9-11 Memorial Ride

The CT United Ride, an annual 9/11 tribute of motorcycles, makes a turn right near our house. So we piled the girls in the back of the truck, embracing the mutual America ideals of freedom and risk-taking, and we drove up the road to Putnam and parked under a shade tree.  

While it was still quiet, we read George W's speech from that fateful day. The girls ran around on the park grounds. We had snacks and drinks from the cooler. It might have been the perfect late summer day in Connecticut. 

 We must have seen a thousand bikes. It was a very impressive display of patriotism and goodwill. 

Trump's Rushmore Speech

We watched Trump's Mount Rushmore speech with the kids. We always try to watch the President speak. We did the same for Obama and Bush, not because we have always agreed with all of them, or ever agreed with any of them, but because we're trying to teach our daughters how to keep a republic. And we'll keep have an ongoing discourse with them about the complicated issues of history and the present time. 

Thoughts on Quarantine

This makes me reconsider Jesus, who touched a coffin and a leper, and spoke in radical, subversive parables, one about a Good Samaritan, who may have been judged for touching the unclean, disqualifying and contaminating himself, risking everyone, ignoring the law. I’m not making a declaration, just recognizing (as I watch church online) the ancient Scripture is still relevant, because it’s True.

My name and address gets put on some of the same mailing lists as professional teachers, since I often shop at the same stores. But, the ads I get in the mail are not always as telling as the one that came just a few days ago. When I saw the page pictured above in a teacher supply catalog, I got aggravated. I can't pick which John Taylor Gatto quote I want to go along with these photos, because they all seem to fit. Notice the words "high interest" and "low vocabulary" function as selling points for these new environmental studies units. Really?

And I'd like to know what the teachers who use these materials are taking out of their lesson plans in order to fit entire units on hotly-debated issues like "climate change" and "global warming." They must be sacrificing weeks worth of material to make room for this new stuff. I taught school for two years and I had to haul butt to get through the most obvious and accepted and essential of science lessons like insects have six legs, spiders have eight and lava is molten rock.

If anything was added to our already-packed curriculum, if the administration wanted to rehearse for a play or practice for a holiday program, whatever it was, something else that was important had to be squeezed out of the school day in order to make room for it. And, there was never enough time to make up for what was "lost." So, are schools planning to make their already inefficient days even longer? Are they really free to give priority to this material over something else like the cause of ocean tides or how to read a compass?

Teenagers are graduating high school thinking Homer is a Simpson and most college prep students can't tell you off the top of their head what ten percent of one hundred is. (I know this because I was numbered among those graduates. And, since then, I've had to teach myself everything I didn't learn in school.) But, I did learn some things. If you said "gun," my next word would have been "control." And, if you say "carbon" to today's graduates, their next word will be "footprint" without even blinking. So, there is no question that they are taking some things with them. And we can learn a lot about the problems with today's schools by asking what those things are.

Now, I usually don't want to be numbered among those who choose to homeschool because they think there is some agenda to brainwash the next generation, to make them stupid, to mold them to buy certain products, to train them to be nothing more than wage earners, to indoctrinate them to be a certain kind of voter... but upon seeing this kind of thing marketed to teachers, so it can be taught to the next generation in place of something else, one has to wonder. Could those suspicious homeschoolers be right?

When you see this photo, know that my husband wrote what comes next.

Last Sunday, the sermon centered around leadership, but one point dealt with Johnathon Edwards' comments on patriotism. With much respect for our Pastor, after finding this article, it soundes like Edwards held some crazy ideas. In fact, he wouldn't fit well into today's political groupings at all from what I can tell, wanting government funded Christianity; state welfare were laziness is not allowed, etc. However, some of the points made are still valid.

In particular, the idea that patriotism is not that important in the grand scheme of things was convicting. A lot of mental energy gets put toward politics, and much of the news we consume is centered around Washington. As Christians we need to make sure we are finding the right balance.

I do not want to rehash the article linked above but instead to consider a few thoughts on the very nature of government in America as it relates to the Christians' subjection to it.

Romans 13 is pretty explicit. Christians are to obey their government. However, I think there is a fascinating dynamic here in America that changes the picture unlike any other time in history. When Roman's was written, the ruling body was, well, Rome. While Rome was a republic, the very rule of law was still embodied in the consuls. All civilizations have been based on this model, where a person or persons is at the top. Even today's representative governments like England are still centered around a royal family. Always the central figure is a person. Until a pesky group of revolutionaries decided to try something new. Instead of a person being the center of the governmental structure, a document was. This government was designed to operate as a government by the people and for the people, with no person at its head, but a document. This is why what we refer to as the highest office is simply that, an office whose express goal is to uphold and defend the constitution of this nation.

Take now, for instance, the idea of Paul writing to a group of believers challenging them to subject themselves to the rule of Rome. This is a heavy request. The leader of Rome at most points in history, and certainly Nero during this period was a heavy handed dictator. Christians were made to suffer under his rule, and yet they were requested to be an example of good in their community by subjecting to the atrocities committed by Nero.

What happens then when a document is the ruler, not a person? When a person is in rule, they can set and change rules as they see fit. In America today, a document is our ruler. Our governmental body is there simply to carry out that constitution's directives. We have the unique privilege to be governed by no man. We govern ourselves. We elect for ourselves representatives to serve us. We impeach those who fail in their duty to obey its directives. America in theory is a nation ruled by the people's own desires as detailed in the constitution, amendable as needed.

So when scripture tells us to be subject to our rulers, we are not under the same obligation as 1st century Christians, or even the 21st century English. We are not subjects; neither to a monarch nor a dictator. The men with badges or the ladies in office are not our rulers. They have been asked to perform a service, at our request. We are bound to obey and follow one document (two really depending on your state). So if a police officer asks to enter your house for an inspection (as happened in Danbury a few years ago), you should say NO. This is not being insubordinate; it is obeying our ruler, the constitution. If a police officer asks you to answer some questions, and you do not want to, you don't have to. This is obeying the rule of law. When a corporation makes a major mistake, and spills millions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean, we should not sit quietly as the President informs us that he is forcing a foreign owned company to do anything, not because we do not agree with the principle, but because such action is completely outside of his given authority.

As the American experiment continues to change, there may well come a time when the decision is made that men are not capable of ruling themselves under the guide of our constitution. At that point (and we seem to be on that path) we as Christians will be subject to the rulers put in place. Until that time, I believe we should do as much as is in our power to keep our freedom and liberty. For out of this model has come the most successful society in the history of the world. And I believe that with our success, we can do more good for the kingdom of heaven then we could without it. Freedom for freedom's sake is not valuable to the Christian. Perhaps in God's economy we would be better off without our freedom; certainly there is biblical support for the work of God thriving under oppression. But I think we have greater abilities to do good for the kingdom in freedom, and therefore, I believe it to be a cause worth investing in.

So yes, we are citizens of heaven, first and foremost. We should not take too seriously our national pride as it often comes in conflict with out heavenly pride. However, I believe we have a duty as a part of this particular nation to be active and involved in the governmental process, to invest in maintaining our freedoms, and to know follow and uphold the constitution.

-Dwayne

Just some of the public housing we pass on our way into NYC.

I'd like to confess a thing or two. I am simply fascinated that so many people live this way, as part of "the system." I always stare out the car window with my mouth open like a country bumpkin, just gawking at these buildings. They dominate the landscape for miles leading into the city and must represent hundreds of thousands of people, at least. Every window (or two) could represent an entire family. "Incredible," I usually whisper to myself and then turn and say something similar to Dwayne.

And, somewhat poignantly, these buildings are set off in the distance, surrounded by what seems to be wheat fields. From the highway, we are too far away to see anyone moving around on the ground, so they appear to be totally abandoned. It's an eerie site. My mind always goes to Alas Babylon. (That book will ruin a person for everyday life, by the way. Don't read it if you ever want to be normal again. I can't pass salt in the grocery store without wanting to fill a cart with it.)

Where would these people go if something happened, I wonder. What if the city could no longer sustain them for some awful reason? At least, if the worst happens, we'd have a backyard with a garden and a water source and neighbors with tomato seeds who'd cooperate and help us out.... Mass migrations, I think. Large groups of terribly desperate people heading out of the city on foot toward... where?

Toward where I live. And then I shudder to think. However, a moment later, I am humbled and then I quietly thank God Almighty for his very practical, inherently valuable, often overlooked and taken for granted, real, material blessings to me.

It's that time again. Today's National Census Day.

We saw this painting on our trip to The Norman Rockwell Museum last spring. Like most of Rockwell's paintings, it was much more impressive in real life. I found myself, more than once, gasping at the simple beauty of these unassuming scenes or chuckling out loud as I walked around the gallery, the images were sometimes just so funny. The painting above was one of my favorites, since the large, red headed woman in the middle has obviously lost track of how many children she's given birth to. Some of her kids (they're obviously hers... look at their hair) are peeking out from behind her back and she has to take a second to think about it and count them on her plump fingers. I think the painting that hung in the museum showed more of the woman and her children, more of the details Rockwell painstakingly added to all his works. And, if I am not mistaken, the census taker was actually a separate painting altogether, placed over the woman and covering part of her for the purposes of fitting him on the magazine cover above. But, anyway, I love Rockwell's art for so many reasons. Rockwell did such a good job of documenting our thoroughly American lives, his paintings now allow history lovers, like me, to look back at the last several decades and review our country's more modern history, almost step by step. And, just as they did for the generation who received them on brand new editions of The Saturday Evening Post, Rockwell's art allows us to really see ourselves and celebrate the beauty and humor that often fill our everyday lives.

I received our census letter today and looked all over to find the disclaimer that you only have to answer the first question. To my dismay, it is not there. A few minutes of googling later, I realized that by statute, we are required to answer all questions.

I don't think so.

Since it's inception, the census has asked questions directly related to understanding the headcount of the country. The original census included only three questions: color, free or slave status and the sex of free white persons. These questions were used as a result of the racist 3/5ths rule that counted slaves as only 3/5ths, and the sexist rule that women could not vote so were not used to calculate representatives.

As morally reprehensible as these are, the questions were directly related to the task at hand, counting the populace in order to determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives. Therefore, after the end of slavery, and with women's suffrage, these questions are no longer needed to properly account for the population and should have been removed from the questionnaire.

Therefore, questions related to anything outside of the direct requirement of counting the population for representation and direct taxation (which is a-whole-nother topic all together) are an invasion of privacy under the 4th and 5th amendments. The government is unapologetic in its purpose, specifically saying that the data collect is used to direct government spending, something never found in the constitution.

Interestingly enough, it was not until the Raw... I mean... New Deal era, and the 1940 census that demographic information was requested. Given that era's ability to pass all measure of unconstitutional government policies and agencies, it is not surprising that the Census was able to be used to collect auxiliary data about the population. It is also not surprising that it was the 1930 and 1940 census that was used by FDR to illegally and immorally round up Japanese Americans and place them in concentration camps during WWII. Of course the law protects our data collected by the census bureau from the big bad government, right? Don't count on it.

I went back and forth on how to quietly refuse. I stumbled on a form letter that I adapted to my liking and will be including a copy of the following when I mail back my form.

-Dwayne

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

c/o U.S. Census Bureau

8411 Kelso Drive

Essex MD 21260-1111

MARCH 17, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:

The U.S. Constitution allows you to inquire as to how many persons are living at my residence as of April 1, 2010. I have provided you with that information.

You are not authorized to ask me any additional information, nor will I voluntarily provide you with any additional information.

Although your agency states that my answers will be kept “confidential” and that any information obtained from me (i.e. my phone number, my gender, my age, my ethnicity) will be not be shared by or with anyone, I believe these questions to be a direct invasion of my privacy based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'' Given that past illegal uses of census data have been witnessed, the worst of which leading to the unlawful imprisonment of a minority group, I am refusing to answer these unconstitutional questions.

Since the current statutes that enable auxiliary questions besides how many people are living at my residence are unconstitutional as stated above, “[t]he general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void. Unconstitutional law bears no power to enforce, it purports to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law and not such time as branded in an open court of law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. No courts are bound to uphold it and no persons are bound to obey it.” 16 Am Jur 256.

Sincerely,

An American Citizen

P.S. – In 1980, the census cost less than $5 per person to administer. Ten years ago, it was less than $16 per person. Current estimates show your agency spending nearly $50 per person on the 2010 census. I believe that this taxpayer expense could be significantly reduced by limiting the census to what is constitutionally allowed.

A cell phone tower "disguised" as a tree, a perfect example of why some ideas should be abandoned because they can't be executed as well as they were conceived. This thing looks ridiculous and ruins the view more than a huge metal pole would.

I saw this beaten sticker in the back of an NYC taxi and thought,
"How quickly the shine wears off..."

This billboard outside a small town in Minnesota made national news last week.

I got the photo off the Fox News website. Read more here.

This baby was loved, deeply. And he was wanted, desperately. I had to pass his bed on the way to see Avril while she was in the NICU. So, I saw him several times while our daughter was still in the hospital. I always marveled at his form. I think I almost marveled at him more than I marveled at my little Avril. She was my daughter, yes, and her precious, newborn hands could just barely wrap around my thumb. She was so beautiful. But, his hands were the size of my thumb prints! He was breathtaking in his tiny perfection.

That afternoon, his parents stood by his covered bed, hovered by it really, visibly torn between their desire to cradle their boy and their awareness that such a gesture might actually kill him. So, they stood as close to his protective plastic case as they could manage and they did what they could. His mother had her hand in one of the special openings. From within a special glove attached to the hole, she gently stroked her baby's tiny hand (and I mean tiny) with her pointer finger. The father was standing a little behind and to one side of his wife with one hand on her shoulder communicating empathy and support. His other hand, I'll never forget, was stretched wide and placed, with meaning, right on top of the protective case covering their son. He was bowed down a little. I believe he'd have put his hand right on his son's chest, if he could have. You could literally feel the prayers they were sending up as they stood there, paralyzed with their inability to do anything, just willing their child to live, just wanting him to be well.

I took all this in in a matter of seconds and I was touched by the scene in several ways. I felt sympathy, since my daughter was also in the NICU, officially out of my care and in the care of doctors and nurses until they decided to allow her to be legally discharged. I felt compassion, too, since my child was in excellent health compared to theirs. We were actually preparing to bring Avril home that day. I felt thankful that I could walk over and pick her up, kiss her, nurse her even. I wondered, then quickly doubted, whether the couple had been able to ever even hold their son. It occurred to me that he must be very premature, months maybe... maybe months and months. And, then, all at once, the scene warped to something disturbing to me. I realized that their baby looked no different than the ones I've see in the pictures, those pictures of babies covered in blood and waste and piled up, the aborted ones that make everyone angry, then sad. Their baby was actually less developed than some of the children that are aborted, in fact. The only difference was that he was wanted. His mother (and also his father, in this case) chose him. For one second, I was appalled by the country we live in, where we say we champion the rights of humanity all over the globe, but where parents determine the worth of their own children.

I try to say all this with care, attempting to temper my words and strong feelings with grace. I want to tread lightly, knowing that some of the women who read this blog may likely have had an abortion and more importantly, may not have found the grace of God to deal with it yet. I do not claim to speak for God about this, but I assure you of one thing. There is grace from him to cover everything, even abortion. There is nothing humanity can do that His love will not heal completely.

I have often tried very hard to value a woman's choice, to see where others are coming from. I am living up north now and we have several "pro-choice" friends. And, I realize that so many woman I meet must have chosen to abort at least one child. These days, they say it is one woman in three. So, odds are, I know a few women, maybe more than a few who have made that choice. But, I will never be able to erase the image of that couple from my head. And, for some reason, the memory of them will be set in my mind within the context of abortion rights from now on. The mother and father, doctors and nurses, just wanted to build the same child that others on another day, in another room of a hospital, would tear apart. The whole thing seemed so absurd to me all of a sudden. And, I bet, at that moment, no matter how the couple leaned politically, they would have spit on a woman's "right to chose." They would have wept that anyone would not, even through the worst of circumstances, see the inherent value in the life of a baby just like their own.

It may be legal. And, no doubt, the situation will always be difficult when a baby is unwanted, particularly by the woman who is carrying it. But, I do not see that anyone has a moral right to choose who lives and dies, even if a baby's life depends on a woman's life and even if that baby inconveniences her or "ruins" her, as far as she may think. The value of a human being is never subjective and, therefore, it should not be subjected to any one person's opinion.

Of course, the same argument could be made in defense of a woman's right to choose. How can our opinion over this issue dictate what she does with her body? But, by undermining her baby's life, the way I see it, a woman undermines her own as well. Human worth isn't dependent on the right conditions to be worthy. That couple did not determine the worth of their son, as I see it, though they obviously wanted him and had made a place for him in their lives. But, even if no one stood by his bed, that baby deserved a champion because he's human and that makes him precious. And, if something is precious, by definition, that thing can't be made any less precious by anyone, even those who, for whatever terrible reason, would chose to deny it's value.

"It's comparable to Jesus Christ
being elected Emperor of Rome."

-Bob Thompson on Senator Scott Brown's victory
in the traditionally liberal state of Massachusetts.

"She could easily be paid millions there
to do what she does best:
delighting Republicans
and
infuriating Democrats."

-Mark Greenbaum on Palin's deal with Fox News.

"When the system fails, it is my responsibility," Obama said.

Everywhere we look these days, we see "Obama." In news articles and reports, his name is almost synonymous with government itself.

Contrast that with the time Bush (or any other president for that matter) was in office. We may have questioned how much influence Bush had over anything at times, but at least, in our minds, we could separate the president's name from the government. We understood that though he cared about everything, the president wasn't actually responsible for everything. At least then, there were other people at work in Washington for our good, other people who had a huge stake in the game, other people who needed to do their jobs well to make "change" happen. We realized that the president couldn't do it all. Or maybe, the president realized he couldn't. And, this wasn't just because he was Bush (ignorant, incompetent, impotent and all the other things the media said about him) so much as because he knew and we all knew that he was, in fact, only human.

Now, I didn't vote for him and I will be the first republican to sigh if a man (or woman) of worth from my party is able to be elected next term, but I wonder at Obama, Democrat and all. I worry for him. I realize he is so motivated and so capable (or the media, thus far, has eagerly painted him as such), but is it prudent for any president, any leader at all, to have his hands in so much, but to be taking full responsibility for so much... from health care, to the war(s), to homeland security, to education, to the housing crisis, the economy, to unemployment, the list goes on? Doesn't he delegate? Doesn't anybody work for Obama anymore? Or, maybe more importantly, aren't there still people involved in our government who aren't doing his bidding?

I wonder, by literally chaining himself (politically speaking) to the success or failure of so many of his programs, his strategies, his initiatives, his plans, his systems... is it even possible that Obama won't fail?

Once, during a college class discussion, I was asked to choose from four handicaps: blindness, deafness, being confined to a wheelchair or obesity. I was asked to tell which I would rather live with and why, which would I never want to live with and why.

Without hesitation, I chose being confined to a wheelchair over not seeing or hearing. Communication is vital to me and I'd rather see in order to read and hear in order to speak than be able to get around. And, I said that obesity would be the worst handicap of all, one I would never want to live with.

I remember someone getting defensive about this answer and asking me, "Why?!" I explained that people perceive the three other handicaps differently than obesity, especially in our culture. People have something that resembles grace for you if you are blind or deaf or in a wheel chair, but if you are fat, people automatically assume that it's your fault, that you are lazy or a glutton and they usually detest you for it.

This video is proof of what I said so long ago. A "fitness professional," buff and bronzed, speaking in the spirit of an evil Hans or Franz, expresses criticism of Obama's choice for surgeon general. His objections about her aren't academic, he just thinks she shouldn't have gotten the job because she is overweight. This man's boldness on national TV is evidence to me that as a culture, we generally don't respect fat people. Otherwise, this man wouldn't have the nerve to speak with so much arrogance in such a public forum about a woman's weight.

I imagine Obama's choice for surgeon general was just too busy getting her medical degree to worry about counting calories. She wouldn't be the first. Maybe this guy would have more respect for her if she had tighter abs and more of those fitness certifications or body building awards he has. (I'm am only assuming he isn't educated based on superficial evidence like his artificial looking tan and how much he points at the camera. I admit that I could be very wrong about this point. It seems like there are highly educated yet ignorant people nearly everywhere these days, especially on television.)

On my way in to work at the YMCA one very cold night last week, I saw a grown man in a suit coat pull the lid off a trash can like this and dig through it until he found a soda can he could turn in for spare change.

There was only one time in my adult life that I wanted to steal something. I was washing my hands at the grocery store bathroom and looked down to see a brand new roll of paper towels under the sink. They were still wrapped in plastic and obviously placed there by a dutiful custodian who noticed that the current roll was running thin. I had seen this kind of thing all the time, but I had never once felt the urge to take anything that didn't below to me. However, this particular day, just minutes before in the same store, I'd spent almost all the money I had left after paying bills, filling my Jeep with gas, etc. to buy groceries and other things for my family (including paper towels) that we needed to get through until the next pay day. But, I was left with only a few dollars in my wallet and I had never been left with so little cash after paying bills, so I was in a brief state of panic. For one moment I thought, "If I just take this roll of paper towels now and hide it in my bag, even though I don't really need it, even though I just bought paper towels, it will be that much longer until I will have to spend all the money I have to provide things like paper towels for myself again." And, I believe that for the first time in that moment I knew at least some of what it feels like to live in a state of want.

I didn't end up taking the paper towels, by the way. I was convinced that that would have been stealing, after all. So, I went home and lived comfortably enough for two weeks with everything I needed. I just had to deal with having less of what I wanted. But, being so seized with the temptation to steal left a real impression on me. I have since pondered with more understanding and compassion the often very obvious connection between poverty and crime, how decent people can be more easily compelled to do things they would never consider otherwise because they don't have basic necessities and can't see any way of getting them without a moral compromise. It is then, I think, that they loose hold of an ability to feel guilt over taking advantage of others who seem to have plenty. They may even rationalize their deeds with arguments like, "Why should they and theirs have so much extra when me and mine don't even have enough?" and that's how they can take what isn't theirs without any hint of shame. In my mind, this doesn't make their actions right, but my brief experience with want (or even the small semblance of it that I experienced that day) makes it easier for me to understand their struggle and the moral dilemmas poverty can often put them in.

With all this in mind, Norah and I read an ancient version of Jack and the Beanstalk a few days ago during her home school lessons. I'd forgotten how the story goes, but was surprised, a little appalled even, that Jack ruthlessly steals from the giant then chops down the beanstalk to make him fall to his death as he chases Jack in an attempt to take back what belongs to him. Later, I found two video adaptations online. The older version was truer to the original text. In it, Jack and his mother are starving, so they take the giant's possessions and kill him and live happily ever after without any apology or attempt to explain away the immorality or injustice in Jack's actions. But another version, a more modern one, shows Jack and his mother are poor, but adds that that is only because the giant drove them from their castle, killing Jack's father and stealing all of their possessions to begin with. So, as Jack takes the giant's possessions, he is only really taking back what rightfully belongs to him. And, as he kills the giant in the end, he is actually just avenging his father's death and setting right the wrongs done to his family long ago. This revisions certainly do the job of making Jack a more palatable hero to our modern consciences, I'll grant you, but that really isn't how the story was told in the original version.

So, I started to wonder, why didn't the original story make any attempt to explain Jack's actions to the audience for which it was intended? Wouldn't they be appalled by Jack's actions, too? If Jack was such an obvious villain, why was his terrible story so celebrated and retold through the ages? My guess, after considering how poverty can warp one's morality or make morality seem like a impractical luxury in itself, is that the original audience, who were very likely villagers in old England, were just like Jack and his mother, so poor that they were, at times, driven to steal in order to survive. And the simple facts that the giant had plenty but was still greedy and hard-hearted was basically all that an audience like that would need to make it easy enough for them to stomach Jack's villainy. I also noticed that the older version in video that I mentioned, the one closer to the original story, was filmed in 1933, during the height of our country's Great Depression when so many people were starving and had no way of making a living. Coincidence? Probably not. The American audience viewing it at the time would have been more inclined to side with Jack as well.

I am still pondering the connections between poverty and crime, asking questions like, "Why is it that most juvenile delinquents come from impoverished areas within our cities?" I figure it can't always be a coincidence. And, I am thankful that here in my warm house with my full belly and with plenty of money in my wallet right now, the lines between right and wrong will continue to remain very distinct for me.

We took a trip to Cabela's on Saturday. I am the proud owner of a shiny new Smith and Wesson .38 Special. I wonder how many hours Norah's has had to wait on her parents in this store.

We asked the Arbour's to come over and babysit and they obliged us. We wanted to go to the range so I could practice with my new gun. Dwayne made me drive his car on the way over and I agreed reluctantly. But, I figure since I am learning to operate a firearm, I should be able to drive a stick shift for goodness sake.

Dwayne sets up our target during the ceasefire. It was a beautiful fall day to be at the range.

His and hers unloaded and pointed downrange.

Dwayne's gun is such a gentle shot compared to mine! My revolver really kicks and I didn't mind it at the time, but as I type this, I'm really feeling the consequences in my right hand.

The worst part is running out of ammo.

"Necessity first mothered invention.
Now invention has little ones of her own, and they look just like grandma."
- EB White

Our TV died. Dwayne carried the 200 lb. behemoth to the city dump last weekend.

Now would be an almost perfect time to justify that fancy new flat screen, if it weren't for the fact that we just agreed to wait till we have the cash.

I would love to categorize "new flat screen" the same way I would say... a new washing machine, but I can not.

Even in today's world, a TV is not a necessity. It just really looks like one.

And, when I feel tempted to cave because I can't watch O'Reilly after dinner, I try to remind myself that White wrote what he did back when women were trading perfectly good washboards in for shiny new Whirlpools, and that it was just as true then as it is today when families are ditching perfectly good box TVs for flat panels, because they "take up less space."

Men and women, especially the American variety like Dwayne and I, often find creative ways to disguise their greed as need.

So, it will likely be Christmas, at least, before I can listen to Megyn Kelly debate cases. Sniff. Sniff. But, in the meantime, Dwayne and I are exercising our ability to be content in "whatsoever circumstance."

We're also playing a lot of cards.

A few weeks ago, we attended our park's grand opening. There were kids everywhere. Most of them go to the local elementary schools and play for our neighborhood's sports leagues after school and on weekends. The kids wore their jerseys and marched in the parade. All of them waved little American flags. That scene was pretty heart-warming for me, while it lasted.

Later in the day, when it was time for the jump castles, the kids abandoned their shoes and hats and disposed of their flags, leaving them lying all over the ground. As they fought over places in line, they started trampling the flags under their feet, spreading them around, getting them dirty, lodging them into the grass. Some of the kids actually noticed what they were stepping on since the little poles were jabbing them in the bottom of their feet, but they didn't bend down and pick them up, they just kicked the flags out of their way and went on rough-housing.

As you can see, I couldn't stand it, so I picked up all the flags and tried to keep them off the ground by propping them in a shoe. A few minutes after I took the photo above, I came back and found them on the ground again. I guess the kid who owned that high top must not have liked them there. At this point, my blood reached a boiling point and I just picked up all the flags and took them for myself, almost daring somebody to confront me about stealing the kids' souvenirs.

Now, I realize public education is an easy target and I grow weary of taking aim at it, believe it or not. Kids getting shot, teachers sleeping with students, students beating up bus drivers, and I am not even mentioning the loads of things I endured while there, since those incidents actually seem somewhat trivial in comparison to the headlines these days. I really don't want to drag the school system through the mud, kick it while it's down, so to speak, because I am not entirely convinced homeschooling is the way every family should educate their children. There are good public schools out there. I think there must be.

And, more to their credit than to my own, I even manage to maintain friendships with people who send their kids to public school. I respect them as diligent parents and they gracefully tolerate me even though I could be a self-righteous nuisance to them about this subject. So, for the sake of peace, I usually ignore nine out of ten things that cause me to think and throw my hands up and say to my husband, though usually in private, "That's why I home school!" But, I can't ignore this one. It seems too fundamental to overlook.

What are the teacher's around here using the hours and hours spent in history and social studies classes to teach kids, if not this? These are government-run schools, for goodness sake! The kids say the pledge every single morning. I'm entirely bewildered and incensed by so many of the next generation treating the flag with such disregard, such disdain. If anyone should be learning respect and esteem for our country's flag, shouldn't it be public schooled children?