Who's in a family - Estabrook Diversity Book Bag

The jist is that the parents of a kindergartener were upset that the school sent home a diversity bag that included a book that was implicitly approving of a gay household. After an exchange over e-mail, the father went to the school and refused to leave until the principal promised that gay lifestyles would not be discussed in front of his child. He was eventually arrested.

Well, I read the e-mails between the school and the parents. I haven't seen the whole book but I read an except on Amazon.com. Also, here's Michelle Malkin's Blog Entry on the Topic.

Frankly, I'm on the fence (painful, I know).

The book really doesn't discuss sexuality and it was one of a variety of choices available to the parents for discussion at home--not in the class. I don't think it is unreasonable to show children drawings of different types of families so that they don't make fun of children who live in different types of households. The claim is that this book and similar ones "celebrate" homosexuality and I'm just not sure that is the case. Also, the parents could have just chosen a different book from the "diversity bag."

(Of course, I would have rejected the idea of the diversity bag, anyway. We would have pulled out my worn copy of D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths and then I would have donated a copy to the bag.)

At the same time, the parents' request that their child not be exposed to issues of sexuality or values that are contrary to theirs is a fair one. I also think it is inappropriate for a kindergarten teacher to discuss adult love (heterosexual or homosexual) with her class.

On the other hand, is it really reasonable to ask that your child be removed from the classroom if a conversation begins about how a classmate's two fathers took him fishing? Even if morals and values issues are not directly addressed, they come up.

The e-mails seem polite on the surface but I wonder how polite the conversation was in the office? Why did the parents insist on extracting a promise before the initial meeting--that doesn't seem like a good faith effort to resolve the issue. I don't think refusing to leave the school until a promise is made, which might not even be feasible, is the best way to work through a conflict.

Parents should have control over their children's moral education but what if each teacher has a list of twenty different topics each set of parents don't want discussed with their child?

Interracial relationships came up; Kate please go outside for five minutes. Evolution? Johnny, please leave. Mohammed, before you tell us about Ramadan, Ben has to go outside. Oops, sorry, Ben... come back... Jordan is the one who can't hear about other religions.

I really do wish schools would go back to focusing on reading and writing instead of on everyone's feelings. If this school hadn't sent home the book, this would be a non-issue.

That was long-winded, I know... but I really am not sure about this one at the moment. I'm sure there are passionate opinions on this subject and I'd like to hear them.

STOP SPEEDING!

You made it back from Bagdad--don't kill yourselves here.

If any military or military spouses are reading this, we really need to do something. Picking up my husband last night, I noticed that the sign indicating days since traffic fatalities was back down to 3.

The sign flashes red when we've had recent traffic fatalities, yellow when some time has passed since the last traffic fatality, and theoretically it flashes green when we're doing well--I'm not sure because in the time I've been here I've only seen yellow once and never green.

We're losing more of our soldiers back here than we did in Iraq. I understand that this problem is not unique to soldiers--18 to 25 year old men are especially likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Still, this is the group of 18-25 year old men who are in my community and it makes me especially sad that these soldiers, many of whom have served our nation so honorably, are dying in such a stupid and preventable way.

I'm at a loss of what to recommend. We recently had a very bad accident here and the soldiers were shown a heart-rending video. Apparently this normally jovial group sat in stunned silence. Two days later, two idiots drag raced right passed me.

A wage gap?

Something I've always suspected... there is no wage gap. There is a priority gap. I think this pretty much speaks for itself:

A wage gap?

Some of Farrell's findings: Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same.

Farrell argues that many men outearn women by a willingness to take risky and dangerous jobs as well as work that exposes them to stress and bad weather or that requires a transfer to an undesirable location in another city or country. Women are more likely than men to pick glamorous jobs that tend to pay less. A London School of Economics study tracking 10,000 post-1993 United Kingdom graduates from 30 universities found that males were earning 12 percent more than women. The men tended to stress salary and were more likely to take up engineering, math, and computing. The women were more apt to seek socially oriented jobs and as undergraduates had favored majors in education and the arts.

Check this out from Mallard Fillmore:

There is no wage gap!


...and the media doesn't care!

Syria - Weapons of Mass Destruction and Pulling Out of Lebanon

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria

The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion…

"Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer…"

"It was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations.

Sounds like pretty solid evidence to me. What were the conveys carrying if not weapons of some sort? Portraits of Saddam Hussein? All that medicine he was hiding so he could blame the United States for the death of Iraqi babies?

Saddam placed such importance on illicit trade with Syria that he dispatched Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to various border crossings to supervise border agents, and, in some cases, to shoo them away, senior officials told The Washington Times last year.

Today, U.S. officials charge that Syria continues to harbor Saddam loyalists who are directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraq-Syria relationship between two Ba'athist socialist regimes has further encouraged speculation of weapons transfers.

This is enough right here that I think we should put some serious pressure on Syria. Let’s not let their withdrawal from Lebanon deflect attention from the fact that Syria is still a major security risk. Give up the Baathists and any weaponry now, Syria.

Several senior U.S. officials have said since the invasion that they thought WMD went to Syria.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war, said in his book, "Inside CentCom," that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria.

In October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.

"The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said.

I think the WMD thing is a bit of a red herring--but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist. Seriously, we went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a horribile dictator who was a long-term security risk to us and our allies. That's justification enough for me.

Syrian soldiers leave Lebanon - April 27, 2005

MASNAA, Lebanon -- Syria ended its nearly 30-year occupation of Lebanon yesterday, pulling its last 250 soldiers across the border after an upbeat ceremony that glossed over the tensions between the two neighbors.

WAHOO!!!

"We sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Bashar," went the chant in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose likeness was posted all over the vehicles.

Jon Stewart had someone on the other night (a scholar of Islam whose name I cannot recall) who argued that it is a clash within Islam and not a clash of civilizations. He was very convincing but reading this paragraph really drives home the point that even if there is a battle for the soul of Islam, there is a fundamental difference between the West and Islamic civilization as it now exists. Could you imaging US troops chanting, “We sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Bush?” Our troops sacrifice their blood for the people of the United States—and their souls are their own. That is the fundamental difference between even “moderate” fanatics and a free people.

[A State Department spokesman] said it was premature to speculate on whether the move would improve rocky U.S.-Syrian relations and said no decision had been made on the return to Damascus of U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey, who was recalled to Washington for consultations in mid-February to express U.S. unhappiness with Syria.

Given the other article, I don’t think we should send her back in anytime soon. We'll resume diplomatic ties when they stop harboring and funding Baathist thugs and turn over any illegal weapons.

Even before Mr. Hariri's death, Syria was ordered in a U.N. resolution to withdraw from Lebanon.

‘Cause we all know how effective THAT is. Seriously, is there any doubt that the US invasion of Iraq, coupled with stepped up Lebanese resistance, is what drove this?

Japanese Internment

I'm in the process of completing a section about Japanese Internment in the US curriculum I am writing. I will not be able to read Michelle Malkin's book before my deadline but I have read this post: HOW NOT TO TEACH JAPANESE INTERNMENT.

I have an open mind on this subject and would like to present both sides to the students so they can review the evidence and decide for themselves.

If anyone has any thoughts or can point me to primary or other sources, it would be much appreciated.

THANK YOU!!!

The Tempest in the Ivory Tower

I know that this is old news but I can't resist commenting... heck, I got so angry, I created this button. I don't know if anyone else cares about how this man is the subject of an intellectual witch hunt but, if you are interested, you can post one, too. Post the button and link back to this post and I'll link to you, too. Just let me know by e-mailing me: a r m y w i f e l i f e at h o t m a i l.



You can also buy t-shirts supporting Summers at: http://www.vivasummers.com/
You can write to Larry Summers at: Lawrence_summers@harvard.edu

The Tempest in the Ivory Tower

Summers said he wouldn't rule out the possibility that innate gender differences might help explain why there aren't more women in the hard sciences. Offered tentatively, his comments set off a fierce debate, at Harvard and beyond. Summers apologized to the faculty and vowed to ''temper'' his ''words and actions.'' But that wasn't enough for members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, who passed a no-confidence vote in Summers at a faculty meeting on March 15 - the Ides of March.

I do not understand this one bit. How can intellectuals be against discussion of ideas? On another level, what is so terrible about the idea that men and women are innately different? I like our differences. He didn't say, "Girls can't do maths." Summers is just pointing out that innate differences might account for the imbalanced representation. What is wrong with throwing out a theory for exploration? There have been so many faculty and student quotes about how he is too controversial--shouldn't a scholar be constantly testing boundaries? Last time I checked, there is significant evidence that men and women not only have bodies that function differently but brains that function differently as well. Calling for more exploration and research seems logical to me... there's that "logic" again. At the same time, he called for an exploration of ways to increase that representation. I'm still not seeing what was so awful here.

To some, however, the outrage was also a sign of trouble in academia - which, as the critic Stephen Metcalf recently observed in Slate, ''has devolved into a series of now highly routinized acts of flattery, so carefully attended to that one out-of-place word is enough to fracture dozens of egos.''

Sarcasm alert: ...which is just so conducive to intellectual development.

In some ways, it recalls the campus turmoil of the 1960's. Only this time around, the protesters aren't the undergraduates; they're the faculty, who to some extent remain immersed in the values and pieties of the 60's and are clashing with a president intent on bringing Harvard in line with today's political and economic realities.

Here's another fun one... the liberal biases of professors. In the old days, they called conservatives dinosaurs and asked them to notice that the times they were a changing. Now that the times are once again readjusting, and they are the dinosaurs, these radicals simply won't let go of their glory days.

He is a liberal, but of a particular kind. [Summers] was a leading proponent of globalization when many other liberals were lamenting its discontents. Summers also hews to a kind of bottom-line market-driven thinking, which can seem deeply at odds with the humanistic values of the academy. And he is unapologetic about American power on a campus steeped in post-Vietnam ambivalence about such things.

He vocally supported bringing R.O.T.C. back to Harvard from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where it had been exiled after Vietnam-era campus protests and where it remained because of later protests over the military's discrimination against homosexuals. And he supported Harvard's honoring the Solomon Amendment, which ties federal funding to universities' allowing military recruitment on campus, something students and faculty had protested. In this way, as Bradley writes, ''Summers explicitly linked the future of the United States in its fight against terrorism with the success of Harvard.''

In another effort to address the global situation, Summers delivered a speech on campus in September 2002 in which he criticized a campaign calling on Harvard and other universities to divest from Israel. ''Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent,'' he said.

This is MY KIND OF LIBERAL!!! Let's see... Free market (check), support for our military (check), willing to accept the realities and responsibilities of being a leader in the world's sole superpower (check), and calling for support for our DEMOCRATIC ALLIES WHO ARE NOT TRYING TO BLOW US UP (check). If Harvard doesn't want him, I hope he runs for office.

It's not altogether surprising, then, that Bradley's book includes descriptions of Summers that echo familiar characterizations of President Bush. Summers ''is not an intellectual, because intellectuals know the power of doubt,'' a professor and signer of the divestment petition tells Bradley. In Bradley's view, that's only one of his shortcomings. Among many cartoonish characterizations in ''Harvard Rules,'' he dwells on Summers's table manners and often disheveled appearance.

Just like our President, Summers is intelligent. Because he doesn't play by the same rules of the Northeastern liberal academic elite, however, he is a barbarian. If you attack Republicans however (Michael Moore comes to mind immediately), then your slovenly appearance is a sign that you prefer substance over style. HYPOCRISY ALERT!

Beyond that he emphasizes that Summers happens to be the first Jewish president of Harvard, and notes that that might inform his views on Israel and foreign policy.

This part REALLY got to me. The only reason for someone to support Israel is because they are Jewish? How anti-Semitic is that? I really thought we were over this.

And hence Summers's efforts to crack down on grade inflation at Harvard, where in 2001 about 90 percent of students graduated with honors, compared with 50 percent at Yale that year.

A little off topic from this post but I just wanted to say "thpt" to those who think Yale is "easier" than Harvard... just because Yalies have more fun!

Anyway, longer post than I intended... but I hope others will join me in supporting Summers' First Amendment rights and his obligation as President of one of our preeminent colleges to promote debate--even if it isn't "popular."

Shaping Young Minds... Why I'm Busy

Just taking a short break to let you know that I've been using my time away from blogging well. I'm currently writing a US History curriculum, including text, activities, and assessments.

You'll be happy to hear that I include all sorts of fun facts about our founders' Christian influences and how the New Deal didn't actually work.

I've also been busy with volunteering.

I'll be back (maybe tomorrow) with some thoughts about Larry Summers.

Name Change

If you've been here before, you may notice that I changed the name. I found myself mainly blogging about politics so this blog is now: "Your Military Right."

I still want a blog for family, friends, and those interested in the life of an Army Officer's Wife, so I created a new blog: http://mollypitcher.blogspot.com/

Right now, that blog will most likely be updated once a week. Once my Dearest Husband deploys, I will blog several times a week.

A Radical in the White House

Bob Herbert really bugs me. Here's his paean to the New Deal:

A Radical in the White House

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944.

Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I want to point out that even F.D.R. said "adequate" and "decent"--not the right to waste your money on a fancy car with no insurance, crash it, and then have the government come to your rescue and finance your color TV with cable, designer clothes, fancy lifestyle.

When F.D.R. started the US down the path to socialism, people were starving in the streets, small farmers were driven from their land, and hardworking individuals were unable to find work at any wage... these people were just hoping for "adaquate" and "decent." Now, people feel they are entitled to a ghetto-fabulous dreamworld without lifting a finger.

USA Freedom Corps Director Discusses Volunteerism in America

During a party my senior year of a college, a member of a liberal organization approached me, looking perplexed.

He said, "I heard you won a community service award."

Me: Why do you look surprised?

Him: I thought you were a conservative.

??? I suppose my heart wasn't bleeding enough to meet his definition of a volunteer.

Volunteerism is near and dear to my heart and, I think, the hearts of many conservatives and Republicans. Democrats think we are cruel because we want to cut government programs that benefit the poor. The truth is, though, that we don't intend to leave hard-working, honest people who have fallen on hard times high and dry. Conservatives just believe that private organizations can handle these needs more efficiently and effectively.

Part of the recent success of the Republican Party has been to regain the moral high ground. The party does this not by harping on non-issues (like the gender of who is in someone's bed) but by appealing to our better sides.

So, it is with mixed emotions that I read this article: USA Freedom Corps Director Discusses Volunteerism in America. To what extent should the government promote volunteerism?

I am of two (at least) minds on this one. Volunteering is good for the soul and I do believe that, as human beings, we have responsibilities towards one another. I also believe that service to one's country gives a citizen a sense of ownership. At the same time, if it is mandatory or paid (as in the Army or teaching or AmeriCorps or Peace Corps), it isn't really volunteering. At the same time, service requirements or guidelines can still provide a sense of ownership and may encourage those who serve to volunteer once their service is complete.

One the other hand, I abhor the New Deal and believe that government involvement drives away private charity, philanthropy and volunteerism. People say, "Isn't that why I pay taxes?"

So, can the government get involved in promoting volunteerism and service without harming private service initiatives? Is this something the government should touch at all?

Thoughts?

I leave you with these links and encourage you to volunteer your time, regardless of your political affiliation:

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2004 Report on Volunteerism - This report does not show a political affiliation breakdown--anyone seen one?

Freedom Corps - Latest government foray into our personal lives or valuable tool to encourage personal responsibility? Either way, find out about how the government is promoting volunteerism.

Servenet and Volunteer Matchmatch you with local service opportunities.

Serviceleader has tips for new and experienced volunteers and volunteer leaders.

Just for the ladies: The Junior League.

Brief Argues that First Amendment Protects Bloggers

I've been enjoying a weekend away from the computer, including a lovely drive through Texas Hill Country (the wildflowers are in bloom).

Dearest Husband is going to head off into the field for about 3 weeks so I should be back to blogging and working. I won't see him or talk with him but I'll be able to hear him (BOOM! BOOM!)!

Check this out:
Brief Argues that First Amendment Protects Bloggers

This is so terribly important given the mainstream media's bias. Everyone should have a voice and that voice should be protected by the First Amendment.

BTW - I published this on the 17th, not the 15th.

Military Health Care in Jeopardy (Mooching War Widows?)

So much news today! I'll deal with this issue first since it is a military issue. The gist is that longterm military health benefits are in jeopardy.

Military Health Care in Jeopardy

"It's costing mightily and it's in competition with some of the weapons systems," Senator Warner said.

But he said that having a first-class health plan for retirees was a crucial selling point for recruiting and retaining soldiers. "There's no sense in buying modern weapons," he said, "unless you've got healthy, intelligent people who can operate them and are willing to stay there."

The cost of military health care is now bigger than the Army's budget for buying new weapons, the Navy's budget for new ships and submarines, or the Air Force's budget for new planes....

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is "very concerned with the growth" of new benefits and entitlements "that accrue principally to those who've left service, especially the retired community," said David S. C. Chu, the under secretary of defense for personnel. "The nation adopted them for good reason, but they are causing a significant cost issue for future defense budgets."

The retirees persuaded almost every member of Congress to support Tricare for Life, a permanent entitlement. Many lawmakers believe that criticizing it would be political suicide, said Representative Mark Steven Kirk, a Republican from Illinois and a Navy reserve officer, one of the few members of Congress who has publicly questioned the price of the promise.

So, basically we've created this welfare state for everyone, including people who have never worked a day in their lives, and this welfare is a sacred cow. However, they're willing to talk about taking away benefits for people who risked their lives for this country. Gee, that makes a whole lot of sense sense.

The truth is that Tricare for Life is a recruitment tool, not a handout. When people join the army, they take into consideration the fact that the army is going to take care of them for the rest of their lives, whether that be the next five minutes before a jihadi explodes an IED near their convoy or for the next fifty years.

Also, let's make some other cuts first before we cut into this recruitment tool and well-deserved reward. I'm not saying that a change in the system should be up for discussion, just that there is a lot more fat to trim before we make this sacrifice.

Walmart Resisting Unionization

Wal-Mart Leaves Bitter Chill

For my libertarian friends who don't want to register online, I've excerpted some key pieces (in italics) and added my comments. The overall idea is a Walmart is closing after a union was started.

The Wal-Mart here is one of three in the area, and it was welcomed when it opened more than three years ago. The town's manufacturing legs are getting old: Both Alcan and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. paper mills closed lines in their plants last year, costing 1,200 jobs.

"Economically, it's not a good time for us," said the mayor of the Saguenay area, Jean Tremblay. The new Wal-Mart was swamped with applications, and those who were hired thought themselves lucky.

Okay folks: supply, demand. Learn it, live it, love it. You don't demand MORE when you have no bargaining power!

"I never had a job as good as this before," said Lynn Morissette, 44, who tracks inventory in the store. "I worked in the daytime. I thought I had a good wage, and I was a shareholder, too, so I could save up some money. I was going to retire here."

Ah, the free market is a beautiful thing. She felt some ownership and worked harder and was happy. Was that good enough for the do-gooder unionizers?

Those involved in the organizing effort claim they were harassed by the company. "We were targeted fairly quickly by Wal-Mart," said Pierre Martineau, a 60-year-old maintenance man who helped organize the union. He said he was humiliated and ridiculed by managers at a store-wide meeting and followed around by supervisors who made implied threats.
"I felt treated worse than an animal," he said.

Those who did not want a union say organizers harassed them to join. "People signed the cards just to get some peace" from the union organizers, said Noella Langlois, 53, who works in the clothing department. "They thought they would vote against it in a secret vote."

So, some people are jerks, big surprise there. Doesn't sound like either side broke any bones, though.

In fact, there was a vote last April that rejected the union. But under Quebec labor laws, the organizers could try again. When they collected signed union cards from 51 percent of the employees, the law declared the Jonquiere Wal-Mart a union shop.

Pelletier, the Wal-Mart spokesman, says the Quebec laws are unfair, and only a secret ballot would show the true feelings of the workers.

"Signing a union card, when there's someone on your doorstep at night saying, 'Sign this card,' should not be the last word," he said. "A democratic, secret vote is the only way to avoid intimidation by either the union or an employer."

Wow, what a revelation! People are more likely to give you their true opinion when the ballots are secret. D-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y... what a concept!

Company officials said [the store] was losing money, and the demands of the union would have made it even less tenable.

"You can't take a store that is a struggling store anyway and add a bunch of people and a bunch of work rules," Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. told The Washington Post after the announcement.

Again: supply and demand. There's a certain elegant beauty to it. Here's an idea: don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. If you demand too much, your employer will up and move. Demand what you are worth--fair market price.

Some here in Jonquiere don't believe the company's claim that the store was losing money. They say the chain sacrificed the store to make a point to its employees across Canada and the United States, where union organizers are involved in dozens of organizing drives and court battles.

Yeah, because major corporations always make business decisions to make a point rather than make money. Um, if they did that on a regular basis, THEY WOULDN'T BE A MAJOR CORPORATION!

The announcement deepened animosities among the employees. Those who liked their jobs and said they were happy at Wal-Mart are bitter at the union for its tactics, which they blame for the store closure.

"We were duped by the union. There was absolutely no need to unionize," said Rejan Lavoie, 40, a single father who took a job as a department manager at Wal-Mart to be home in the evenings with his 8-year-old son. He fears he will not find another job with a workable schedule.

"We weren't asking for the moon," said Bergeron, who spent two years quietly contacting fellow employees at their homes to enlist them in the union. "It's the largest and richest company in the world. They could afford to improve conditions. We only wanted to be treated like human beings."

Hey Bergeron, you aren't starving... why don't you send everything you don't need to some starving people? Gee, maybe because you work so that YOU can enjoy the fruits of your labor. Walmart is a business, not a charity. It is also a business that was providing your town with much needed jobs... until you got involved.

Sylvie Lavoie, 40, said she is unsure how, as a single mother, she will support herself and her 10-year-old daughter after the store closes. But the backup cashier, who earns $7.55 an hour, said she does not regret joining the union drive.

"We can't regret trying to make our lives better," she said at the union hall. "I don't know what I'll do, but I know my daughter will be proud of me."

Next time you want to make your daughter proud of you by trying to make your lives better, get additional training or education. Then she can be proud AND you won't have to wonder how you will support your family.

Cat-Kill Bill 'Not Going Anywhere'

Click the title for the article.

I am relieved but at the same time that someone made DEATH THREATS to the guy who proposed the idea. I think it is a sick idea but DEATH THREATS?

Anyway, while we are on the subject of cats. One of my cats is developing problem solving skills and I am scared. We have the cord for a shade wrapped around a bracket. First she batted at the cord in one direction, then tried it from the other direction. She then realized that she was having some more success but couldn't complete unwrap it. So, she began to examine it from above, trying to unwrap it with her teeth. It is only a matter of time before she can pick the locks.

The other cat is dumb, though. He was climbing the screen door so I shut the class. He figures out he can't climb the glass so he turns around. I think he's giving up. Nope, he is getting a head start. He takes a running leap into the glass door. He's pretty heavy, too. I thought he might crack it.

What would be really frightening is if they team up... brains and brute strength... shudder.

D.R.A.F.T.: P.I.M.P. Parody

If you don't mind some Jib-Jab style humor from the other side and a little profanity, check out: D.R.A.F.T..

Have fun!

Adopt a Soldier

I saw this on The Patriette:

You can adopt a soldier at Soldiers' Angels and help provide morale-boosting support to our soldiers. If you are looking to do something nice for our troops, here's an opportunity!

Which reminds me, I should bake another batch of cookies for DH's platoon, soon.

So, why don't I go back to teaching?

I am a teacher and right now I work from home. The reasons why are probably something I'm going to struggle with in this blog.

For starters, did you know that every time I move (which us army wives do often) I have to get a whole new series of certifications?

That usually entails application fees, test fees, and licensing fees... which will run you about $150-200 for a single certification, more if you want multiple certifications. Then there are the hours you spend getting fingerprinted, taking the tests, and filling out paperwork.

Of course, education is a local and state issue and should remain that way. At the same time, we are experiencing a shortage of teachers in many areas of the nation. Wouldn't streamlining the process bring at least some more teachers into teaching AND save money?

For example, one of the tests most states require is a BASIC LITERACY TEST! Gee, I have my SAT scores, my two Ivy-League degrees, my GRE scores, 5 years worth of teaching experience, and test results from two other states... but every time I move the state wants PROOF that I can READ AND WRITE!!!

Sorry if I got a bit agitated there. Seriously, the only way to know for sure if someone can teach is to put them in a classroom. Why not accept any one of a dozen tests to prove a baseline of intelligence and then leave it up to the individual school districts as to who they think is qualified to teach.

The cost and certification aggravation aren't the only reasons I'm unsure I want to step foot back in the chalkboard jungle. I'll discuss the other two big reasons in more depth another time but I'll give you a hint (it isn't the kids) and two guesses.

Bush Speech at Ft. Hood

Well... DH got up at 1:30 am so he could report at 2am (0200 for you military types). After formations and a 4 mile march, they waited.

The President spoke at 10am (yes, 8hrs after formation) for about 15-20 minutes. He told them men that they did a good job and are making the world a more peaceful place. He also said that as the Iraqis begin to take more responsibility for their security, we will be able to move into a more supporting role. No discussion of reduced forces or reduction in deployment length. Nothing groundbreaking--but thank you for coming to speak to our soldiers, President Bush!

Apparently the powers that be did not increase the number of guards at the main gate so some soldiers had trouble making it for formation! At least the soldiers have the rest of the day off!

I just visited the Drudge Report and added a link to a story about the speech.

Man Date???

Someone gets paid to write this junk?
Simply defined a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports.

Although "man date" is a coinage invented for this article, appearing nowhere in the literature of male bonding (or of homosexual panic), the 30 to 40 straight men interviewed, from their 20's to their 50's, living in cities across the country, instantly recognized the peculiar ritual even if they had not consciously examined its dos and don'ts. Depending on the activity and on the two men involved, an undercurrent of homoeroticism that may be present determines what feels comfortable or not on a man date, as Mr. Speiser and Mr. Putman discovered in their squeamishness at the Modern.

The Man Date

I seriously doubt that when my husband meets a buddy for dinner that an undercurrent of homoeroticism is present. WTH?

Dinner with a friend has not always been so fraught. Before women were considered men's equals, some gender historians say, men routinely confided in and sought advice from one another in ways they did not do with women, even their wives. Then, these scholars say, two things changed during the last century: an increased public awareness of homosexuality created a stigma around male intimacy, and at the same time women began encroaching on traditionally male spheres, causing men to become more defensive about notions of masculinity.

Uh... Just go grab a bite and talk. Why does this have to be a gender politics issue? Leave it to a NY Times writer.

Artificial Intelligence 20 Questions

I'm off to an appointment this morning, so here is something with which to play:

20 Questions

Notice how it will improve each time you play the game.

Fun or Scary? You decide.

Killing Kittens

Yeah, the title is inflammatory but, I think, appropriate. We're talking about shooting kittens!

Right now this is on the mows main page. In case it moves, this is the article and this is Jay's response.

Where to begin? I agree that feral cats are a problem. I also agree that people should have the right to do pretty much anything on their own property. If a rabid feral cat is attacking, go ahead and shoot it. Seriously, though, this law is basically giving any idiot the right to start shooting at any cat.

First, cats can easily slip outside and often slip out of their collars. There is little way to know if the cat is truly "feral" or just a pet that got outside... especially a distance. Also, shooting at such small "game" is likely to result in a number of misses, therefore injuring the animal and making it suffer. There are so many other ways to curb this sort of problem so the people who propose this must want to shoot cats. What sort of sick person would derive pleasure from shooting cats???

I am not usually a touchy-feely animal rights activist but this makes me sick AND this is about resisting a waste-of-time inhumane law rather than trying to pass some waste-of-time law to provide unnecessary protections.

Bush to Speak at Ft. Hood

Since it has already been on the news... Bush is coming to Ft. Hood. We've been hearing about this for weeks and DH has to be there super early... which means the alarm will ring at about 2 am. So much for beauty sleep!

Conservatives Who Like Protest Rock Anonymous

White House Letter: President Bush's iPod
As for an analysis of Mr. Bush's playlist, Mr. Levy of Rolling Stone started out with this: "One thing that's interesting is that the president likes artists who don't like him."

I was just talking with DH about this! I think it is funny that, as conservatives, we enjoy so much of this protest-rock. DH says the music is good and we can enjoy the ironic kitsch of the politics. Hmmm...

Bolton

From a Washington Post article: "Bolton Faces Tough Questions on Hill":

"In the diplomatic world, neither bluntness nor rhetorical sensitivity is a virtue in itself," the Indiana Republican said. "There are times when blunt talk serves a policy purpose; other times it does not.

Hear, hear! We don't need more polite talk, we need some bluntness. That's lovely that the UN wants to have little clubby meetings and pass meaningless resolutions that bash the US or Israel... but should have no part of it. The UN's General Assembly should research and discuss REAL issues and then make RECOMMENDATIONS to the few nations that actually have the power to get anything done. Then it might actually be relevant... maybe.

The New York Times says this was a rebuke of Bolton? I think it is exactly the reason why he is a good choice.

Tomato Liberals

I'd like to introduce you to phenomenon I call the shaking red exploding liberal tomato (or tomato liberal for short).

Basically, you take a sheltered student or graduate of an elite institution, preferably one who has lived all his life in a major city in the Northeast, and challenge their assumptions with facts. Then, watch the fun. I promise the liberal will start to insist his opinion is "just plain right" with no evidence. Then, as you continue to debate, he will visibly quake and turn tomato red. If you don't stop, you'll swear he is just about to explode.

Since I've moved to Texas, I enjoy this sport a lot less often but there is always the internet and Austin.

The Draft - Universal Service

DH (Dear Husband) and I have very supportive families but they are all slightly confused about his decision to join the army. To their "Vietnam" generation, smart, educated people joining the military seems odd. Hmmm... wouldn't you prefer to have intelligent people taking care of your nation's defense?

Shouldn't the nation's defense fall on the shoulders of representatives of the whole populace? Shouldn't our armed forces look like our nation? Shouldn't every community have a stake in our armed forces?

Shouldn't service be a duty?

I think we should have a two or three-year universal service requirement in this country. Not everyone should necessarily have to serve in the combat arms in the Army but I think we would benefit both from a corps of citizen soldiers and from every citizen providing real service to the country. Conscientious objectors could work as teachers in underserved populations or be part of an armed forces auxiliary that would have the discipline of the armed forces but would only be assigned domestic, non-combat tasks like clerical support work or natural disaster relief.

Maybe that would kick some of the apathy in this nation in the butt.

Power of Attorney

I recently saw an article saying that military members should not give their spouses power of attorney.

So, as a military spouse do you need a general power of attorney? Yes, you do.

If your friends at JAG say you don't, just go down to your neighborhood Staples or other office supply stores and pick up the form for yourself. Once you fill it out, you can have it notarized. Your local bank probably has a notary.

While you are at it, call all banks and credit card companies and either get your name on those, too, or find out if they require specific power of attorney forms (most do). Also make sure you fill out one of those deployment readiness books together (even if your spouse is just going on extended training).

You'll need the general power of attorney to do almost anything for which the account holder is your spouse (cell phone, utilities, etc.).

Okay, yeah... there are spouses who cheat on their soldier and take all of his (usually) money. If that's you, shame on you. Seriously soldiers, don't you know if your spouse is disloyal or airheaded before you leave? If you have a responsible and loyal spouse, there should be no problems. If you have any doubts (past infidelity, gambling or shopping addictions) than give the power of attorney to someone you trust who will look out for the best interests of you and your family (maybe a parent). This way, if your spouse needs emergency funds or help, someone who she (again, usually) can reach will be able to help.

Please don't leave your family stranded just because there are a few bad apples out there.

Opening Day

Well... Here I am... set up under a pseudonym. I expect, if DH (Dear Husband) approves, I'll be adding details about my life as an Army Wife. Once upon a time I was a college student, then I was a teacher, and I expect some day I'll be a mother. Technically, I'm currently a freelance writer... but really I am an ARMY WIFE.

Perhaps that sounds terribly un-P.C. ... that my husband's career would be such a large part of my identity. Well, I never did go in for the P.C. stuff, anyway. Truth be told, being an army wife can be very time-consuming and rewarding, especially if you are an officer's wife. The Army controls where we go, which in return controls so much of what we do.

Although gone are the days when a wife directly makes or breaks her husband's career (unless perhaps he's running for President), a committed spouse can make any intense career choice more manageable. I'm finding this so much more so no that DH is an army officer than when he was a lawyer.

Expect to find... funny (at least to me) anecdotes, thoughts about la vida military, hopes, anxieties, dreams, commentaries on current events. Don't expect too many salacious tidbits, though. I'm sure I've already included enough information that a clever person could put two and two together if they liked.