Movin' On Up

My time at blogger.com is over. I have a new and improved blog at brendoman.com. At brendoman I've got some hot new features. You can now keep up with the books I'm reading and movies I've seen in my new "Mare's Media" section. You can also see at-a-glance the most recent comments to my blog in the new "Recent Comments" section. I might have been able to add these features to my blogger site, but I don't have the technological know-how or the ambition to figure it out. At brendoman.com I have my own personal manservant, Lars, who is happy to fashion my blog to fulfill my slightest whim. (His name's really Danny, but Lars makes him sound so much more subservient.) I'm also looking forward to new features that are still in the works. Lars was kind enough as to transport all of the posts and comments from blogger to my new brendoman blog. You'll notice that the old comments aren't necessarily in the correct order on the new blog, but Lars does have a full time job in addition to trying to please me. You're all intelligent people and I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out. New posts will be ordered appropriately.

So update your bookmarks and your bloglines feeds. I'm now at http://www.maresmess.brendoman.com/

BIG thanks to Danny! Without him, it would not have been possible. Now, I'm a super-blogger on the cutting edge of the blogosphere. Or, at least I have a way cooler blog now. Although I will miss my dots.

Parents Television Council

I read recently that 99% of the indecency complaints made to the FCC in 2003 were made by one organization and its members, the Parents Television Council. Thank goodness someone is diligently keeping track of the smut on the airwaves for us. But I'm especially thankful that the PTC was kind enough as to gather all of the most indecent moments from each television week and to post them in one convenient place for us. Now I no longer need to spend hours of television viewing in search of the small moments of titillation. Want to hear a member of Motley Crue saying the f-word on Jay Leno? You got it! Want to see gratuitous teen sex on Life as We Know It? They've got that too! They haven't updated this page in a month or so. We can only hope they'll be back in action soon.

Gotta give Jim at Right Thoughts the credit for pointing out this one!

Christians and Libertarianism

I had posted this link on a friend's blog but realized that I hadn't ever posted it here. This is was originally a speech given at some Libertarian convention. The speakers/writers give their reasons why their Christian beliefs coincide more closely with libertarianism than liberalism or conservatism. I thought it was really interesting and thought-provoking, so check it out.

OK, I Might be a Hypocrite

After all my online pro-life rants, I found myself posting this comment on Matt's blog:

If someone is hurting or taking my kids and my only way of stopping them is
to kill them, you can be sure I would – in a heartbeat. Not sure HOW I’d go
about doing that, but I would if I had to.

When I re-read what I'd written, I have to admit that I was taken aback. Had I just said I would kill someone? After proclaiming that killing someone is a sick act? I won't go into all the background behind this comment, but now I had some thinking to do. If you consider what Jesus taught; loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek; it's hard to reconcile even self-defense. I had never put much thought into the idea before and just assumed that defending yourself or others was justified. I know our court's and our culture justify self-defense, but does Christ? I don't know.

I did just a little online research to find what Christians had to say about this. I have to say, those who defended the idea of self-defense (or defense of others) had pretty weak arguments. They used mostly Old Testament passages - not that I think the OT is completely irrelevant, but it's annoying how people pick and choose OT scriptures which back up their ideas, but then choose to disregard 90% of the commandments in it. The New Testament passages were pretty vague. They pointed to one where Christ told the disciples to get themselves swords (don't know the complete context as I didn't have time to go back and read the entire passage) so he must have been condoning their right to self-defense. But there is some disagreement among Christians as to whether or not this was meant to be taken literally. One Christian writer even went so far as to say that it is immoral to stand by while someone is being raped or murdered and not defend them, but they gave no scriptural backing for this belief. I guess I think this is true too, we are called to help those in need. But does this extend to killing if need be? In one essay the writer even quoted Jesus in John 15:13 "The greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." This was supposed to uphold the principle of using violence in defense of others. Yet it doesn't say "The greatest love is shown when you kill someone to save your friends." Just that you're willing to lay down your life. Jesus laid down his life and he didn't defend himself so this verse doesn't seem to make much sense in this argument. And then there was the whole, "If Christians lay down and let evil people win then the world will be run by evil people." There's definitely logic in that, but there was, once again, no scriptural backing for that mindset. And there are non-violent ways to resist our enemies without killing them.

The writers who expressed the opinion that it is wrong for Christians to kill under any circumstances gave much more compelling arguments. Not much more than the principles I stated earlier. How do you love your enemies by killing them? Jesus even instructed Peter to put back his sword when Peter was trying to defend Jesus. He went on to say that, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." (Matt. 26:52) And it's hard to deny what Jesus is saying when he says,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell
you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles." (Mat.5:33-41).

And Paul says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye". . . On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." in Romans 12.

There were actually more scriptures against violence, but I'm not going to take the time to post them all. I think the ones I've given are pretty convincing. And I actually went into this search hoping to find some defense of self-defense. I was surprised that I wasn't able to find it. And I hadn't remembered Jesus actually refuting the eye for an eye philosophy, but now that I found it I'm certainly going to remember it as I hear capital punishment advocates throw that one around quite a bit.

So what does all this mean? I have to admit that my world is a bit shaken. I'm grateful to have men and women in the military who are willing to give their lives to protect me, but can I condone their killing of our enemies? I don't know. I'd still kill someone to protect my kids if I had to. God and I will just have to hash that one out later if need be. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe so.

I Agree With Pat Robertson

Bet you didn't expect me to ever say that! But add Robertson's declaration from an April, 2000 NY times story as my third reason why Christians should not support the death penalty.

Declaring that the death penalty discriminates against members of
minorities and poor people who cannot afford competent lawyers, the
televangelist Pat Robertson recently called for a moratorium on
executions.

Jerry Falwell (boo hiss), on the other hand, was quoted that same month as saying, "While courts do make mistakes, I do not believe the mistake level is at the point where we need to rethink our whole system." I'd like to know why not. In 2000, Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan imposed a statewide moratorium on executions after 13 death row inmates there were found to have been wrongly convicted. I wonder how many it would take before Falwell thought it was time to rethink the system. I guess 13's not so bad. Not so good if you're one of the 13.

So in summary, Pat Robertson is way cooler than Jerry Falwell. I bet Jerry's never even prayed a hurricane away.

20/20. . . Quit Jerking Me Around

Got the latest on one of my adoption lists. The 20/20 segment on international adoption has been moved to March 18th (sure it has). It was originally going to be a 20 minute segment but now the entire hour will be devoted to the story on the 18th. Makes me even more anxious to see it.

We got home from our birthday celebration early enough tonight that I could have watched it on TV. I started to walk over to the TV to turn it on and remembered that I gave up TV for lent. I swear, I had not forgotten before this. I'm not sure how I intended to watch the tape once I got it. At least now I'll only have to wait a week after it airs before I can watch it.

20/20 and International Adoption

For anyone interested, the 20/20 episode I talked about in an earlier post is supposed to be airing tonight but when I checked the 20/20 website it wasn't listed, so we'll see. The buzz on the international adoption(IA) lists is that IA is shown in a pretty bad light. I'm anxious to see it. I'll be helping my mother-in-law celebrate her (mumble mumble)th birthday tonight, so my good bud Sara will Tivo it for me. If I have any thoughts, I'll post them after viewing it.

The Three Minute Abortion Debate

Came across this article by Bruce Bethke and thought it was a thing of beauty. I could make lots of comments about it, but I'll just let it speak for itself.

One More and Then I WILL Get Off the Computer!

A friend sent me a link to Timothy McSweeney Conforms to the Natural Curve of the Spine. Good find. It is a hoot and I had to share this one.


AN OPEN LETTERTO THE GENTLEMAN AT THE BAR WHO ASKED IF I WOULD LIKE A PIECE OF HIM.
BY KYLE SUNDBY
- - - -
Dude,

I apologize for only now getting back to you. When first asked if I did, in fact, want a piece of you, I could muster no reply. Frankly, I was taken aback by your surprising offer. Never have I witnessed such an act of selfless generosity.

Alas, my soul does not possess the same depth of compassion for my fellow man as does yours. While I do not always think of myself first, my welfare often holds a position among the front-runners. I treasure my pieces too deeply. I am, therefore, flattered and intrigued by your proposal.

Are you truly willing to give me—someone who only met you moments before, when you bumped into me and my drink on your way to the table shared by you and your acquaintances—a piece of yourself? The tone of your voice and your posture at the time indicated your sincerity regarding the issue, but please, you must be sure. This is not something to be taken lightly and, I assure you, I regard it in all seriousness.

Now, before I return to you my answer, I must ask if there is any piece in particular you wish to give. Surely, when you asked if I wanted a piece of you, you had specific parts in mind. I ask because I do not wish to take something that was not truly offered. Neither do I really wish to receive a piece that I may already possess. The portion that regulates your alcohol intake, for example, is similar to a part that already exists within me (though mine is certainly not nearly as worn from use). You do have some pieces that I do not. The multiple veins that pulsed and expanded throughout your neck are an example. The embarrassed girlfriend would be another.
Additional details that I would like to work out involve location. When you suggested we take it outside, what was your intent? Would this facilitate my receiving your piece? I would appreciate some feedback on this issue, as well as on any other issues you feel have not been addressed.

Your recommendation that I get some, as you insisted, depends on your prompt reply.

Thanks, bro,
Kyle Sundby

Oh and I thought this one was funny too.

New Slogans for America to Use to Sell Itself to the Islamic World.
BY ROB BATES
- - - -
The Great Satan Is Now Just Plain Great!
Standing for Freedom and Democracy a Good Percentage of the Time
Home of the Brave, Land of the Free Moist Towelette
The Overwhelming Military Power with a Heart
We're Infidel-ightful!
Who Needs Al Qaeda When You Got Al Roker?

Helloooooo! The 80's CD Ain't Gonna Make Itself!!!

Don't Get Me Started, Don't Even Get Me Started

Too late. I've been corresponding with a dear friend in regards to my inflammatory post about Christians and the death penalty. This conversation has led me to want to clarify my position.

My main argument against the death penalty is that we are human. We have and will make mistakes when it comes to convicting people of crimes. Knowing this, if we continue to support the death penalty I think we are guilty of murder. If one innocent person is executed, we are murderers. The Bible talks a lot about the death penalty. The Bible talks about a lot of things that Christians today certainly don't embrace. Do you still think we should stone rebellious children? Should we put to death people who work on the Sabbath? If a man has sex with a woman and her mother, should all three be burned alive? I'm sure Christians would say absolutely not. Yet if we're going to have the death penalty because "the Bible says," then this is how the Bible says we should do it. Contact your legislator now and let's bring the country back to God. The point being, since we don't hold to these instructions from God anymore, why do we continue to hold on to capital punishment at all?

I have to give the most weight to Jesus's words when trying to find the answers in the scriptures. I think he made his opinion pretty clear when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People are going to have their own ideas about what Jesus meant by this (and I'd love to hear them), but in my humble opinion, he's saying, "You are mortal and sinners, just like this woman. You are in no position to be making life and death decisions like this until you are sinless and all-knowing, like me." God is capable of being a fair and righteous judge because he knows all the facts when making his judgements. We aren't even close.

My secondary argument against the death penalty is the whole "eye-for-an-eye" bologna. Should we then rape rapists for their punishment? No, because rape is a sick act and we would be sick people to rape rapists. Similarly, I think killing is a sick act and we are sick when we kill killers.

But besides those two things, I'm all for the death penalty.

Hmmmmm. What should I take on next? Why does the holiest Christian holiday have a pagan name? Why I gave up Lent for Lent? Why are there so many lame worship songs? No, I won't even go there!

For the Linux Lover in You

Hope this one warms the cockles of my Linux-loving reader(s).

More Stuff - Nintendo 64

We have more stuff to add to our collection. Maly has been bugging us to get her a video game system so she can play games on the TV. She has friends who have them and she always loves to play them. She still had some birthday money and so we helped her put that aside and then she could add to it each week when she got her allowance and when she had enough she could buy one. We started looking at Ebay and found some units for $35-45. Then Matt mentioned to his students that we might be in the market for a video system in the near future and one student offered to sell him his old Nintendo 64 for $10. It also came with Donkey Kong. Maly had that much so he got it for her. She is loving it. Matt and the kids had to make a run to the used game store and she also picked up a new game called Rampage 2 that she bought. Then some friends dropped by when they heard about the new system and brought her a Mario Karts. We're finding that the video time is definitely going to be limited, but we're also finding it to be a great motivator to get them to do things we want them to do - and not do things they shouldn't be doing.

The day after she got her Nintendo, Maly was sucking on a piece of a balloon that had popped. I told her not to suck on that. She asked me why and I told her she could choke. She asked me what would happen if she choked and I told her she could die.
Her response, "But I want to see Jesus!"
"You can see Jesus another day. I want you here for a while longer."
She says, "And I do have my new video games to play!"

My 80's CD

A year ago I prepared a list of my favorite songs from the 70's and Matt downloaded them and put them on a CD. I think it's awesome, but I'm also totally aware that many might think that some of the songs I picked are aweful. I didn't pick them because of their great musical style or their brilliant lyrics. I picked them because they speak to me in one way or another. Some of them are songs I'm embarrassed to admit that I like. Thank God I'm a Country Boy by John Denver comes to mind. But they remind me of a time or place from my youth, or the intense emotions of my early adolescence, or I just like them and can give you no good reason why.

For a few months now I've been working on my 80's list. I thought this list would be much harder to compile. I was older and had more experiences in the 80's that I associate certain songs to. I thought I would have a hard time narrowing the list down to 25 (my self-imposed number). This list has been harder than my 70's list, but not because I'm finding too many I want on it, but because the songs I remember loving in the 80's just don't speak to me now the way they did then. One reason is that the 80's more produced sound just doesn't hold up as well with time as music from the 70's did. I was a HUGE Michael Jackson fan and was sure there would be several of his songs on my list, but when I go back and listen to them now, they just don't hold the magic for me that they did in the 80's. The only MJ song to make it on my list was Rock With You. I'm not sure if it's because he turned into a freak, but maybe.

I've got a list of the definites for the CD. Besides Rock With You, I've got:

One Thing Leads to Another – The Fixx
Jessie’s Girl – Rick Springfield
867-5309 – Tommy Tutone
You Dropped a Bomb on Me – Gap Band
Jeopardy – Greg Kihn Band
Can You Feel It – The Jacksons
Life’s Been Good – Joe Walsh
Somebody’s Baby – Jackson Browne
Lady – Commodores
Fire – Pointer Sisters
I Can Dream About You – Dan Hartman
Cuts Like a Knife – Bryan Adams
Wild, Wild West – Escape Club
If This Is It – Huey Lewis

Feel free to comment, criticize, or congratulate me for my great taste in music. This list makes 15. I still need 10 more. I've got a list of maybe's, but most of them aren't reaching out and grabbing me. The ones I'm leaning towards most strongly are Hold On by Kansas, Emergency by Kool & the Gang, and We Got the Beat by the Go-Go's. But I'm not married to any of them. I also have a few songs that I like, but I'm not sure when they came out. Anyone know of a site where I can find the year songs came out? Amazon has been no help in this regard.

Anyway, this is where you come in. Give me your suggestions for songs from the 80's that speak to you. They may or may not speak to me, but it will be fun to hear your ideas nonetheless. And I really need some suggestions. I'll let you know my final 10 once I've decided on them.

By the way, they need to be songs I can listen to with my kids around. I've got a list of songs from the 70's, 80's and 90's for my "After Hours" CD that I'll listen to when the kids aren't around. I'll share that list with you if anyone cares, but right now I've got to get ready to go to work.

Random Rants

I've had several ideas for things I wanted to blog about this week. Many of them would require more research than I'm able to put in to do them justice so I've scrapped the idea. But I've got to release my pent-up frustration so I'm giving some mini-rants here with little or nothing to back them up, but I'm still getting my shots in.

The following are things that make me crazy:

- Christians who support the death penalty. The gall to call yourselves pro-life, when you clearly are not, is hypocricy at it's worst. I can't stand ideology that makes Christians look like unthinking, cold-hearted and hateful people.

- Similarly, people who call themselves "pro-choice" when in most instances they don't want people to have the right to choose at all. They'd rather the government make many choices for you. As hypocrital as the "pro-life" title. Why is it "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion, but the same doesn't hold true for wearing helmets and seat belts. How can you people possibly live with yourselves? Pick a principle and stick with it!

- People who are afraid of the government becoming Big Brother. They don't want the government invading our privacy, but then turn around and want this same government that they apparently distrust so much to be Big Daddy and to run (or heavily regulate) every major institution in our society. Let's keep the distrust alive! Keep Big Brother and Big Daddy at bay.

- People who complain that the Right is trying to push their moral agenda down our throats while trying to do the same with their agenda. I have a little more respect for conservatives on this issue because at least they'll admit they're trying to force their morals on us - where the Left would never in a million years admit that that's what they're doing.

Here's a quote from one of the most controversial and intelligent bloggers I know (and I know at least a half dozen of them), Vox Day:

It seems some people - most people - never learn. History teaches that the government you control today is the government that those you fear most will control tomorrow. Every muscle that you enjoy flexing today is one that will eventually be used to punch you in the face.

If we decide we want the government to carry out moral agendas, then we have no room to complain when the other party takes control and pursues their own.

- People who point to the Constitution when making their arguments, yet blatantly ignore half of it on any given day.

- This one goes along with my last gripe. I heard the KC Star TV reporter on a local radio show the other morning. He was complaining about the FCC's fight for decency on the airwaves and claimed it was really a 1st amendment/free speech issue. Then he turned around and said that if the FCC is really interested in doing something good for society it should do something about all the commercials we have to endure when listening to or watching what's on the air waves. At first I thought he was just making a joke, but then he went on to talk about how there used to be a law limiting the amount of commercial time a station could broadcast in an hour (16 min., I believe). He thought this was a good idea and should be reinstated. Wait a minute! Weren't you just singing the praises of free speech? When someone owns a station and they decide what they want to broadcast on that station, isn't that a free speech decision? Typical liberal response. Cloak yourself in the first amendment, unless it's speech that annoys you.

That's all I have time for today. But never fear. There's much more anger teeming under the surface of this sweet, innocent face that has yet to reveal itself. I'll unleash more wrath on another day, but now I have to go play with my children.

Heaven, Hell, God, the Devil. . .

I know this title is a quote from some movie because Matt is always saying it in the actor's voice. Don't know the actor or the movie, but I thought it was an appropriate title for this entry.

This will probably be a series of posts which detail religious discussions I have with Maly as she loves to talk about God and all things associated with him. It's almost weird how much she talks about it. Her fascination has now moved on to the devil. It all started a few months ago when she was listening to one of her tapes that had the song "Let the Sun Shine In" on it. That song has a line that says (can't remember the exact line now) "something, something, something,. . . all about the devil and I've learned to hate him so." She asked me who the devil was.

Mom (not sure how to answer this question, but winging it): He's a really bad guy who tries to get people to do bad things.
Maly: Where is the devil?
Mom: He's like God - we can't see him but he's everywhere.
Maly: Does the devil live in my heart like God?
Mom: No, he doesn't (what else can I say about that?)
Maly: Good cause I don't like him.

Since that conversation, Maly has often asked me more and more questions about the devil, slowly building her knowledge-base on the subject (if you want to consider the answers I give her as knowledge). Yesterday Maly was giving me the 3rd degree about the devil - who he is, what powers does he have, why God made him, etc. I felt really uncomfortable answering her questions because a) I'm not sure about the whole devil thing myself, b) I don't want to freak her out, c) I'm wondering why she's obsessing about the devil. After a long series of questions and me struggling to answer them she finally said "Why doesn't God kill the devil?" I told her that someday he might (again, really uncomfortable with my answer). Then she asked, "Why doesn't he do it now?" I thought that was a really good question and told her we'd have to add that one to our list to ask God when we see him. Whewwww!

Another funny thing about Maly is that she's so fierce in her beliefs about God. I'm not sure where she gets this, because I've never been particularly emphatic when talking about what God can do - I've just been very matter-of-fact. She'll ask me some crazy things like "Could God make me as big as him?" "Could God give me wings so I could fly?", etc. I just answer questions like this with, "I don't know. I guess he COULD." Maly gets very defensive and says (very empahtically), "Yes he can! He can do anything!" OK, OK! We had a discussion about why God doesn't give us everything we ask for. That seemed to satisfy her for the time being.

Now I just brace myself for the next round!

Questions for God

Maly is full of questions. She bombards me with them constantly. I try to answer her questions to the best of my ability, but when I'm not sure how to answer her I'll just tell her, "I don't know. We'll have to ask God that one when we see him." One day the kids asked me when they'll see God to ask him these questions and I had to tell them, "Probably when we die." So now, whenever Maly asks me a question and I answer, "We'll have to ask God about that," Will feels the need to throw in, "When we die." So even though it's very morbid, we've gathered quite a few questions to ask God. I started writing them down so we wouldn't forget them and here are some of the ones we've documented.

I sometimes start out trying to answer:
Maly - How old is God?
Mom - God isn't any age because he's been around forever.
Maly - How has he been around forever?
Mom (quickly realizing this is way out of her realm) – I don’t know. We’ll have to ask God that one when we see him.

It’s confusing for a kid when we say that God made everything and then they comment on how well he made our house. I’ve explained that God didn’t make our house but he made the people who made our house and he made the trees used to make our house. This is all very confusing, so I now just say, "Yep he did do a good job, didn’t he?" My favorite question along these lines is, "Why did God make pop so good?" Couldn’t answer that one so we’ll pose it to God - when we die.

Other assorted questions for the man on high:

Why do people start out little and get bigger?
Why did you make tornadoes?
If you’re bigger than the sky, why don’t you bump your head on it?

We’ll keep adding to the list and I’ll keep you updated on our questions to ask God. . . when we die.

One More Fred

OK, I just read "Fred Endorses Hillary" (ditto - can't make it link directly to column so find it on left and click on it) and had to recommend it. I haven't laughed this much in a long time. If Matt suddenly died in a mysterious accident, I would marry Fred. I hope that doesn't happen, honey, but it's just smart to have a back-up plan.

Loving the Blogosphere

I've finally discovered the world of blogs. I'm like a kid in a candy store and spending way too much time these days reading blogs. My kids aren't suffering. I still spend the same amount of time with them. But my domestic duties have suffered - and believe me, there was no room for error to begin with there! But the kids like frozen pizza, and it does cover each of the 4 food groups. Matt says he could eat taquitos everyday - let's find out.

My newest and favoritest discovery so far is Fred on Everything. He is hilairious and offensive. I read his column "The Last Necessary Column On Politics" (can't get it to link directly to that column so you'll have to find it in the directory on the left side of the page - it's called libsandcons.shtml - and click on it) today and LITERALLY laughed out loud. Maly kept asking me what was so funny, but when I read it to her she didn't get it. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative you will find find something that will make you chuckle. If you're neither, you'll find lots to laugh about.

Most of the blogs I've been interested in have been libertarian-leaning, which makes sense. I have found some conservative ones that are pretty interesting. But I've got to say, I have found no liberal-leaning blogs I would say are the least bit interesting. Most of them that I checked out are just a bunch of bitter, juvenile, Bush-hating whinings. I would really be interested in some intellectually stimulating liberal blogs. It's a pretty sad state when Ward Churchill is the most interesting liberal I've heard from lately. Send your suggestions. But first, read Fred!

Afternote: Apparently Fred on Everything isn't a blog, just a website. How sad. I tried to enter him into my bloglines feeds and was denied. Guess I'll have to get to him regularly the way I found him - through Vox Day.

The Newest Addition - Another Case of Asthma

Apparently Maly didn't appreciate all the attention her brother was getting due to his asthma. She decided if she couldn't beat him, then she'd join him. Maly was up coughing ALL NIGHT on Tuesday night so we went to the pediatrician on Wednesday who determined that we had another case of asthma at our house. This had been suspected, but now it's official. She is now on asthma meds and they seem to be helping. She did much better last night. The best part is that I got to spend $125 on asthma meds (7 different medications) for the kids yesterday, getting Maly's new ones and refilling some of Will's. My advice - buy pharmaceutical stock!

More International Adoption

Seems my blog on international adoption was a timely one. On the International Adoption News website this month there is an article about ethics in international adoption. You might recall that I noted in my blog an agency which was highly respected was brought down because of fraudulent practices (this, by the way, was the same agency Angelina Jolie used for her adoption from Cambodia). The owner, Lauryn Galindo, was sentenced to 18 mos in prison followed by 3 years of probation. There was a 14 year old girl who testified against Ms. Galindo. She was old enough at the time she was taken to remember her birthfamily and being taken from them. She was adopted by an American and was able to explain to her adoptive family what had happened after she learned enough English. This family recently made a trip back to Cambodia to reunite with her birthfamily and 20/20 followed along. They will be airing the episode later this month.

Sears Winter Pics

The much anticipated pictures have now been released. Don't be the last one on your block to see them.

International Adoption

I’ve been extremely blessed by having two incredible kids who were adopted internationally. I used to be a big cheerleader for international adoption. But recently my views have begun to change. There have been quite a few contributing factors. Last year, the owners of a very well-respected adoption agency were charged with buying children from impoverished families in Cambodia and then creating fraudulent paperwork so that the U.S. government would view them as orphans and allow them to be adopted. There were also reports that this agency would send out representatives to the poorer areas of the country and convince families that they were humanitarians who would take their children to orphanages and feed them and care for them. The families were told they could come visit the children and take them back home whenever they wanted. But when families would come looking for their children, they were told that they had been adopted. This has been the most highly publicized case. I’m on several international adoption email lists and people often post links to news stories of uncovered baby buying rings in countries where international adoption is big business. Recently, in China a group who had kidnapped hundreds of babies was discovered by police and prosecuted. Since so many babies are abandoned in China (due to the one child policy), these criminals made arrangements with unethical local officials to find the "abandoned" babies in predetermined locations. Since they had been abandoned they were eligible to be adopted. There have been many similar reports from all over the world. The only motivation for crime like this is the huge amount of money generated by international adoption. U.S. citizens have not been able to adopt from Vietnam for over 2 years now because of corruption in the system. When the shutdown first happened, everyone feared that the orphanages would soon be full and overflowing. This has just not been the case by most reports. Other countries are still adopting, but the U.S. made up the lion’s share of international adoptions in Vietnam. The orphanages are definitely fuller than when Americans were still adopting, but it’s not been what would be expected considering how drastically adoptions have been cut. Interesting.

This has all caused me to become very jaded about international adoption, along with the fact that I’m aware of so many families who have been taken advantage of or lied to by agencies or their in-country representatives. Most international adoptions take place quite smoothly, but I’ve heard of horrible experiences some adoptive families have suffered. None, however, as horrible as the thought of children being ripped away from their families or families having their children taken from them.

Many people consider us a poster family for international adoption. If someone’s friend or family member is interested in adopting they are often told that they’ve got to talk to us. It’s an awkward position. People who come to me with questions about international adoption are usually people who have already been through devastating disappointments. They have then looked into domestic adoption and been discouraged by it. And now they have new hope through international adoption. How can I be so heartless as to tell them, "I got my great family through international adoption but I don’t think you should because I now have serious reservations about the social ramifications to the people of third world nations." And the kicker of it is that most children who are adopted internationally are legitimate orphans. Do I want to deny any of them a family? But, at the same time, do I want to continue to promote something that also leads to so much heartache and wrongdoing? I don’t know what the answer is, so when someone asks me about international adoption I just smile and answer their questions - but less enthusiastically than I used to.

Welfare

I had a discussion with a friend today which was spurred by the liberal-bashing I did yesterday. The conversation mainly revolved around helping the poor and who would help them if the government didn't. It led me to do some searching for how libertarians would answer that question. I found a couple of articles that were so reasonable and well-written that I wanted to share them with the thousands of readers who check my site regularly.

First this one by Libertarian Nation (huh, huh? click the words and you go to the link - isn't that amazing?)

Then the official Libertarian Pary response.

I'm getting so good at this - here's another one just for kicks.

I Love You Guys

Just a note of clarification. I don't find liberals and conservatives to be annoying as people - some of my best friends are liberals and conservatives. It's their view of government that I find annoying. No hard feelings. I'm sure there are plenty who find my ideology annoying - and probably find me annoying as a person too.

Mare

Lest Liberals Heads Swell

In the interest of fairness, I thought I'd post this quickie (guess it wasn't so quick after all) rant on liberals. I don't see much difference between liberals and conservatives. Both have decided that their ideas of right and wrong should be legislated. Gay marriage and flag burning (both naughties) are examples of conservatives attempting to legislate their morality. But liberals are just as guilty, and much more successful. They believe that it is right to take care of the poor, so they make laws which gives me no choice, but take my money and distribute it to some more deserving soul. I'm all for taking care of the poor. I just resent being forced to do it in the way the government sees fit. If my wealth (what little of it their is) is taken from me by force to do good, doesn't that rob me of the sense of satisfaction that comes from making a decision for myself to do good with it? And on the receiving end - when the government gives my wealth to someone it is seen as an entitlement. This often leads to dependence. When someone is helped because of the love and compassion of others, then the receiver is more likely to have a sense of gratitude and accountability. And if so much of my money wasn't being sucked into the tax machine I could make a lot more of these win-win monetary decisions.

Liberals also think everyone should have equal opportunity to employment. I just don't remember reading that in the constitution. But, nonetheless, here come the laws to prevent discrimination in hiring. If Oprah Winfrey decides she wants to hire all black women - I say, go for it. If I own a business and want to hire only good looking men with tight buns, that should be my perogative. And if someone has property that they want to rent, but they choose not to rent it to homosexuals or unmarried couples because of their religious beliefs, that should be their decision to make. But no, liberals have no respect for private ownership. They know what's best!

And don't even get me started on hate crime legislation.

So you can see that both liberals and conservatives are equally annoying (well, I'll admit, liberals are just a little bit more annoying). They both think it's a good thing to use the government to further their view of right and wrong. I've given only a few examples - there are many! The problem is, it's not the government's job to determine what's right and wrong. The only wrongs the government should be concerned about is if someone's rights (as in constitutional) are violated. It's the government's job to protect our rights and then give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what we want our world to look like.

Now you're probably saying, "Yes, MaryEllen, I've seen the error of my ways. But If I can't turn to the Republicans or the Democrats to make things right, where can I go?" That's easy.

http://www.lp.org/

I haven't learned yet how to turn a word into a link. But when I do - look out!

More Libertarian propaganda to come, I'm sure.

Shaking Things Up a Bit

This issue isn't necessarily timely, but it's been on my mind for months now and I haven't had an outlet to let my thoughts out - UNTIL NOW! (lightening, thunder, maniacal laughter)

Do we really need a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between a man and a woman? A constitutional amendment? First of all, the Social Studies teacher in me would like to point out that marriage falls under the domain of state government so it should be up to each state to decide. But since the federal government has decided over and over again for some time now to get involved where it shouldn't, I'll let that go and just explain why this amendment is a really bad idea in and of itself.

The idea for said amendment is backed by what's known as "the religious right" - it seems they want to protect the sanctity of marriage in this country. What no one seems to be saying is that marriage, as carried out by the government, is not a sacred institution. It's a state function - like getting your driver's license. Two pagans can get married and even have a pagan ceremony. Couples can run off to Vegas for a quicky wedding and get married, giving it as much thought as what they'll wear the next day. Clearly, not everyone who marries is forming a holy covenant with God. Christians know this and yet I bet the thought never occurred to anyone to create an amendment to protect it. . . until now. This is where we have to admit that Christians are a bit freaked out by homosexuals. We never gave a flying fig what two people got legally married until people of the same sex wanted to. No wonder Christians are so often viewed as bigoted and hateful. Now all of a sudden we've got to keep marriage holy? State marriage has never been holy.

The justification I've heard some Christians make for such legislation is that if homosexuals are allowed to legally marry then it will make that lifestyle appear acceptable. Do we really want Uncle Sam telling us what is moral behavior and what isn't? I think adultery is reprehensible. It is selfish, cruel, and it often destroys families. Will I teach this belief to my kids as they grow up? Yes. Do I need such behavior outlawed to back me up? No. Do we want laws against sex outside of marriage, or lying? I don't, but it's not because they are acceptable behaviors. It's just none of the government's business. The role of the government should be to protect people's rights, not to tell us how to live our lives. I'm not even sure how the government got into the marriage business, but I don't think it's a legitimate governmental function. I guess that's a post for another day.

My recommendation to Christians - be more concerned about the marriages being performed in our churches than the ones the government is performing. These marriages should be holy covenants. As far as state marriages, unless we really want to make every legally-marrying couple sign a contract stating that their union is a holy covenant between them and God then we really aren't trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. We're just being bigoted and hypocritical.

How's that for getting things started? Don't worry. Liberals will be frequent objects of my scorn in the future as well.

Are You Happy Now?

OK - I have my own blog. Not sure what I'll be doing with it, but I had to have one because everyone else is doing it. Most of you don't know me by the nickname "Mare" but that's what my family calls me and my nephews Peter and Jonathan even call me "Auntie Mare". Now it's my bloggin' name. The only other nickname I've had (you need a nickname when your name is 4 syllables and 9 letters long) is Mel. An old friend found out that Mel Harris's (from "thirtysomething" - a TV show from way back in the 1980's, for the benefit of any young punks who may be reading) real name was MaryEllen, but everyone called her Mel for short - so from that day on I was Mel to my friend Liz. But it never stuck beyond that. OK, I did have one other nickname. In high school our church youth group was going on a mission trip to Oklahoma. On the bus, to kill time, we were switching people's initials to see what their names would be. So, Matt Sears would be Satt Mears, etc. They got to me (my name at the time was MaryEllen Henderson) my friend Andy said "What would you be, Hairy Melons?" Big laughs from everyone, big embarrassment for me (I was 16) but I was occasionally known as Hairy Melons for the rest of my youth group career. But, no, I'm going to stick with Mare as my online handle. Now, please take a moment to welcome me to the 21st century.