Most things have their time, place, and purpose.

Often, when libertarians, conservatives, and anyone in favor of “limited government” says that the government should not be doing a particular thing, some people respond with confusion and worry, anger, or any other number of negative emotions.  Breathless, they ask, “But don’t you think it’s a good thing for kids to receive an education?  …for people to have homes?  …for people to have transportation?  …for people to have enough healthy food to eat?  …to take care of our elders?  Don’t you think it is a good thing for people to have health insurance?”

This kind of response belies a thinking that people are incapable of producing and exchanging, of serving others, or finding solutions without government control or assistance.  Some of these people act as if nothing would ever get done, as if people are so incapable and careless that they won’t seek to fulfill their needs and those of their loved ones, or that only the rich would ever get what they need.

There are many services – many programs and projects of various levels of government – that we think are good, at least in concept or goal if not execution or all results.  However, we do not believe that is the government’s role, or in some cases the federal or state governments’ role, to provide these things to people.  There are several reasons for this.

First, if we’re going to govern through a constitution, then we need to be consistent about doing so.  We do have a Constitution, and it limits the federal government to only doing things specifically assigned within the text of the Constitution.  All other things are supposed to be handled by “the people” or the states.  It isn’t the role of the federal government to do these things, and there are reasons the Constitution was written this way, as I note next.

Second, the government can only accomplish things by force.  The money to do things is forcibly taken from some people; if participation in a program is mandatory, this reduces personal liberty and increases centralized government power over our lives.  We have forced association and support instead of voluntary association and exchanges.

Third, a monopolistic entity like the federal government is often inefficient and ineffective.  It is not possible for something being run from Washington, D.C. to really know the needs of all of the people.  Even for things that government should be involved with, the founders of our nation saw the benefit of letting the states come up with their own solutions, so that they can be examined and compared as well as tailored to the population of that state.

Fourth, this can increase dependency of an impersonal central bureaucracy instead of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and personal accomplishment.


The concept of roles has been largely lost in our present-day society.  Roles bring certain duties, obligations, and boundaries.  Traditionally, men and women have had certain roles.  Husbands and wives have had certain roles.  Mothers and fathers have had certain roles.  Friends and family...  religious congregations... charitable and civic organizations have had certain roles.  Teachers and students have had certain roles.  Employers and employees have had certain roles.

Despite what some people would have us believe, men are men – they are not women.  Men can be sons, brothers, husbands, or fathers.  They can’t be daughters, sisters, wives, or mothers – only women can.  Unless you live in a messed-up family, your spouse is not your sibling, and neither is your child.  As a parent, you have a certain role to that child, and while you should love them, your role isn’t to be their friend, at least not while they are growing up.

I bring all of this up because my point is that the government is not your parent.  It is not your sibling.  It is not your church.  It isn’t there to hold your hand.  Its role is to protect you from others, not yourself.  It is there to prevent crime and prosecute criminals, not ensure equality of outcomes or that you have high “self-esteem” or that someone else pretends to like you and everything you do.

There are many things that I think are good, but it isn’t the government’s role to provide them to me.

As a husband, I can tell you it is nice to wake up to some lovin’.  But suppose I wake up to find that the person “lovin’” me is not my wife, but some neighbor I barely know?  I had been enjoying myself, so what is the problem?  The problem is, it is not that person’s role to do that.  Some of you might like this scenario and wouldn’t be bothered, especially if you are or have ever been the Governor of New Jersey or New York, but you get the idea.  That’s one of my wife’s roles, not my neighbors.  

My dog is my pet, not dinner.

We all have our roles, and with many things, it simply isn’t the federal government’s role.

I heard a bit of Michael Medved today, detailing the latest exploits of Alan Keyes.  It makes me sad.  I backed Alan Keyes in the 2000 POTUS primary, knowing his chances were slim.  Then came his embarrassing Illinois campaign in which he was trounced by B. Hussein Obama, a campaign during which, as far as I can tell, Keyes jumped the shark.

Is John McCain perfect?  Was he my first choice for 2008 GOP POTUS nominee?  Is the GOP currently doing a bang-up job of implementing and popularizing conservative policies?  The answer to all of those is “no”.

But Alan Keyes isn’t going to improve the situation one bit by leaving the GOP and continuing to make a ruckus.  Alan Keyes has spent any credibility and political capital he had, and that’s really sad.

There are many issues where I agree significantly with Keyes:

-I’m pro-life in the sense that I believe human beings have a right to life from conception until natural death, and I don’t think killing an innocent person because they are ill should be legal.  (If someone wants to kill themselves, it is kind of hard to stop them.)

-Sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that includes sex that is filmed for someone else’s entertainment.

-School choice should be the norm – parents should be able to send their children to any school that agrees to take them.

-Our national borders need to be secured.

-The Constitution recognizes that the people have the right to bear arms.

-We must be diligent in fighting terrorists.

-Our tax system should be overhauled.

-Judges should interpret and apply the law – the laws of their jurisdiction under our Constitution, not make law or look the laws or decisions of other countries.

So on, and so forth.

Are there a lot of Republicans who disagree with us on some of these issues?  Are there Republicans who care more about their personal power than anything else? Of course.  Is the solution to leave the GOP or sit on our hands?  NO!

The reality is, we have a two party system, and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future unless something very big and unusual happens.  We have two parties with which to work.  Right now, the GOP is more friendly to our concerns than the Dem party.

As I’ve said before, if you’re not happy with our candidate this year, the solution is to identify and build up viable candidates for the future.  Are conservatives running for school board?  Local office?  State legislatures?  Congress?  Governor?

The unions, especially the government and teachers unions, are controlled by Leftists, and that’s not going to change.  Academia is going to be largely Leftist.  Most newsrooms and Hollywood productions are going to be Leftist.  Many religious institutions are going to continue to drift Left.  Large corporations are going to continue to support and lobby both major parties.  People who make money off of killing babies and experimenting on human beings are going to keep fighting for more government support.  People who stand to gain through promoting gender confusion are going to continue with their efforts.

But we still have our votes, our voluntary contributions, and our voices.

What we do with our voices is especially important.  We should encourage, but not preach to the converted.  We should not throw pearls before swine.  It matters who we talk to, how many we talk to, and how we talk to them.

Talking to 30 delegates of a political party that will never have any power is a waste of time.

Our elected Republicans are more likely to listen to Republican voters - voters who actually vote.  We showed it with shamnesty, we can show it again.  Let’s elect Republicans, and let’s strengthen conservative principles within the GOP.

Ever notice that many of the richest Americans came from modest beginnings, and many of those dropped out of school before getting a college degree?  How many of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants?  When you consider how many of these people started out poor or in the middle class, and you add in the people on the list whose parents started out poor or in the middle class but left behind considerable wealth, it becomes very clear that our nation has been one of unparalleled opportunity for those who are willing to work hard, sacrifice, and innovate.

We are not a nation of the permanent classes of the “haves” vs. the “have-nots”.  If you are born into a low-income family, you are not destined to be poor all of your life, especially if you are ambitious and take responsibility for your life.

The Leftist Democrats would have you believe that the people on that list are just lucky – that they’ve “won life’s lottery” and are living it up at your expense, unfairly enjoying the high life while you struggle and suffer.  The Leftist Democrats want you believe that the only way you’ll ever be successful is with their help, so you’d better vote for them and support them.

Don’t believe it.  We need polices, especially government restraint, that will keep our nation a beacon of liberty that fosters free market capitalism.  We should be encouraging growth through encouraging investment, efficiency, innovation, voluntary cooperation, and hard work, and letting people enjoy the fruits of their investment and labor, instead of finding new ways to confiscate them.

No, really.  A woman wrote in to Dear Abby and complained that her husband bought her diamond earrings as a gift.  This is another example of why some men are on a marriage strike.  Ticked Off in Rhode Island writes...

I recently turned 40, and because I don't get along with my husband "Ted's" family, I chose to celebrate out of town with my parents and siblings. At the end of my five-day trip, Ted picked me up at the airport and barely greeted me.

Your parents and siblings?  You wrote that you were 40.  Perhaps you meant to write 14?  You left your husband (you know - the man you are supposed to cleave to after you leave your family of origin) behind for five days, and then are ticked that he didn't make a big deal when he picked you up at the airport?  You are darn lucky he picked you up at all.

When he finally handed me the box, Ted didn't even wait for me to open it. He went off to take a shower.

Ah.  So it is okay for you to be gone for five days, but not okay for him to be gone for ten minutes.

 I waited for him to finish, then opened the gift in front of him. Inside was a pair of diamond earrings.

That jerk!!!

I have never wanted diamond earrings, and I have told him so many times. I had asked Ted for cash so I could buy a new sewing machine. Why diamond earrings?

Women tell men all of the time "Oh, don't make a big deal about my birthday/Valentine's Day/Christmas - if you're going to get me something, don't go through too much trouble."  But most of the time, women who say that ARE LYING!  And most women would pitch a fit at getting cash, or a sewing machine.  Perhaps you have done something in the past that would indicate to him that he'd be better off getting you jewelry?  Most women would prefer the jewelry, even if they tell their husband a "practical" gift is preferred.

That night we had a major quarrel, and now I'll never be able to enjoy them.

Great.  So he tried to do something nice for a woman who hates his family and leaves him for five days to "celebrate her birthday", and his reward is a fight with a whiny, ungrateful woman, who will spite him by not wearing the jewelry.

What do I do with them now?

Turn them in for cash, and get your husband an expensive call girl.  He probably needs the release.  Okay, so I'm kidding about that.  Kind of.

To her credit, Dear Abby told the woman to apologize, and then to get marriage counseling.  Dear Abby says there is a "communication problem".  Uh, yeah.  Well, if you mean that he ignored her insistence that she didn't want diamond earrings... that's a minefield.  Back when I was unmarried, I decided to take women at their word (and I still do).  I warned them ahead of time.  If she said "Don't make a big deal", then I didn't.  If I asked what was wrong, and she said "NOTHING!!!", then I would reply, "Great!  So we can both enjoy this evening."  Guess what?  I was "wrong" to listen to what these women actually told me.  So don't give me this junk about a lack of communication, unless you mean that she should always say exactly what she means.

The printed letter does not indicate whether or not they have children or this woman is employed.  If she's not employed, especially if they don't have children, it is all money he's earned anyway, and she should be grateful for the gift... and the gift of a home, and all of the other things he pays for, including the trip for her to be away from him.

Hey, I just thought of something.  Sure, it wasn't a tennis bracelet, but they were diamonds... hmmmm... perhaps he had an affair while she was away "celebrating her birthday with her family" (wink, wink) and this is one of those "I cheated on you" guilt gifts.

Today, I saw B. Hussein Obama taking questions from starry-eyed people, and one woman asked him what he's going to do about violence against women.  I noticed he didn't point out what the President Bush-led military efforts against Islamofascists has done to reduce violence and oppression of women.  He also didn't say that, as far as domestic violence, it is not the President's job to do anything but encourage local law enforcement efforts.  He didn't point out that girls are being killed in the womb just for being girls.

What he did say indicated he either hadn't developed or didn't remember a smooth stock answer to that question.  Eventually, though, he did kick in to his prepared talking points - the bogus chestnuts that women stay in abusive relationships because women get paid less than men, and because of a lack of educational opportunities.  Both of these are FALSE.  Careful studies show that women who do the same level, quality, and quantity of work in the same job as a man get paid the same as the man.  Also, there are more women in college than men, and more pursuing higher degrees.

But none of that matters, because, as Obama said, he has diverse pieces of American in him.  Apparently, whether your parents were black or white or whatever does make a difference in your abilities - at least according to him.  This blatantly racist claptrap should be laughed off of the political stage.

I would have loved to have been there in that group and risk some "tolerant" Leftist shouting me down, assaulting me, or keying my car by asking Obama, "There are more women than men in college.  There are for more men in prison than women.  What are you going to do about these gender inequalities?"

Women don't stay in abusive relationships for the reasons Obama cited.  Women stay in abusive relationships because they have allowed themselves to believe that is normal, or that they can't do any better, or that they can change the man, or that they deserve to be abused.  What do we expect, when girls are being raised without their father married to their mother, with a endless string of their mother's "boyfriends" coming through the home, more likely to abuse her?  When we encourage girls to engage in dangerous and demeaning behaviors?

It is up to women to stick up for themselves, to leave if need be, to get law enforcement involved if possible.  It is up to women not to tie themselves to an abusive man by making babies with him.  It is up to all of us to stand between the innocent and those who would do harm to them - to a certain extent.  As a father and a brother, I can tell you I would stand between anyone who would abuse my daughter or my sister - but if they chose to go back to that person and keep subjecting themselves to that abuse, there wouldn't be much I could do.  And Obama can't do anything about it.

I have a bad feeling about this.

We know the Dems want mortgage "reform" to prevent people from losing homes they really cann't afford, and to keep property taxes up.  But we also know they won't stand for the "poor" (particularly minorities) from being turned down from financing a house.

That means they are either going to use more tax money to get and keep houses for these people, or they are going to force the lenders to subsidize them.

Either way, it will mean higher costs for the rest of us, and make it harder for the self-sufficient folks from affording a house without calling on Big Government.

Sir Paul, if you ever get married again, be sure to get a very extensive pre-nup.  He had a long marriage with Linda, and so, like most men widowed after a long, happy marriage, he seeks to recreate what he had.  It isn't so easy.

Why should Heather Mills get so much?  Paul made his name with the Beatles, of course, and that allowed him to become rich.  Was Heather there when the Beatles were practicing and working hard to beat the odds?  Was she there when Paul wrote songs that have been so successful?

We need to change how we handle divorces and other things related to marriage.  Otherwise, more men will join the marriage strike.

I value marriage too much to be quiet while we punish people for getting married.

It's really disturbing that the drive-by media isn't giving more attention to B. Hussein Obama's church and pastor.  Talk radio has had to take the lead in beating that drum.  This double standard is disgusting.  How often has the drive-by media spent a good chunk of print or airtime focusing on some isolated sentence uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or some other conservative Christian?  And here, there's a preacher enthusiastically an unapologetically going on and on with his hateful, divisive, and bigoted rantings, and he's Obama's longtime pastor!

Perhaps he hasn't said something about homosexuality?  Or has that been squelched?

If the Dems do select Obama as their candidate, I don't EVER want to hear another peep by the Dems about Robertson, James Dobson, Hagee, or another other conservative Christian leader and whether or not a Republican political candidate will distance themselves from something one of them has said.  AND... when they do, and we point out the Obama situation, I don't want to hear the Dems blowing it off, like they have when we've citied Bill Clinton in response to things Republicans have been bashed for as of late.

Sorry, Lefitists - unlike you, we haven't abused enough drugs to have no memory, and haven't screwed up our thinking enough to be entirely inconsistent.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how the Sheriff could recommend that this guy in the "woman stuck to the toilet for years" case can recommend prosecuting him.  She's his shack-up honey, not his minor child.  If he had pulled her out of the bathroom against her will, he no doubt would be exposed to domestic violence charges.  Don't blame a man for a woman's choice.

Perhaps there is something to this story that isn't being reported, or the story is being misreported?

He brought her food, water, etc.  He should have just refused to do that to try to force her to leave the bathroom.  But then she'd probably would have sat there and died, and he'd be charged with her murder, and there would be an hour-long documentary about what an evil boyfriend he was and how his trial went.

Only the worst loser freaks don't have girlfriends or boyfriends in high school, and boys should spend $$$ on the Prom.

There's nothing wrong with fornication and very rarely are there ever negative consequences.

If a relationship ends, you should be in a new one by the end of the same day; there is nothing emotionally unhealthy about this.

Gay people are all funny, witty, and very rarely do anything seriously wrong.

Violence against men is funny.  Unless it is violence against a gay man, which is wrong – unless it is consensual violence committed by another gay man.

If a husband cheats, it's because he's a louse who can't control his natural biological urges and in no way is it his wife's fault.  If a wife cheats, it is because her husband neglected her, mistreated her, or didn't give her enough attention; it’s not even really cheating if her “lover” is really romantic.

The more money a man spends buying impractical gifts (like jewelry) for a woman, the more he loves her.

You should get your own television show if a private, amateur video of you fornicating hits the World Wide Web.

Babies are cute and fun and not a lot of work - life pretty much continues as it did before you had the baby.

Marriage is a game.

There's nothing wrong with underage drinking.

It's fine to go on national television and tell the world about your deepest personal secrets, feelings, sins, problems, and mistakes - bringing shame, scorn, ridicule, or embarrassment to your spouse and family, as long as you are telling the truth and doing it for money.

Come to think of it, it's okay to pretty much do anything you want, with the following exceptions: anything you've pointed out as wrong to someone else (it's okay as long as you kept your mouth shut); something that "pollutes"; declaring anything anyone else does as wrong, unless that other person was "judging" - then it was okay to tell them it is wrong to judge.

Have you noticed that, when someone cites the Bible as an authority or as a source of their moral grounding, you can often count on a “response” in which someone else will simply quote various Bible passages - out of context – that they find to be strange or contrary to their liking?  The person doing this probably thinks they have discredited the Bible, but they usually have just exposed their own ignorance of the Bible.  The tactic is along the lines of discussion-killers such as “Sez you!” or “Shut up!” or sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting repetitive nonsense so that you don’t hear what the other person is saying.  It isn't meant to contribute to the discussion - just to stop it.

It does not necessarily follow that just because this person doesn’t like or understand something in the Bible, that the Bible carries no authority or is untrue.  It definitely doesn’t mean that the original person shouldn’t cite or derive principles from the Bible.

In most cases, the person tossing out these (what they’d call) disagreeable or absurd verses doesn't really want to engage in a serious discussion about the Bible, so discussing the verses they have cited is an exercise in futility.  Even if you showed them that the verses, in context and in their literary form, are not in error or absurd, they’re still not going to accept the Bible as something with authority.  Usually, this is because they know the Bible makes demands of human behavior, and they don’t want to be subjected to these constraints.  In other words, it is not what is hard to understand in the Bible that these people are really concerned with – it’s what is clear and understandable.

We are talking a about a collection of writings that were written in times long since past, by a variety of authors with various backgrounds, writing in ancient languages.  I find some stuff written a mere 200 years ago in English to be strange or hard to understand at first.  (Fortunately, the main things the Bible teaches are also the plain things.)

But then you read things in their context and do a little research into history, culture, linguistics, etc., and things make a whole lot more sense.  Who is writing?  Who is being addressed?  What are the conditions?  What was customary during those times?  Are there other passages that shed light on this one?  Have things since been changed or superseded?

Sometimes someone cites an event in the Bible that they disbelieve simply because it would apparently require the supernatural to be true.  All this proves is that the critic doesn’t believe the supernatural is possible.  They don’t believe there could be a God who can intervene in the universe.

Another common thing for these “hit and run” critics to do is to cite something that happens in the Bible that most people today in our culture would consider to be immoral.  But assuming the thing cited is truly immoral, that does not mean that the Bible approves of the immoral action.  Usually, the Bible also records the negative consequences of immorality.  As stated by many before, the Bible does not approve of all it records.

If they cite actions or commands the Bible credits to God as something they disagree with, they are not proving the Bible wrong or God wrong.  They are proving that they disagree with the God of the Bible.

These types of mockers usually give no reason why we should take them to be an authority as opposed to the Bible (or the God of the Bible), even though that is what they are implicitly asking us to do when they list verses they don’t like or understand.

One of the most recycled and beaten-to-death examples of this type of mocking is the “Letter to Dr. Laura” that these people keep reposting in their blogs and on their websites, usually because they are upset that Dr. Laura believes that sex is for marriage.

A good response to that overused piece of ignorant sarcasm is found here.

Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people have presented good reasons as to why they cite the Bible as an authority, or even believe it is the Word of God, and - shock of all shocks - they've read and even studied all of those passages the mockers think they are so clever in bringing up.  I'm well aware that there are also plenty of intelligent, educated, reasonable people who reject the Bible as an authority, let alone the Word of God, so don't even bother giving me their names.  It doesn't matter what intelligent believe, pro or anti-Bible.  It matters why they believe what they believe.  If they believe something just because they get a warm fuzzy feeling doing so, that doesn't prove their belief to be true.

In all fairness, we no longer live in a society that is Biblically literate and that respects the Bible, and when someone quotes the Bible to make their point, perhaps a better thing to do, instead of simply posting a bunch of verses one finds strange or absurd, would be to ask “Why should we listen to the Bible in the first place?”  But again, that assumes that the mocker really cares and would be willing to read through and sincerely consider an answer.

Gotta love the Los Angeles Times.  They ran an editorial today with this title and teaser:

Spitzer and Sinning

The governor's alleged lapses only show that trying to ban vices doesn't stop people from partaking in them.

Nowhere in the editorial is Spitzer identified as a Democrat.  But I guess that isn’t necessary, since you know they’d never extend that courtesy benefit-of-the-doubt "it's no so bad" teaser line to a Republican caught in such a scandal.

But the editorial quickly diverts from the Spitzer scandal anyway, into smoking bans and stuff like that.  Flouting smoking bans in bars, you see, is on the level of cheating on your spouse and putting your family at risk.

But governors have been getting caught with prostitutes for about as long as there have been governors, and Spitzer's alleged lapses are notable mainly as evidence of a nationwide recrudescenceof personal vices that resist all efforts at eradication.

See, it isn’t his fault.  We should have expected him to do these things.

This may not be what Henry David Thoreau had in mind when he talked about civil disobedience. But the drinking and smoking refuseniks are part of a long tradition of Americans who have fought the law not out of nobility or high principle but out of their belief in the freedom of consenting adults to participate in shameful, unpopular or harmful activities.

It is civil disobedience!  Fornicating with a prostitute when you are married to someone else is civil disobedience, now.  Somehow, I don't think my wife would buy that one.  Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi engaged in civil disobedience for the sake of righteousness.  That's different from rebellion against just morality.

And unlike Spitzer, who vigorously and self-righteously prosecuted prostitutes along with Wall Street bankers during his days as New York's attorney general, they're willing to go public with their tastes.

See, it would have been okay if Spitzer never reminded anyone else that it was wrong.  It’s only wrong to do these things if you have noted and acted upon them being wrong before.  Being a “hypocrite” is far worse than promoting or at least aiding and abetting in the corruption of our culture, you see.  (I maintain that a hypocrite is someone who believes one thing but says/does something contrary – which is not necessarily the same as someone who says one thing and does another.  It is possible to truly believe that something is wrong and still engage in it.)

We don't mean to imply support for prostitution, smoking or excessive drinking. There is, however, something encouraging in seeing even a self-destructive maverick spirit live on despite the best intentions of public scolds.

I wonder if they’d feel this way about people flouting “public scolds” about being “nonjudgemental” and protecting the environment.  Something tells me that if I dropped a plastic bag on the street, they’d be a little upset about my “maverick spirit”.

Then there’s a piece about extremists/terrorist groups, and what a tough time they’ve been having since 9/11.  The piece seems to focus more on “anti-government”/white supremacist groups (you know, “right-wing” white Americans).

But there’s a telling paragraph buried in the story:

The Department of Justice recently compiled a summary on foreign and domestic terrorism for 2002 through 2005. They found that 23 of the 24 attacks committed by domestic groups were perpetrated by "special-interest extremists active in the animal-rights and environmental movements"; the other was a white supremacist's firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City. None was carried out by the traditional anti-government elements popular in the 1990s.

So the Leftist animal rights extremists and environmental whackos have been doing to the most destruction – and that’s only because the Islamofascist terrorist cells have been thwarted in their efforts, as noted in the article.

In his latest column, Dennis Prager partially answers the question “Why are so many women depressed?”  There’s more to come in a later column, but he’s right about the cause he discusses in this edition - the lie that most women can be happy, successful, and fulfilled at being a full-time career woman while raising children and maintaining a home.  It would be extremely difficult for anyone to do those all well simultaneously.  Women who’ve bought into the notion that they can are going to be depressed when they discover otherwise.

Prager is right about the differences between how a man is identified by his career vs. how a woman is identified by her career.  When a woman tells her girlfriends, coworkers, or family that she has met a new man, one of the first questions asked, if not answered in her announcement, is “What does he do [for a living]?”  This is because women are interested in and more highly value as partners men with money or power (which is supposed to translates into some semblance of “security” in providing), and because men are largely identified by their profession.

When guys tell each other about a woman, they almost never talk about what she does for a living, unless it implies that she is beautiful (model, actress, etc.) or it is considered a “sexy” feminine profession ( like a nurse).

Also, more real choices also means more decisions to make, more responsibility to take, and more ways to fall short or find out that something doesn’t suit you.  Women often find that they aren’t happy in their jobs.  But guess what?  A lot of men aren’t, either, and are stuck in their jobs because they have financial obligations to their wives and children and need to keep providing them with insurance.

Then there area women who operate under the delusion that she can marry any man who is successful and mold him to her liking, or even a man who isn’t successful and nag him into success.  They think that they can neglect him, disrespect him, be cold to him, be cruel to him, and disregard his feelings about her appearance (what she wears, how she keeps her hair, whether or not she stays in shape) and he’s just going to still do everything she needs and wants, be a happy and devoted husband, and he will not act out in any way.

Some women blame their man for their depression.  Everyone is responsible for their own feelings.  But if you think your man is depressing you, consider that you picked him.  Did you choose poorly?  Are you treating him unkindly?  You have the power to choose wisely and, if you do, create an uplifting relationship.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

Some Muslims are launching a public relations effort.

Facing "Islamophobia" in the West, the world's biggest Islamic body is seeking to rebrand itself this week as a forum for settling conflicts peacefully and for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states.

At a summit on Thursday and Friday in Senegal, the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) will seek to agree on a modern charter that will give it a more active, influential role as the voice of Islam in a globalised world.
    […]
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called for a concerted effort by the group to promote dialogue and mutual respect with the non-Muslim world to fight hatred and bigotry.

It is not a "phobia" to fear people who have publicly declared their intention to kill anyone who has not pledged allegiance to their fascist rule under their sect of Islam, who have demonstrated eagerness to participate in terrorism, genocide, mass destruction, murder, and torture.

It is not hatred or bigotry to denounce such people and to defend ourselves against such people.

If Muslims want to improve the image of Islam in the world, then they will denounce and eliminate the abusers, aggressors, fascists, and terrorists in their midst.

As for me, I'm a follower of Christ, and if Christ spoke the truth, then Islam is a false religion, terrorists or not.

Ben Arnoldy writes in the Christian Science Monitor about the latest lunacy in the California courts – the attack on homeschooling.

For a movement that has gained greater accommodation in recent years, a state appellate court decision last month is a setback that, if not overturned on appeal, could force some 166,000 home-schooled students in California to enroll in conventional schools.

Which are currently moaning and groaning about cutbacks.  How are they going to handle these extra students?

Governor Schwarzenegger said Friday he would go to the legislature if the ruling is not overturned.

Good.  Do something right.

The case grew out of a home-schooled child's complaint of physical and emotional mistreatment by a parent.

If a child is being mistreated, then the state should intervene on behalf of the child.  But you need not dismantle homeschooling to do that.  This was a case of bad judicial activism.

California law stipulates two main exemptions to compulsory public school: enrollment in a full-time private school or instruction from a credentialed tutor.

Teaching credentials supposedly make all of the difference, you see.  You could have your child taught by real-world experienced subject-matter experts (think Alan Greenspan for economics), but if they aren’t credentialed, it isn’t enough.

As the movement has grown, its autonomy has become worrisome to some.

Yes, like teacher unions, who exist mainly to siphon money to Leftist politicians and political causes, and to expand government so that there will be more government union employees paying dues.

Concerns center mostly on the need for state accountability in ensuring that children are educated to a certain standard. But, as in the California case, the potential for child abuse is also becoming an issue.

Yes, because we all know that children who attend public schools never suffer unreported abuse.

In a January report on a mother's murder of her four children in the District of Columbia, The New York Times framed the case around the isolation of homeschooled kids and the limited opportunity for checking on their well-being. Cases in New Jersey and North Carolina have produced similar coverage.

So all homeschooling is bad?  By the same sort of reasoning, we can take the cases where public school teachers have molested students and we can therefore conclude that all public schooling is bad.

"If I were a state legislator, I would be worried about having legislation overseeing home schooling that is not being enforced at all, and the potential for bad child-abuse cases happening and the state being sued for, in part, not taking care of its obligations," says Ms. Yuracko.

I have a better idea.  When some children’s rights attorney sues the state over a child’s abuse or neglect by their parents, how about we make sure that the parents are held responsible, NOT a bunch of taxpayers who did not perpetuate the abuse?  Sure, the parents won’t have pockets as deep, but it is justice we’re concerned about – not money, right?

Let’s get government out of education and let people keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they please.  If they have children, let them choose and support a school that offers what they want.  People without children can still donate to schools.