Suffer the little children...

Today, when we walked into Mass, it was as quiet as a tomb.

How prescient. 

Two parents with five children trooped into church today. Before the Gospel, two parents with five children trooped back out.

Why?

Because I will not stay where my children are not welcome. 

But let me back up and give you the full story.

A few months ago, our parish (because of a lack of priests) cut out one Sunday Mass and shifted the remaining Mass times. Our "normal" Mass time was pushed half an hour earlier. Because Hubby works nights (and by necessity sleeps late), it was tough for us to make the new, earlier Mass time. So we started going to Mass at a different parish that had a later Mass time. The new parish has no attached school (read: fewer children), but does have a young priest who gives excellent homilies. I loved going to Mass at the new parish because my sons got to see a young man, vibrant in faith, who has answered God's call to the priesthood. As an added bonus, the building was constructed in the mid-1800's, and is absolutely breathtaking. (Our parish church was built less than 10 years ago. Eyesore. Sad, but true.) There is beautiful, beautiful music - great cantor, knock-your-socks-off choir, pipe organ. Smells and bells all the way. Hubby & I had considered officially changing parishes.

I don't see that happening now.

Today, we arrived for Mass our usual 15 minutes early. We came in, crossed ourselves, genuflected, and entered the pew. I didn't have to bug anyone to scoot down, everyone filed in like we've done this 1000 times before - which we have. We sat in our usual spot: a few rows from the front, on the right. Hubby & I knelt to pray. Adam, Luke, and Joey did the same. Gracie thumbed through the missal. Sam babbled.

The nerve of that baby. He made normal baby noises.

By the looks I got from the older women sitting near us, it was apparent that this joyful noise unto the Lord was most unwelcome. This sound of LIFE, to members of a religion that goes out of its way to profess its unwavering conviction about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, was very, very unwelcome.

Let me make myself clear - he was babbling. Not screaming. Not crying. Not hitting anyone, throwing anything, having a tantrum, making a scene. He. Was. Babbling.

So the woman sitting two rows in front of us was apparently so distressed at his presumption that she felt it her duty to turn and give my son The Eye. She turned herself, head and shoulders, all the way around in her pew, to make sure that my little heathen child - who's sole purpose was to wreck havoc upon the the Holy Mother Church and bring about all of our ruin and damnation - she had to make sure my evil child (and, by association, my heathen husband, who was holding said Spawn of Evil) knew that he was disrupting her serene and quiet contemplation of her own silent perfection, moral spotlessness, and unparalleled charity.

Sensing the snit that was brewing, I motioned for Hubby to pass the baby to me, thinking that it was pretty close to nap time and some good walking at the back of the sanctuary could send Rosemary's Baby into dreamland and therefore avoid snittery.

I rose with Sam, exited the pew, genuflected (no mean feat with 27 pounds of evil in your arms) and started walking back down the aisle that I had just come up not three minutes earlier. I passed a pair of grey-haired ladies on my way, one of whom whispered to me, "Thank you."

Um, I'm sorry, but WHAT?!

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

And this is where I rant, because I couldn't do it there. 

We are (supposed to be) a Church that embraces - no, celebrates and rejoices in - LIFE. Guess what? These are the sounds of that life! Here I am, a married mother of five children, a cradle Catholic who loves her faith, the Holy Father, the Sacraments, the Church - and you made me feel ashamed, if only for the smallest fraction of a moment, of my child.

Do you have any idea of the Herculean effort it takes to get a family of seven to Mass on time? Everyone must be breakfasted, hair brushed, teeth brushed, shoes found and on the right feet, clothes clean and pressed and on, baby nursed, everyone bathroomed, out the door ("No! Do NOT brush against the dusty car in your clean clothes!") and in the pew before the entrance hymn. My husband gets home from work at 3 am. He gets up at 8 am on Sundays so that we can be out the door on time. I am a full-time nursing student. We homeschool. We are busy people. The Church - the Mass - is at the center of ALL of that. I bank on that grace to get me through another week!

Let's assume for a minute that I'm not well-grounded in my faith. That I'm not a card carrying member of the open-to-life club. That I don't know my cherubim from my seraphim. Let's say that I was a mom who had to beg and cajole her husband to bring the kids and come to Mass. What did you and your judgement just do? You denied my family a place at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You made sure that we wouldn't darken the doorstep of another Catholic Church for a good, long time. You are culpable in the eternal damnation of seven people. Good job! Glad you got that quiet time before Mass started.

Children are not the future of the Church. Let's be crystal clear on this point - my baptized-and-well-catechized children have just as much right to be at Mass as anyone else. My children are the Church, just as any baptized person is.

They are the children of the Almighty. And He loves them.

Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Mt 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.


How can we expect children to be raised in the faith if we do not welcome them into it? Here we could take a lesson from our Protestant bretheren: they know families. They know how to treat little people. Ah, the irony is rich here! I know that as Catholics we want our children with us at worship - and I agree that children should be in Mass and not at CCD or "Sunday School" during Mass time. Their place is at Mass. They need to be present at the Consecration, to see the miracle of Christ made real, Christ present for every one of us. They need those graces. So do I. But after a few minutes with my fifth blessing in the back of the sanctuary - where neither of us could see a darn thing and I couldn't let him down, as he would have drooled all over the pretty display for the Young Adult Ministry (yes, Lord, I see the irony, too!) I left. I fled the church. Me. I got the stroller out of the minivan and I walked two blocks to the mall.

So if I felt unwelcome - (me! Cradle Catholic. Homeschool nutjob who has her kids memorize the Baltimore Catechism. Married in the Church. Former Pre-Cana sponsor. Me.) - how would a lonely, searching, unmarried mom of one little baby feel, surrounded by so much judgement? One hairy eyeball and one smarmy comment were enough to ruin my whole morning, and make certain that I'll never cross the threshold of that sanctuary again. What if I had no other options? What if I couldn't drive to another Mass? What if the only experience I had of the Church was that one from this morning?

No wonder vocations are at a critical level.

Am I angry? You bet your chapel veil I am! Don't mess with my children. Don't mess with my Church.

Kids are resilient - a rant

I picked up a book at the library a few weeks ago, upon the suggestion of someone on a message board. The book is called "Free from Lies" by Alice Miller. She outlines, in broad strokes, her theory that childhood trauma must be validated in order for the adult to have a healthy emotional life. She asserts that most people who suffer from adult depression do so because they have denied (and others have ignored or denied) the trauma or abuse that depressed adults suffered as children. Though I don't agree with every premise the author suggests, there are some points that she makes that are very insightful. First and most important, she challenges the idea that "kids are resilient."

I've always felt and understood, as a child of an abusive home myself, that children are NOT resilient. Children have no power in the world. Children do not CHOOSE to "deal" with the situation in which they live. Children have to cope, with the best (read:inadequate) mechanisms they have, with what adults subject them to. Children are not resilient. The definition here tells us that resilient means "recovering readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like." In situations of abuse, there is no "ready recovery." There is suppression and coping. Children do not have the capacity that many adults have, to emotionally process what's happening, to escape the situation that's causing stress, to compare a situation to a frame of reference and understand the abnormality of an event. Children are NOT resilient. They cope because they have no choice.

There are a few situations in which I see this happening - situations in which adults deny the trauma to which children are subjected:

1. Divorce. Do I really need to say this?! How is it that many of us don't understand that divorce emotionally devastates children? The very foundation of a child's life is the dependance he has on his parents. "Oh, they'll be fine. They'll cope. They'll get over it." Really? REALLY?! A child's entire world changes, is turned upside down, and we just expect them to get over it? How do we assume that children don't feel? That because they are young and little that their feelings are less than our own? As adults, we have the choice of whether or not we subject our children to suffer such a monstrous blow.

As a society, we frown on "staying together for the children." Why the hell shouldn't we try, with every, every, every effort that we have to keep marriages intact for our children? Are people really so selfish that they can't work like their own lives depend upon the success of their marriage? How about working on their marriage because their children are worth it? "Oh, I just fell out of love with my husband." Are. You. Serious? This isn't like falling off a ladder- you don't "fall out of love" with someone. The kind of love it takes to hold together a marriage is a love that has to be chosen. Every day. It's work sometimes. (Heck, some years it's even work a lot of the time.) But these are our children we're talking about.

2. Bullying. One of the main arguments I hear against homeschooling is that I'm not teaching my children how to handle bullies. And that's a valid argument, because I'm not teaching them about bullies. In the adult world, if someone at work harasses you, you take it up with HR. If some acquaintance physically assaults you, you call the police and press charges. In the kid world, those aren't options. In the kid world, you keep your mouth shut and your head down and you hope to God that adults don't get involved because then the bullying worsens and becomes more insidious. But as adults, we forget that. Frankly, I think that all the "bullying awareness" that we have now in schools sounds great on the surface (sounds great to adults), but is just another impotent attempt of adults to make an artificial environment (school, where everyone is segregated by age) operate as a cohesive society. Crazy talk, I tell you. Let's put a group of people who don't have a skill (socialization) together to teach each other that skill that they don't know. Blind leading the blind. Brilliant.

3. Alcoholism. As the child of two alcoholics, I became an expert at keeping The Secret. Any ACOA (Adult Children of Alcoholics) knows what I mean. No one outside the family must ever, ever know what goes on behind closed doors. Problem? There's no problem! See? Good student! Involved in school activities! Has a part-time job, boyfriend, friends! Cheerful! Normal, normal, normal! But the problem comes later, when The Secret is out. When the adult (and less often, the child) stops hiding the truth and lets it free, there is a huge, huge tendency of others to deny the reality of what happened. "Oh, you're such a normal person - surely you're exaggerating! I've met your parents. They're great people." Yes, they're great actors. The whole family is. That's why you don't believe!

Back to the book - the author has some things to say about how we, as adults, validate the feelings of children. We should admit our own mistakes. We don't want to put the expectation of forgiveness on our children - that is a child's free will, a gift that they can choose or not choose to give, without coercion. But we must acknowledge the "wrongness" of a situation. "I yelled at you, and that was wrong. I'm sorry, and I'll try to do better." And also, we need to understand, truly internalize, that the feelings of children are just as valid as those of adults. Children are people - they feel, oftentimes more acutely, the same feelings we feel. We adults should keep that in mind when we expect children to be "resilient."

So much to say, so much to say, so much to say

I know I've been gone a while. Sorry. Having four kids, being pregnant, and trying to get into nursing school keeps me hoppin'!

Wait, didn't I bring everyone up to speed? Lemme start again:

1. I've gone back to school. Since a BS in Education won't get me anywhere, I'm working toward an ASN. Hopefully, I'll graduate in May of 2013, pass my NCLEX and become an RN. Pray for me.

Okay, yeah, I know I said a few posts back that one cannot work 40 hours a week and still run a household and parent effectively. I still stand by that, 100%. So Hubby or I will be part-time. (Hopefully, it'll be me. We'll see.) My decision to go back to school was based on a lot of factors. Can we make it on one income? Yes. Do I want to continue to juggle as we have been, since the recession hit? No. We're doing just fine, but I need a little more security, a little more certainty. One of us needs to have a recession-proof job. And one of us needs to work while the other goes to school. It just makes sense that the person going back to school would be me - Hubby has a job (while I would have to look for one, and being with child doesn't exactly endear one to potential employers), and since I have one degree already, my getting a second degree is faster than Hubby going back and starting from scratch.

So, why nursing? I wanted a worthwhile job, one that is more than punching a time-clock. I want to serve. (Coming from an education background, I felt a strong need to contribute.) I want job security for my family. I want a job that makes me think. Nursing offers me all that. It's a technical field, I'll constantly be challenged, be learning, be thinking. It's not a job in which I can rest on my laurels. I need that constant mental stimulus. Nursing is obvious.

2. I'm pregnant with #5. And if I hear one more person ask, "You mean, ON PURPOSE?!" I think I just may scream. Good heavens, people - I have four children already! I know how this happens! (What is it Janet Smith says? "If you don't want to go to New York, don't get on the train!") What ever happened to "Congratulations!" I think the assumption is, since Hubby lost his job in 2008, we are somehow destitute. Not the case, thanks. He's making just about what he was then. We have insurance. Anyone notice that we're frugal? We don't throw money around. It's wasteful. So thanks for your concern, but we're doing just fine. Yes, we live in a 3 bedroom with soon-to-be five children. Babies don't take up much room, I've noticed. We have plans to move, but not until I'm out of school (either by flunking out - KIDDING! - or by graduating.) So the problem will be solved in a couple of years. I like my very small house payment. I know only one other family that pays three digits, besides us. It helps us live below our means.

Well, that sounded rather rant-y, for an update. I'll be back as time allows. Hopefully next time I'll have pictures!

Homeschooling & Standardized Tests

I've been homeschooling (formally) for 5 years. I've grown a pretty thick skin about most of the incredulous "harrumphing" that most folks send my way about our decision to keep the kids home and educate them (notice I did not say "school them") ourselves. I don't think most people realize how insulting it is to a homeschooler to say, "Oh, I couldn't do THAT!" while in a discussion about homeschooling. I try not to take it personally when I get the "I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged because I couldn't give them everything that schools can!" It does take a monumental effort not to roll my eyes when the "S word" comes up. (Do those people actually know what socialization means?) But the one question that sends me over the edge, with heart racing and teeth bared, ready for a fight to the intellectual death, is the testing question.

"Well, don't they require homeschoolers to pass some kind of requirements? Don't they have to be, like, tested?"

Ooh, blood boiling just typing it out!

Let's get a few little idears straight in our pointy little heads, mmkay punkin?

Part I

1. Standardized testing is a load of horse manure, and any educator (that would be a university-trained and state-certified teacher, not a politician nor an administrator) worth her salt will tell you that. Standardized testing doesn't measure what a child knows. Let me repeat that, and I'll even put it centered and in boldface so that we can be crystal on this point:

Standardized testing doesn't measure what a child knows.

It only measures how well a student has absorbed and regurgitated a finite amount of narrow information stuffed into his noggin. Knowledge infers that a student has gained mastery of a body of ideas and concepts. Knowledge is demonstrated when a person can discuss intelligently, or demonstrate via physical method, a theory or event or historical trend or what-have-you. What a standardized test measures is (notice my subtle irony in format, here)

a. how well a student "tests"

b. memorization of a limited number of facts

c. whether or not said student can sit still for an extended period of time without becoming mind-numbingly bored

d. how effective his teacher was in stuffing his head full of trivia

e. all of the above

2. Standardized tests are time-wasters in the classroom.

And that's because...

3. Standardized tests strip classroom teachers of professional dignity.

As a society, we send young people to universities and put them through the mind-numbing hell that comprise modern Methods classes. We expose them to a multitude of educational philosophies, beat them with educational psychology, flog them with pedagogical nonsense about evaluation methods and the benefits of group work versus independent work, chasten them with Horace Mann and John Dewey, barrage their brains with theories about learning styles and gender differences in the classroom and the effect of economic class on reading proficiency, and spit them out the other side as certified teachers. (And, in my state, laughably, force them to pass a standardized test for licensure after spending 4+ years extolling the evils of said tests!)

After all that "schooling," we don't even trust them to teach our children. We constantly look over their shoulders via standardized tests to see what they're doing. Via the testing medium, we tell them what to teach and when, and how! Right now, you're probably shuddering in horror, thinking that I'm advocating some kind of educational free-for-all, where crazy liberal teachers get free rein to teach about the history of Scotch tape in literature class, but stick with me for a sec.

Standardized tests tell teachers what to teach, and when to teach it, and what facts are most important. Do we really need a professional for such drivel? Really?!

Think about it - a young teacher graduates from university, gets her first job, and has all these wonderful ideas bouncing around in her head about the fantastic world that she can open to the students in her class. There is a feast of knowledge out there - a FEAST! - but her job hinges on the performance of her students on a standardized test. Out goes the fire, in comes the rote memorization of dry facts, facts that will let Ms. I Just Graduated With Student Loan Debt and Need To Pay The Rent and Feed My Cat keep her job, if only the children will fill in the right bubbles on the Scantron form.

Have you gotten the point, yet? Those tests aren't about what children KNOW. They're about SCHOOL FUNDING. They're about MONEY, not knowledge or - saints preserve us! - EDUCATION! They're about $$$$! (No Child Left Behind - schools lose their funding if they don't perform. Sound like a good idea? School is failing, so let's give them even LESS money to fix the problem! Can't buy the testing prep materials or pay for professional development for your teachers? Take THAT! Muhahaha! We showed you! Now you can't even update the textbooks! So there! Teach those kids NOW! Hahaha! Twirl mustache evilly, exit stage left!)

Part II

Exempting homeschoolers from standardized testing is a no-brainer. The reason I homeschool (okay, one of the twenty reasons I homeschool) is to enjoy the freedom of chasing rabbit-trails. If the boys are interested in the Civil War, we dive in. Right now, we're on a solar system kick. We're talking about planets and comets and orbits and light years, and it's lighting a fire under them to learn MORE. There is no pressure to "finish the book" by the end of the year. I don't need some educrat telling me that fourth grade is for state history, and the Civil War will be covered again in eighth grade. Strike while the iron is hot, that's what I say. I am the parent, and I have a vested interest in helping my children succeed - and that is best served by teaching them how to get to the information they want and getting out of their gosh darn way! They can learn loads better when I'm not acting as the gatekeeper of information, doling out morsels as it's convenient for me. My job is to point to the feast and help them find a fork.

So, yeah, there's that other question you're going to ask me, right? The one about those parents who took their kids out of school just to hide them from CPS, or the couple that are too scatterbrained to pull together any kind of education for their children. And you know what? That's part of living in a free society. I am not volunteering my children to be punished for the mistakes (or willful negligence) of someone else. If we follow that line of reasoning that tells us that we have to check up on everyone so that no child falls between the cracks, then is it really that far of a stretch to say that we should all submit to DNA testing for the police to keep on file, in case anyone commits a crime? Or that we should just get rid of that pesky little idea of a search warrant - after all, why would any innocent person have anything to hide, right? So let's just test ALL the homeschoolers, because we need to "make sure," y'know, that they're "learning."

I am the parent of these children. It is my God-given duty to educate them. Again, I have a vested interest. My children are mine, not the government's, to raise. With my values - and that includes educational theories and religious beliefs and thoughts about the solar system and the Civil War.

Lastly, there is this thought:

Q: what happens to school children who fail standardized tests?

A: They go right back for MORE schooling! Duh!

Does that strike anyone else as mind-numbingly, well, stupid? The school failed to "teach" the student, so the student goes back for MORE? (What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.) So, in the thought process of the person asking me the "don't your kids have to be tested?" question, if my children failed a standardized test, why would I send them to a traditional school? Shouldn't I just lose some of my government funding (oh, wait, I don't get any) and then continue on as usual?

Makes sense to me.

Hmmm... Feminism

Now that I'm no longer working the insane hours of retail at Christmas (did I mention I had to be at work at 4am?! OUCH!), my brain has started functioning again. As a consequence, I've been throwing around an idea in my head, a little internal argument that I can't solve on my own. Here's the question:

Has modern feminism gone too far? Has it not gone far enough? Has it gone in the wrong direction?

To the last question, I can answer a resounding "YES!" The other two... well, I'm still working on those.

Are we, as women of Western culture, better off because of feminism? Yes and no. I'm glad that I'm not (usually) talked down to because I'm a woman. I'm glad that I can earn a decent wage, that I'm seen as an intelligent, competent person. I'm not anyone's property, I can vote, I can run for office, and I can have and defend my own opinion. Those are all great things. But I think we'd all agree that something has been lost.

First, I think that feminism, in its way, devalues the contributions to society that are (primarily) made by women. So many feminists that I've encountered want to be seen as the same as men. Gosh, I don't. I want to be a woman, but with the same rights as a man. Can I have it both ways?

Did I lose you back in that last paragraph? Feminism devaluing women? Yeppers. Happens all the time. How many times have you heard someone say, "Does your wife work, or does she stay at home with the children?" (Let one of those blockheads stay home with my brood for a day, and they'll see WORK!) or "Girls can be anything at all when they grow up. They can be pilots, or Senators, or mechanics, or doctors." Umm... where is MOTHER in that laundry list? Well, okay, sometimes it gets tacked on those sentences. Usually like this, "Girls can be anything at all when they grow up. They can be pilots, or Senators, or mechanics, or doctors. Or even mothers." Gee, thanks. Even mothers, huh? Wow. What a wonderfully glowing accolade for the job on the planet that keeps the human race alive. You're welcome, by the way.

Oftentimes, feminists discourage femininity. It is implied to be equal with weakness. Subservience. Timidity. How many times do you think of a strong, modern woman, with intelligence and strength - and then picture a woman with a child on her lap, reading a story? Or sewing? Or knitting? Or cooking a meal for her family? Intelligence? Strength? Child-rearing? KNITTING? Oh, the horror of being a feminine feminist!

Shallow-minded feminism (which is the most common kind, I'm afraid) tells women that to be valued, we must be like men. Not "equal to" men. Not "have the same opportunities" as men. But we must be as men.

And how, pray tell, is that feminism?

It's just the same tired devaluing of women, in new clothes. Now women aren't seen as stupid or without ambition, unless they choose to stay home and raise children. Please don't misunderstand my motive, here. I'm not bitter. Not in the least. Just callin' it like I see it.

I feel a bit cheated by feminism. The illusion of "having it all." It's just not possible. I'm not trying to fight another skirmish in the Mommy Wars by pointing this out, but working 40 hours outside the home, raising children, and trying to keep a house (and make it into a home) is not something that can be done well. By anyone. Something has to give. Eventually, that house of cards comes down, either in a big crash, or a slow slide. But come down it does.

There is a widespread idea that feminism created a perceived need for two incomes. As more women started working outside the home, prices rose as a reaction to households having more disposable income. As a consequence, when some families kept to the one-wage-earning-parent model*, it becomes challenging to "keep up," further entrenching each side of the debate of wealth versus family. (Keeping up is another post.)

And we don't even need to talk about reproductive "freedom." How many women have been coerced into abortions? How many women are taking harmful pills or injections that override their bodies' natural functions, in the name of "freedom?" How many women are raising children on their own, because they tried to be like men and see intimacy as no big deal, and just a physical act? (Please understand that I know all men don't think this way, but this is the way society conditions us to see a man's point of view.) How many men and women are living together, with children and without marriage, because marriage is seen as something outdated, only needed by insecure, grasping people who need a piece of paper to seal a commitment?

I'm grateful for feminism. I'm grateful for the opportunities bought for me by the sacrifice and insistent voices of so many women. And I think it's gotten off track. Or maybe it was wrong at its start: I can't tell you, I hadn't been born yet. But I can say, with honesty, that mainstream feminism is broken, and entirely too man-centric. It focuses on making women like men. And I think that subverts what should be the bedrock of feminism: women are valuable as women. Not because we wear dresses or perfume or makeup (though those are very nice perks) but because we are strong, we make unpopular choices (like giving up a career bought by years of education to kiss sticky faces and get stains out of laundry), and we are unique. And we are not men. (Let's face it girls, the men are better men than we'll ever be. Thank God.)

*see, the feminist in me won't even allow that this sentence would be better served by coming out and saying the father works outside the home!

Mad Cow Testing...or "Why We DON'T eat Beef"

A few years ago (8? 9?) we became a no-beef household. We just don't eat it. Primarily because of problems with "downer cattle" and Mad Cow Disease, and the glaring and willful incompetence of the FDA and its refusal to acknowledge the issue. And after reading this article, my decision is reaffirmed. Unless I know the farmer and the cow that I'm eating, there is NO WAY that potentially disease-ridden garbage is going to pass my lips or be fed to my children! (Hmmmm... does that mean that beef farmers/ranchers are going to sue me now, like Oprah? Where's Dr. Phil?!) 

Let's review the facts, shall we? Mad Cow Disease is fatal. If a human being acquires the disease, that person will eventually have a brain that resembles swiss cheese more than gray matter. The USDA currently tests 1% of US beef, because of the "low incidence" (their words, not mine) of Mad Cow. Hmmmm... the low incidence wouldn't have anything to do with the miniscule testing, would it? It's kinda hard to find something that you're purposefully not looking for. 

And that brings me to my next joke - GMO labeling. Currently, the European Union requires labeling of all agricultural products that contain genetically modified organisms. Why don't we require it here in the US? Because the Government has decided for us Little Folks that it's perfectly safe to throw GMOs into our food, so why should we worry? Uncle Sam is watching out for us, keeping all those big, complicated, scary thoughts at bay, so that agribusiness can go on as usual, making its monster profits, and poisoning our planet in the process. WTG, lobbyists! High five on hoodwinking the American public! 

What ever happened to the idea of a free market? Let the consumer decide whether or not she wants to buy the GMO corn or not. Good grief. Sometimes I feel like the only sane person in an asylum. 

There are so many things that are just so wrong, all around us. The environment, the food we eat, the screwy welfare system, abortion, circumcision, healthcare, vaccines, education, (not so) free trade, rampant consumerism, the media's sexualization of children, oy vey! The list goes on and on. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'm so darn tired of people looking at me like I'm nuts because I actually care about doing my little part to fix things. Folks look at me like I have a third eye because I refuse to just numbly nod my head and blankly smile when faced with idiocy. I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend that I don't know what I know - when I see something wrong, darn it, I'm going to say it's wrong! I can't be a lemming, jumping off a cliff because it makes people around me comfortable. 

Logging in...

I've been trying to log into my new blog for several days, now. I haven't had any luck, because I couldn't remember my password. I have such a tough time remembering all the darn passwords that go along with my life: my passwords for online banking, my passwords for various websites which I use to pay bills, my passwords for different email accounts, my passwords to log into bulletin boards, my passwords for my ATM card, DirecTV account, and the latest - in addition to a password, we now have a verification question for our cell phone account! Not only do I have to remember my passwords, I have to remember the answer to this darn question, who the question applies to, and how to spell the answer. Like anyone is that darn interested in my cell phone bill!

And every site has different parameters for passwords. Some are case-sensitive. Some want numbers and letters. Some want at least eight characters, some six. Is it really that crazy-dangerous that someone might *gasp* see how much my power bill is, that I have to encrypt it with eight numbers and letters that don't repeat, aren't my birthday or my social security number, and share no characters with my name? (And if you've seen my whole name, you know what a feat that is!) 

Am I the only one that thinks this may be going a bit too far?