Responsibility versus Entitlement

I submit for your consideration the following from a Moneynews article today:

“One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months,” said Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan.

“This trend of increasing delinquencies underscores the need to understand why these modifications have not been more sustainable.”

I can explain precisely why these modifications have not helped. Many of these mortgages were initially given to people who should not have qualified for the loans. In many cases, they were also used not to allow a working-class worker to move into a small suburban starter home, but to let people who have spent their entire lives expecting the government to provide for them stretch their budget to the limit to build or buy a "McMansion" on abandoned farmland. These are not people who are genuinely struggling to put proper clothing on their children and milk in the fridge. These are people who are "struggling" to keep up with their brand new car payments, their cell phone bills, and still have enough money left over to get their manicures.

I did not watch a lot of the Obama commercial that focused in on "poor families who need help" (from the Democrats, naturally), but I saw enough to remember the woman who said that her kids drank soda because she could not afford milk. I had two immediate thoughts. One was that if her kids drank water like water instead of drinking soda like water, no doubt she could afford a little milk for them. Maybe not a lot, but a little milk and a lot of water is healthier than a lot of soda. The other thing I noticed was her finely manicured nail job, which I asked around about and discovered that $40/month was a very low estimate for upkeep on that kind of beauty product. $40/month will buy a lot of milk... easily two gallons a week. That would give four children a little over a cup of milk each day right there.

My point? These are people who are used to expecting things. They likely got given what they wanted by their parents. They grew up watching commercials that told them what they needed to want. From allowances given for doing nothing to college credit cards gone sky-high, when have they ever learned that they can't have what they "must have"? What kind of standard of living do you have, anyways, if you can't have your hair the color you want it? And if they can't afford it, that's someone else's problem.

So why should they start paying now that they have a more reasonable loan? They've just learned that if they cry enough, banks will do everything possible to accomodate them, to ensure that they aren't (horrors) turned out of their five-bedroom lake-view domiciles. If they continue to cry and don't bother to pay, no doubt in the end they can get what they want for free, especially with a political party in place who doesn't seem to understand that the government does not create wealth... it just takes wealth away from other people.

In the midst of all this nonsense, one family acquired a modest raised ranch on a fixed-rate FHA and have held onto it with all they've got, forgoing cell phones for electricity, forgoing car loans for student loans, forgoing nail jobs and hair jobs for milk and potatoes. They have never missed a payment. It's that kind of attitude, responsibility rather than entitlement, that will bring down foreclosures of modified loans.

Reconfiguration

I am going to take a few days for contemplation, and then I am probably going to change the title of my blog. I am probably not going to change it's current purpose.

The current title is The Determined Homemaker, which very deeply fit my purpose when I wrote it. At the time, I had just quit my full-time job, which I had taken on very reluctantly when my husband was laid off. With hidden tears and stress levels high, I left my one-year-old son and set out to keep food on the table as a software engineer at a local defense contractor. Depending on the way I look at it, this was either a complete failure or a success.

I managed to hold out for three years while my husband fast-tracked full-time to his bachelor's degree, giving him the standing needed to make the needed salary for me to return home. On the other hand, I got very sick with several neural and intestinal problems, and it took me a good year or so to really regain my health again, and on top of that I kept getting poor performance reviews. When I'm working as a programmer, I'm a very good coder. I am not a data-entry whiz (numbers dyslexia). I'm not a manager. I can teach and tutor readily, but I have to be given a class and subject. I can't just go walking about and Know.. or Find Out.. what people need to know. In short, I was, as I often am, a square peg in a world full of round holes. If they'd expected me to build an application, they might've thought I was a genius. They wanted me to psuedo-manage data entry personnel, and I was a complete flop.

I'm still dealing with the self-esteem fallout from that fiasco.

I suppose I've spent the last year trying to prove that I'm a good enough homemaker to justify being a pretty bad Extrovert Psuedo-Manager Career Woman. The time for that is over. I don't know how I'm going to move past it, but I know I need to. Of course I'm going to keep being a full-time homemaker. But I need to stop stressing over my societal/financial worth. I've been trying to pare down my hobbies to nothing that is not highly-potentially financially profitable, so that I end up doing nothing but either homemaking or doing something that will or might land me a check, however small. That can't be my life anymore.

All these books and essays and such about finding your purpose in life seem to assume that you are supposed to pick and focus in on one single thing only that lights up your eyes, that you are drawn to naturally. What if there's more than one thing? Is it truly a waste to do something you enjoy but will never be good at? I've got some questions to answer in the coming days. It may be that my year, rather than being what I've got when I answer them, will simply be about finding the answers.

Meanwhile, I anticipate that I will continue to write religious and political essays in this blog, peppered with things I've discovered or done as a homemaker/homeschooling mom. And in time, we'll see how this blog changes as I do.

Thanks for reading!

A Christian celebrating Christmas

Every year I hear the same debate, an old debate about whether or not Christians should celebrate Christmas. Personally, I know what I do, and I don't mind what others do. I see it as something that each person should be able to approach to their own conscience. The issue is not a limiting issue to me. Those who celebrate Christmas in all it's religious and secular glory, those who stick to the religious only, and those who bypass it altogether as a 'pagan festival' may all be perfectly good Christians, and I don't have a problem with any of those choices. However, I would like to address a certain argument against Christmas (and Easter) and offer my take on it.

Though there are people who have decided calmly in their own mind and conscience to avoid Christmas and Easter, there are others who end up confused by one main argument: the pagan/secular additions. If someone decides to not celebrate Christmas because he does not feel comfortable about honoring Jesus's birthday on a day that likely isn't His birthday, so much the better for him. However, sometimes their zeal in spreading their opinions leave Christians in-between, unwilling to abandon their traditions, but now viewing them with an unnecessary measure of guilt. I do not believe that God intended us to feel terrible about treating each other with charity and love because some elements of Santa Claus's history included a conglomerate of pagan beliefs. For this reason, I would like to give you something to consider as you ask yourself whether it's sinful to put candy canes on your tree or exchange gifts.

Everything that God made is inherently good. Those of you who want to talk of original sin, please hold on for a moment and give me time here. Everything God made is inherently and originally good. Anything that Satan uses has to be twisted to be made evil. Food is not sinful, but gluttony is. Sex is not sinful, but it can be misused to terrible effect.

The key here is 'originally and inherently'. Satan poisoned everything just a little bit, even us. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it in the book Screwtape Letters, in which a demon argued that God claims ownership of all under the claim that He created it, while Satan seeks to claim all under the banner of conquest. We all know that there is a spiritual war between the forces of God and Satan, and we all know the eventual outcome.

Now consider what happens during a war. One side advances, and captures an enemy fort. What do they do? If the fort is rotted, if the food is utterly poisoned, if the place is booby-trapped, they will probably raze it to the ground. However, most of the time this is not the case. The food is just as good, the fort nearly as strong, and they run up their own flag and begin to repair the fortifications.

Jesus has made it clear that we are made of good things, once enemy fortifications, now with God's flag run up and the original usefulness turned once again to good. I would submit that the same is true for Christmas. Sure, there are many people who fall into materialism and spend the holiday buying things they can't afford for people they hate, but God's flag has been run up in Christmas Cantatas. Christmas and Easter are often the only times that the non-devout attend church. That's an opportunity to run up God's flag. There is a lot of love and generosity among good people that peaks around Christmastime. When I hear of over 500 people making a commitment for Christ at the Word of Life Florida Christmas show, I see God's flag fluttering over the fortification that once involved nature goddesses and ancient superstition. I could not call that an evil thing.

So what is my advice, in the end? If the 'pagan elements' trouble you such that you prefer to not partake with a clear conscience and without the burden of guilt, by all means, do as you see best! But if you have heard over and over about the evils of this holiday, but you still love to honor God through your traditions during this time, do so without guilt! You are flying God's flag on an enemy fortification that was originally built by God.

Jesus doesn't mind you giving presents to each other on His birthday, even if you get the date wrong. Candy canes aren't going to send you to hell if they remind you (and you tell your children) of the shepherds who came to see that extraordinary baby. And whether it be turkey, ham, or steak, it's an awfully good meal, isn't it?

Energy Planning

I was on a political forum and the subject turned to electricity. After hearing us shoot down the current efforts of liberals and environmentalists to give us cleaner power by forcing us to accept their methods and proposals, one person asked if we had an energy policy to offer rather than just criticisms. I happen to have one, so I wrote it out for them.

The important thing to realize is that everybody WANTS clean, inexpensive, plentiful power. The only reason why coercion has to be involved to make it work currently is because what the environmentalists keep proposing is simply currently unfeasible. (Hybrid cars, for instance, don't even have the gas economy of a simple stripped-down 15-year-old station wagon.) What we have to do is take the shackles off.

Drill drill drill! Though it would be nice if we were independent of all other countries oil-wise, it isn't really necessary. We have two reasons for drilling NOW. First, we want to get in enough oil to stop buying altogether from countries like Saudi Arabia, freeing us in matters of economic diplomacy to criticize their barbarism the same way we do places like Iraq.

Second, right now I'm seeing in the news that Iran and Russia are scaling back on military operations and buildup because the price of oil is low enough to starve out their economies. We want that. We want them in a position where they have to focus on their economy and not on making themselves big and strong. We can turn coal into oil with technology we've had since WWII and make it profitable at $35/barrel. We have the biggest coal reserves in the WORLD. That injection into the worldwide oil community would really throw prices off.

Note: I haven't said we have to fulfill ALL our oil needs ourselves. It would be nice to do if we can. But it's most important just to get us away from depending on people who "don't like us very much". It would also be nice to work the market against them, forcing them to reduce their military operations without having to fire a single shot!

Of course, there's more to it than just getting more oil out. I favor reducing our oil and coal usage by switching as much of the electrical grid as possible over to nuclear. Nuclear power is safe and effective. It's been proven by now. I think all hospitals over a certain "podunk town" size should have their own mini-nuclear generator as well. If nobody else knows how to do it, they can go ask Electric Boat, who powers submarines so safely that one sub recently crashed full speed head-on... and the mini nuclear reactor didn't even have a single problem.

Lower restrictions on vehicle manufacture. Yes, we need to know that you can survive a crash at 40mph. You don't need 50 different airbags, power windows/locks, A/C, or cruise control to do it, and all of those things weigh down a car. Actually, I would like to see enough restrictions lowered or removed for any handyman to build his own vehicle capable of passing standards and being given a license plate. You'd see plenty of fuel economy and alternate-fueled engines popping up in even greater quantity than they do now. Some of them may become commercially viable.

Save the oil for our vehicles (including airplanes) and use nuclear for our stationary electricity. Keep the prices down. That will in turn keep the prices of goods down (transportation) and the people will have more of their own money to spend.

Why is this important? Because friends and family of mine are ALREADY eying geothermal and/or solar enhancements to their house. They already want this. Why don't many of them have it? Well, right now, since the price of food went up, this household has no money to spare each month and a solar setup costs $12,000 to start.

Sure, the price isn't quite enough to offset the energy savings in money yet, but there are other reasons to want solar. For instance, in an area where winter storms knock out electricity, it's AWFULLY nice to have heat and running water in the home. None of that matters, though, if you can't afford to put the system in, and taking even more money away from the people to government-spend on doing it is not nearly as efficient as removing the artificial economic restraints that keep people from doing it themselves.

Nobody needed to be forced to adopt flat-panel TV's, DVD players, designer jeans, or Lexus's. Nobody needs to be forced to adopt personal alternate-energy systems. Just make them affordable, by lowering the cost of living and/or the cost of the product. Once the market gets out of Teh Elites and into the middle class, you won't need to pay anybody to find a way to produce a cheaper and more effective system, either! A 40" 1080p HDTV cost $3,000 a couple of years ago. This holiday season it's dropped below $1,000.

To summarize: We didn't get into cleaner and more efficient oil-burning by forcing people to limit their wood-burning usage, and we won't get into nuclear/wind/solar by forcing people to limit their oil usage. We'll do it by being prosperous enough to afford the Next Step. In the process, as an extra bonus, we may be able to turn the tables on the unfriendly countries who currently have us, as my husband so neatly puts it, 'by the short and curlies'.

The fight continues...

So I've recently read that the gay activists are considering a "calling in gay" day on which they all decide to take a vacation day instead of going to work. Presumably, this will make some sort of difference someday. I personally suspect it's going to end up teaching them just how great their numbers are and how important their little faction is in this big country.

See, this idea suffers from the same kind of insipidness as the repeated plans to not buy gas on a certain day, only with likely a smaller population group. If all who label themselves 'gay' (including the virgins, which, by the way, is one method they use to make the Christian label of sin work for more than just the act to which it applies, giving an excuse to cry hatred where none exists) leave and manage to take a fair amount of their non-gay supporters with them, they just might be able to, in some local areas, have almost as much of an impact on this country and its economy as Columbus Day.

If they make it yearly and try to roust more and more people to the cause, the biggest possible effect I can see is a Christian or two getting hung on an anti-discrimination clause a few years into the future for simply showing up to work on the 'wrong day'. But let's face it... there are more and more reasons to lawfully persecute Christians in this country than there have ever been, and it's only going to get more bizarre.

As far as I'm concerned, they can go for it! It's a much healthier way to get out their frustrations than keying cars, harassing restaurant customers, sending white powder to Mormon temples, knocking down old ladies, and telling Californian blacks who venture out of their neighborhoods that they'd better just watch their backs.

In other news, a committee in New Jersey claim that civil unions might not be doing their job because sometimes participants aren't treated quite like they're legally married. Wake up, people, and get used to it! Maybe twenty years ago or so, people who were married were treated as if they were married. Nowadays, however, many stores will not even link our savings cards so that my husband's milk purchases count towards our free sixth gallon. The person who opens an account owns it, and it's increasingly difficult for me to conduct any kind of business with a company if the account is in my husband's name (and vice versa), even for ridiculous things like electricity or telephone going to the same house!

When I was working full-time, whenever my husband showed up to bring me the lunch I'd forgotten or the medication I needed, I had to give him my name, department, phone number, and card ID ahead of time or they wouldn't even tell him that I worked there. He could have showed up with the original copy of our marriage certificate to no avail. Was this a security procedure due to the nature of my work? Actually, no. It was only put into place to deal with abusive spouses. He wasn't allowed to pick up my paycheck, either, but it could get mailed straight to the house we both live in!

It takes twice as long to fill in any application or registration for hospitals or doctor's offices nowadays, because the forms do NOT assume in any way that being married means that you live in the same house, have the same telephone number, go by the same last name, or even want your spouse notified in case of an emergency. Add a kid as the product of your marriage and it gets even longer!

This society is proceeding slowly towards that in countries like Holland, where anybody can marry and almost nobody ever bothers to do so. "It doesn't really mean anything anymore," I've heard from residents when trying to find out why. The sad thing is that the people pushing hardest for this change are the gay activists, who want gay marriage to, in the end, be nothing more than a reason to shut up any voice within society that suggests that there's any religion that does not approve of their actions. Too bad for the five or ten gay couples in the U.S. (and the 97% or so heterosexuals, with 70% of them claiming the Christian religion) who were actually hoping to get something more meaningful out of it than a piece of jewelry and a bunch of words.

An understanding of Conservatism

For those of you who don't know, I don't often use this blog to simply copy and paste other people's words, because I have another one for that purpose. On http://gothelittle.livejournal.com/ I collate a few of the most interesting articles I read for the day and simply paste the link and a part of the article to show why I found it interesting. I don't do it daily, but I do pretty close to that. This is the blog where I'm supposed to express my own thoughts. (Contrary to what some of the LJ commenters seem to think, I don't fully agree with all of each article I paste.)

However, this section seems to belong here, on this blog rather than my LJ blog. How did I decide that? Well, they're my blogs, and I just went with my instincts.
*****************
Reagan roots is not anti-Communism and low taxes and the Laffer Curve and all the other things that Reagan was dealing with at the time. Reagan roots are the roots of our founding. And the primary leg on that stool is individual liberty. This is a nation founded on the concept that we are individuals. We are not a collective. We are individuals. And that we do our best when we are working in our own self interest, not selfishness, but our own self interest, improving our lives, our families' lives; improves everybody's lives around ours in our communities, cities, towns, the nation at large. Individual liberty will never go out of style because as our founders correctly noted, it is part of our creation. It's what sets this country apart from every other collection of human beings in the history of the world. We have acknowledged that our creation comes from God, not from government, that our freedom is a natural yearning of our creation. And that is the natural yearning of our spirit, to be free, all humanity, all human beings. And as such, liberty will never go out of style. Freedom will never go out of style. We will never, ever say hopefully "the era of freedom is over." We will never say "the era of liberty is over." And as such, we will make a huge mistake if we fall in line with these dummkopfs, who think they're the smartest in our room, who say "the era of Reagan is over." Because the era of Reagan is basic Conservatism 101 which believes, what? The best in everybody. It does not look across a room of people with contempt. It does not look and see incompetence. It doesn't see black, white, male, female, gay, straight. It sees human beings.

Conservatism sees Americans, sees potential, sees great opportunity, sees an opportunity for people to be the best they can be using whatever ambition and desire they have. Reaganism conservatism does not need to be adapted to issues of the day. There's no such thing as the conservative version of Big Government. - Rush Limbaugh, at the Hillsdale College Churchhill Dinner

Blueprint for Societal Change

In the wake of the post-election mess in California, I'd like to introduce you to a different kind of group, a different kind of lobbying, and a nonviolent means of advancing your issue within society. We're going to be looking at a minority group, about 2-5% of the U.S. population depending on the survey/study, who feel strongly compelled by their own consciences to live a different lifestyle than the average American.

When their movement first surfaced in the 70's, it was definitively illegal in some states, while others simply rejected it on the grounds of having no law permitting it. They proceeded to live as they felt compelled anyways, quietly and industriously, seeking to carve out individual exemptions that would simply allow them to live their lives as they saw fit. Over time, an organization developed that allowed them to deal with the government and courts with proper legal representation, but they did not seek to change the laws through the judicial system. They were simply settling individual cases.

In time, through writing letters and visiting the legislature, they proved bit by bit by their behavior that their lifestyle was validly non-destructive. They began to build a reputation of respect, achievement, and cooperation. States began to pass laws properly through the legislature permitting their lifestyle, but often with burdensome regulations. They accepted what they had hard-won, showed themselves willing to compromise, and worked to show by example that they could function equally without the extra government oversight. They did not assume that they could simply declare a right, even a valid one, and bully their way into it. Instead, they sought to show themselves worthy of it, confident that reasonable people would slowly be swayed by a good example.

Rallies were orderly, calm, and clean. They did not key anybody's cars. They did not threaten business owners. They did not assault elderly women or members of other religions. They did not vandalize, did not scream, did not perform obscene acts in public. They simply sought to prove by behaving properly that they were a valid part of society. Even with their lifestyle now legal (but often with heavy regulations) in all 5o states, they were not considered equal with the 'masses'. Employers and colleges refused them, and they were not allowed to serve in the military. They often lost health benefits and government benefits allowed to others, for nothing but their lifestyle status. They never screamed "Unfair!" Instead, they wrote letters, dissertations, made calm and reasoned speeches, and sought to persuade through logic.

It has now been over 30 years, and life is considerably easier for these people than it was at the beginning. Though they are often still harassed by government officials, social workers, and police simply for their lifestyle, they are allowed into most colleges and the military now accepts them. More people than ever before know somebody who lives this lifestyle, and opinion has become more and more favorable. They are proving by statistics that they are healthy, hardworking people, involved in volunteer work and more than pulling their weight in society. Though they recently nearly suffered a huge blow in California, they remained calm, and through appeal and well-reasoned evidence were able to keep from losing legal status there. They are making a place for themselves without treading on the rights of others. There is no law against believing their practices to be obscene, no 'hate crime' laws to benefit them above the general population, and they are not trying to force educators to teach schoolchildren about them.

Internationally, though many countries allow these people to practice their lifestyle, others persecute them, jailing them and forcing their families to flee to other countries for safety. One such family is currently petitioning asylum from their home country to the U.S. and is likely to get it due to the persecution there.

Are they gays?

Nope.

They are homeschoolers.

Missouri - reported November 18th
School system attempts to force a homeschooling family to comply with regulations far above and beyond those set forth by law. When the family refuses, they falsely report the children truant although the family is homeschooling legally in that state. Criminal charges are filed in the courts.

Ohio - reported November 7th
A homeschooling family is roundly criticized at their own doorstep by, of all people, the dog warden, who has shown up with police escort insisting to enter their home in order to inspect their (healthy and licensed) dog without a warrant. With police present, the warden said "They homeschool, too," prompting a diatribe from the police officer, who told the woman at the door that she was being a poor example and questioning her teaching skills.

Florida - reported November 6th
A social worker forces her way into a homeschooling family's home with the backup of two police officers. Refusing to disclose any allegations against them, she proceeds to partially strip-search one of the children who later turned out to not even be named in the allegation (an anonymous tip made months ago), in front of the officers and family, embarrassing the girl greatly. After threatening the father with handcuffs and removal of his children if he did not stop asserting (verbally, without violence) his Fourth Amendment rights, she then fully strip-searches all the children, male and female. Despite finding no evidence of abuse, she then insists that the entire family undergo a psychological examination.

Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 3

Christian Conservatives fear an Obama presidency with good reason. His government-coercion principles of 'wealth distribution' rob us of our ability to manage our own resources and remain responsible for what God has seen fit to bestow upon us. However, we must realize that right now, a total ban of government-funded social programs would not be fitting for modern culture. As we must have a dog trained to Come before we let it off the leash, we must train ourselves and educate others before we can remove the restraints of government-forced 'charity'. In this post, I would like to give recommendations for each of three financial categories in preparing our country for an eventual return to fiscal conservatism.

2. The Poor

Your job is actually not much more difficult than that of the Rich. You may have never thought of it that way, especially if you have bought into the culture of entitlement, which tells you to hate them for having what you "deserve". You're going to have an uphill climb in divesting yourself of that class hatred. Remember that, as the Spiderman move put it so nicely, with great power comes great responsibility. The material wealth that God will hold you accountable for is not as great a burden as on the rich, and though you have incentive to save and request help within the current social system, the rich have to remember charity despite the government seeking to remove that responsibility from their shoulders.

Remember that the Bible tells you very firmly to not envy another man's goods. God intends each person to carry on with what he or she is given, take on your own burdens, and do not waste your days wishing for someone else's. Enjoy your own home, your own family, and measure your success by your own efforts to improve.

As someone in genuine need, you are going to end up having to ask for help. If you have truly been doing your best, not having fallen into poverty from laziness, there is no shame in needing aid. When you are a single mother with many children, a sick or injured person with limited mobility, an elderly person living alone, you generally simply aren't in a position where you can do it all for yourself. You, the Middle Class, and the Rich should all remember that none of us, from the poorest to the richest, can reach salvation alone. Set aside your pride, survey your situation, understand what you truly need, and seek it out.

In a post-socialist society, receiving what you need is going to entail something much more difficult and rewarding than simply sending filled-out applications to faceless bureaucrats. Rather than an impersonal government seeking to provide for you, you will be dealing with real people who are truly helping you. They will have families, hopes, and dreams, and so will you. In sharing their blessings, you will be forming bonds outside of your financial standing and likely out of your age and race groups as well. The prospect is more daunting, but the rewards are significantly more substantial.

Work if you can. Your goal is to benefit from their generosity and use it to pull yourself up as far as you are able. In a truly Christian society, following properly the advice in the book of Romans, they will not be judging you for your progress and you will not be taking advantage of their willingness to help you. Perhaps you will never be able to become financially independent. That matters less than that you contribute what you are able.

What you can contribute will depend on your situation. Don't ever think yourself utterly useless. If you can't work and you can't walk, you can probably knit sweaters for babies and blankets for people in foreign countries. If you can't even do that, you can probably sit and listen. You'd be amazed how many 'rich' people would love just to have someone sit and listen for a while. As I'm addressing Christian Conservatives here, you know you can always pray for them as well.

The socialist wing of the liberals have likely done their best to undermine your confidence in God. Remember that you are mentioned explicitly in the Bible, several times, as people cared for by God. He will provide, and He will judge others by how they treat you.

A fly in Obama's ointment?

Obama will be president in January. At the same time, a number of congressmen's terms will 'roll over' and the Democrats will be in the majority. Whatever's going to happen this Christmas season is going to happen. So why is Nancy Pelosi already making her own bold statements about things she intends to do by January? Why risk getting your proposals stalled in a Congress that hasn't yet turned to your side, when a little patience will give you all you could wish for?

As a woman who graduated from a quite liberal college and saw my share of the current feminist movement as a silent observer on the inside, I conjecture this reasoning: she wants the credit.

Here is the irony of modern feminism. Obama's greatest challenge, more so than dealing with the economy, foreign leaders who wish to test him, and the disastrous results of his own plans, may simply be dealing with Nancy Pelosi. One of the greatest burdens to the Liberals may just be a monster (I am not referring to Pelosi directly as the monster - you'll understand in a moment) created by themselves.

Now, there are some on the hard-conservative right who believe that women should not run for office (or pastor a church, or become a manager in the workplace). I love these people dearly, but I do disagree with them. Biblical submission of women very clearly works within the household, as a matter of God-ordained organization. Even the most conservative Americans agree with me that man and woman are, though not the same, certainly equal in gumption, intellect, and ability to be capable in their work. However, I go a step further, and note that women in Ancient Israel, even wives, did own their own property, manage their own merchant businesses, judge court cases, and even build cities and bridges which they named after themselves, all within the framework of a proper Biblical society. (In other words, this happened before It All Went Bad.)

The majority of conservative women, far from believing like the Muslims that every woman submits to every man, realizes that we are to submit with grace and love to our husbands and work on equal footing with any other, as Executive Officer of their families. I conduct business with male attorneys, salesmen, and customer service representatives, and I drive a hard bargain, all within the calm knowledge that I am exactly where God intends me to be.

Have you ever wondered why liberal female politicians seem scarier than conservative female politicians? The root of the answer is simple: while conservative female politicians are comfortable in their roles as feminine community leaders, liberal females are still fighting that traditional submission role that still echoes in our Biblically-derived society. In short, liberal feminists are more than just non-submissive. After all, conservative women are not submissive to men who are not in God-ordained positions of leadership over them. No, liberal feminists are anti-submissive.

A liberal feminist wants more than to just avoid being submissive to her husband, if she happens to be married. No, she has to continually prove to herself and everyone else that she is submissive to NO MAN, in no circumstance. Once Woman grabs for power and prestige, she becomes a rather frightening creature, insecure in her femininity, willing to go further and fight fiercer than most male politicians, who tend to be quite secure in their own authority.

Remember the Democratic primary? What kept it so interesting? Long after the other runners-up had graciously stepped back to make way for this "new rising star", Hillary continued to fight tooth and nail. As long as she saw a chance at winning, the slightest chance of breaking even with Obama, she tore him to shreds with such efficiency that the Republican party spent most of their time merely repeating attacks she had already launched.

Now the question is this: will Nancy Pelosi put aside her own desire for power and her strong inclination to show that she submits to No Man in order to put Obama's plan, in Obama's wording, into law, and allow him the credit he will seek? Or are we going to see a power play based on little more than feminist self-righteousness? Or is he going to be the one to give way in the face of her sheer determination? I'll be watching in the next months.

On a similar subject...

I've been explaining issues like taxation, social mores, and charity from the perspective of a Christian Conservative, which is a bit different than just the straight logical conservative view. As a Christian Conservative, I am quite free to use theology as well as logic in explaining my stances. However, let me set that aside for a moment, and offer the reader a chance to learn something from a purely logical-political point of view.

These videos explain the Laffer Curve and it's effects on taxation.

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory



The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence



The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 2

Christian Conservatives fear an Obama presidency with good reason. His government-coercion principles of 'wealth distribution' rob us of our ability to manage our own resources and remain responsible for what God has seen fit to bestow upon us. However, we must realize that right now, a total ban of government-funded social programs would not be fitting for modern culture. As we must have a dog trained to Come before we let it off the leash, we must train ourselves and educate others before we can remove the restraints of government-forced 'charity'. In this post, I would like to give recommendations for each of three financial categories in preparing our country for an eventual return to fiscal conservatism.

1. The Rich

Under the current system, you earn roughly 30% of the nation's income and pay roughly 60% of the nation's taxes. I have heard many complain about the disproportionate burden you bear, simply for trying to succeed. In extreme cases, you've deliberately avoided further success for fear of lowering your after-tax income, not just the percentage, but the income itself. I can't blame you for losing your spirit. Why work harder when you will be not only rewarded less, but downright punished? Still, this despair, this abandonment of effort, is a key part in a strategy among those who promote class hatred to bring you down. Without your balance and generosity, a post-socialist system will not work.

First off, remember that it is good for the human being to work. The Rich are often prone to mental and physical health problems that are less apt to afflict the workers, simply because of their lives of leisure. Granted, they are also safeguarded from problems that afflict those who work too hard with no leisure, especially without proper food and warmth, but they are not necessarily any more at their peak than the overworked. There is an increasing belief in this society that the right way to find happiness is to get a lot of money and pursue worldly pleasures for as long as you please. You, being a Christian, know better. If by your income you are self-sufficient, consider volunteering.

Secondly, you of all people must continue to manage your money effectively. Right now the government takes a large portion of it for government-coerced charity. When that changes, the people they help will still be there, as will those who suffer as they fall 'between the cracks'. Now's the time to be aware of where you can help those in need. Investigate charities and how they work. Choose your methods of charity. Remember that you will be reporting to God how you used the money available to you and why. The more released from the government's clutches, the more you will be accountable for.

Thirdly, remember to prosper. That sounds like a strange thing to say, doesn't it? Note that prospering is not the same as living a luxury lifestyle. The badly-termed "prosperity gospel" does not actually involve true prospering at all. Prospering, thriving, booming, growing... all involve increasing the wealth at your disposal, not just having a fancy car or lots of vacations. God prospers all the more those who give willingly and out of a cheerful heart, in part because the more you have, the more you are able to give.

Giving willingly is another thing that human beings were made to do and thrive by doing. It has measurable health benefits and brings happiness to the giver and the receiver. Of course, as a Christian, you know that even if there were no benefits God still wishes you to become a generous person. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it, that the way He wants you to be is the healthiest way for you to live?

Christian Conservatives and Charity, Part 1

I have been listening to someone on another forum who appreciates fiscal conservatism, but would discard social conservatism. That would be a grave error. Liberalism is like a cell, locking us in a small room and telling us that within that small room we may do as we please. Conservatism is setting us free... but a free man must have constraints on his behavior, or it is an act of unkindness to give him his liberty. Social conservatism is made up of those restraints, while fiscal conservatism is our freedom.

Conservatives Christians have been instructed by God Himself to see that their society cares for the poor. While liberals, even liberal Christians, would seek government seizure and redistribution towards this end, Conservative Christians consider the myriads of Bible passages confirming the importance of owning your own property and being personally responsible for it's use. Even slaves in the Old Testament could own their own property, and even married women, under the guidelines of submission, were encouraged to own and profit from their personal holdings apart from their husbands.

This theme of voluntary generosity is carried into the New Testament, in which we find that the sin of Ananias and Sapphire was not merely greed, but lying to put on a false show of piety. The words I find telling in this passage, found at the end of Acts chapter 4 and the beginning of Acts chapter 5, is the following explanation: "Before you sold the land, was it not your own? And when you had sold it, was the money not in your control?" Peter was making it clear that the 'socialism' shown by the early Christians was entirely voluntary. I have mostly abandoned for now my effort to get all the way through the Koran, but as an interesting contrast, the beginning parts of the Koran insist that mandatory charity is one of the necessities to earn paradise.

Why is charity urged, but not detailed and coerced, in the Bible? Christianity is a bit more complicated than most world religions. Rather than being a simple to-do list, it is about transformation into a certain kind of person. Instead of constantly going to a 'well' to draw out virtues of the soul, we are to be a 'spring of water' out of which these virtues naturally bubble out and overflow. Telling us exactly what we must give and why would do us little good if we are ever to be mature Christians seeking Jesus of our own accord. That is why the kind of control shown by a socialistic government is absent from the Bible, leaving us only with the command to become a generous people, and the sense that if we do so, proper care of the poor will naturally follow.

Parable of the Jacuzzi

One day the king who ruled the land decided to go visit some of his peasants. He was rather surprised to see the sorry state of their house and asked if there was anything he could do for them.
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."

This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.

Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"

"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."

But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.

I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.

Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...

Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!

What should we do now?

As some of those who follow this blog might have guessed by some of my previous posts, I am not a hard-left liberal Democrat, which means my politics are not those of our president-elect. Though my politics lean towards Libertarian, my actual worldview is probably best described as Conservative Christian. Yesterday was not a very nice day for Conservative Christians.

I had my moment of despair, an entire hour early in the morning, and I pulled together. That's something that the Conservative Christian does better than many other worldviews. God is still in control, and we are not to worry unduly about the future, because it will take care of itself. God gives us the grace we need to deal with our current situation, and when I have to I can focus very small until I reach the point where I know what to do next. Sometimes in these troubled times that focus narrows down to "take the clothes out of the washing machine", which I do. I immediately begin to feel better.

Then I began hearing from other troubled friends, some conservative, some Christian, some moderate, some liberal. Some were telling me that everything would work out fine now because they had faith in their candidate's economic plan. As a conservative, I find his plan makes no realistic sense, so that was not much help. A fellow Conservative Christian reminded me that God is on His throne and hasn't stopped caring for us, and that is the word I began to spread, because that's how we think.

So for those who have wandered, like I did until my fellows reminded me, into the mire of worldly fears and frantic worries, what should we do now?

Live.

I might not know what to do if my taxes are raised, but I know that the laundry needs doing, and there's a package of sugar cookie dough that is going to go bad if it's not used, and my son needs his homeschooling lesson done. My mother's car is being repaired and I'm providing rides for her meanwhile. So I can't just sit paralyzed with fears that God did not mean for me to carry; I need to hand those fears over to Him along with my entire future, and go get ready for the present trial.

And as I do I realize that the present trial isn't really all that bad. Sugar cookies are fun to roll out and decorate with my son. My mother's a great conversationalist and we're good friends, so no car ride with her is ever dull or painful. The laundry is laundry, no worse than it's ever been, and there is such a good feeling when I know my clothing is clean and in it's drawers.

How will Conservative Christians live for the next few years, with liberal extremism in office? Sure, it can be done. I'll try to push myself to write the thoughts always swirling in my head and tell you more about how in the coming days. But for right now, I simply say this: Work, play, laugh, love, and learn. The presidential election did not take away your home or vanish your to-do list. Prepare for winter and save your money. God will take care of the future.

Pushing Lifestyle Through Taxes

I have been watching this election season avidly, scrutinizing the candidates' plans, and discovered in dismay that one has managed to dupe us with promises of more and more money... unless you make over $250K/year. Or maybe it's $200K/year. It might be $150K/year. As of yesterday, it was $120K/year, which puts the "rich folk" label on a dual wage-earner household in which both members have middle-class jobs. But that's besides the point. The Democrats have been inciting class hatred for decades now.

What struck me about this new plan is the part that almost nobody is talking about. Obama's plan is touted as a tax cut, but it actually is not a tax cut at all. His plan involves tons of new tax credits. There are two important differences between the two. The first is that a tax cut reduces the amount of money that government takes from you, while a tax credit increases the amount that the government gives back. The second, and the focus of my post today, is that tax cuts apply according to income regardless of lifestyle, while you must qualify for a tax credit by meeting a special set of circumstances.

A lot of people have been offering me a website that supposedly asks you a few questions and calculates how much more money Obama plans to give you. I checked the site myself and found that my number is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" gave me more money than Obama is promising me, even as he desires to roll back those cuts. Basically, I will come out on the bad side if he is elected. Am I rich?

Obama's Families In Trouble on his half-hour infomercial made me laugh. One woman worries that she won't be able to stock as much snack food in her fridge. Another woman, sporting a $40/month acrylic nail job, mourns about the difficulty she has buying milk. Look, hon, I do nothing with my nails so I can afford milk.

My husband makes a decent wage, and I am a homemaker and homeschooling mother. That combination puts us in the same income level as "Working Class", and the only thing that would technically push us into "Lower Middle Class" is my husband's job type. We have a fixed-rate mortgage that we staunchly refused to convert to variable-rate when the interest levels for variable bounced to 1%, mostly because we already knew that they would rise above 10% at some point in the next thirty years. People don't seem to know how to plan further than the next five years anymore.

Our tax burden, federal, state, Social Security, and Medicaid all comes up to about 20% of our income. Our mortgage payment is over half of our net income. We pay next for electricity, auto insurance, and phone service (including internet). We own both our cars outright. We do not own a cell phone, not even an emergency plan. With all of that, the rest of our income is spent on food and gas, plus any emergencies, mostly auto repair, that demand a response. We have no entertainment budget.

Our food budget is 2/3rds of what a family our size would get on welfare, and it will be a little over half that when the baby is born. We actually took the unusual step of applying for energy assistance this year, and found that we were only $500/year over the mark. That puts us, by the way, just above 150% of the state poverty level. You would think Obama would be falling all over himself to help us, right? Why will his new plan benefit us almost nothing? Simple: we do not fit into his 'poor person lifestyle'. In plainer talk, we don't qualify for his tax credits, which include:

* Doubling the earned income tax credit if you pay child support
* $4K tax credit if you paid college tuition
* $7K tax credit if you bought a "clean car"
* $6K tax credit if you pay for daycare

So basically, since my husband has not abandoned his family, neither of us are in college, we can't afford to buy a car, and I choose to raise our children myself, we don't qualify for any of those Obama Tax Credits. There are more, of course, and we don't qualify for them either. Education tax credits do not apply to homeschoolers, etc.

So it doesn't matter to Obama that next spring we will have a food budget nearly half of that from a family on welfare, or that we are likely to put our winter oil tank fill on the credit card because we simply do not have it in the bank, even though we do not make any of the poor choices that land many other families in poverty. This is not class warfare anymore. We are "rich", not because we make a lot of money, but because we don't live the way he expects us to. Perhaps, and this is admittedly a conjecture, we do not live the way that contributes to the socialist society the Democrats wish to impose. And so we must be punished until we fall into line.

Already my husband knows of coworkers, even in his white-collar workplace, who choose not to marry their girlfriends for the simple reason that the state will provide for them better then their men can. One in particular, with full intention to be a good father to his girlfriend's baby, nevertheless waited until the child was born before marriage so that the state would provide her with the prenatal care she needed, the care that he could not provide himself, even as he was taxed at or near the same 20%-when-counting-federal/state/SS/etc. rate that my husband and I suffer under.

I say 'suffer', but we're holding our own. Even on such a small food budget, I still provide good meals for my family by resorting to beans, rice, potatoes, and other simple and unpackaged foods. The woman in Obama's infomercial with snacks in her refrigerator made me simply shake my head, because we simply cannot afford any snack foods in our budget. According to Obama, she needs more help than we do.

This is no longer just about Democratic class warfare. This is about the government rewarding some lifestyles over others. If you try to work hard, live frugally, and trouble no man, raising your children within the framework of a traditional family, the Democrats do not care about you.

9/11 celebration

This morning, I lit candles on the dining room table, which I do for special days or when I just feel like it. I did it today for 9/11, for the planes and the towers and the people and the silent skies for weeks afterwards.

That isn't the extent of my observance, though.

9/11 isn't just a day to solemnly read names of the dead, to mourn the towers, and to watch the flaming footage again and again and again. It's more than that now, as we hit Year 7 after the first event and take a look at what has and hasn't happened.

Civilians in many other countries live in fear.. or despite the fear.. of terrorist attack. They know any place they go could suddenly end up engulfed in flames, shrapnel flying in all directions. They know they are part of a war zone that, unlike the usual gentlemanly rules of war, is targeted at them.

On 9/11, those terrorists tried to make us one of those places. They failed.

Now, this is the day we acknowledge that. This day reminds us that we struck back. Bin Laden said "Submit" and we said "Submit THIS!" So today I light candles in the morning and then I say "Submit this!"

I'm about to head out to do my foodshopping without fear, knowing that whatever awaits me there, a suicide vest will not even be a remote possibility. Then I'm going to go home and cook a good party dinner. We're going to eat pork! I don't often have pig products just because my stomach doesn't always take to it well, but today is different! Today is the day we eat pork and celebrate, because we are not afraid.

I won't be watching any news/television broadcasts, but we might put on a movie or play video games later.

Anybody who wishes to 'steal my idea' may do so with utter impunity. Remember. Don't forget. Don't lose sight of it. But don't despair, and grieve only as befits you. Then go find your own way of saying "Submit this!"

Anti-anti-feminism? Or not quite?

Since McCain has made his unexpected VP pick, forums and blogs everywhere have been alight. Especially in the media areas where I watch, suddenly everyone wants to talk about this not-unknown-for-long woman, governor of a state most people don't even think about on a semi-regular basis.

I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.

1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.

I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.

Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.

2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?

Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.

As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.

The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.

A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.

The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.

The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.

Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."

Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."

On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.

To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"

Do-Nothing Democrats

The oil situation in my country is mirrored neatly by the water situation in my town, and the crux of the problem lies with the same people: the Democrats who are in charge.

My town is currently under an extreme water shortage. Residents are not allowed to water their lawns, wash their cars, or even water their vegetable gardens. Luckily, the last hasn't been too terrible, because this was the fourth wettest July on record, and June was also considerably wetter than normal. The rain has soaked the ground, filling streams nearly to overflowing. Every time it rains, as it's doing today, there are flood watches across the state. Half the time, they turn into flood warnings in one area or another.

Does this sound contradictory? It should. The United States is sitting on a wealth of oil, and my town is sitting on a wealth of water. So why are prices high? Why is my town under water restriction of the highest order?

One of the town wells broke down and has not been repaired. Another one was taken offline, I'm not sure exactly why, leaving only one well to service the entire area. The people voted into charge of my town are overwhelmingly Democrat, as our Congress currently has Democratic control of both houses, and they have not repaired either of the two wells in reserve nor sought to drill a third. We have a reservoir in town, kept off-limits and unused. There was some talk in a town meeting half a year ago of opening the reservoir to supplement the single well, but it has not yet happened.

The local Democrats have, however, secured a multi-million grant from the state in order to vastly reduce the debt we are about to take on in purchasing a large area of recreational forest. It's a very pretty property and, once the lead cleanup finishes and a large-scale poison ivy eradication effort is undertaken, may even be safe to visit.

The Congressional Democrats have turned out the lights on the Republicans, who are even now standing in the dark telling the Democrats and the rest of the country that the working poor need to be able to get to work and keep their houses warm in the upcoming winter.

I think we need some Republicans at my town hall telling the Democrats that their citizens need water.

Preparing Education

Now that my son is five years old, I know the time has come for him to begin education. In this country, I have a few options. There is a public school system, ostentatiously 'free', but in fact paid for by taxpayers. There is also a set of private school systems, many religion-based. Lastly, there is the legal opportunity to homeschool. After consideration of the options and my child's unique personality, I have opted for the third.

What kind of person homeschools? There's a variety, but I can give you my answer in this case: I am a married woman with a bachelor's degree and some experience both teaching on the college level and tutoring on elementary, highschool, and college levels. My husband and I maintain a single-income working-class family with a mortgage, a small vegetable garden, and a very old station wagon. I'll be doing most of the teaching, with my husband supplementing with what only a father can provide to a little boy.

I have scored a consistent IQ level of "Bright" with high creativity, suspected "ADHD Inattentive", high sensitivity, mild dyslexia, and synesthesia. My husband has scored an IQ varying between Moderately Gifted and Exceptionally Gifted with his score rising each time the test is administered, diagnosed "ADHD Hyperactive", with a mild language processing disorder.

I bounced between public, private, and homeschool through my education, so although I was once homeschooled, I approach the decision with some experience in each sector. My husband was public-schooled entirely, in and out of 'Special Ed' and on and off of Ritalin, and heartily approves of homeschool.

Why would I choose homeschool? I have several reasons, the main ones I'll set out in order of importance:

1. Giftedness - My son shows signs of my high sensitivity and my husband's exceptional manual dexterity and mechanical skill. He is very intelligent and observant such that people interacting with him one-on-one always remark on it, but teachers who see him in large groups think he's 'a little slow'. (I suspect sensory overload.) He may be ADHD Hyperactive, but I think he's within the realm of a normal active boy in terms of attention span and ability to sit still.

2. Sensitivities - As noted before, I suspect him to be prone to sensory overload. Even as a baby, he would sometimes cry uncontrollably until I simply put him in his crib, walked out, and shut the door for five minutes. He didn't even go to sleep. He just needed his world 'reduced' for a while. He becomes either completely withdrawn or irritably hyperactive when he's among a group of his peers, and reacts badly to sudden loud noises. (Badly means startling and crying, not becoming violent or uncontrollable.)

Do not feed this kid artificial colors or flavorings, or he will become an absolute bear for the rest of the day. I could just imagine the chaos he could cause if someone fed him a glass of Hi C and a few Skittles and then expected him to sit quietly in a classroom for the next two hours.

I suspect he is 'borderline', not bad enough for special attention, but bad enough to not get from a traditional school system what he needs. I want to teach him the coping skills I have learned, in a safe environment, and expose him to the busier environments by degrees. I do not believe in the "toss in and see if he swims" mentality when dealing with a still-forming brain.

3. Christian teachings - Shouldn't I as a "good Christian" put this first? Well, no, actually. You can raise a child through the private or even public school systems and still instill important values within him, though it will be more challenging when the school will not work with you. Children will learn from the people around them how to behave, whether you like it or not. They are not able to miraculously develop social and life skills from a blank slate, and they will look to their parents first in trying to discover what an adult is supposed to be.

I want to see to it that he learns what will make him a good man, respectful to women, willing to submit to authority without blindly following it, able to challenge wrongdoers and care for the needy. In particular I believe the public school system often follows with popular culture in giving lip service to virtue while promoting the following of your own self-interest in the name of 'happiness'.

This may be a good place to address the question of socialization. Children can be jerks for a while while they're learning to be adults. (A few continue to be jerks into adulthood.) Just as you would not want an apprentice electrician learning to be a master from another apprentice, you do not want your child learning from his peers how to be an adult. Right now, my son is friendly and gentle, kind, without an ounce of racial/sexual discrimination in him. I want him to grow up to be a friendly man, gentle, without an ounce of racial/sexual discrimination. Once he leaves highschool, his 'peer group' will have nothing to do with age alone for the entire rest of his life. He will be interacting with teachers, students, congressmen, doctors, grocers, and bankers of all different ages and backgrounds. I do not choose homeschooling despite a concern about socialization. I choose homeschooling because of a concern about socialization. Age-related activities and other socialization opportunities are readily provided through extracurricular activities, with and without Mom.

4. Sexual discrimination - With boys disproportionately being perceived as 'acting up', punished, and in some cases belittled in the public school system, with the percentages of college-bound young men falling, it is obvious there is something wrong with the public school experience being geared utterly towards the strengths and development of female over male.

Boys are being taught that all aggression and competitiveness is evil, forced to repress it instead of being trained to control and direct it for the good of humankind. They are pushed, often too early, into a place where you are penalized for being an active child, where girls often have the jump on them in language skills, and girls are encouraged to excel beyond them at math at their expense. Literature assignments and history retellings are tailored for feminine enjoyment, and increasing numbers of boys simply do not find it interesting.

I wish to be able to tailor my boy's education to his boyness, to encourage him to read about boys who overcome struggles and win battles internal and external, who protect the weak and provide for the needy. I do intend to nurture his gentle side. He already owns a baby doll (which he treats with utmost care) and enjoys watching movies like Cinderella and (to my surprise) The Sound of Music. It is important to teach boys to be kind and careful, to never torture animals and to treat fragile things with extra delicacy. But it is also important to let them be boys and show them how to be men, and in this area I feel the public school is far behind and many private schools are not much better.

How do I homeschool? Again, there are many different answers to this question, so I will give mine. We have officially enrolled him in a private, nonprofit distance program known as Christian Liberty Academy Satellite Schools, or CLASS for short. I'm in their full plan, which means that they provide a curriculum, and I submit my student's work back to them for grading. They maintain paperwork including transcripts and other school records for me. They also have a Family Plan, in which they simply ship you a curriculum and you don't send anything back, neither do they keep records for you. You can also make your own curriculum, but that's harder, and takes more expertise than I feel that I have at this moment. I'm knowledgeable enough to know that I don't know what I'm doing quite well enough to fill in all the gaps. That may change over time.

Am I afraid of getting into legal trouble? Well, our parents on all sides are pretty supportive of our decision, and other family members are either supportive or at least not hostile. Still, it is possible to run into difficulty. Consider that the usual overseers of a homeschool program is the local public school district, which will gain an extra $6K give or take per year if they can prove that you aren't doing a good enough job. Not all districts are equal, and some are friendlier than others, but most homeschoolers learn to beware. We've taken the extra step and joined HSLDA, which for a surprisingly small annual fee will represent us if we run into any problems.

Homeschooling is legal in all states in my country, with restrictions varying from lenient to near prohibitive. Fortunately, my state strikes a good balance.

What are some things people might not know about homeschooling?

1. It doesn't require the parent to be a certified teacher in most states, and research has shown that homeschooling parents with only a highschool education actually turn out students with slightly higher grades on average than those with a higher education level.

2. In the semi-recently profiled cases on the news media about homeschooling 'to hide child abuse', every family mentioned had already been investigated multiple times by DCF, which dropped the ball on the follow-up. Homeschooling had about as much to do with it as the color of the parents' hair, and it certainly didn't cloak them from the government.

3. Most homeschoolers have several extracurricular activities, not all of them religious, in which to exercise their social and leadership skills. They can range from 4H to Civil Air Patrol to karate lessons to Boy Scouts. They provide extra accountability as well. "Isolated" rarely describes a homeschooling family.

4. Among homeschooled children, the educational gap between black and white, as well as male and female, disappears completely.

Is homeschooling always the best choice? Absolutely not. You don't need to be a genius to teach, especially with the curriculum options available, but you do need to be sufficiently disciplined and determined. Sometimes the parent, through no fault of their own, can't pull it off. Sometimes the kid is just the sort who learns best in that traditional public-school environment. Sometimes a kid is best off in homeschool for some years, public school in others, and private in still others. This is a decision that should be made uniquely for each parent, each child, each year. Perhaps my son will reach a point where he has overcome his sensitivities and needs the further structure and/or learning style of a public or private school system.

But for now, homeschooling is definitely It.

Some undesired answers to modern society's questions

I find that people rarely repeat simple things that we already know to be true, and yet when someone does repeat it, everyone around them who understands it breathes an internal sigh of relief. I find that at the Sunday service, when my pastor speaks simply and deliberately, laying out a problem in simple terms and giving a solid solution without all of the confusion and double-speak floating around by those who would go another way. I don't know if I'm the kind of person who can say something simple in a simple manner. I can certainly do it in a complicated manner. But maybe someone will read it and sigh in relief.

A lot of people are going to be really offended by this, but hopefully not many of them bother to visit my blog! The first simple thing I could say is that people who are going deliberately against God's plan are going against the very workings of the universe, and it's pretty quiet and desolate out there on a limb. This is why they try so hard to convince, not only themselves, but everyone they meet to approve of them and what they're doing. Those who know they're in God's will don't need anybody else's approval. So if you see someone trying to mandate having only their version told and criminalizing alternate opinions, that's a warning flag.

Everyone has a still small voice inside them, a space made by the Creator for Him to fill. When you rebel against society, friends, and your own family, you are fighting what is outside of you. When you rebel against God, you are fighting something inside yourself. That is why some people are extra touchy about the lifestyles they are trying to glorify.

The idea, you see, is that if everyone on the outside agrees with them, perhaps they can stifle the voice inside. The truth is that it won't work. In fact, if the voice inside agrees with you, you do not need any of the voices outside to approve the way you're choosing to spend your time.

Imperfect Parents

Yes, there are always the few on Mother's Day or Father's Day who may feel as if they don't quite deserve the title. They look back on their lives, their successes, but more often their failures. Some are unwed mothers. Some struggled with alcohol or drug addiction. Some are simply perfectionists who pick up any perceived shortcoming (I didn't make his favorite cookies often enough!) and magnify it until it fills the world.

Children learn from their parents, and the way the parents approach their shortcomings will teach their children some very important life lessons. Everyone has shortcomings. Parents should realize and remember that they need to teach their children how to handle them. Strive, of course, and try your best, but don't hate yourself for your mistakes! God doesn't!

Of course, to a young child you're 'perfect', and boy, you'd better be. You're laying down a foundation that helps the child relate to other people and God in this point of his life. If he claims that you're perfect, there's no need to burden his heart out of a desire to tell the truth. You can point out that no human being is perfect and redirect his attention towards God. But there's no need to fill in the details.

On the other hand, there's no need to hide the details forever. As your child is old enough to understand, it's not a terrible thing to admit your shortcomings in the past and, as your child ages further, in the present as well. There are several good things that will come of this careful but honest introspection.

Your child may be able to avoid your mistakes, especially if he knows of the situation before he is old enough to encounter something similar in his own life. All the vicious cycles, alcoholism, violence, procrastination, they can all be broken. Maybe your child won't be the one to do it. Maybe it's meant to be you. Maybe it'll be his child. But an understanding of the tendencies in his family can help him face them within himself without bewilderment and shame.

Also, it can be a relief to a child to know that though the bar may be set high, that it's not insurmountable. It can be a source of comfort to know that perfection is not required for your love. I am reminded of the Back to the Future main character reminiscing about his mother's retelling of her childhood. "I think the woman was born a nun!" That can be a lot for a kid to live up to! When a parent refuses to present himself as anything but perfect, his child might be intimidated at the thought of speaking honestly when he's made a mistake, and that could keep them both from dealing with it before it becomes worse.

Finally, the way a parent handles an imperfection can teach a child a great deal about handling his own mistakes. A parent with a bad temper who honestly and humbly apologizes afterwards can teach a child that it's okay to admit you were wrong. A child can learn the importance of reconciliation, honesty, and humility by watching a parent correct his own mistakes. For an intense, serious child this is even more important, as it shows him how to handle imperfection with calm and dignity. Many children who commit suicide are high achievers who made a relatively unimportant mistake. Be forgiving of yourself for the sake of your child!

A child can learn from an imperfect parent, even one who never owns up to his mistakes. I was reading a list of essays that famous men's sons wrote about their fathers. Some of them wrote things like "My dad taught me how not to treat a woman. I will not call my wife any of the names he called my mother." Children are more observant than you know, and they pick up on emotional cues you may not even know that you're sending. On the other hand, the bond between you is very strong and it is very difficult to turn a child fully against a parent. A simple acknowledgment that you are not a perfect person is not enough to do it.

The simplest things

I took an Internet test this morning on being a '1930's wife'. I thought I'd score as low as other people I'd seen taking it for sure. I was amazed to find that I scored very highly. I was more amazed to see the kind of things the test required of a good 1930's wife, considering how many people scored poorly.

So what kind of things did I check? I dress before breakfast. I am cheerful in the mornings. I greet my husband with a smile when he comes home from work. Supper is generally on time. I know how to sew a button on a shirt. I try to learn a bit about what he's doing at work. I'm pretty frugal with the money. (Those outside of my uber-frugal New Englander family would say I'm exceptionally frugal with the money.) I'm pleasant even with unexpected guests. I speak with my husband before making large decisions/purchases. I checked that I wear red nail polish, but I don't know if that counted for or against me.

What kind of things did I not check? I don't gossip. I don't correct my husband's speech in front of guests. I don't go to bed angry at him.

Is it so difficult, ladies? I've heard so many women complain bitterly about "what was expected" of that 1930's wife. I've heard them scoff. Doesn't she take any time for herself? Isn't she more than just a doormat? Of course she is! Don't sound so stupid! Does it really take that much from a woman to smile when her husband comes home? To listen to him? To care about what he's been doing, his needs and his struggles, his successes? What'd you even get married for?

I worked full-time outside the home for three years while my husband finished an advance college degree that would allow us to live on a single income so that I could homeschool our son. It was so difficult! I got a taste of what my husband deals with, and on top of that I had to deal with a lot of the household stuff. You know what, though? I learned from it what made a day better and what made it worse. It's a tough world out there, especially in the "cubicle farms," underappreciated and struggling for position.

Do you know how much nicer it is to live that life if you come home to a smile? If you wake up to a pleasant demeanor? To have someone supporting you and not tearing you down? Women act like it's such an unreasonable demand on their time and energy, but it's so little, it's so little and it means so much.

Now you don't really have to know how to sew on a button if you've got the money to buy a new dress every spring and fall. You don't have to know how to cook a masterpiece if you can put something together that's healthy and pretty nearly on time. You don't have to do curlers in your hair and makeup every evening just to look nice when your guy comes home. You have a vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher, a washing machine and dryer, a microwave, and a car. Some people talk as if everyone should go back to the 30's, but that's not necessary. Where we've made progress, let's keep it.

But I would love to keep that 30's attitude, the cheerful, loving, giving wife who doesn't think it's a burden on her time to smile at her husband when he comes home. Someone who cares about taking care of him, who is interested in him. Someone who does the homemaking, not growly and begrudgingly, but with pride and a bit of finesse.

Christianity and Tolerance

I'd like to notice something here. With the exception of fearful sheep who claim to follow Christ because they either hold a church membership (all too easy these days) or those who are trying to prove themselves obsessively through a cult mentality, Christians on the whole tend to be more tolerant of other religions than anyone, especially secular humanists. There are a couple of reasons for this, and I'd like to set them out while I'm thinking of them.

Christianity is based on love of all people, regardless of their looks, religions, jobs, and sin. When you truly love as God loves, or rather as much as you are able given your flawed human form, you will not despise members of another religion. You may feel sorry for them, and you will likely wish you could, as Jesus said, gather them under His wings like a mother hen protects and warms her young, but you won't despise them. You won't want to kill them. You won't consider this world a better place without them.

(This doesn't have to make everyone total pacifists. It is terrible but true that in this fallen world one man may have to be killed to protect others. The instructions given to soldiers was not to lay down their arms, but to be content with their salary and not oppress the people they protect.)

There are some people I term 'hyper-Christians' who have their hearts in the right place, but irk those who hate them by focusing so thoroughly on this love that they badger people continuously in hopes of saving any of them, for honestly no other reason than that they would not have anybody fall to destruction. They are different than the 'gotta-catch-them-all' Christians who do so as some kind of sick attempt at a spiritual 500-Saved-Club. God doesn't work with numbers that way, and that leads me to another reason why Christians tend to be tolerant.

Christianity is a matter of devoting your whole self, body, soul, and mind, to God. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is required. Unlike religions where all you have to do is say a phrase and complete the appropriate rituals, or learn your sayings and 'mean it', there is no way to be a lukewarm but genuine Christian. Those who don't care much will fall away, and those who do care will end up in the right direction. Therefore, despite what happens when Christianity (or any religion) meets Power-Hungry, you cannot force conversion and have it stick. Conversion must be not only self-initiated, but anyone pushed into it or led by the nose will invariably end up as rocky or weedy soil. (Those of you who don't know what that means, there's a parable, ask and I'll tell it.)

Christians have a strong base on which to stand when they stand on their faith. Most people who get confused about it are easily confused by shallow tricks (like the old 'how can a loving God disapprove of homosexual acts' etc.) that are easily defeated with an honest understanding of the Bible, rather than an attempt to crowbar it apart. The accuracy of the Bible and support for it's claims surpass the proofs of many historical events that children are taught in school. I could go on, but I don't mean to get into all the proofs here... search them out for yourself. My point is that Christians don't have to shut their ears to any information about any other religion for fear that, as the Nip and Tuck webcomic put it so nicely, their 'worldview will throw a piston rod'. The point of many other groups, particularly gay rights and abortion rights groups, is not only to deliver their message but to silence opposition due to this fear.

These are the three attributes of tolerance from Christians: A sturdy base of faith, a true love for those not of their religion, and an understanding that faith in God must be real and never forced.

From that comes an unprecedented tolerance for those of other beliefs that surpasses the majority of other religions, including Islam, which is beat out for last place in the tolerance game by Secular Humanism because even the most extremist Muslim-led country will allow other religion adherents as second-class citizens.

I continue to study the Quran out of curiosity, unafraid that I may risk eternal damnation by finding something that makes more sense than what I already believe, or that I may find my own religion to be faded and threadbare in comparison. I haven't thrown a piston rod yet, and from what I've read so far, I seriously doubt that I will!

I do plan to do more on that series.. it is not over. For the time being I have been doing spring cleaning, homeschooling, gardening, and basically managing the household, a job that has rather overtaken my free time for a while.

The Cow vs. 48 and 60 – Who then is righteous?

The Cow vs. 48 and 60 – Who then is righteous?

How to be fit for Heaven

Verse 48 introduces an interesting concept in the midst of another long declaration of how the sinful will perish forever and the sinless will earn paradise. It mentions the attempt to “deserve” Heaven by joining yourself to a “servant of God” as a model. Apparently, if you can identify with someone who certainly deserved Heaven and model yourself after him as much as possible, you may make your way in with the help of an ‘intercession’, the mechanics of which were not laid out. Maybe we will get more detail on that later. However, the very concept of following another human as an example seems strange to Christians, who believe that none of us are without sin and the only perfect example is Jesus Christ.

At this point, it is necessary to understand and remember the difference between the Christian and Muslim view of “sin”. In Islam, unintentional sin is not enough to keep you out of Heaven, but intentional sin is. In Christianity, the bar is raised much higher, but so is the level of hope. Even intentional sin, even the worst sort, can be forgiven through acceptance of Christ’s atonement. Christian faith is an all-or-nothing proposal, with no way to attain righteousness on your own. Islam is a little more vague, with the basic idea that you may be able to refrain from sin sufficient to bar you from Heaven, with Allah’s help and a great deal of prayer.

Sinless prophets through revisionist history

My first thought when reading about intercession was helpfully answered only a few verses later. Being a lifelong Christian, I instantly wondered how you would go about finding a sufficiently righteous man to emulate. “After all, even the prophets of the Bible, even the greatest people sinned. David committed adultery. Moses disobeyed God in Kadesh.”

What was Kadesh? It was the place where the Israelites, once again, complained about lack of water. Moses was told by God to ‘speak to the rock’ and that waters would gush out for the Israelites. Instead, Moses took them to task. “Do you expect me to bring water out of this rock for you?” And he struck the rock with his staff, twice. God answered, and brought the water, but informed Moses later that his punishment for disobedience was that he would never be able to cross over into the Chosen Land. Moses’ disobedience here, by the way, was a little more subtle than the plain story suggests. He did things his own way, and he neglected to give credit to God.

Verse 60 in the Koran, however, tells a different story. It claims that “We (Allah) told Moses to strike the rock, so that water would come out…” in the midst of it’s tirade, admittedly not unlike tirades among Old Testament prophets, about Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Now those who are not well versed in the Bible, not only what it says but why, would probably see the difference between ‘speaking’ and ‘striking’ in God’s orders to be so unimportant that it would not even need to be mentioned. God spoke to Moses, Moses struck the rock, the miracle happened. However, like the changes made from the Biblical account in earlier verses, a slight edit changes the entire story. A sinful human like the rest of us is transformed into a sinless paragon suitable for identification and capable of intercession.

Remember that Islam, unlike Christianity, is a ‘new revelation’ religion. The New Testament completes and explains the Old Testament, but it does not rewrite. The system of atonement for sin and the need for a Savior runs throughout the entirety of both Scriptures. However, Mohammed’s visions, to the Muslim, represent new revelation that overrides and corrects the old. So if the Bible says that God told Moses to speak to the rock and the Koran says that Allah told Moses to strike the rock, for the Muslims, the ‘newer revelation’ takes precedence. In that way, revisionist history is justified in order to protect a claim not defensible through the Old Testament that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim to hold in common.