The US Immigration Controversy

There's been a lot of press about this lately and it's got me going again. First off I do agree that many of the new laws that many states are trying to enact go over the top, but on the other hand I have to say that I can't really support the groups opposing the laws either because many of them seem to have lost track of the fact that many of the people that they are attempting to protect are here illegally. I may not agree with the current laws that govern the immigration of people from other countries to the US, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore them and come in illegally. I also sympathize with the thousands of adult illegals who were brought here illegally by their parents before they could object and who don't remember living anywhere else, but it is not the law that has done them wrong- it is the parents who brought them into this legal predicament in the first place.

I think that in light of the numbers that we are talking about, there does need to be a reevaluation of the way that these cases are handled, but I bristle against the implication that everyone who has grown up here is automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship, even if their very presence is illegal.  US citizens have jumped through the hoops and paid their dues. They and their families should be entitled to the benefits of being a citizen (eg. public education for their kids, decent living conditions and infasctructure, resident pricing for college), and they should not have to take a back seat to people who decided that coming into the country legally was too much trouble and so they were going to sneak in and demand all those benefits anyway.

I would like to see a program put in place that would allow many of the currently illegal residents of our country to acquire citizenship in a timely manner and that would allow for a more reasonable process for people still wanting to come in, but I think that should be accompanied with stiffer regulations to punish those who still refuse to legitimize their residence here. I agree however that the current stance of stiffer regulations with no alternative is wrong, if only because it does effect so many who were drug into this situation before they were old enough to object.

Creationism in Biology class?!? Really?

Ok, so here's the deal... I was talking to this friend of mine who has 3 kids the same age as 2 of mine (a set of girl/boy twins the same age as my oldest daughter and a daughter the same age as my oldest son) All 5 of them are in high school this year, but at separate schools, and we were catching up and comparing notes having a completely normal conversation when all of the sudden she launches into this little rant about how she is going to go to the school and insist that her kids be allowed to leave the classroom when their biology classes cover evolution because the school refuses to teach creationism as a competing theory.

I had to almost physically restrain myself from responding to her.  I really like this lady and there is a lot that I really admire about her, but when it comes to this subject I just can not agree with her, but in the interest of preserving our friendship, I held my tongue and did the whole smile and nod routine. After all, whether I agree or not I am a firm believer in the idea that if she wants to believe in that type of religious claptrap... well that is her business, but when she suggested that Creationism SHOULD be taught in our schools I almost lost it.  I wanted to scream at her! CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY! AT BEST, FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT,  IT QUALIFIES AS AN UNTESTED HYPOTHESIS (AND I'M NOT SURE BUT IT MAY NOT EVEN QUALIFY FOR THAT AS HYPOTHESES USUALLY HAVE TO BE BASED ON OBSERVATION AND CREATIONISM REALLY HAS NOTHING EXCEPT THE HEARSAY FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

In fact, I have to wonder how many people who claim to believe that Creationism is true are even aware that prior to the creation of the King James version of the Bible, there were actually multiple versions of the creation story in Christian lore. Most of those versions can still be found from other sources, though a few have been lost to ages due to the Church at the time of King James hunting down and destroying as many copies as they could get their hands on. Furthermore, the biblical book of Genesis, like most other early biblical texts, was not written down at all until the time of Moses, which means that it's most likely not even close to the original version to begin with since we all know how well facts are preserved when spread by word of mouth alone- anyone ever play "telephone" as a kid? Each generation that told that story prior to it being written down would have changed the story a little bit- maybe not intentionally, but it would have happened- and we are talking about a lot of generations here. Not to mention that each time it got translated into another language it would change a little bit more and it went through at least 2 translations before it landed in the King James Bible (Hebrew to Latin and Latin to English).

So near as I can tell, the closest thing that the Creationists have to real proof of their claims is another hypothesis- the idea of intelligent design, which basically says that the fact that all things in the universe follow set rules like gravity implies that there must be a God.... that at least has some observable basis, but it's pretty weak, because while there are indeed a large number of rules that the universe follows, there is also a lot of chance and a lot of random crap that argues against the idea. Honestly I think that I would be more apt to believe in God if those rules of nature didn't exist because then there would be no other explanation for why anything worked.

If any of you have gotten this far (and I would be surprised if you did, all of you folks out there that believe in the idea of creationism), I would urge you to consider this thought: You can not permanently protect your children from learning about theories like evolution (and if they intend to progress in scientific studies in college, they won't have the option of opting out and still getting credit there) but do you really want the scientists that view your "theory" as little more than popular tripe to be the ones teaching your kids about the creationist ideas? It is my opinion that if you believe in creationism as strongly as you seem to think that you do, the better idea would be to ask for an elective class that would have a teacher that believes in it teaching these ideas, but don't be surprised if not even the religious based colleges consider the elective an acceptable alternative to sciences like modern biology.

So Move Already!

So, I was putting my son on the school bus this morning and his bus driver starts complaining about how she had heard that the rains were supposed to start up again in the next day or so and she was going to really miss the sun. I limited my reply to simply commenting that I like the rain, but I wanted to say so much more!

This is one of my pet peeves. I live in  Western Washington State near the Southern most point of Puget Sound and anyone who knows anything about the region can tell you that it rains a lot here. In fact even people who really don't know anything about the region know that Seattle, WA (which is the largest city in the state and technically in the same region as me though it's located a few hours drive North of my town) is known for coffee, grunge music, LOTS OF RAIN. Knowing this, why is it that every time I turn around someone is complaining about the rain here.  Seriously?

If you don't like the rain, why do you live in a state where rain is the norm? This is the birth place of the term "sun break" which was specifically coined because the sun coming out happens so rarely. We have rain or at least unbroken cloud cover almost continuously throughout the year- More than 2/3 of the year we get no more than a diffuse, dull sunlight that barely filters through the clouds, and, quite frankly, I like it that way! The constant rain is the reason that we have a temperate rain forest here and the reason that we have so much green in our landscapes- it makes this area the beautiful place that it is! It helps to keep our climate mild, reduces the opportunities for the  folks around here to gets the sunburns that increase the chances of skin cancer and allow us to maintain a wide range of plant and animal life here.

Sure sometimes the constant grey can be a bit depressing, but that's what vacations are for! And whenever I go visit my cousin in Southern California or my sister in Nevada, it never takes long for me to soak up more sun and heat than I want and to realize how awesome this area really is. Occasional sunshine is a nice change, but I wouldn't want it to be the norm. Let it Rain! and if you don't like it, please don't complain to me- try looking for somewhere less rainy to move to instead- then we can both be happy!

Am I Doing Something Wrong?

When I was a kid and I used to get in trouble and complain about my punishments, like any kid is apt to do, my mother would tell me that she was sorry, but if all of her children where happy with her at once then she wouldn't be doing her job right.

Fast forward to today...

I have 4 kids, one less than my mother, and I'm not going to waste my breath claiming that they are never in trouble, but some days reading through the daily posts on CafeMom, especially the Moms of Teens group, I get the impression that MY kids don't get in trouble enough and when they do it's never as serious as many of the posts that I see. But what really gets my worried is that my kids all seem so... HAPPY. I even had one of them tell me that their friends have asked her if we would be will to adopt them if something were to happen to their parents. Does this mean I am obliviously over-looking stuff that they should be in trouble for? Or have my husband and I actually found a way to keep them happy AND well- behaved? I mean they are all doing well in school, none of them have gotten in trouble with the law, neither of my girls is pregnant, neither of my boys has a pregnant girlfriend, we haven't had any major arguments around here in months, everyone does their chores with minimal nagging required and somehow our kids still seem to enjoy spending time with me and hubby, even our almost 16 yr old (Are't they supposed to start hating us once they hit puberty?).  As much as I would love to just take credit for being THAT AWESOME, there's a nagging voice in my head that keeps recalling what my mom used to say about how she wasn't doing her job if we were all happy and I worry that somehow I'm missing something... 

How Do You Know You Have A Healthy Marriage?

I see posts on CafeMom or articles in magazines or on-line all the time talking about how important it is to keep up an active sex life in your marriage and it just makes me laugh. Sure it's important to keep that spark going, but you don't have to measure success by how many times a day/week you have sex.

In my opinion, one of the biggest things that my hubby and I  have going in our marriage is not the sex (though that is definitely important- LOL). It's the fact that we can spend time together for hours on end talking about things other than our family and not run out of things to talk about that we both care about. We share some of the same hobbies and like a lot of the same music and have the same basic beliefs when it comes to religion/faith and politics. It's very important to make sure that you married couples out there are spending some time together just being a couple and talking about these things that you have in common as well as your family. I don't think that my husband and I could have lasted the nearly 20 yrs as a couple that we have under our belts if we didn't keep those communication lines open and find time to just enjoy being the friends that we were even before we got romantically involved.

So, how do you know if you have a healthy marriage? I guess to some extent that depends on what a "healthy marriage" means to you. For me, it means that your spouse is someone that you want to spend time with doing things both with your kids AND on your own; someone you still enjoy sex with, but who understands if you just don't feel like it tonight so that you don't feel like you have to do it; and most importantly, it means that when something upsetting or really awesome happens, you can't wait to tell them about it and when you do tell them, they actually CARE and RECIPROCATE! In my opinion, if you are forcing yourself to have sex with your partner some arbitrary number of times a week out of a feeling of obligation or from some misguided notion that somehow doing so will fix your marriage, but you never do anything else together without the kids and you have nothing else in common, it's time for some serious couples counseling and soul-searching.

Mommy's Me Time

I'm sure a lot of moms can relate to this- sometimes I get so busy with my kids' projects and activities and appointments and whatnot that I just don't seem to be able to find time for me. This is one of those issues that I have been making a conscious effort to change for myself. Being a parent, whether you work outside the home or not, is a busy, challenging and often thankless job and there is no shame in just saying "TIME OUT! I need a break!" The tricky part is that because kids aren't nearly as understanding about this as they expect us to be, we have to really work on just planning in time for this into our days.

For me that means that when I walk my youngest out to his bus in the morning, I make a point of taking a walk around the block on my own before I go home to make sure my cyber-schoolers are up and eating breakfast so they can start their schoolwork. And when their dad gets home he gets to spend an hour with the kids so that I can take a shower or read or play on the computer for a while after spending all day with them. And then he gets his cool down time too, because being Daddy is hard work, too!

A lot of time it seems like people forget just how important it is to take some time for yourself, especially if you have one or more kid(s) with special needs, who typically need exceptional levels of supervision and assistance. I have some friends who seem to think that "me time" has to be treating yourself to something exceptional, e.g. getting your hair or nails done or getting a massage or going shopping, but that kind of mind-set seems like it causes more stress than anything else because it gets so damn pricey! I have a dear friend that drives me crazy with that mind-set. She works like 60hrs a week, barely gets to spend any time with her kids, never seems to have money for anything, but insists on constantly getting her nails done or buying herself another pair of shoes that she doesn't need and that costs way too much for what she got, all of which goes on her credit card and all in the name of treating herself and having me-time. Why?!? What is the point of reducing your stress in ways that cause you more stress when the credit card bill comes? "Me time" doesn't have to cost money, people.  It can be as simple as going for a walk or taking a shower uninterrupted so long as you do it on your own and enjoy it!

Please Think Of The Children- Learning By Doing

This is a subject that has been a thorn in my paw for a long time. Every where you look there are examples of institutions, especially schools, trying to accommodate individuals that are screaming "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Unfortunately, this is usually manifesting in more and more examples of ways that kids are being prevented from being kids. Schools today have ridiculous rules preventing kids from doing totally normal things like running on the play ground or jumping off of swings, or, my personal favorite, the increasingly popular "Hands off" policies that even punish kids for helping other kids up when they fall down.

I totally understand the schools' positions. They have limited operational funds already. They can't afford to have those funds cut because they are defending themselves against law suits from angry parents whose kids are injured on school grounds. So I want to say outright that I do not want to criticize the schools who are only trying to protect themselves as well as they can.

My anger is directed at the people that make these policies necessary. It is not the school's responsibility to wrap your kids in bubble wrap and protect them from every possible bump and scrape. Kids do dumb things and sometimes it gets them hurt, but it is an essential part of the learning process to have the freedom to try some of those things.

Learning to make good decisions requires that you have the freedom to make bad ones. Maybe it's just me, but it makes far more sense to me to let them do that when they are kids and the choices that they make have more controllable consequences. Let them run on the playground- if they run into something and get hurt, maybe they will learn to watch where they are going.

And another thing, let them fight back when someone hurts them- there isn't always going to be a teacher/parent/adult to protect them- sooner or later they have to learn how to fight for themselves. I have just about had it up to here with the stupid rules that punish kids who are being bullied and decide to fight back just as much as the kids doing the bullying. I know a kid who was constantly being bullied before his mom decided to home-school him and the final straw in her decision was when her son was jumped by a group of 4 older kids as he was coming out of the gym. The older kids jumping him was bad enough, but what really pissed her off was that because during the ensuing struggle her son threw one of the other boys off his back and into a wall, her son was suspended for just as long as the other kids. Since when was self-defense not ok?  I'm sorry for all you parents of bullies out there who don't want your kid to get hurt, but if your 13 yr old hits my 11 yr old, I would applaud my kid for turning around and returning the favor.   In my opinion, any person that thinks that it would be better for that same 11yr old to curl up and take the beating needs to be brought up on child abuse charges.

Obesity and the Healthcare Industry

I recently saw a report from the World Health Organization regarding obesity in Europe and the US which claimed that by 2030 about 1/2 of the populations of those regions will be "obese".  They urged the governments of those countries to take action to help curb this trend.

I understand the concerns regarding the correlation between obesity and other health problems such as diabetes, however I think that the WHO is barking up the wrong tree asking the governments to try to regulate this. Most of these governments are having trouble  balancing their budgets- what makes anyone think that they can balance our diets?

Aside from that, what in the world can the government do about it with out simply making people angry? I suppose that they could try to regulate the fast food chains more, but that's just going to piss off the fast food industry and their customers and encourage people to buy more junk food at the grocery stores. I suppose they could then extend the regulations to include many of the junk food items we currently have available to us in the stores, but you start mess with many of those items and you're gonna have some really angry people demanding the heads of the officials that are reducing their access to their Twinkies, potato chips and sodas.

WHO says that their numbers prove that we can't depend on people self-regulating this anymore, but I don't see any way that the government can regulate it for their citizens without instigating a lot of civil unrest and anger. If they really want to make a difference, maybe they need to invest some effort in teaching people how to regulate themselves. OR try regulating the prices of more healthy foods so that people can afford to buy more veggies and fruits, because I know that more often than not I end up choosing less healthy, more fattening foods because buying the equivalent in healthy foods is priced 50% or more higher for the same amount.

End the War on Drugs

Ok, so this is kind of a broad subject, but let me see if I can keep my point self-evident. Drugs is one of those tricky subjects that people always seem to have an opinion on, but I am sick and tired of hearing people, who obviously don't know half as much about history as they claim, insisting that our forefathers (e.g. George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson) would support the war on drugs that the US is currently waging. The reality is that since most of them WERE drug users of one type of another (mostly marijuana and tobacco, though there is plenty of evidence for occasional use of more hard-core drugs such as cocaine and opium, both of which were commonly used in medical practices at the time), they would be most likely to, at most, support laws on regulating manufacture so that it would be safer.

In my opinion, it is past time to abandon the war on drugs. It is costing a fortune that our country should be using for other things such as improving our infrastructure and reducing the national debt. By continuing the war we are not only wasting money, but we also encourage the drug cartels to continue the way that they have by making the whole thing more profitable, since they are able to charge more for it because it's illegal. This ability to charge more not only increases the income of the drug traffickers, but also encourages others to get involved in order to get a share of the profits.

There is a lot of talk right now in the Americas as a whole about fighting the drug cartels. Mexico, and many south and central American countries are trying to band together to fight the drug lords and their hordes and yet almost all of them freely admit that due to the resources that the drug cartels have at their disposal and the continued income they receive from sales (mostly from the US of course) the governments are fighting a losing battle. Continuing to fight the War on Drugs is only fueling the fire.

My proposal is simple: decriminalize and regulate. If the US was to decriminalize and regulate drugs such as cocaine, opium, meth, and weed, it would be first become much safer to manufacture and consume. Then you would start to see more domestic production, which would reduce dependence on foreign product, increase availability for sale here and bring down prices something fierce. This would in turn cause foreign drug cartels to lose money and power allowing the governments to again regain the upper hand in their countries.

Now this of course is where all the "oh, my gods! Please think of the children!" idiots start up. The same attitude driving these people also ran the movement that outlawed alcohol in prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. When will you learn that outlawing stuff like this only causes more problems, not less. You aren't saving the children- you are encouraging them by making drugs more attractive due to natural human rebellious tendencies and endangering them even more by making acquiring and using drugs more dangerous than it has to be. Take your own advice- THINK OF THE CHILDREN THAT YOU ARE KILLING!  

The "Rights" of Big Business

So I was watching a news podcast on the web yesterday and it got me thinking:: Why have we allowed businesses in the USA to think that they have the same rights as individuals?

Let me back track a step. The report I was watching was regarding the 4 tobacco companies that are suing the government over the warning labels that have been imposed on their products.

First off, I am one of those individuals that believes that cigarettes and other tobacco products, which have been proven to cause/exacerbate a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to lung cancer, really should be counting their lucky stars that they have not been outlawed altogether for all of the extra chemicals and toxic crap that they routinely add to a nearly harmless plant in order to make it more addictive... and more deadly. I really have a hard time understanding why the government and other society leaders still try to insist that Marijuana, another plant that is popularly rolled into tubes of paper and smoked (and with a lot less dangerous side-effects) is somehow infinitely more evil than this industry giant that has more than out lived any usefulness it once had.

Secondly, I have an issue with warning label regulation. Any company that is not being led by idiots will impose such things on themselves in order to protect the company from lawsuits from users who choose to use their product and then regret doing so- if the government has to step in and insist on it then the company was doomed to failure and bankruptcy to begin with. Of course, the government's involvement is meant to protect it's citizens from falling victim to dangerous products, but honestly, I don't know why they bother- most people don't bother to read those warnings anyway and most of the ones who do either wouldn't use the product to begin with, or are looking for material for their stand-up comedy act.

That being said, what truly upset me about this lawsuit was the insistence in the wording that the companies themselves had a right to free speech that was being impinged upon. Anyone one who has read the Constitution of the US and it's bill of rights should be able to tell you that they refer to INDIVIDUALS not businesses, churches or other organizations. Basically what this means is that if the owners of these companies hold a press conference and claim that their product is actually good for you, their is really nothing that anyone can do about it, but if the government determines that the products they produce are harmful (which, of course, they have... repeatedly) then the government is required by it's mandate from it's citizens to impose a warning label on the product itself warning users of the dangers of use and the company can't do anything about it. That is what the law says.

However, there is precedent for their claim- as annoying as it may be to me- thanks to the ruling some years back that campaign contributions, both from an individual AND from a company, was protected free speech. I still don't understand why anyone would hide behind a company name while making a campaign contribution anyway, but personally, finding out that any candidate for an elected position accepted contributions from a large company generally translates in my mind to they don't need my vote.

Social Networking

Everyone it seems is doing "social networking" on-line these days, but somehow I just can't get myself to use most of those sites. The rampant irresponsibility with which many of those sites are used and run simply scares me. Currently the only site like this that I have an active membership at is CafeMom and I am even starting to re-think that one, which is sad since in many ways I see it as a very positive concept.

I am a very private person and thanks to my close association with my husband (a techno-geek specializing in computer security) I'm also a little paranoid when it comes to protecting my identity, especially when I'm on-line. I'm one of those people that when you look them up you might get a user nickname and a thought bubble, but everything else is limited to "friends only"- the exception, of course, being this blog and the occasional re-posts from here that I put up in CafeMom's journals section- though due to changing rules regarding journals, that will soon stop too.

I think what scares me most about sites like Facebook is that not only do the people who have profiles there not use the tools available to protect their personal information, but the sites themselves have been shown to be insecure and yet it seems that everyone keeps using them anyway.

The one service like this that I have heard of that truly seems to be worth trying is one of the newest ones on the web- Google +. Though I have not signed up for it myself yet, I am encouraged  by what I am hearing from friends who have and, perhaps most importantly to me, from my husband who signed up a few days ago at the urging of friends that he trusts.

What Happened to Following the Rules?

Why does it seem like the older I get the less people seem to be doing the right thing? Is it just me? It seems as though people are either not learning the rules to begin with or simply assume for some reason that the rules don't apply to them.

In the apartment complex that my best friend lives in, for example, there is covered parking spaces and uncovered parking spaces. The complex rules that everyone is forced to sign a copy of when they move in says that the uncovered spaces are free game, but the covered spaces are numbered and assigned by number to specific apartments so that each apartment has a covered space for their use. There's no excuse for anyone who lives there to not know this rule, but my friend is constantly frustrated by rude neighbors parking in her space. She's complained to the office several times, but it keeps happening anyway. Why? is it really that hard to follow the rules? Many of these neighbors have kids- don't they expect their kids to follow the rules?

Another example-  The community pool where I take my kids to swim has some basic rules posted, stuff like how kids 13 and younger must be accompanied by an adult and kids 14-17 must at least have a buddy in that range with them. These rules seem pretty common sense to me, but it never fails that every time I am there I see someone ignoring the rules, e.g. teenagers bringing in their younger siblings, or most recently a 10 yr old coming in by himself. Often the management at the pool will catch those that shirk the rules, but almost as often, they just don't notice. As frustrating as the lack of attention by the management is, what bothers me more is Where are these kids' parents? Do they know what their kids are doing? Generally I am a huge believer in the idea that it's their kids, so it's none of my business, but it's starting to lead to arguments with MY kids. My 10yr old thinks I'm being unreasonable when I won't let her go to the pool without an adult. My teens get angry when I insist they go together or with friends if they're going to the pool. If I tell them that that's what the pool's posted rules say, they counter with a list of kids they know that are allowed to do what they are asking me to do. I try to explain the reasons for the rules and they counter with a list of reasons why they think the rules don't apply to them. Finally I have just given up and told them that if they want to continue using the pool that they need to follow the rules, otherwise they can just stay home. From my way of thinking, that is the responsible parental response... am I really in the minority?

Raising kids to do the right thing starts, in my opinion, with establishing rules and enforcing them. While, obviously, while you are at your home, that means you get to make the rules, it also means that when you are elsewhere, you need to enforce the rules of the new environment, whether it's church, school, a movie theater, a community pool, or any other public place. If you want to use your own rules all the time, there is no law that says you can't keep your kids home, but if you are like most of us, that seems cruel and really limits a kid's ability to develop social skills. I'm not saying that I think all kids should be forced into that, but I think that it is important that as responsible adults, we parents make sure that we know the rules for the places we allow our kids to go and then make sure that we follow the rules and that we make our kids follow those rules.

The Importance of Routine

Since I did a piece on Scheduling, I thought I should also do something about routines which are closely related, but, in my opinion, are actually more important. Routines are one of those things that most people have but just don't think about. Sometimes their complicated, but most of the time they are simple. What's important though is the sense of security that they afford us. That sense of security is especially important to anyone who has limited control over their lives. This need for consistency and routine just gets more intense as the sense of control decreases. That's why when as adults we feel like the world is against us and we don't see any way that we can change that, we tend to fall back to old habits-  the habits are comfortable and familiar and give us a sense of consistency that is lacking in other areas of our lives at that point.  Habits can be good or bad, but, either way, they are established the same way- through routines that you repeat over and over again until they become automatic.

As parents routines are one of the most potent tools in our arsenals. They help us teach kids manners like saying please and thank you and healthy habits like brushing teeth and even things that seem instinctual like functional play with toys, but we often forget how helpful they can be in helping our kids cope with changes, prepare for a difficult task, or just relax and calm down when they are upset. And routines get even more important with a special needs child with physical limitations or developmental delays as their inability to participate in the same activities as siblings or peers can make them feel completely helpless.

I have, of course, used routines with my kids for as long as I can remember, but I was never as acutely aware of how helpful they could be until my youngest, who is diagnosed with severe Autism, sensory dysfunction and a seizure disorder, came along, mostly because he required so much more involved routines. T's need for structure and consistency is easily twice or more as intense as my other 3 kids. Breaking one of his routines can ruin his whole day, or in some cases his whole week. Just for example, every morning when he gets up, T likes to spend 15 min or so cuddling with me on the couch- it is a very simple but important part of his morning routine.

One morning about a year and a half ago, we had a brief power outage in the middle of the night and so, of course, when I awoke needing to use the bathroom the next morning, I went into instant panic mode when I glanced at my watch and realized that T's bus would be there to pick him up in 10 minutes!

I quickly threw some clothes on myself, asked one of the older kids to go warm up a hot pocket for T's breakfast and began rushing T through his routine-  go to the bathroom,  get dressed, brush hair and teeth, wash face- then I glanced at my watch again. 1 min left until we were supposed to be at the bus stop. I headed for the kitchen to grab the hot pocket that his sister had indeed prepared and turned hand it to T, but he had not come to the kitchen with me. He was sitting on the couch waiting for me. I grabbed his hand and said "Come on, son. Time to go."

T has a severe communication delay and barely speaks, but he immediately understood that I had no intention of sitting on the couch with him and you could see the panic on his little face. He grabbed my wrist with his free hand and pulled me toward the cushion next to him "'Mon!" ('C'mon), he said.
"No, it's time for your bus."
"NO!!!!!" Instant tears. He tried again to pull me to the couch as I reached my other hand down to gently pull his body toward the front door. I got him off the couch and he collapsed at my feet. He wrenched his hand out of mine, grabbed his ears and began to rock back and forth, now screaming in addition to the tears which were absolutely streaming down his face.

That melt down took hours to get under control, and although I did get him calmed down and taken to school, his whole day was completely unproductive- so much so that I got a phone call from his teacher (who never calls unless there is a REAL problem) asking if T had had a bad night or something.

Eventually, T will have to outgrow the need for that piece of his routine, but for now it remains an important piece of his morning.

While this example, may seem extreme, look at your own routine. How many of you read the newspaper in the morning? Have you ever tried skipping that and then spent the day thinking that you had forgotten something, but couldn't remember what it was?

Or maybe you had a loved one that lived with you pass away and you woke in the middle of night because in your dreams you realized that you hadn't hugged or kissed that person good night.

Routine is important to us all.

"God's Plan"

As I have mentioned before I am an atheist, so I don't believe that there is a "God" to have a plan in the first place, but that isn't even what bugs me about this phrase.

What really bugs me about it is that people use these two words to get out of taking responsibility for things in their lives. I hear people say things like, "I don't know why I lost my job, but I'm sure it's part of God's plan for me." and it just makes me want to smack them upside the head.

First off, the majority of people that have something bad like that happen in their life, caused it themselves, either through their actions or through a lack of action Maybe Bob lost his job because he showed up to work drunk too many times, or maybe he simply called in "sick" more Monday mornings than company guidelines would allow. In some cases, it isn't Bob's fault so much as the upper management types mismanaging things, which is sad, but still not part of any greater "plan" for Bob and his family who must now find a new way to make ends meet.

Saying that such an event is "God's plan" is in my opinion irresponsible and self-defeating. If Bob can't recognize how he screwed up to cause himself to be fired, he may not be able to avoid repeating the behavior at his next job which will just lead to the whole mess repeating. And in the rare cases where he didn't do anything wrong, being able to take a step back and see what it was about that company that caused the issue could prevent him from stepping into a similar situation later. By claiming that "It's all part of God's Plan", you give yourself the illusion that you don't have to do anything different.

This cop out of a response also means that Bob won't give himself nearly as much credit as he deserves if he turns things around for himself and actually gets a better job. If he has to quit drinking or at least learn to regulate himself better, or has to teach himself to be more self-disciplined about showing up to work on time whenever he is scheduled to do so, that is an accomplishment that Bob should take great pride in, but if he is one of the weak minded individuals that insists that "It's all part of God's Plan" then he will claim that it wasn't his choice- it was all God's doing. Did God brush your teeth for you too?

Why is it so hard to say, "Crap! I screwed up! How can I fix it?" or "I did it!" and actually accept responsibility and or credit for it? How can we expect the next generation to take responsibility for anything if we're blaming it all on "God's Plan"? No wonder there are so many kids getting pregnant and doing drugs and otherwise getting in trouble with the law- If nothing will happen unless God plans it, then it doesn't matter if you screw up, right?

This cop out also gets used to explain things that really aren't anyone's fault. Mental disorders like Autism jump to mind for me because of my own family's challenges, but this also applies to other issues like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or heart disease. Sure, there are some things that research has shown can help to prevent these things, but none of it is 100% effective and so sometimes no matter what you do something like this can happen. That doesn't mean that it's "God's Plan"- it just means that you played the game of LIFE and luck wasn't on your side. Maybe you had a genetic trait that made you more susceptible, or maybe there was a accident that you fell victim to, or maybe you DID do something stupid like sleep around or use illegal drugs in a less than safe manor/ environment. That doesn't mean that there is a plan. It just means that SHIT HAPPENS! I've been told that some people just need to believe that there is a reason- a meaning- for all the screwed up shit that can happen in life, but for me that concept raises more questions causes more confusion than anything. Human nature being what it is, if we think there is a "plan", especially one that involves us, we want to figure out what it is. So we turn to things like religion or the bible for answers, but because both of these were created by people who were either actually trying to understand something they didn't have the ability to understand yet, or who were just trying to control other people who understood less than they did, these types of resources for guidance are misleading and often times more confusing than helpful. Sure they have a few basic good ideas covered such as don't kill any body and don't take other people's stuff, but then if you move to a different chapter of the bible, or whatever guidebook you follow, they completely contradict themselves and give you directions on when and sometimes how to break those rules. "Don't kill anyone. oh, unless, of course, they don't believe the same thing you do, because then they don't count as people and you must kill them to prove God's love for His people." What?!? Ok, that's heavily paraphrased, but honestly many of them are about that bad. If you read through the bible for example, you have the basic 10 commandments: don't kill; don't steal; don't have sex outside of marriage; etc... and then they turn around and say oh, yeah, but if someone breaks these rules, it is your duty to form a mob and go throw stones at them until they die because they offended God. Then they change the rules again when they throw in Jesus who says "Follow all those old rules and guidelines, but don't stone anyone to death anymore because you aren't perfect." Wait, a minute, so when people break the rules you don't have to kill them anymore? but isn't that part of the old rules that you just said we have to keep following? How is this not contradictory? The most common answer I get when I ask Christians this is that since Jesus is God's son, he has the ability to change the rules. Ok, let's assume for the moment that I accept that Jesus is God's son. Generally speaking doesn't the father have to be dead or have at least relinquished power to the son before the son can change his rules?Does that mean that the old God died? or did he just retire? And furthermore, God is supposed to be infallible meaning that he doesn't make mistakes, so why would the changes need to be made anyway? Did he get them wrong the first time? or was it just that society was growing up and figuring out that killing people when they screw up wasn't preventing problems. Or maybe it was that the Roman government that was in charge now had a problem with people killing people without the government's permission... Has anyone ever considered that maybe Jesus was a Roman attempt to control vigilantes that just decided to rebel?  

Just because a religion or "Holy" book covers a few good ideas doesn't mean that it's ALL good. About the only way that the "Old Testament" of the Bible actually makes sense is if you accept the idea that it is not "Word of God", but a collection of historical records, laws and fables from one ancient group of people. From a historical perspective that makes it very valuable for understanding that group and it's religion and customs, as well as some of the customs and beliefs of their descendants. HOWEVER, historical and cultural value does not equal infallible or even absolutely good. The fact that the books of the Old Testament that survive have been adopted by so many newer religions is little more than a testament to how that ancient culture has influenced and continues to influence the groups that have come after it. Many Christians today who claim to believe that the Bible is word of God and infallible are, at best, only vaguely familiar with what the Old Testament says, or, if they are actually aware of all the things it teaches, simply wave it away as if completely ignoring a large portion of what they claim is the "infallible word of God" doesn't make them the ultimate hypocrites. As an atheist who has not only read but actually studied the Bible in depth, I can tell you that not only does the Bible contain some passages of that make a lot of sense, the it is also overflowing with examples of common ancient practices that would simply be declared the most heinous of human rights violations today- many of them described in detail as performed by some very famous Biblical figures and justified in ways that today will get you thrown in prison.

One of my favorite examples of this comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the 2 biblical cities that were so evil that God gave up trying to save them and just bombed them from orbit, but not before he evacuated the one "righteous" man that lived there and his family. This "righteous" man took in a couple of strangers, who just happened to be angels. When his evil neighbors came beating on his door wanting to rape and possibly kill the strangers, he saved them. How? BY GIVING THE PERVERTS OUTSIDE HIS VIRGIN DAUGHTERS TO RAPE! How is this RIGHTEOUS? I'm sorry, but I don't care how holy my guests are sacrificing anybody's KIDS in order to afford an escape is not ok and this is one of the Bible's HEROES! Aside from casting doubt on the worthiness of the man who was saved, this story also illustrates the fact that women at that time were NOT CONSIDERED people in their own right. At best they were a treasured possession and at worst they were a commodity.  This doesn't fly now thanks to Women's Rights movements and Child protection and human rights laws (at least in most of the world), but according to the Bible this is RIGHTEOUS behavior.

I've kind of gotten off the subject, but my point is that it's important to take responsibility for what we can control in our lives and just deal with the curves that we can't control instead of hiding behind the elusive concept of an unknowable plan from a mysterious God that no one can prove is even real. Our society, our world, is maturing at an ever increasing rate- never have so many questions had answers and never have the means to find more answers been so readily available. Continuing to rely on ancient superstition and blind faith in things that are not only inexplicable, but also illogical and unjustifiable and basically out dated is just stupid. By all means, hold on to the ideals that religion puts forth that make sense- Killing people is wrong, taking other people's stuff is wrong, betraying someone that you have made a legal commitment to such as a spouse is wrong, ect.... but don't try to take ideals that no longer make sense and justify their use with an imaginary friend. 

Talking to Kids Basics

I don't see how this is a hard concept, but apparently it is. Everyday I see new posts where parents are upset because their kids are doing something crazy (or in some cases the parent is just worried they might) and they're wanting someone to tell them how to fix the problem.

First off, for some of you parents of teens, it may be too late for my advice because talking to your kids is not something that you can just start out of the blue. It can take years to develop the type of trust between you and your child that it takes to make talking to them effective, but without that trust, you can talk until you are blue in the face and the kid will just stare at you blankly as your words go in one ear and out the other. In order to build this trust effectively you have to start early-  the earlier the better.

I often see the question "when did you start talking to your child about ____________." and this is a marker for exactly the wrong mind set. If they are old enough that you are wondering when you should start talking to them about something, you probably should have started talking to them about it at least 6 months ago. For example, I saw one the other day asking for advice on when to start talking to their pre-teen about drugs. Ladies, I have news for you : I started talking to my kids about drugs/ alcohol/ and cigarettes when my oldest was a 1st grader, and now that she is 15, we still have regular family discussions about these subjects and many others, because talking to your kids is not a one time shot- it has to be continuous discussion.

Which brings me to another point- it has to be a discussion, not a lecture. If it's one sided, the chances of it having any impact at all is questionable at best. Ask them some questions and LISTEN to their answers. Find out if they have already talked to friends or teachers or somebody else about it and if they already have opinions about the subject. You may be surprised by how much they already know or think they know and this gives you the opportunity to build on their existing base of knowledge rather than blindly repeat or refuting things they have already accepted as fact, which just makes you look stupid in their eyes. Using their "knowledge" as a spring board to launch your discussion gets them involved and increases the chances that you will actually be heard. And if they claim no knowledge, use media images to start with. Media in this case can include anything that is relevant to your child such as magazines, TV shows, movies or newspapers. For example, I once launched a discussion with my kids about marijuana by reading to them a short article that I found on-line that was talking about fan speculation that Shaggy and Scooby from the show Scooby Doo were potheads. My kids were and still are Scooby Doo fans, so this made the subject very relevant to them.

The next piece, of course, is timing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MAGIC TIME TO BROACH A SUBJECT WITH YOUR KIDS. If you are busy looking for that perfect time to talk to them about something, they will get the information somewhere else and your chances of reaching them will disappear. You have to seize the chance to talk them ANYTIME that the opportunity comes up. If you are watching a movie with them and one of the characters starts drinking or smoking, use it! If you find something on-line that you think they may recognize (like I did with the Scooby Doo thing), use it! If you see something in the newspaper that talks about it, use it! And for God's sake, if they ask you a question, USE IT!  You don't need a single perfect moment- several random discussions are more effective than a one specially timed and planned one.
 

Top 3 reasons that I am Proud to be American

In honor of today's celebration of our country's freedom, I thought I might take a few minutes to write about some of the things that I love about the USA.

Top of my list is freedom of speech. I love the fact that I can pretty much say or write anything I want without the government being able to stop me and that other people can too. Sure that means that there are going to be people saying some pretty dumb-ass things and pissing people off, but sometimes being able to get people upset is the only way to get them motivated to help change anything. As Jim Henson once said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." 

Without the ability to speak out against whatever we want, the government which is supposed to be working for us could easily turn the tables and enslave us. Luckily our country's founders were well aware of this danger which is why they insisted on making this part of our nations Bill of Rights. In fact this inspires me to add to each of these some commentary about how some people are trying to take these rights away. Starting with FCC's censorship of TV and radio which I think is completely unconstitutional. I'm not saying do away with the FCC- they do have a job to do that makes sense and is completely necessary for civilized use of the airwaves, but I have a real problem with how that job has been warped into an excuse to stifle free speech. Really parents, if you are concerned about your kids watching something that you deem inappropriate for them, there are means to regulate that yourself- don't insist on the government doing it for you.

Number 2 on my list is the right to own a gun. There are a lot of people in our country today that seem to think that this is a right that has out lived it's usefulness, but I couldn't disagree more. In fact I would love to see most gun control laws struck from the law books as unconstitutional because of this fundamental right. In place of such laws, I would much rather see our country make firearm safety a required course in our education system. It is a fact that lots of people die at the wrong end of a gun every year in this country, but if you look a little deeper, it is also a fact that an awful lot of the people holding the guns when they kill simply don't know how to use the damn thing because no one bothered to teach them. It is also a fact that since the implementation of gun laws preventing open carry and regulating firearm acquisition, firearm deaths have actually increased, not decreased-  another fine example of our country shooting itself in the foot (pun definitely intend).

Next on my list is the right to join or abstain from joining the military. Military service is among the most noble things that a citizen of this country can do, but the fact that every one of our soldiers, officers, etc. are there voluntarily is one of our country's greatest strengths. There are lots of people who talk about numbers like the size of China's standing army like somehow bigger automatically equals better, but I would bet on our military against any other nation in the world- firstly because of the extensive and complete training that they receive, but also because when it comes down to it, I don't see how any soldier could possibly trust their life to a fellow soldier who is only their because their government says they HAVE to be. The sheer number of people in those armies that will not give their all because they really don't want to be there should be frightening to their countries, but the fact seems to be that their leaders don't care as long as their numbers are as awesome as possible.

There are some in our country that would argue that you simply can't appreciate freedom if you don't serve, and that seem to think that forcing all young adults to serve would help everyone. Well they are welcome to their opinion, but I am glad that less hypocritical people are in charge. However, I have been disappointed that many of these same people that would wisely refuse to force citizens into service would also choose to stop willing participants from serving based on such a trivial thing as sexual orientation. Who cares what gender they are attracted to? Isn't their right to choose to have a relationship with either gender one of the things that we are trying to protect? I believe that it is commendable that anyone who has the option chooses to protect the rights of not only themselves but also of others and I am boggled by the notion that anyone would say, "Hell, no, you can't defend me! You don't like the same type of relationship I do!" That makes about as much sense as someone not being allowed to work in a sandwich shop because they own a dog.

Wait- What?! I think Feminism has gone too far!

Ok, so I'm talking to my husband last night and he tells me about this article that he read on Reddit about some guy who was married and he and his wife divorced on good terms, but Twenty-Seven Years later she went to a divorce lawyer and refiled their divorce without notifying him and was awarded not only a huge alimony, but also Child Support for 2 kids that she had years later with a second husband. WTF?!?

My initial reaction was complete disbelief, but my husband insisted it was true, so this morning, I went to Reddit myself and tried to find the article myself. I wasn't able to find it, but in the course of my search, I found plenty of examples of other related abuses of the family court laws.

I am not against women's rights, obviously, but I had not been aware of just how far the feminist movement had pushed things like this. Maybe that means I've been sheltered and oblivious, but I think it's about time that some of the rest of us start speaking up. I appreciate the fact that without the feminist movement we women would be second class citizens with very few if any rights, but hey, there's limits!  How did we ever allow it to get so far that men are being forced to pay child support for kids that DNA proves are not theirs? Or that women can seize most of their ex's income when it increases because of his hard work years after she divorces him?

I understand that there are some real creep guys out there that have taken some truly underhanded liberties against women, but how does that justify punishing the ones who aren't doing anything wrong? There are a lot of Men's rights groups that are completely outraged by this kind of thing and I can't say that I blame them, but many of them are talking about starting initiatives to revoke women's rights and repealing laws. Seems to me that there is a full fledged war of the sexes brewing and no matter which way the battle goes things are going to get ugly unless some of us can stop the extremes of both sides from making things worse.

I think we need to start a new movement that looks for equal rights for everyone. I think some serious work needs to be done overhauling all these legal systems that are causing so much anger on both sides and I think it needs to happen soon, or everyone is going to suffer.

Washington State's Budget Cuts to Education

As a concerned parent with 3 kids in online ALE programs and a son in brick and mortar special education, I have been following the proposed budget cuts in my state pretty closely and have participated in the parent/family/friends protests and coordinated mailing and phone call movements urging the government here to look elsewhere for cutting the budget down. But as you can see from this recent article on the community site for the families of online students in this state, our pleas were basically ignored. As a direct result of this legislation, ALE programs, including the online one that my kids attend, will have their state funding cut by 10-20%. Here is an excerpt from a letter that I received about the cuts just this morning:

"The breaking news is that OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Instruction) is right now ruling that the basic education funding for all ALE (Alternative Learning Experience) students will be cut to 80%. An exception is made for students enrolled in an online program that provides an average of one hour per week of synchronous digital contact. Those students will receive 90% of basic education funding .

Online program providers are just getting this news, too. They will need to make changes to their programs to reflect these drastic cuts to funding. Since staffing and curriculum costs typically exceed 80% of the operating costs of online programs, most programs will need to make detrimental cuts to match the funding cuts"

On top of that, cuts were also made to the funding for teacher salaries and pensions, while increasing measures requiring teachers to find ways to reduce the achievement gaps between students, which from what I have seen basically amounts to the government looking for ways to blame the teachers when insufficient appropriate funding and/or lack of parental support  leads to decreased test scores.

I also noticed in looking over a report that I downloaded from WA's OFM that the budget also calls for the creation of a whole new agency to direct school district spending:

"A group of experts is created through the Educational Services Districts to help school districts with financial planning and monitoring."

This group of experts is expected to cost the state $3 million dollars and as far as I can tell is basically just going to add one more layer to the mountain of red tape that the school districts have to wade through in order to do much of anything for our kids.

Let me tell you, if I was a licensed teacher or any other professional for that matter, especially in this economy, I certainly wouldn't stick around in a state that cut my income while at the same time tying my hands and demanding better results, so what exactly is the state's plan here? Are they trying to cut costs by encouraging all the teachers to quit?  what's more how are we supposed to encourage college students to become teachers so we can cut down class sizes and improve education in general if we don't pay them a decent salary and offer reasonable benefits for teachers already in the system. Just one more example of ways that our society is shooting itself in the foot.

Double Standards for Sex Offenders?

I just came across an article that really upset me.
http://femalesexoffenders.com/fso/index.php/the-news/355-rachel-brock-pleads-guilty

Now, first off, I would like to say that I'm not terribly happy with the way that the sex offender lists are supposed to work anyway. When used as intended, the system is set up to basically destroy the chances that any normal semblance of life can be achieved by anyone who has ever failed to use common sense enough to choose a willing sexual partner who is also legally old enough to make that choice. As a parent I fully understand the mentality that would want that, but as a human being that knows that one mistake doesn't define a person I have to protest the idea that all people who have once upon a time committed an error in judgement should be automatically viewed as horrible people for the rest of their lives. But whether I like it or not this is currently the law of the land.

What makes this system even worse in my opinion, is the ease with which the system is abused to punish people who do not deserve it. For example, I personally know a gentleman that as a teenager had a consensual relationship with another teen, but her parents pressed charges for rape and it stuck. Now the poor guy is on the sex offender list for life despite the fact that he was only 16 at the time and his 15 yr old girlfriend was very open about the fact that she had NOT been forced. It's been nearly 15 yrs now and that man is still paying for that one bad choice.

This article, however, led me to discover a whole new way that the system is apparently being abused- by apparently not applying the same rules to women.

I am a big fan of being a woman who has the ability to own property, to vote and press charges against people who actually hurt me, but more and more lately I have been seeing news articles about women who are insisting that they get more lenience on top of it all. I am not a huge fan of the sex offender list program, but if you are going to have a system like that, it needs to be applied equally to everyone. It's no wonder there are so many men's rights groups with rapidly growing numbers! Ladies, if you expect guys to respect you and treat you fairly, you are only shooting yourself in the foot to then turn around and demand special treatment.

Christian = Automatically Trustworthy?

While surfing the web today, as I often do, I came across a comment that has been eating at me ever since. It was a review on one of those on-line business guru sites. The site itself was pretty typical- almost completely forgettable on it's own, as it is so much like so many others that I have seen- but this comment really bothered me. 

The commenter claimed to be someone who had been using the system for a few months now with incredible results- as I said, typical of this type of site- but what bothered me was that the poster said that one of the things that they most loved about the company was the fact that it was a Christian company because “it makes it so much easier for people to trust” them.

I have no problem with people who believe in Christianity- much of my extended family is Christian and between us the only effect that their faith being different from mine has on our relationship is that we have agreed to disagree. We simply do not discuss religion aside from the 
occasional insider jokes, which due to my religious upbringing I still get and laugh along with like everyone else. My problem with the statement made in this comment comes not from a problem with Christianity, but from the implication that if you're not christian, then you are not trustworthy. That type of attitude really pisses me off.

Trust based on professed religious belief is, at best naive. Trust is earned by a perception that we "know" what someone else will do. It's supposed to be based on our observations of a series of choices which altogether help to ID the personal code of whomever we are trying to under-
stand. This personal Code, which literally refers to the belief structure in our heads that we guide our choices by, is the very definition of morality and while it can be and often is influenced by religion, Morality and Religion are NOT THE SAME THING!

There is nothing that I have ever experienced, or read, or otherwise learned that has led me to the belief that any one religion is more or less “Morally Upstanding” than any other. They all have “black sheep” and other skeletons in their folds. Nor am I trying to suggest that those without religion are ultimately better. What I am saying is that I resent the idea that that if I am, say, Muslim or Jewish, than I am somehow less trustworthy than a devoted Southern Baptist or a confirmed Roman Catholic just because I don’t accept the idea that Jesus was the savior that was prophesied in the ancient times described in the early books of the Bible, the Torah and the Koran.


The reasoning behind this offensive comment, I know, is that if people share religious beliefs, then their morality will also be similar, but the reality of life is that just because someone says they are of a particular faith doesn’t mean that they actually practice the precepts of that faith and even if they do, there may be other factors that can cause their moral code to be very different from someone else in that same religion.  Let’s look at some “religious” people throughout history:

Roman Catholics are one of my personal favorite examples. When people think of this religion, there are a few names that almost always come up, like Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa who are both well known for their good works throughout the world. But the same people who would brag about these examples of “shining morality” would rather that people not realize that Adolf Hitler was also a devote Catholic who was actually supported by Pope Pius XII despite the fact that the pope was well aware of the Nazi agenda. Was Pius any less Catholic than John Paul? No. But their life experiences caused their moral codes to differ greatly.  

Another example that people like to gloss over is all of the priests, ministers, and other religious figures who have been caught sexually abusing members of their “flocks” over the years. Are they any less religious than their more … chaste.... brethren? In some cases yes, but many times they are just as otherwise upstanding as anyone else in their respective clergy. 
What about the “Christian” groups that bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors and other medical staff that work in these clinics? Are they justified because they’re religion says that abortion is wrong? or does killing those people and destroying  those facilities make them just as “Godless” as those that they seek to punish? 

Here’s another pet peeve group of mine-  those “Christian” groups that protest around Planned Parenthood facilities. Every time that I see them around the Planned Parenthood building in my hometown with their signs depicting aborted fetuses and decrying the Planned Parenthood company for “killing babies” I have to wonder how many of those protesters have ever even walked into one of those facilities to see what it is like. My guess is that at least 95% of them have never even knowingly spoken to anyone that works for that company, though I would not be at all surprised if many of them actually attended the same churches. Despite what these protesting groups would have us believe, Planned Parenthood does not encourage everyone who comes through their door to have an abortion- in fact abortion is the absolute last resort in their books. 

The truth is that Planned Parenthood’s foremost mantra is education BEFORE pregnancy.  Many of the people that they see everyday come to them to learn how to be responsible about their sexuality and for assistance in not only preventing pregnancy  but also planning for when they ARE ready to have children. Their programs for sex education are far more complete than what is often taught in most schools and stresses abstinence as the best option for preventing pregnancy with preventative measures like condoms and birth control pills as SECONDARY lines of defense against unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is only mentioned as a last resort AFTER discussing other solutions to unwanted pregnancy such as adoption. 

My life partner and I were both raised in deeply religious households, but when we reached adulthood, we both came to the realization that neither of us truly believed in God. We renounced the religions that we were born into and joined the growing number of people in our world who are professed atheists. When we “accidentally” got pregnant with our oldest child, I suppose we could have looked to abortion as an option, but despite the fact that we were not in the best financial situation at the time, we really did not consider abortion to be a viable option for us- not because we feared punishment from some omnipotent God, but because, despite the fact that it had happened earlier than we had originally planned, we had always wanted to have children and we saw this as an opportunity rather than a problem to be solved. Does that mean that somehow we are better than say a 16 year old rape victim that chooses to abort a fetus because of the traumatic experience that caused the pregnancy? I don’t think so.  But neither does our lack of belief in an all powerful super being make us bad people. 

Just because I am an Atheist doesn’t mean that I am a bad person. I still follow the laws in my community and help my neighbors and do some charity work when I can. I’m generally dependable, loyal (sometimes to a fault), and honest. I teach my kids to be honest and friendly and to play fairly with their friends. I just don’t attend church- mostly because I do not believe in what the church I was raised in teaches and have yet to find another church that teaches anything I believe to be truer. I believe that to continue to attend a church that you do not actually believe in is hypocritical and I refuse to do so “just to keep up appearances” which seems to be what many people do these days. How does that make me less worthy of trust?