Non-Issues (part one)

There are a lot of issues out there that are political and for the life of me I don't know why. Most are personal issues that should have nothing to do with government. Certainly there are plenty of things I believe the government should get involved in, but the following list (part one) is not included:

Prayer in Public Schools

We have a separation of church and state. WHAT THAT MEANS IS our government cannot tell us who or what or how to worship. Remember our country was founded on the freedom of religion. Remember that your ancestors came here fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion was established in the first words of the first sentence of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...".

Do you see it? It's so obvious if it were a snake it would have bitten you by now. Not only does the separation of church and state as established by the first amendment keep a government run and funded institution from telling you what and who and how to worship, but it also cannot keep it's citizens from worshiping in said government run and funded institution. Too many big words for you? Individual prayer is allowed in school. By anybody. The first amendment protects your right to pray anywhere you bloody want to. Even in school. Any child, student, teacher, faculty or bureaucrat can pray in school. The law only stipulates that the government (including government paid employees such as said teacher, faculty member or bureaucrat, and government paid for materials such as AP system, copy machine, grounds, buildings, etc.) cannot authorize, be used for, lead or otherwise endorse any religion on its students. I'm going to encourage my child to pray in school whenever he or she wishes. BUT I also intend to teach my child common courtesy so their praying will not disrupt their actual reason, and their fellow students' reason, for being there... which is to learn.

If you want your child to learn about religion, send them to Sunday school or a religious, private school. Let public schools do what they are intended to do: teach your kid history, English and math (and how to play a musical instrument, speak another language, act, report, and so on).

Definition of Marriage

I keep hearing about the definition of marriage these days. Who defines it? God or government? If government does, does that mean churches HAVE to bow down? No. I don't think so. Mostly because I believe this to be a religious issue and we have a separation of church and state for a reason (see above).

I heard about a pastor or priest in Sweden (hello! Sweden not the USA!) who was arrested for discrimination because he would not marry a gay couple. That incident was used to argue against gay marriage here in the states. Personally, in the USA, I can't see a police department doing such a thing. Or a gay couple pressing such charges. I've heard of pastors/priests who refuse to marry people because they say they won't have kids; because one is not the right religion; because one was married before; because it's interracial; etc. Never heard of them getting arrested because of it. It is kinda like, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", you see posted at restaurants and the like. It applies to churches as well and I have absolutely no problem with it. Not like there aren't plenty of churches, pastors and priests out there who have no problem marrying anyone and everyone. PLENTY of choice out there for religion and church (Hello, county's first amendment, see above for history lesson.).

But back to my main point. Why do churches care if there is gay marriage? Why do they care who a justice of the peace, a boat captain, an internet ordained buddy, etc. marry? If they want to keep gay marriage out of their church, fine and good, they have that right already after all.

And don't come back and say it will then lead to people marrying animals. That is just plain stupid! Until, of course, animals have birth certificates, social security numbers, are able to say "I do" and sign their names. But I really doubt we'll see that in our lifetimes. ;)

Anyway, you can get married in a church without a license if you want. You don't get the wonderful government bennies, but as far as you and your church are concerned, you are married in god's eyes, right? Churches probably have the right not to acknowledge common law or marriage done outside of the church, regardless of its legality by the government, right?

No one dies because of gay marriage. It is not like their getting married changes your marital status. Or changes the ability for single, straight people to get married one iota. Gays need to know that if they are with someone for decades and one partner dies, some third cousin can't step in and take everything they ever owned jointly. They need to know they can visit their loved one in the hospital and make medical decisions when necessary. They need to know they can keep their child if one partner dies. These are important and they shouldn't have to become a corporation for such things to be legal for them.

So what exactly changes if gays get married? Just the three things I pointed out above. Are those three things really against god's will? And I don't see why it is not legal already. There is nothing out there that says same sex marriage is illegal. I don't know why governments actually have to legalize something that already is really. I think that is why the definition of marriage has come up. Because gay people haven't realized it is already legal (or at least not illegal) and straights need to make it illegal before they find out.

Taking the Fear and Morals out of Children's Stories

God forbid our children should grow up in the real world. We are so bent on protecting our children from the least little thing, they grow up to crave it. Shielding your child from death could make him a serial killer. Yes, that is just my opinion, but I do believe it to be true. Basically I'm saying your child will be obsessed with death. Death is one of those things kids need to learn about from their parents. Same for sex, drugs and rock & roll. If you over protect them, they could very well rebel in the worst possible way. But I'm getting a little off track to my main gripe: Changing Children's Stories, specifically in Children's programming on television.

There are several terrible shows out there - rabbits and alligators as best buds; monkeys getting by doing hundreds of thousands dollars in damage with no repercussions; etc. - but I want to concentrate on one in particular, Super Why.

This show, Super Why, is on Public Television. I still swear by Sesame Street (even though Cookie Monster giving up cookies is stupid), Sid the Science Kid, and Word World, don't get me wrong. There is still plenty of great programming to be seen. I just wish it were all great.

Super Why is one of my kid's favorite shows. He really does learn watching it. But I can't in all good conscious let him watch it because it butchers classic children's stories willy nilly. Sleeping Beauty's favorite hobby is to sleep, the witch in the gingerbread house just wants to share, the big bad wolf just wants to play, etc. and so on. They've sanitized the stories so much they almost aren't recognizable. The baddest thing anyone does on that show is be loud. And by taking out the 'bad' they've taken out the morals. Sure, they've inserted their own like sharing, playing well with others, ask before you take, etc., but any real consequences are gone.

Luckily we've bought unabridged printings of Grimm's and Hans Christian Anderson's tales. And we are working on getting Aesop's Fables and Mother Goose's stories as well. So when our kid watches Disney's Little Mermaid, he'll know how the story originally went. There is very seldom a happy ending in the real world and children's stories used to reflect that. Not anymore and I believe it is doing a serious disservice to your child to let them believe there is always a happy ending, that everyone is always nice, that no harm can ever come to them. It's wrong and irresponsible as a parent to do this.

I realize you don't want your child hurt. You don't want them to get a cold either, but, if they don't, their immune system will suffer for it. You can't and should not protect them from everything. If my child tortures the cat, I warn him the cat will scratch/bite if he continues. If the cat does fight back, I do not discipline the cat or throw him out. The child was warned. And he's taught never to go up to any stray animal. Dogs injure more people than any other animal. Not every dog is friendly and I teach my child that. I also teach him that not every person is friendly, either. Better to know now than find out the hard way later.

Not teaching your child the harsh realities of life doesn't ultimately protect them from anything. When reality does hit your child, it is just going to be so much worse for them instead.

Now I'm not saying you should take your child to funerals or deliberately put them in harm's way. Of course not. Life happens so when someone does get hurt or die, simply tell the child the truth as best you can. As an adult you know 'not knowing' is the hardest thing to come to terms with. It is the same for a child. They may not understand initially, but that doesn't mean you should never mention it or hide it from them.

Driving for the Conditions

So, on our way home from a doctor's appointment the other day we run into very slow traffic in an area that is hardly ever slow or full of traffic even. As we work our way around the corner we see it. A fawn in the middle of the lane. I actually saw the mother first in the trees to the side of the road so was warned to what I might see. There was a cop there directing traffic around the fawn. Yes, it was alive... unfortunately. For me it is a no-brainer for the cop to simply put the mortally injured creature out of it's misery, but I found out that cops have to get permission from the state wildlife commission before they can kill any animal for any reason (and yet they'll kill a family dog on the least provocation?). I found this out when a family of skunks became rabid in my back yard. I also found out it was ultimately my responsibility to trap and dispose of the wild animals myself. Um, huh?

Anyway, back to the story. The little paved road that comes up the hill to our little community is a winding, humping thing with no shoulder, and tall grass and trees right up to the edge of it. The posted speed limit is 45 mph (which I think is 5 miles too fast to begin with); however, I would guess the average speed of drivers up and down this road is at least 55 mph or more. And they drive this speed no matter what the conditions.

When we saw the fawn that was hit (one of MANY by the way), it was dusk - when animals are at their most active - and rainy. I have absolutely no doubt the car was speeding. Mother deer cross the road first and wait for the fawn to follow. I also have no doubt the driver was not looking for deer, or other animals for that matter, and did not see (or did not care about) the doe on the side of the road.

When I was younger, 14 actually, I went thru a brief, harsh period where I hit several animals with the family vehicle. Each death was because I was speeding and being unobservant. I have not hit an animal since. Why? Because my father taught me the rules of driving when animals are about or on the road (or humans for that matter). They are simple and I'm going to list them here for you:

1. Never drive with your brights, high beams, on.

2. Be observant to what in beside the road, ahead on the road and to each side of you (use your peripheral vision and get off the damn phone!).

3. At night look for eyes. All animals' eyes reflect light. If you see points of light along the road, slow down!

4. If you see animals in the distance that are to the side of the road, do not make sudden changes in speed. They hear you coming. A sudden change in engine tone could spook them.

5. Drive for the conditions. If you live in an area with large populations of wild, or even tame, animals, it is the same as driving in adverse weather conditions. Slow down!

Having driven around here for almost two years now, I know from experience the folks around here do not follow any of those rule. These rules should be taught in driver's ed. Not only do they not know the rules, but deliberately break what the few laws there are - speeding, passing on blind curves and hills (the road has no passing zones at all), passing using the shoulder (which I've said does not exist), etc. As expensive as vehicles are these days you'd think people would be just a tiny bit more cautious. Not to mention the loss of life. And I don't mean just to the wild/pet animal populations, but to us. Deer are considered the most dangerous animal in the US because they kill and injure more people than any other animal because of being hit by cars.

Now sometimes a deer will hit your car and not the other way around. But it is so infrequent to almost not be worth mentioning, but I will. Sometimes a deer will get spooked and run across a road without looking, essentially running into the side of your vehicle. A deer running into the side of your car may cause damage to it, but it is highly unlikely to kill or even injure you. Obviously such an incident is not your fault. Other animals do this as well. BUT, if the animal is anywhere in front of you, there is no reason for hitting it. I totally stand by that statement. If you follow the rules above, you'll never hit an animal again. I'm 41 now so it has been 27 years since I've hit an animal. My father never hit an animal, my mother has never hit an animal, my husband who is an over the road trucker has never hit an animal, and if I have anything to do with it my children will never hit an animal.

Let us take into consideration the conditions of the road when that fawn got hit. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Because that section of the road goes around a blind curve the driver should have shaved 5 mph off for that down to 40 (no shoulder remember; there could be a stalled vehicle, anything). High grass, trees, no shoulder, and it being dusk when animals are most active (and we have a lot of them), the driver should have shaved off another 10 mph to 30 mph. Don't forget it was also raining lessening visibility even more and making the road slick. Another 5 mph should have been dropped for that so the driver should have been going 25 mph that evening. If the driver had been, there would not now be yet another dead fawn/groundhog/skunk/deer/pet on the road. Not to mention the damage to the car the driver now has to pay for. You'd think that would be deterrent enough.

But no. We would rather get home or to work or simply down the road a few miles or minutes faster. So killing animals or doing damage to your vehicle does in no way deter you from driving like an idiot, eh? Well what about pedestrians. Remember I said there is no shoulder, yet adults and kids walk/bike that road all the time. A man was killed last month by a driver who lost control and careened through his backyard where he was mowing his lawn! It is rumored she was texting. Oh right, I haven't even mentioned those who eat, phone, text, drink, etc. while driving. But then those dangerous infractions seem obvious don't they? We see skid marks every day where cars have lost control on curves. We see local signs and electric poles broken by cars all the time. We see broken cars or pieces of cars. This is an everyday occurrence. I can't tell you how many times I've driven down the hill into town to run an errand and within the 15 minutes I'm in town, there is a full handful of dead animals on the road to avoid on the drive back up (not always dead). And this is not a heavy traffic road by any means.

Please follow the rules. Do it for the fawns. If that don't move you, do it for yourself.

What Goes for Men Goes for Women Too

Walked into the bathroom at Walmart yesterday. All but the handicapped stall were in use. As I walked towards it, a woman came out of one of the other stalls. Now I try very hard not to use the handicapped stalls unless I absolutely have to. Figure it is just courteous. Well I look into the newly abandoned stall and what do I see? Urine all over the seat. Ah, a hoverer. I can understand not wanting to sit on the seat in a public restroom, but I absolutely cannot understand people who think peeing all over is in some way a good alternative.

If you stand to pee, pick up the seat! We require men to do it, woman should have to as well.

Course, my husband has gone into public men's rooms and found urine all over the seats in there as well, even when there are urinals to be used.

Some people are so worried about touching another's germs, they'll gleefully spread their own around instead. Color me majorly confused here. If it is that bad for you, carry your own seat covers or something. At least clean up after yourself! Don't make a stall unusable because of your laziness.

Yes, laziness. Not only don't you bring your own seat cover, you won't lift the seat and you won't clean up after yourself. You are filthy, it's gross and makes a normally unpleasant place so much worse.

I don't know how many times I've walked into a public restroom to find toilets plugged, unflushed and with pee on the seats. I have no choice people. I have to sit to do my business. I'm also incontinent so I don't have the luxury of waiting until later. Maybe I'll just pee on the floor next time I come across such a problem again. It's the same thing in my opinion!

Please show some common decency and courtesy to your fellow human beings people! Course, if you are simply marking your territory like many animals, well, that is ok then. As long as you don't mind being treated like most animals who pee on stuff. Don't be surprised if someone rubs your nose in your own pee.

I swear I will not keep my mouth shut about this anymore. Not only will I confront you. I will follow you out into the public store, or wherever we are, and loudly exclaim it for all to hear. If you have to be gross in public, I'll make sure the public knows about it.