Content

After spending a weekend away camping with my family, I have thought about the kind of posts I want to do regularly. I think I'm going to change it up. I think I've been trying to write like a journalist - when I've already said that that's not what I am. I'm a mom; the majority of my time is spent teaching and playing with kids, cleaning, cooking and feeding. I certainly try to stay informed and that is what I want to encourage, but from now on I think I will include more of my day-to-day. I also think that it will make it more fun to read. So while I will definitely include my thoughts on the news of the day/week, it's going to be a different blog than what I had started out with.

Okay - Cut, Cap, and Balance. I think that it is weird that anyone would really try to go against it. Who wouldn't want the government to live within its means?? I'm proud that my Senator is a co-sponsor of this bill.

I also think that it is interesting that you have some saying there are no cuts in the bill - therefore, it isn't really addressing the government's spending (Chris Matthews). While others are saying that it is a "Ryan budget plan on steroids" that will end medicare as we know it (Rep Schultz from florida). I'm pretty sure if we are saying that the bill is going to "end medicare" that there must be some cuts in there (she also says it means deeper cuts to other programs as well). Rep Schultz also says the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill would ask nothing of the "wealthiest few"... However, right now the top 1% earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% combined- what number would be enough? (PS I am not anywhere near the top 1% but I am in above the 46% that don't pay any taxes)... The Democrats/Left are always talking about "Big oil" and how they have some unfair advantage, but they never really say what that unfair advantage is. If they really do get some "special" tax break that other companies don't get - then I think that it's certainly fine to take away those breaks. But I tend to think that that is not the case because no one is ever referencing what those "special - specific" tax breaks are, only that they want to change the system so oil companies have to pay more.

Right now all I want to hear from any politician (right, left, blue, red, white, black) are facts that support their beliefs. I want to hear numbers, referenced tax code, etc. Right now all I hear from the Left is hearsay and as people have called them "scare tactics". And it's annoying. I hope that enough people see the benefit of a balance budget...live within your means. It's hard; it stinks that we can't do all the good things that we want to. But if we don't get this spending and under control, we won't be around to any good at all. Let's turn our spending around and yes it will be hard but maybe we'll still be able to do some good. It will just have to be within our means - just like my and your families have to do.

In other news, my kids are really cute and fun. I enjoy staying home with them and teaching them...My current (ongoing) project is to teach my 3 year old his letters. He is not a child that likes to just sit and learn and he doesn't parrot things or enjoy "performing". I'll ask him what sound the letter makes and he always says "you tell me".  I know he has to know SOME of the letters we've been working on. I try to keep it fun and new...any help will be appreciated.

End the Game of Chicken

There is a LOT of talk about the debt negotiations. I'm getting pretty sick of hearing about it on the news when there is nothing to report except bickering. I have a side (as most do) and I know that everyone is cheering on and encouraging their side to not cave in on certain issues(including me). I've heard people refer to this as the government (but let's face they mostly blame Republicans) for playing a high-stakes game of chicken "while risking the full faith and credit of United States" (Froma Happo). I definitely think that the government is playing a risky game, but to blame only one side is pretty ridiculous and childish in and of itself. Both sides are fully to blame for the game of chicken.

Republicans don't want anymore debt (our debt is already unsustainable) and they don't want to raise taxes on anyone in this weak economy. Both of these ideologies have economists and stats backing their thinking. I'm not saying that the Democrats don't have economists and stats on their side...because they probably do. (Although I haven't heard anything really compelling - giving more taxes to a government that we KNOW doesn't know how to live within its means doesn't like it's going to solve anything. Just like you wouldn't give a family member money you knew would misuse it).  Regardless of which side I want to "win", I definitely think this game has consequences with investors and the US credit rating (as Moody's is now reviewing the US credit rating).

So why don't we just jump through this hoop?? Take the risky gambling out of the game. We know both sides don't want the US to default on it's debt. That is one bill everyone can agree needs to get paid. So why don't they knock that one out right now? "We will pay out national debt payments." How hard is that? Is it because they don't want to relinquish such a powerful bargaining chip? I can't even understand why no one (with significant weight in the debt negotiations) has brought it to the table. Maybe they have but it just hasn't been reported - we do have a limited view of what goes on there. To reference a well used Democrat analogy - when a family sits at the kitchen table and tries to figure out their finances, they don't think about not paying their mortgage in order to come up with clear budget. First they decide what they have to pay - most likely mortgage, car. Then after those are figured into the budget, they look at other necessary bills and see if there is anyway to spend less in those areas (i.e. food, electric, water, etc). And of course you cut out the non-essentials. Hopefully the government really can function like a family long enough to say - "We know we have to pay on the debt so let's get that paid and see what we have left to work with." Then the arguing over revenue and essential programs can begin. Come on - let's end the game.

UPDATE: just watched this video of Michele Bachmann interview with Great an Debt Ceiling... Pretty good stuff...

Coincidence??

I was talking to my mom yesterday about the baby exercise guidelines. I told her about my opinion - that they make these up so they can then say "Shame on you. I told you what to do! Tsk, tsk...". Then conversation came around to- "Wouldn't it be awful if the government decided they could take your kids away from you because they were obese." Response: "Oh yeah that would be awful".

Lo and behold what news article creeps onto the news, a story entitled: "Watch Out Parents: The State May Want to Take Away Your Obese Kids". I am not kidding - I still can't believe the turnaround. So if you read the article, the kids that were taken away definitely had serious medical issues. What they didn't report on was how many chances did they give the parents to change behaviors and habits. Did they take away the children because parents were irresponsible and neglectful and that led to the obesity or was it solely based on the child's weight. There are soooo many questions in regards to this policy. When will they start saying - "isn't it just cruel to let a 12 year-old reach 400? We should step in now and prevent this horrible thing from happening; we have to protect the children". What a slippery slope- it makes me very nervous. I don't even really know what to say about it...

The article references the successful weight loss and other positive health impacts that happened in the foster system and I think this should not necessarily be construed as a success. I think that these kids are probably uncomfortable in this environment and put on a regiment that they dare not reject or deviate from - or what they'll get sent somewhere else. They probably just want to go home. They probably figure I need to obey and loose weight so I can go home. I hope they do get to go home.

I also found this article about reducing the chances of childhood obesity - a remarkable simple answer...yet we don't have the government mandating breastfeeding... :) Which I don't really want or anything(I'm not a huge fan of government telling me what to do) - I'm just saying.

Flood Gates

I few days ago I read an article stating, "Two weeks after the New York State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage, the state’s Roman Catholic archbishop said politicians could next redefine marriage to include “multiple partners” and adultery." I'm not saying that that is going to happen anytime anytime soon. But I did come across an interesting news story today. The part of the article that stood out to me was this:

In a statement posted on his blog, Turley said the lawsuit will challenge Utah's right to prosecute people for their private relationships.

"We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right 

of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other 

citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," the statement reads.

According to the statement, the lawsuit seeks to protect a person's right to be left alone.

"In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to 

live their lives according to their own values - even if those values run counter to those of the 

majority in the state," Turley wrote.

If you ask me, they make a pretty compelling argument, especially when looked at the issue in light of recent gay marriage arguments. But isn't this just what people said would happen, like the archbishop in New York? Right now he's not trying to redefine marriage to include polygamous ones, but someone after this case might. I've even read some comments after looking more into the show to find this:  "If our society wants us to accept same sex marriages and single parents, then I think its about time that we accept plural marriages" BECKY COMMENTED ON MAR 14 11 AT 12:58 AM Where does it end? Is this the opening of the flood gates?

Nanny-state

So I enjoy going to the gym every morning for about 40 minutes. But this morning my husband went out mountain biking and didn't return until it was too late for me to go workout and come home before he needed to leave for work. Anytime I don't get to go, I throw a little mini pity party to myself -" it's not fair that I don't get to go do something for myself", "it's a good thing to be doing, how sad that I can't do things to take care of myself, "boo-whoo"- you know, the usual.

It reminded me about this story - governments setting guidelines to how much you (and even babies!!!) should exercise. I don't understand why governments think that it is really their duty to create such guidelines. I think that everyone can agree that most (if not all) obese people already know that they should exercise. Even most not obese people know that it would be best for their health to exercise. So why do our governments spend tax dollars and "precious" political time coming up with such things??

Well I think that one would say that governments feel like if they put out some guidelines then they are not idly sitting by doing nothing. But I would argue that these guidelines do just that- NOTHING. You hear the same advice from you doctor and YOUR MOM. We all know that we need to eat right and exercise for the best possible health. But life is hard; things inevitably get in the way. Now we just have one more institution to shake their finger at us. "See you're fat/out of shape/not as healthy as you could be. We told you what you needed to do. Shame, Shame."

Besides, guidelines for physical fitness for infants seem absolutely ridiculous. I would say that best way to teach your children the importance of being active is to set an example and make exercise a regular part of your life and your family's lifestyle.

Barefoot and Pregnant

When did this phrase become a motto for the left against conservatives? Pro-life supporters - all they want is for women to be barefoot and pregnant? Back in June 2011, Rep Bob Hagen, a Democrat from Youngstown, said: “You should feel uncomfortable about this vote. This is about the rights of women to make a decision about what their life will be. … Barefoot and pregnant, that’s where they want you.” In response to an Ohio law that would make abortion illegal after detecting a fetal heartbeat (which can be seen early in the 1^st trimester).

And now conservatives are against strong women and they just want women to get in the kitchen and get pregnant? ...and he accuses Michele Bachmann of being against strong women? She has a quite successful life: law degree, career as a tax lawyer, raised 28 children, and now congresswoman and presidential hopeful. Ummm...WHAT?!?

When I hear the phrase "barefoot and pregnant" an image appears in my head - One of a poor uneducated woman dependent upon others.  As a woman who chooses to become pregnant and chooses to stay home and raise those children, I am offended at the negative connotation given to such a job. I have educated myself (Bachelors in Nursing) and I would consider myself strong and independent.  Yet I maintain and standup for traditional values of home and family. I think staying at home full-time with my children is the best thing for them and me (as I learn and grow while teaching them). I have not been able to find the whole speech given by Rep. Ellison but it would be interesting to see if he mentions which views or causes Michele Bachmann supports that make her “anti-women”, if he gives any examples at all. It would seem that some people are content to attack without feeling the need to give evidence to support their beliefs.

(Apparently the phrase been used since the 1940s – but I still am offended by the use of this phrase to attack conservatives. Not only am I a conservative but I don’t think we need to continue the negative attitudes towards women and mothers who really do believe that the best work we can do is at home.)

WHO AM I

Who am I? The first thing that comes to mind when I try to answer that question is I am a Child of God. The second answer – I am a wife and I am a mother. That’s me. These are my goals: I want to serve my God and I want to serve my family.

I became politically active (which means I am actually interested in what politicians are saying and passing) in 2008 when everything in the world seemed to be going crazy, when I started thinking about the effects laws and policies had on the world my kids were going to grow up in.  I think it all corresponds with the realization that I’m responsible for preparing young minds to live in this world. I want them to have the BEST world possible. If I don’t try to inform myself about what’s going on – and then I don’t try to inform others…well, I certainly didn’t do all I could to preserve our country. I didn’t do all I could to create a better place for my kids to live. So I’m trying to change that. I’m going to write my thoughts on issues of the times – hopefully informing people along the way (but I am fully aware that it might never be read). Maybe if I write it all down here then I won’t spend as much time talking my husband’s ear off when he gets home.

I’m a stay-at-home mom.  That’s my job, that’s my mindset - so that’s the perspective you’ll get.  These times (as are all times) are filled with complex issues and they need to be thought out and worked through by a lot of people not just politicians. The moms of the world matter and we are smart and we love our families. I believe that the sacrifice a mom makes allows her to be uniquely qualified to tackle the problems of the day. A mother understands the necessity and value of compassion and love while accepting that work and discipline must also be involved in order to achieve success and happiness.

Let’s work hard to solve problems and think them through. Let’s spread the word and encourage others to think critically. Let’s continue to build great homes and families – and influence the country on the way. :)

ps you should know that I have two small children with more planned (not yet on the way) so posts may be few or many. I have no idea.