≡ Menu

The Moderate Mom

Playdates and Guns

I don’t know if you have seen it, but there is a post making the rounds about a mom who is concerned that there might be unsecured firearms left laying around other people’s homes. The original poster is unwilling to let her kids play at anyone else’s home if they own a gun, unless she is satisfied that it is securely stored.

Moms can be worriers. In fact, they are renowned for it, so I understand where the poster is coming from. I agree that it is important to keep our kids safe from and around firearms, but that doesn’t mean I agree with her conclusion that it is reasonable to never have playdates at the home of anyone who owns a firearm.

Perhaps that is because both the area where I live and the one where I grew up are full of people who have guns, both hunting rifles and sidearms. It is probably safe to say that the majority of my friends growing up and my children’s friends have guns in their homes. No one I know has ever had a problem because the kids are taught gun safety, just like they are taught not to put forks in electrical sockets and all the other safety rules.

Playdates and guns were never intended to be mixed, real guns at any rate. Everyone knows that. No one knowingly lets a weapon where a child can reach it, but it’s like anything else that could be dangerous, such as cleaning chemicals or unsecured bookcases: a determined child who doesn’t know or follow the rules of safe behavior can be hurt or even killed.

Asking to walk around and look at the rooms you child will be playing in is perfectly reasonable. You may spot a potential danger the homeowner doesn’t. For example, if you child loves trains and there is model on a higher shelf, they might climb to get to it when a kid who doesn’t love trains wouldn’t even notice it. That doesn’t give you leave to drag open every drawer and rifle through the medicine chest, so don’t abandon your manners. If there is a gun readily accessible, you’ll be able to see it.

Asking if there are firearms in the home is OK, but know that not everyone is willing to discuss the matter. Asking to be shown or told exactly what firearms they own and where they are stored is no more acceptable (or reasonable) than being asked to be shown all the family’s cleaning supplies and where they are stored, including the rarely used ones hidden away in basement storage, or where all their family valuables (jewelry, etc.) is stored. In fact, the valuables and firearms may be in the same place, if the family has a large enough safe.

BIG Assumptions

In a conversation the poster recounts, a friend says that she has a loaded shotgun in the house “near the bed.” This is enough for the poster to decide to never let her child play there. “Near the bed” was assumed to mean “laying around and accessible.” There are gun locks and safes that can easily be kept and used “near the bed” but not accessible to children. Gun owners tend to know, and follow, the basic rules for gun safety.

Yes, it is true that accidents happen and not all gun owners keep their firearms in a safe or otherwise locked up, but they are almost always kept in areas (such as the master bedroom) that neither children nor guests should be in. So that brings me to my bigger question:

Why do these parents think it’s OK for their children to wander into another adults bedroom and rifle through their things?

It’s a matter of simple manners that even toddlers can learn: you do not go into other people’s bedrooms. While toddlers can’t be trusted to follow that (or any other) rule, most parents I know stay with their kids for at least most of their playdates when they are that young. Since they are there, they should be watching their child and keeping them safe. Once they are old enough for playdates without one of their parents there, they are old enough to stay out of “off limits” rooms.

Helping Criminals

The biggest problem here is that the author, and many who commented on the post, seems to expect to be shown exactly where and how any weapons are stored in another person’s home. That makes the gun owner and their family less safe.

Honestly, if I had guns in my home and had the choice between showing how and where they were stored on-demand for playdates and not having playdates at my house, the choice would be easy. Someone else gets to clean their home and host!

If you aren’t a gun owner and aren’t around any, saying that it makes gun owners less safe probably sounds like nonsense, but it isn’t. There are two things gun owners fear: someone else getting and using their weapon, and someone else stealing their weapon, which they may then use or sell to someone else. In order to do either of those things, other people have to find it first.

By showing every Thomasina, Peggy, and Harriet who stops over for a playdate and asks exactly where and how weapons are stored, gun owners massively increase the chances someone else will rob them because more people know what they have and where.

A casual chat on the playground about how “I felt nervous with Alex playing there, until Chris showed me that they keep their 45 hidden behind some dresses in a closet safe and the hunting rifles locked up in the back basement” can be overheard by anyone. It won’t take too much effort on their part to find out who “Chris” is and where they live. Now there are illegal weapons in the hands of criminals in the area.

You Never Really Know

On top of that, it’s impossible to guarantee other people are telling the truth. Someone with 20+ guns could deny having any, and someone with no guns could claim to have some. There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes.

If you know a person has a firearm and they tell you it is “somewhere the kids aren’t allowed”, that should be enough information for you. If you know your kid can’t be trusted to stay out of forbidden areas, then it probably is best that they not have playdates at another home without you anyhow.

I know we have had times I was in the middle of a sewing project and some ill mannered little cretin who ran into the sewing room could have been injured on scissors and other items left strewn about, even hidden under fabric. The sewing room is a guest room that children simply aren’t supposed to be in. It is not a playspace.

It never even occurs to me that children might go in there because my kids don’t, and neither do their friends. However, a former classmate visited us and his son did decide to go looking into every room. No harm came of it, but those rooms hadn’t been child-proofed and could easily have had power tools or other dangerous (to kids) items accessible.

Train Your Kids

Don’t rely on other people! Train your kids to be safe around guns – and to follow the rules. If they know to never, ever, not even in jest, point a firearm at another person, that reduces the possibility of them shooting anyone to pretty much zero. If they know to always, always, no matter what, treat a firearm like it is loaded, that reduces the possibility of shooting someone to pretty much zero. If they know to go find an adult immediately and tell them if they see someone else playing with a firearm, that will keep them safer.

  1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. (This means not at people, even people in another room because bullets go through house walls and floors.)
  2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. (Guns don’t shoot themselves)
  3. Always treat all guns as if they are loaded, even if you are positive they aren’t. (You could be wrong and it’s not worth someone being shot.)

If your kids understand – truly, deeply understand – and follow the basic rules of gun safety, you never need to worry about them playing with firearms. Yes, other kids might behave unsafely, but most people who own firearms teach their children gun safety. Teaching them firearm safety will go farther than simply refusing to have playdates.

While at a national park with the Scouts, some of the younger ones were climbing on a canon. Clearly, these are just for display, but two older Scouts (nine or ten years old) who had experience around firearms (air rifles) scolded them because “you always treat guns as if they are loaded!” Once they get it, they get it.

What to Do on a Playdate?

Instead of asking what firearms people own and where they are, ask all the kids at a playdate to tell you the basic rules of gun safety. This is a much better safety indicator. If the people own firearms, they will almost certainly be impressed by your concern. If they don’t and ask what you are doing, just tell them you’ve read stories online and this is how you keep yourself from worrying about kids and guns.

After all, it’s the truth.

0 comments

We see memes online all the time, especially on Facebook. One that caught my eye came from Food, Inc and used an image from Henry Ford Hospital near Detroit, Michigan. It showed a greenhouse and said “All Hospitals Should Have Organic Greenhouses”.

Personally, I believe the label and certifications of things as “organic” are generally meaningless. Things can BE organic without earning the label because everything wasn’t documented properly, and they can NOT BE truly organic and manage to get labeled that way by subterfuge. Labeling issues aside, I think “organic” is generally preferable. I just don’t find eating pesticides appetizing.

Healthier Choices

It’s hard to see how organic could fail to be healthier than chemically treated. And it’s even harder to see how food that is high in nutritional content could fail to help a body heal faster than food that isn’t. So the idea of a hospital growing their own produce, under their own control so they know exactly what has and hasn’t been added to it, strikes me as brilliant.

When you order food, if you don’t use it quickly, you either serve it past its prime or throw it away, losing money. When you grow food, you can see what is almost ripe and adjust your meal plan to use it – all of it, or close to all of it – while it’s at the peak of freshness and flavor. The fruits and veggies grown in your own yard or the hospital (or school) greenhouses are served within hours, not days or weeks, of being harvested.

Personally, I would be hard pressed to eat less veggies and I’m not much better about fruit. I think I’m not alone in that. Anyone who is in the hospital and has fresh fruits and veggies who normally eats them will be extremely appreciative. Anyone else, like me, who doesn’t normally eat them may just find a few new things they are willing to eat when they go home.

But Don’t Be Nuts About it

As great as I think it would be, that doesn’t mean I would expect all or even most of their food to be home-grown. Many patients are in the hospital for one, two, or possibly three nights. For them, there would be little or no real difference in their health.

Longer-term and repeat patients (those who come back often for treatments) are the ones who would benefit the most. Focus on improving their food. Some might even benefit by working in the greenhouses. Imagine a patient with limited mobility, stuck in their room all day. Now imagine that same patient put into a wheelchair in the greenhouse pulling weeds and enjoying a change of scenery for an hour or perhaps two a day.

That may not sound like fun for everyone, but any change of surroundings can be a huge mood booster for long-term patients and, even more importantly, many people love gardening. Simply knowing they are contributing can be a big morale boost.

What do you think about adding greenhouses to hospitals?

0 comments

If you haven’t seen the video, just search for “Mom of the Year”+”Baltimore Riots”. It’s a mom cussing out her fully-grown (but not adult) son and hitting him when she found him out with the rioters. He goes home with her and not a single rioter tries to interfere with the Mama Bear making her errant Cub go home.

Most comments are complimentary (Mom of the Year!), but a few say if she had been doing her job all along, he wouldn’t be out there. Really? He’s a teen – they rebel. They test boundaries. They bow to peer pressure. It’s normal, no matter how good a parent is, for teens to do things they were raised to know better than to do.

But what if, as a young child, he was particularly stubborn and the only thing that got through to him was physical punishment like a spanking? I have lived in a Baltimore row house – sounds carry. And it’s no secret to parents that CPS and police can consider any form of physical punishment, most especially including spanking, to be abuse.

To be sure, spanking can be extremely upsetting – for some kids. But those kids probably respond to far lesser punishments, so their parents aren’t likely to be spanking them anyhow, unless they actually are abusive. Frankly, it’s not 1960. If a kid is being abused, odds are good that it will become apparent.

For some kids, it’s no more traumatic than getting yelled at to pick up their clothing. Parents need to be able to make that call in their own homes. Parents need to be able to discipline their own kids in the way each individual child will respond to. Having parents afraid to discipline their children because CPS might come and take them away doesn’t help anything.

So what does this have to do with politics?

The Nanny State has decided that it knows best about how to discipline kids. Certain forms of punishment are not acceptable, ever. In some cases, they are right. But in those cases, it is already illegal as assault and battery or another crime. Spanking or slapping another person won’t get anyone thrown in jail (barring some other extenuating circumstance) because it isn’t really dangerous, just uncomfortable and possibly embarrassing.

My point is not that parents should start spanking and slapping their kids, willy-nilly. My point is that when parents are afraid that the state will take their children if they (the parents) step out of line when disciplining their child, among other things, in the opinion of an authority figure (CPS, doctor, police officer, teacher, administrator – the list is VERY long), then parents stop disciplining their children out of fear of losing that child to The System. And if you don’t know why that terrifies any parent, then you must be living under a rock.

What if he wasn’t at a riot?

My point is that this “Mother of the Year” would have received a very different response if she had done the exact same thing and it had not been in the middle of a riot. If she had simply been trying to keep her teen home on a regular Monday because she knew he was running with a bad crowd, the response would have been that her swearing and hitting him was the root cause of his violence.

My point is that The System needs to change so that control of the family and how it is run is returned to…The Family. Let Mama Bears rule. Unleashed Mama Bears can do more to restore order and control bad apples than any army any nation ever fielded.

My point is that swearing or yelling at kids sometimes, when parents have reached the end of their rope and the kid is sawing on that lifeline, is not going to turn them into hoodlums. Swatting them upside the head or on their backside (the kind of blow that is more embarrassing than painful) will not make them violent.

Creating a world where parents are afraid to discipline their kids because someone might turn them in to CPS or the Police and they will lose that child to the Foster Care System? That is a much faster track to turning kids into hoodlums because that is a fast track to kids having no one to discipline them at all.

CPS is Terrifying

I don’t know any parents who don’t fear CPS, no matter what their color or how much money they have. I know one family who stops to make sure their child is clean before taking them to the ER because if the kid is dirty from an afternoon playing in the yard, they will probably be reported for neglect. (I would say the rulemakers think it’s better to have kid clean in front of a TV than dirty playing in the yard, but that would imply more thought went into the policy than is likely.)

And you know what? They are right. Unless there is an immediate danger to their child, putting off going to the ER for a quick shower is probably the right choice to keep their child safely at home. How sad, and frightening, is that?

The people running these programs and setting the policies aren’t bad people. Letting your child be filthy all the time is neglect – but seeing them dirty one time does not mean they are always dirty. Instead of looking for patterns, they are taking single kids based on single instances. They are looking at a set of “free-range” kids whose parents have carefully taught them how to be safe and given them rules and guidelines and responding as if the parents dropped them off with no instructions, information, or practice.

I think the bureaucrats have the best of intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough when the end result is destruction. We, as a nation, need to return control of our kids to their parents and legal guardians.

0 comments
from the Library of Congress
from the Library of Congress

Enchanted Highway, “The Tin Family.” The Tin Family is part of the Enchanted Highway project. The idea of an Enchanted Highway originated in July 1993. The project features metal art works. It utilizes the welding skills of area residents and their artistic abilities. A number of organizations and groups of people contributed ideas.

Parents want what’s best for the kids. Immigrant parents, including Latinos, know their kids need to speak English to have the best chance at success. Parents of all colors know their kids need to succeed at school. The problem isn’t the parents, it’s a system that intervenes and forces parents to believe in the way The System has decided is best.

At one point, I was curious what immigrants thought about their kids learning English in school. I did some online research and what I found was overwhelming: they want them to learn English in school. They know it is essential for long-term success.

So why is is that their kids end up being taught in another language?

Simplest reason in the world: administrators and educators pressure them into it, with the best intentions in the world. The parents often aren’t fluent in English and probably can’t understand a lot of what is being said to them. Even though they know how important fluency in English is, many may not even truly realize what they have agreed to. Others know, but think they must be stupid because clearly the well-educated teaching professionals are certain this is the best course. And others understand and know they are right, but are so accustomed to being an underclass that is forced to obey those in power that it never occurs to them to fight it.

And what if they do fight it? Have you tried fighting with your kids’ school for something they need? It’s not easy. Now imagine doing it in another country, where you aren’t fluent in the language and don’t really know the culture or customs.

0 comments

I was a kid when it happened, so I paid no attention to the news. A few years later, though, I remember hearing the adults talking about the Mariel Boatlift.

At the time, I lived near where they were resettled. Most of the people who were part of the Mariel Boat Lift were genuinely refugees from the dictatorship in Cuba. They weren’t the problem. The problem was that the Cuban government had decided to use that mass exodus to deal with a problem of their own – hardened criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They sent them here, and they didn’t take them back.

What did our government do after the Marial Boatlift?

They housed all of them together on a military base. (Is any of this sounding familiar with our recent illegal immigration issues?) Specifically, they housed them in Fort Indian Town Gap (FIG) near Harrisburg, PA, and one other base. FIG had been used a few years earlier to house Vietnamese refugees so it was set up for a large number of temporary civilian residents.

No harm, no big deal sending a huge group of (illegal) refugees there. They dealt with a huge group of (legal) refugees not long before with no problems. Same exact thing.

Sure.

Since they hadn’t committed any crimes here and were considered refugees, they were eventually released. Would you care to guess the local big city they headed for? Harrisburg, PA.

Like I said, I was just a kid, but I remember hearing adults talking.

They talked about how the ER could tell when victims of a stabbing where attacked by a Cuban. They would stab in and instead of pulling out the knife, they would twist it to do maximum damage.

No one thought it was because of their heritage – it was because they were hardened criminals. Because most of their crimes had been committed in another county (since they weren’t living here), they had no provable criminal history and were simply released into society.

Who makes the decisions?

To be clear: I am very glad we welcomed most of those people into our country, but there was a reason a big group of those people were initially flagged and kept at FIG, just like there are many people in Border Patrol and ICE who know mostly which of the current illegals are criminal gang members and which aren’t.

We need to stop letting bureaucrats make all the decisions. We need to trust professionals to do their jobs. Let law enforcement officers (LEOs) decide which people in any mass are likely to be criminals – at least the first pass.

We need to accept that whether we like it or not, LEOs, Border Patrol, and other “front line” workers know, beyond a doubt and based on years of experience, that specific tattoos and markings mean the person is affiliated with a specific gang or has committed a specific crime. And they know which of these are the most dangerous. Politicians and bureaucrats sitting in D.C. rarely know such a thing, and even more rarely care.

The bureaucrats screwed it up when they left the criminals out in 1980, and they are screwing it up again by not allowing ICE and Border Patrol to do their job and protect us from dangerous illegal criminals.

Until they back off and let them do their job, using any and all means necessary to protect themselves and our nation, those same politicians and bureaucrats who think they are somehow protecting defenseless immigrants and helping them become more accepted are doing the opposite. They are allowing hardened criminals to become the face of immigration and allowing the crime syndicates from “the old country” to continue to prey on the poor when they move here.

Truthfully, is that what anyone wants?

0 comments

I attended one day of CPAC. I spent my time at the booths, promoting my book The Constitution: It’s the OS for the US. In looking through the materials I brought home, I was struck by something: there are actually a lot of points that I see being made by liberals as well as people at CPAC. Admittedly, some were there because they feel excluded by conservatives and the Republican party even though they hold the same views, but that is kind of my point. They hold many of the same core views.

Conservative Atheists don’t believe in God, but they are Republicans, just as many Atheists are Democrats.

Families Against Mandatory Minimum (sentencing for criminal cases) is another. Republicans really don’t want to just toss everyone who does anything wrong in jail and throw away the keys.

No one wants Jeb Bush as our next President.

We want our kids to get a good education. Many on both sides want to dump Common Core.

The Tax Code is too complicated and needs simplified.

Being responsible and learning solid safety habits is critical for anyone who owns a firearm.

Clearly, there are massive areas we don’t agree on, including how to accomplish most of those goals. But it’s important to realize that you can always find something that you and another person agree on, if only that you disagree on most subjects!

0 comments

“Allahu Akbar”

Freedom of Speech

The Constitution gives us freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment, but that doesn’t truly mean we are free to say anything. There is the famous example of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but there is also the reality that there are words we simply cannot say because society has decided we may not say them. Many times this word was originally innocent or neutral in usage, but time has changed its meaning or attached nuances to it that weren’t there originally.

Other times, no matter how innocent or well intended a phrase or word originally was, a small (or large) group has used it in a hateful manner so many times that it can no longer be used. Sometimes, merely using a word is considered “hate speech” and can get you in trouble with the law.  

“Negro” once simply meant black, but all the weighted meanings that were attached to it by racists for decades and centuries have come to mean that we can no longer use it, much less the slang word derived from it.

“Retard” meant slow, and “mentally retarded” meant slower at mental processes – schoolwork. Just try using that one in public today!

Allahu Akbar

“Allahu Akbar” literally means “Allah is the Greatest”, which shouldn’t be any more incendiary than “Praise Jesus!” And yet, it seems that every terrorist attack around the world is accompanied by these words. Freedom of Speech ensures that people are still free to use the phrase, but can it still be considered neutral?

Can you hear those words and not instinctively feel like you may be in danger? If someone you didn’t know came into a room yelling, “Praise Jesus!”, how would you respond? How about if they came in yelling “Allahu Akbar”? Ten or fifteen years ago, would you have felt the same way?

It is a sad thing when a small group of people hijack something from others, even words. While we can never know how many Muslims support or accept the actions of terrorists, the simple fact is that very few are actual terrorists relative to the number of Muslims in the world. And because of those few, a simple phrase meant to show their beliefs has now become a symbol of terror around the world.

0 comments

Islamic extremists repeatedly do barbaric things and, frankly, Islamic countries don’t seem all the upset by it. They certainly aren’t standing up to decry suicide bombings as wrong, or homicidal rampages by gun-wielding lunatics as a problem. But this time, ISIS has managed to cross the line that honestly didn’t seem to exist – the one beyond which Muslim countries would condemn their actions, en masse.

They burnt a fellow Middle Eastern Muslim alive. And covered it up for a month, letting his countrymen believe he was still alive. For that, the King of Jordan and the rest of the Middle East have decided to hunt the guilty parties down like the vermin they are.

I was raised in the USA and learned about the horrors of places like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Places where there were no rights, and no abuse was out of bounds to those with power. I believe in our system, and I believe in the Civil Rights we are guaranteed, as citizens, by our Constitution.

But I also believe in the Platinum Rule.

The Golden Rule is to treat others are you would be treated. The Platinum Rule is to treat others as they would be treated. Under the Golden Rule, my mother in law would get a spa day for Christmas. Under the Platinum Rule, she gets to go to the grocery store and spend as many hours as she likes checking out the produce. (Seriously, it makes her happy – don’t judge.)

Under the Platinum Rule, we should use the same rules to punish non-citizens as they would use on our citizens if they caught them. That seems fair to me. After all, our Constitution was intended to cover our citizens, not every person on the planet, and certainly not enemy combatants.

King Abdullah of Jordan is clearly preparing to attack them with great fury and vengeance – and not stop until they run out of bullets and fuel. They started by executing two ISIS members in retaliation, and didn’t stop there. Nor did they act alone.

But that’s not all! Hundreds of Muslims in Oslo demonstrated in support of Jews!

Perhaps, just perhaps, they have pushed so far that, no matter what the imams believe, basic humanity will come to the forefront and Muslims will actually condemn the extremists within their own ranks. Perhaps they will stop preaching hatred and start fighting evil.

A mom can dream, can’t she?

Whatever happens going forward, it is heartening to see the Middle East fighting back against some of these horrors committed in the name of Islam.

0 comments

Doctors and Trust

My kids have had their vaccines on the standard schedule. The exceptions are Gardisal (not taken), Rotovirus (hunted down so my child could have it), and flu vaccines (they’ve had them, but not every year).

I am not going to discuss the autism-vaccine link because it has been thoroughly debunked many places, but I can see why parents are starting to push back on vaccines for children. Sadly, it’s because our trust in our doctors and medical care in general has been eroded, badly, over the course of the last 20-30 years.

When most of us were children, our parents could trust their doctors to tell them what they needed to know. Today, doctors have to be so afraid of lawsuits (from patients / parents and from companies) that they are very limited in how much they are willing to discuss / disclose. Can you blame them? Really? I can’t.

We’ve had some really outstanding doctors in my family. In particular, I loved our first pediatrician. He was the best doctor we’ve ever had and I trusted him entirely. He’s the one who helped us get the Rotovirus vaccine for our youngest, a preemie who really needed the extra protection. He recommended the standard shot schedule – and so did another pediatrician that I really respect – so we have stayed with it.

I wish I could say I still trust all of the doctors we’ve had.

Questionable Vaccines

We moved across the country and, sadly, had to leave that doctor as a result. When our older son turned 11 and went in for his 6th grade shots, our pediatrician pushed to have him get the Gardisal vax.

I was told that my 11 yr old son NEEDED it because he might, someday, have unprotected sex and should have it to because, if that happened, the girl / woman MIGHT have the virus, which he MIGHT catch, and MIGHT pass on to another girl / woman – if he had unprotected sex with her! Seriously. That’s the reason the kids pediatrician gave me – and part of the reason they have a new doctor. (He was VERY pushy about it.)

Since he was so adamant, I did some more research and found out that it’s three large, painful shots (compared to other vaccines) and the vaccine is good for several years (one study showed up to 6.4 years), but not for a lifetime (like the MMR shot).

One study in Costa Rica has shown the same protection can be achieved with one shot instead of three. And then there are the more well-known problems with that vaccine, including documented, serious side effects. And another pediatrician I respect is part of a practice that requires 100% vaccinations – but not that vaccination.

Proof enough for me to refuse it, and then some.

My Conclusions

So, as much as I think all the “standard” vaccines (the ones with a decade+ track record) should be done in the recommended time-frame and schedule, SOME of the blame for parents reluctance to simply “do as they are told” ultimately falls on the medical community and bureaucrats for adding on questionable vaccines that ultimately seem to just add money to the bottom line of big pharma.

Over the last 50 years, the number of required / recommended vaccines has skyrocketed. In 1950, a 6 year old had 7 vaccines. In 1974, it was 13. Today, it’s 36. THIRTY SIX. And there are more to be received after that. In some cases, kids cannot attend public school if they don’t receive them!

Again, just to be clear – I don’t agree with skipping core vaccines, including MMR, unless you are one of the tiny minority with a genuine health reason. (Those few are the reason “herd immunity” is so important.) But if you haven’t had to go through all the required vaccines recently, it’s easy to not realize how questionable some of the crap – including vaccines – they are trying to force on parents is, leading to massive distrust.

0 comments

My Personal Views

What I don’t want

Here are my personal views: I don’t want the government in my personal business. I don’t want to tell the IRS how much money I have saved this year, what I spent marketing my books, and how much Christmas money my kids have saved in their bank accounts. It’s none of their business – except that the government has decided it is, and I have to tell them.

I don’t want the government, at any level, to decide whether women should have children, or how they should be raised (in detail) once they are born. I don’t want them forcing us all – including children – to submit to being groped by TSA when we take a vacation, business trip, or visit family. And I don’t want them listening to my phone calls or reading my email.

I don’t want them saying who can, or can’t, get married. Up until the early 1970s, my marriage would have been illegal because my husband and I are different races, so I take the issue a bit more personally as a result.

I simply don’t want them controlling so much of our lives.

That doesn’t mean I am a libertarian and want no regulation. We do need regulation, and we need those who are most vulnerable in our population to be protected.

What (I think) we do need

We need to know that a solid yellow line means “no passing zone” in every state, a red light means stop, and everyone drives on the same side of the road. We need to know that all our airline pilots and air traffic controllers speak the same language.

We need laws that punish parents who are abusive, but those laws cannot be so stringent that spanking is considered a reason to take a child from their parents. Children must also be protected from predators, so laws restricting marriage to grown-ups are completely logical and necessary. So are laws against abuse and neglect, we just need to use common sense. While neglected children are often dirty, most kids get dirty in the course of playing. (I know a family who almost got CPS called on them because their child was covered in dirt after playing outside – in a dirt pile.)

I don’t think these are crazy or extreme thoughts. In my experience, most people agree that we need some regulation, and most will admit their is a point when it goes too far. Unless you think the government should be telling you when to get up, what underwear to wear, the soap to use in your shower, etc., then you agree that their is a limit on how much we should regulate. It’s just a matter of finding that middle ground.

0 comments