

Now, I don't mean to say that no one should ever buy from a breeder -- a responsible breeder, I should say. There are folks who have many considerations they must meet when finding a new animal companion, and they need the certainty of a pure-bred.

And I don't doubt Malia has allergies. But what other need was there for selecting a pure-bred dog by the Obama family? They had their pick of the entire sheltered nation, and a full staff to help deal with the new addition. Surely, a hypoallergenic hound could have been found somewhere in one of the numerous pounds or rescue organizations across out nation.

I'm highly skeptical of the reports that pure-bred Porties are hard to find in shelters. I did a search on www.petfinder.com  for my zip code (adding the parameter of only dogs that are good with kids) and there were four Porties listed and three Portie-Poodle mixes. (There were eight more in the zip I grew up in on the northwest side of Chicago.) I'm sure people would have lined up to volunteer their sniffers to test a multitude of mutts.

But no. Another poor pooch will be sent to doggie heaven that could have had a home on Pennsylvania Avenue. And as usual, the guilt was assuaged -- with a donation to a shelter.

So far, BO has sent his girls to a private school while letting the demise of D.C. vouchers for their classmates remain a possibility. He talks of reducing carbon footprints, but then flies a hairdresser and stylists to Europe, and flies a pizza chef to the White House. Next we'll find out they're using poisonous pesticides in their garden.

I don't expect the guy to be perfect -- not everyone can walk the walk like Ed Begley, Jr. -- but he doesn't even seem to be trying all that hard, other than with lip service and blood money.

Yep, he's cute. Just makes you forget all those pitiful pets who won't find a home this week, and will be destroyed instead.

The Loch Ness Monster and the International Red Cross

I had a bit of back and forth with a reader regarding my last post (you can read the comments at the end http://www.lovehateoprah.com/lovehateoprah/2009/04/is-obama-in-therapy.html ) -- It reached a point where I was told I was becoming irrational because I questioned the integrity of the International Red Cross and its report on the torture of prisoners by the U.S.

Maybe I should explain. I have always respected the exceptional humanitarian work by the Red Cross. I have heard some folks make complaints about some of their actions, and how they no longer donate money to the IRC. My family has continued to make the donations, feeling that the good work far outweighs any questionable conduct.

I think the reader is like so many who believe that the IRC is a sacred cow. Yes it is a great organization in so many respects, but I have come to believe there are few -- if any -- organizations that are totally beyond reproach. Even ones I support whole-heartedly.

So the IRC comes out with this report. So many people -- including Eugene Robinson in his syndicated column today -- are treating it as gospel. The obvious major problem with the report is that we're supposed to take the word of admitted terrorists. Yes, I have heard that there were corroborating reports amongst them, but they could have been exaggerated or practiced far beforehand. As I said in those comments -- the terrorists have an obvious agenda. Their testimony is highly suspect.

I'm sure the IRC took great pains to be as thorough and conclusive as possible. But you also have to consider that the IRC could have a bias here. Even if it's well-intentioned, their quest to help those in need could cloud their judgment. After all, last time I checked it was still humans running the IRC.

I'm also sure most folks will just read the headlines and not delve into the specifics to try and determine exactly what they think happened, whether or not it actually constitutes torture, and whether or not it was "justified."

When I was a kid I believed in the Loch Ness monster. I saw the pictures and shaky 8mm, and heard the testimony of eyewitnesses, including priests. Why would a priest lie? I was convinced that such reliable testimony proved the existence of a giant sea creature.

Well we know now that folks have admitted to perpetrating the hoax. Were the priests in on it? Not necessarily. They probably told the truth -- honestly saying what they saw, not knowing it was a fake. 

The same could be true of the IRC. They could have been fooled by the most heinous of miscreants.

Does that mean we should not be vigilant in making sure that our armed forces maintain their high standards? No. But we have to remember we are at war with enemies who have no interest in any sense of fairness, decorum or following rules. They will not keep any promises they make, nor are they frightened by threats to their own -- or their families' -- lives. They cannot be bribed or reasoned with.

So much is at stake. Let's reserve our contempt for the ones intent on our destruction, not the brave men and women who are trying to prevent it.

Is Obama in Therapy?

For one brief moment the President had me:

"But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

But of course, there was the mumbo-jumbo before and after, denigrating America, that totally negates it.

It feels to me as though Obama thinks he's in couple therapy. That he believes he has to make amends for the tiniest of transgressions. That he has taken on the role of a neglectful husband who has to bend over backward to appease a mistreated spouse.

But he had it right in that above quote -- America is the one who has been wronged. Have we been perfect? Perhaps not. Have we been leading the charge to make the world a better place? Undoubtedly.

Seriously -- ask anyone, anywhere in the world. When the chips are down, and you're in need in a bad way -- who do you want to come save the day?

If there was a natural disaster, if you're country is in the midst of a famine or has been stricken by disease, if an enemy is at your door, if someone in your family is being held as a prisoner or hostage -- which country would you want to hear is on its way to help?

France? Germany? Heck, any nation in the EU other than Great Britain? Would they hope that China or Venezuela or India was responding to the call? Ok, maybe Russia for the hostage situation -- but come on -- Canada?!

No way. They would all want the good ol' U.S. of A. to have their back.

It'a about time they all showed us the respect we deserve. Obama better get a spine soon. Enough of this touchy-feely stuff. Time to be the leader of the greatest nation on the face of the earth -- without apologies.

Farewell to E.R. -- I Loved/Hated You

E.R. will always hold a special place in my heart. The biggest reason I feel such nostalgia for the show is that it started right before I got married. I associate its debut with my impending nuptials and beginning a new life with my husband and daughter. Six more kids, three moves, two housing purchases, and many other twists and turns in our lives later -- E.R. was still there. Until tonight.

Over the years, my husband lost interest, but would sit down to watch once in a while. Though my interest vacillated -- waning with the departure of Clooney, waxing with the arrival of Visnjic -- I seldom missed seeing a new episode on the night it aired. I'm pretty sure I have seen every single one.

There was so much to love about the show. The characters drew you in, the medicine was authentic and the dilemmas were topical. The show tackled everything from the potentially lethal dangers of forgoing immunizations to the role that health care providers play in abuse intervention. There was plenty of fun, romance and drama to bring me back each week.

Of course, there were a lot of times I wanted to throw a brick through the screen -- usually because of the obvious pro-abortion stance of the show. While an early episode showed Nurse Carol -- after Dr. Ross dismissed a girl's hesitation to abort -- taking the time to talk to her and eventually bringing in the girl's mother to facilitate a life-affirming choice -- more often than not, the pro-life perspective was antagonized.

Those who championed life -- who suggested better solutions than abortion -- were presented as religious zealots, control freaks or unsympathetic neanderthals.

Sure, Carol also yelled at a woman who tricked the staff into performing a free ultrasound so she could then abort the girl she didn't want. And another time a doctor fought through a couple's fear to do right by both of her patients -- the mother and her unborn child -- and told them with patience both would be alright and there was no need to abort. But for every one of these rare instances, there were myriad pro-abortion story arcs.

In an episode where an abortion clinic was bombed (eye-roll!), the few positive pro-life messages were drowned out by the pro-abortion cacophony. A scene had Dr. Weaver proclaiming the atrocious conditions she witnessed in Africa convinced her that "choice" was the answer. (Funny, I would have  dedicated myself to improving those conditions, not destroying the children as the remedy. Most Africans view every child as a precious gift, even those conceived as a result of an enemy's rape-as-warfare.)

Another night, a mom-of-many seemed overwhelmed by her brood and fainted from her latest pregnancy. Did the staff help her by finding some kind of parenting or childcare assistance? No, they declare -- after knowing and talking to them for all of a few minutes -- that the husband was "controlling" and that the woman really wanted an abortion. So she was secretly aborted against her husband's wishes. Infuriating.

I considered boycotting more than once. I did when House had the good doctor convince a woman -- bearing a child conceived by rape -- that her child didn't deserve to live and that she shouldn't punish herself by carrying him. She aborted. I stopped watching in protest. The following season, I happened to see when Dr. House performed surgery on a a pre-born and the tiny hand reached out and grasped his finger. The cynical surgeon was deeply moved and showed signs of reconsidering his viewpoint. Almost all was forgiven and I started watching again.

But as for E.R. -- I would still tune in the following week, and they would expose the latest medical danger or highlight the latest technology or procedure -- educating their audience in a way no brochure or PSA ever could. And I was in love again, and would keep tuning in.

But tonight the love/hate affair ends, and I have mixed feelings. I'm fairly certain no show will ever captivate me in quite the same way again. Or have as much a connection to my family life. But in a way, it's alright that it's ending. My marriage happily endures -- and so will E.R. in the land of reruns. And overall, the world is a slightly better place because of both of them.

Thanks for the memories.