Thursday, February 26, 2009

Out of Control Feminism

There are a lot of things that bother me. I try not to lose my temper over them...well, at least not in public. But this is a blog, and my blog at that. I will now express my views of feminism. Bear with me here.

Feminism, to me, is a pretty stupid idea. All this "women's rights" stuff probably had good intentions in the beginning, but has gotten out of hand. Women are not equal to men--it's that simple! It is impossible for them to be so, unless they become men. And even after an operation and many steroids and testosterone pills, I have this feeling that a woman's brain would still work like a woman's brain. Men and women are very, very different. Sure, some women are more "tomboyish", and some men exhibit "feminine" qualities, though these days it is sad that sensitive, gentlemanly, chivalrous men are often confusedly perceived by our perverted society as being gay, when in fact they are far from it. Psychologically androgynous folks such as myself and a few of my friends are probably about as "gender-neutral" as you will find. But I still have my distinctly feminine personality traits, interests, talents, and thought patterns, besides being aware that I am a lady and sticking to that concept (have I ever mentioned how much I love dressing up and getting very pretty for a nice occasion?). And, though I am very athletic, I have a woman's body, which is genetically much weaker than a man's. The same thing with a guy friend of mine...androgynous, but distinctly masculine (the good kind of masculine), psychologically and physically.

No feminist movement is going to change these giant genetic differences between men and women. Still, some things are changing, and it is very upsetting. Women are becoming aggressive, and men are becoming passive. I never understood why, when I was younger, I would mention that found a guy attractive, and my public schooled girl friends asked whether I had asked him out, and if I hadn't, they suggested that I should. Why? If he isn't interested in me enough to ask me out, why should I ask him out? And the reason I get is that "it really puts a lot of pressure on the guy to ask the girl out", this from both guys and girls.  Well, you know what? BE A MAN and get over the pressure! Women are becoming the men because they seem to get over that pressure pretty quickly. And dating is just one scenario (which, for the record, I would not have considered anyways, no matter who did the askings-out).

Another situation: in a household which would be considered "sexist", typically a woman is not demeaned to some object which the man won like a trophy and can do what he likes to with. Yes, maybe back a few hundred years ago it was common. But since....oh, when was it, King Arthur's day?...the treatment of women has gotten steadily better. Of course, there have always been insecure, power-hungry "men" who like to lord over their wives and abuse them in a variety of different ways. But I have grown up in a household where my father is the man of the house and my mother willingly submits. She is not in any way his slave. She has not lost any of her identity. I don't know why feminists think that this is what happens when a woman submits to her husband, as if submission has a terribly negative connotation. Our house is extremely well-balanced, compared to many unbalanced egalitarian households where there is a constant struggle to maintain equality in every little area. My mother is a housewife and a home school teacher; my father owns several different enterprises, big and small, and he is the breadwinner of the family. My mother, siblings, and I help out with some of the businesses from time to time, but the majority is done by my dad. He does not mind this, and works hard so that my mom does not have to go work outside the home. My parents make decisions together, but my dad has the final say. My mom is in charge of necessity shopping, so she handles most of that money. Never has there been an argument about who is supposed to be wearing the pants or about whose right it is to have something or to not do something. Almost all of my friends have families exactly like mine, and I intend to submit to my husband when I marry him and prevail to be "A Woman of Valor."  (for those of you know are scratching your heads, that is a reference to Proverbs 31:10-31. <<--Click on it.) 

I am not very well read-up on the history of feminism, that is true. I have never really wanted to be; "girl power" is a highly unattractive concept to me. Basically what I mean is that I do not like how feminism has evolved. Sure, it has good points and I am glad for many of the opportunities I have today. (However, voting is a silly, unimportant little game which I do not care to take part in ever again.) But I personally feel that feminism has gotten way out of hand since the '60s or so. From my limited understanding of Feminism, I believe I recall the cause of it starting more in the '40s, when men went off to war and women ended up having to go to work in order to earn enough for themselves and usually their children. Then somewhere down the line after a bit of a battle for better worker compensation, women realized that they did not need men in order to make a living. That was what sparked the line of feminism which I don't appreciate--the putting-down and hatred of being a housewife and of accepting one's actual femininity. It has gotten very out of hand, and gender roles are getting knocked around as if they are of no importance. 

I am not very fond of the idea of women in the military. I mean, obviously those women can do what they want to and I am not stopping them. But when the idea that women must have equal rights in serving in the military goes so far as to cause the next draft to draft women as well, I am greatly opposed to it. I guess, though, that in some areas I am not as anti-feminist as I like to think I am. I agree that if a woman holds the same job as a man, she should get paid the same as that man. I'm not going to go parading this view up and down the streets with big signs or go sending petitions to congress or anything like that, though. I am not a passionate feminist...more like an extremely passive one, and only on a few areas.

Still, I am not feminist in a lot of things I believe. In my sociology and psychology classes I have had conversations (sparked by the material) with both guys and girls who seem to have a great misunderstanding of men and women's places in a household. The girls believed that for a woman to be a housewife was meaningless and was squashing her identity as a person into oblivion. They believed it was pointless, old-fashioned, and absurd that I want to be one should I get married and have children rather than pursuing a career. The guys expressed that they wouldn't want their wife lounging around the house all day while they as the male worked their butts off to bring home money. I think both views are extremely short-sighted, but nobody wanted to listen to me very much. But I turn around to my friends I have known for my entire life or nearly so, and they all agree with me. My girl friends want to be housewives, mothers, and teachers, and my guy friends want to have the careers and bring home the bacon (turkey bacon, that is). And that has been the natural order since the beginning of time, really. There has to be balance in the household. Someone needs to be the head, the breadwinner, the stable rock, and the man of the relationship; someone needs to be the cleaner, the nurturer, the caretaker, and the woman of the relationship. Equality, in my opinion, is overrated and misunderstood in this sense. Also, as long as I didn't have children to care for I would be working outside the home to contribute to the income, though I would want to have time for cooking and cleaning so that my husband has a comfortable place to come home to and just let go and relax after a hard day at work. I wouldn't want, especially after kids, my husband to come home to TV dinners or takeout once again, kids running around wild all over the place because they learn no manners at school, and the house being a wreck all the time. And after I have kids, I imagine I will still keep myself busy in my spare time writing or composing, and/or perhaps I will have created some sort of passive income. Whatever I end up doing, my identity is going to be far from gone (yes…even *gasp* if I take his last name! What a surprise!). What I do isn’t who I am. I am what I am. I believe that I am what I think. I find my identity in that. Oh, and I would love to be known as the wife of my husband who is a mother to his children. I don’t know why anyone has a problem with that.  


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Sounds of the Morning

Music and Lyrics by Jessica

Verse One
The sentiments of judgment
Scarce can find
A blanket covering my fears

And the gracious bare sun glint
An empty abbey
Drowning out all my cries with the tears

Oh how the whippoorwill calls
Sweet like honey
As the woodpecker hammers
Rushing brook
Sounds of the morning
Far away for now
Far away for now

Verse Two
Mind wanders through the days
Blend together
Sensibility lost in a hurricane

The pain is now throbbing
Sky is dark
Cut off from love’s army

Do you look at me
Do you see me
Why is it solely one
Me thinking you’re the only one

Warm association
Pleasant sound vibration
Am I calloused
To my longing and desire?

Verse Three
Anxious and eager
A blank white wall
Don’t know why I hold you so dear…

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Wait....what do you mean by "family"?

My siblings and I are staying at my grandparent's for a few days, and tonight my great-grandmother took Marck, Robert, Grammy, Papa, Aunt Eleanor, and I out to eat pizza.  While we were eating another family walked in.  At least, I guess it was a family.

It was a mom, a dad, and two boys.  One of the boys looked to be about five, and the other one may have been eleven or so.  The eleven-year-old was playing a game on his cell phone, and the five-year-old was playing one of those Nintendo DS carry-around things as they walked in.  The parents ordered and the kids were still playing their games.  I could hear the music from the games halfway across the restaurant. 

This playing continued as the older boy and the parents went to the salad bar and got salads.  Eating and playing, playing and eating.  There was barely any talking from the table at all.  Finally the older boy put his phone away, and a while later, the mom told the younger boy that it was time for the game to go bye-bye for now since the pizza was almost there.  The younger boy was on the verge of a fit, and got a little talking-to from his mother.  The rest of the time he was squirmy (more than a typical five-year-old), moving all around his chair and looking very bored as he too sporadic bites of his pizza.  The older boy brought out his cell phone again about halfway through their meal.  I couldn't hear or see the family talking at all.  It was just sad.

Now, maybe this family goes out to dinner all the time and this was just another meal for them.  But when our family sits down all together for a meal (which isn't too common) we like to actually spend time with each other while doing so.  Going out to eat is something we don't do that often (because of the cost and because of the non-health-benefits associated with it), but when we do, it is a fun family activity.  I like my family and I like being with them.  Sure, I went through a phase when I was on the younger side of the teen years when I would bring a book whenever we went out to eat because I guess I wanted to read more than I wanted to be with my family or something like that.  Hey, at least books are better for your than portable video games.  

I just wonder what the point of having a family is if you go through life like that....ignoring each other.  "Who are those big people again?  Yeah, those embarrassing ones who wake me up at five in the morning to get on the bus, and who magically place food in front of me at dinner time and remind me to brush my teeth at night.  Who are those little people I keep tripping over?  I don't know, but when I come into contact with them it is incredibly annoying.  And that semi-big person?  I don't know who he is either, but he doesn't seem to like me very much."

Siblings grow up and don't even know each other, even though they should be best friends.  Parents don't know their children and aren't involved in their lives enough to recognize if the kids are getting into stuff they shouldn't.  The kids who suck their brains out playing video games all day become ADHD, and the only solution seems to be to medicate them and/or let them play more video games.  The kids also become very wonderful at developing surface relationships and terrible at developing deep ones.

It is just so sad.  I feel sorry for that family and every single one like it.  It must be awful to go through life like that.  And so what if both your parents work and they provide a big house for you to live in, millions of toys (excuse me, video games and movies), drive you around in nice cars, can afford for you a brand new car when you turn 16, and you can eat at nice restaurants every night?  What is the point of all that if you all hate each other because you hardly know one another?  If I had to give up my relationships with my mom, dad, and brothers just so I could have the life of luxury that everyone wishes they had at some point(s) or another, I wouldn't even think twice about doing it.  As long as I have my family I wouldn't mind a dumpster.  Okay, yes I would.  Maybe I should have used a different analogy.  A really bad looking lean-to shelter thing.  NOT a dumpster.  And not a port-a-potty.  

My parents have said that I can live with them forever if I want to.  Of course, not in the loser-who-lives-in-his-parent's-basement-and-plays-online-all-the-time kind of way.  In the way where I (eventually) will have a job/career around here someplace, so I can contribute to the house expenses, and I will help my mom keep the house as I do now.  Even if my brothers marry and move out (which I don't want them to till I get married, but in case that doesn't work out), I will stay with my parents, more than likely.  I guess if I get a job somewhere not close by I will have to move out, but I really don't want to live by myself, or with a bunch of girls.  I would want to live with a man, because otherwise I wouldn't feel safe.  So the only solutions are to live with a family wherever I move to, or get married.  Or just bloody stay here ;).  I don't know.  God will light my path when I get to that point.  Really, I want to only have two families in my life - the one I am living in now, and the one I start in the future when I get married.  

And I never, ever, ever, ever, EVER want to lose contact with my friends.  You guys are the greatest!!!  


Monday, February 16, 2009


This always happens.  I tell myself that I just need to get things done in the day and so I stay off anything related to internet communities until later in the evening after I feel like I have gotten everything useful done and I am too brain dead to accomplish anything else except sitting and typing random stuff.  However, during the day I get ideas for blog entries.  I had this great one today.  But as I sat down to write, I forgot why I was going to do a blog entry.  

Oh, right.  Brain dead.  

Something is coming to mind now that I was going to say something about the post Lizzie made before her flower arranging post about love.  But my last post was titled......well, you can just scroll down and see.  Yeah.  So I don't know.  

The problem with everything right now is that I did not eat enough for breakfast this morning.  I usually have my heaping bowl of cheerios and granola (actually, Joe's Os, and not Cheerios.  They are so much better.  Cheerios are yucky).  But I was trying very hard to stay on schedule this morning.  I got the last of the cheerios (I am just calling them that because it is easier), which did not fill up the bowl all the way exactly how I like it.  Now, I am always getting the bottom of the box.  I don't know why it always happens to me, but it does.  And I usually walk back to my parent's room and get another box.  (Don't look at me too strangely...we are just one of those weird families; we keep food everywhere.)  However, like I said I was kind of in a time crunch, so I just accepted my amount (also still feeling a little burned from Saturday's incident where everybody ate all the strawberries and I did not get any to put on my cereal simply because I did not eat breakfast till 1:30 pm and everybody thought I would have eaten it by then.  Injustice!!!!!), put my normal portion of granola on top of that, and sat down to eat.  By lunch, I was quite hungry.  I ate one piece of leftover pizza, since that was all I was allowed  to have, even though last night I only ate three when Marck got five pieces, and Marck got another piece today.  

Then, while cleaning the bathrooms, I got the munchies several times.  The first time, I tried desperately to eat the grape tomatoes that my mother had said when she bought them that I could have as many as I liked.  But then Robert said I had to stop eating them because we were going to have kabobs tonight and mom wanted to save the tomatoes for the kabobs.  My hopes and dreams blew out the window once again.  So I ate an apple next, and then a mozzerella cheese stick.  I still was feeling empty, so I resorted to a frozen biscuit, after eating a little tiny piece of steak my mom brought home from Outback on Saturday.  

Finally it was dinner time.  The kabobs were very tasty, but I don't know why nobody thought to purchase a pineapple to use for them.  

But now I am hungry again.  I think it's just that digestion-at-night kind of hungry, actually (the kind you usually get when you drink something fizzy), but I can't tell.  In whatever case, I should stop thinking about food and just go to bed.


Friday, February 13, 2009

Love, love, love, love, LOVE!!!!!!!

Stupid word.

Really?  I am in it for the chocolate. 

I don't mind Valentine's Day.  I'm no Scrooge like SOME people I know.  But Valentine's Day does get annoying, though I can't place my finger on what it is exactly.  When I was younger (from age twelve to age 15), I mourned the coming of Valentine's Day.  There I was again without somebody to love.  Silly little me.  At age 16, I thought it would be nice to get a rose.  I wasn't sure from whom, but I thought a rose was definitely in order for myself.  I had a dream around that time about a rose received from the man who was to become my husband (in my dream, though I never really saw his face of course), and I got upset that the petals started to dry up; I thought it meant that our love would dry up similarly.  But then the dried petals fell away and revealed a new rose, which was more vibrant, beautiful, and fragrant than the original.  And I guess that meant my Someone and I would live happily ever after, but I don't remember.  Anyways, at at 17 (which was last year), I can't remember.  I have no idea why I can remember something that happened to me two years ago, but not a year ago.  But it's like I've said before at some point...I got short term memory loss when I turned 17.  Hm...*checks blog entries around that time*  *sees some post about ruling over the Platinum lane*  *chuckles to self as she and Nathan were just trying to take over again*  *recalls that whenever there is something to be in charge of or taken over, she and Nathan are always either accomplices or enemies, but both at the top of the food chain, nonetheless*  *wonders at this*  *becomes silent and thoughtful for a moment*  *snaps out of it*

Well, it doesn't matter how I felt last year, I suppose, though I would really like to know, since right now it feels like I am squinting down a black hole of a memory trying to see what was going on, but failing miserably.  This year, however, I view things in a different way.  I guess.  I wouldn't know, but I'm sure I do.  *GASP*  I have GOT to call Elayna back!  *looks at clock*  It's always the wrong time to call her.  Either her family is doing school, I'm supposed to be doing school, I've got somewhere to go, she is eating dinner, I am making messy concoctions in the kitchen (you couldn't recognize the phone after my mom called when I was in the middle of making biscuits the other night).  If you are Elayna and you are reading this and I have not called you back by now, I am VERY sorry because I do keep meaning to.  But as I write this it is late at night and you all are probably going to bed.  

What was I saying?  Oh, yes.  Valentine's Day.

So.  Romance abounds, eh?  Yurp, sounds fun.  I have decided, however, that I do not want to go on a date for Valentine's Day unless:  

a)  It is for the purpose of proposing 
b)  We are already engaged
c)  We are already married

And since I have officially said that now, it would be recommended that whoever my Someone is NOT set Valentine's day to be the day of the proposal, because it would not be a surprise (which I would want it to be, despite not being overly fond of surprises), and also if we started courting....*cough* *sputter* *choke*....trouting in January or even December, it might be wise not to rush into engagement just because of the occasion of Valentine's Day.  And, as a matter-of-fact, I do not want to be proposed to on Valentine's Day.  I don't know why, but I just don't.  So maybe I shouldn't even consider number "a".  

Yes, I said number "a".  Don't panic.

Right now I just want to use Valentine's Day as an excuse to have a fun day to get together with girl friends and eat lots of junk food and watching romance movies, sappy or not.  My vote is for Pride and Prejudice, of course.  The new one...what a lovely movie!  It's just....perfect.  I love the scenery and the music more than anything else.  I wish I lived in England in the eighteenth century.  In the countryside.  And I wish I had a Mr. Darcy.  But that is fine.  

Valentine's Day is such a stupid concept, though.  What is the point?  For the record, every kiss does NOT begin with Kay!  If it did, Kay Jewellers would  have all the money in the world and would rule over all of us.  Would you like a jewellery store to rule over your lives?  I don't think so.  

And another thing......engagement rings.  I'm not staring at them night and day wondering which one will be on my finger.  I don't demand the biggest, most expensive one.  But I do want one.  It is only sensible.  As Elizabeth Elliot's father taught her brothers, a man should not say "I love you" till the engagement ring is on the woman's finger.  It's a symbol of a promise to marry, and I think that symbol is very important.  Again, I am not sure why, but that is what I think.  

Anyways, that's my take on Valentine's Day and the like for now.  


Monday, February 9, 2009

Warning: This Post Contains Trouting Thoughts

For those of you who know what I mean by trouting, have your nice reflective chuckle and then sip your decaffeinated coffee and read on.  For those of you who wonder why I am referring to fish on my blog when I do not particularly like fishing and would not be able to tell whether I was eating a catfish or a flounder were I served one of the two at the local seafood joint, 'tis your loss you didn't read my blog in the early days.  Oh, yes, it's been a not go back and read post number one.  It is probably boring and contains nothing about trouting.  Just stick with me here.

So I was feeling rather frustrated today, as I have been for about two weeks now.  Okay, frustrated is not the right word.  More, what is that word I always think of when I see a Gothic person?  It's on the tip of my tongue.  Oh, yes!  Conflicted.  I have felt quite conflicted for an estimated 10,000,000 reasons, all of which I couldn't put my finger on.  Many of them would come to mind, and I would get quite distraught over one thing before another thing would come up, and then another, and another, and pretty soon my head would be bustling with so much commotion that left my head and for a while my mainstream thought processes all took place in my esophagus (it wasn't very comfortable there, either, but it was better than my brain...and I wouldn't dare step near my heart, as it was surely much worse).  All of that to say that today I finally decided to stop putting off writing all that was in my brain down on paper, which is the only way I am able to keep anything straight and stay sane ("sane" probably being arguable to some people, but I am not asking those some peoples' opinions at this moment).  So, this entry took an hour and 45 minutes and was eleven pages long, which surprisingly did not top the record 14-page long journal entry of June, 2007 (and it wasn't even very interesting, but instead detailed three days worth of happenings, including the first meet of the season that the Seahawks won, a little meaningless piece about un-visiting with people, and the time when Sarah and I decided to start a trend of sitting on the black line on the pool deck).  Keep in mind that I do not have the pretty little diary that most girls have.  I just use 10 1/2 by 8 inch 1-subject spiral bound notebooks (they are good for long journal entries).  

AnyHOOness, I sorted through all my problems (looking back I now see that my handwriting is smaller than it was a year and a half ago, so that means that this entry probably would have been 14 pages had I written bigger), drew lots of conclusions, said lots of prayers, and I feel 97% better!  Now, as I was writing I started getting on the subject about how, in the course of my short life, I have come to know a few exceptional guys who have walked into my life just long enough for me to stop being annoyed with them and start wishing they would stick around more, and then they seem to just waltz back out just as daintily as they came.  (NOTE:  if you are a current/long-time guy friend of mine reading this, then I am probably not talking about you.  However, I beg you not to feel insulted.  I just take you for granted, that is all *winks*.)  

Gee, I want a Bolthouse Farms coffee drink right now!!  *resists temptation to jump in the car and go to the store*

So I started wondering, "why does it always happen to me?"  Well, it does, because I am me and as far as I know, I am the only one that anything happens to.  Aside from that shortsighted, anyways.  So the "nearly ideal" guy comes into my life.  I think, "wow, he is....everything I could have ever hoped for!"  The guy plays the piano, loves to read Charles Dickens, will talk philosophy with me, is mature, is family-oriented, shares the same ambitions as I do, wants a life I want, wants to homeschool his kids, makes me feel safe.....what more could I ask for?  So I get a little seed for the guy and I plant it in my heart, and a little plant grows for this guy.  It's not love, exactly.  I think it is a sense of completion that I long for that feels fulfilled by this guy.  So the plant grows and grows and then something happens.  Contact is lost somehow, or I just get forgotten, and it's like the plant is ripped off from its base.  The problem is, the roots are still there and  they are deep.  And once I finally finish digging the roots out, there is a hole and a lot of dirt gone where the plant used to be.  And the hole aches in an empty kind of way.  I get confused because something that was there is suddenly gone.  It's like he died, but not really.  When someone dies they are gone from this earth but they are still in your heart.  The only thing left of this guy is his hole in my heart.  And suddenly I wish I had never known him.  After a while I get used to the hole, but I can still feel it.  

So then I start feeling insecure and wondering if something is the matter with me, and conclude that I am nowhere near anybody's "near ideal" of a wife.  Because if I was, then these wonderful guys would be a little more desperate to have me around, right?  Hmph.  Well, it's not like that mattered before, right?  So why should it matter now?  (don't you just hate it when insecure feelings creep up on you when you wish they wouldn't?)  So I ignored that idea, and then immediately got another epiphany--what if I am only perfect for one guy?


What a concept, eh?  Why didn't I think of that before?  Here I was, suddenly wishing lots of guys would be in love with me for some stupid reason (the stupid reason being for my wishing, not for why the guys would like me), and all along how could I have not seen that that isn't the way it should be anyways?

So (in my journal, in the last paragraph on page 8 of the entry) I decided to pose the question to myself so as to make my point perfectly clear, "What would I rather be?  Seemingly perfect to several guys who all pursue me but none of whom may be the right one, for actually perfect for one guy?"  

Really and truly?  The second one.  I mean, with me and my female runaway romantic imagination and all, I can't help but look at the latter option and sigh, thinking, "how sweet!"  I mean, sure...anybody wants to be loved, adored, and respected by multiple members of the opposite sex.  But I like to think I have a soul mate out there, and that he and I are perfect for one another, even if neither of us seems like the ideal to anyone else.  And you know what?  Less hearts get broken that way!  

Plus, I am not all of who I will be in the next two-to-five years when I hope to be married.  I will grow a lot in that period, and while my personality will mostly stay the same, I am sure I will go through a lot that changes me.  My childishness and selfishness will get chiseled off, and the experiences I will have will "potentialize" me and make me into a fuller version of myself.  I am not perfect for someone right now, but I will be one day.  *dwells on that happy thought*

Love and Peace or Else,


Saturday, February 7, 2009

No More Parental Rights

From World Net Daily:

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
By Chelsea Schilling

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
  • A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

Jessica comments -- WHAT is this world coming to??  This has to be the stupidest idea ever.  With my new government-granted rights, I would like to throw them all out of office and take over the world myself.  If they don't let me they are interfering with my free will and rights as a person! *sticks nose in the air*  Fine, you know what?  I am leaving and going to Somalia.  

No, wait.  Its government patterns look almost as unstable as America's.  Never mind.  

Switzerland is better any day.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Stupid Idiots!

Okay, it really isn't that bad. I guess. It really is just me, but I happen to not like to feel my self-esteem falling a little bit more each day of my life. Okay, you know those books, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to ______" and "_______ for Dummies"? Sometimes they are okay, if I actually have enough patience to get through them. I have read a couple of Idiot's Guide books on creative writing and actually found them rather helpful, much more so than Dummies books. Now, I have been trying to read "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory." As I was telling somebody, I read it and I feel like more than a complete idiot. So THANKS for the insult, Idiot's-Guide-book-making-people!!!! I mean, it's not their fault, obviously. It's all me. And, of course, "complete idiot" is only meant as a joke. So the reader can laugh at his or herself and say, "well, I am not a complete idiot on this subject, but I bet this has all the information I need right now!"

And maybe that is the catch. When it comes to music theory, I am a complete idiot. I know nothing. I don't know how I got this way, all I know is that as hard as I try to understand it, each time thinking, "okay, this is starting to make sense, I really have it this time..." and then WHAM! I don't get it all over again. Literature theory makes sense. I don't know why or how it does, but reading up on strategies and techniques for storytelling and writing style and then seeing how I can apply them to whatever I am writing while still maintaining a very high degree of creativity and originality.

Music theory (said mockingly and with detest), however, is NOT that way at all. Perhaps one thing is that I can't seem to get past time signature, but that seems minor compared to other things. Like melody construction. There are rules?!?!?! And you actually have to think about them when you compose?!?!??!?!??!?!? Things like (the following said mockingly and with detest also), "You have to pick a scale or mode for your melody to be in and stay in that scale or mode for the whole song," and "Your melody should have a tonal center it focuses around" and "You should end your melody on either the same note it began on, or the third or fifth of that note, but always make sure it sounds conclusive." Among other things that I can't remember, because I didn't want to, because I didn't want to think about them so much that they make me think too much about a song I am composing, therefore ruining any creativity I have. And I won't get to finish reading it now, because some other complete idiot put it on hold from the library and my friend's mom won't let me borrow his copy. *huffs loudly*

I just I have to think about all that? I mean, if it sounds good and flows well, it's fine, right? That is what I have always thought. I know hardly anything about scales or modes, and what I do know I can't remember anyways. And it's not like I am going to sit down at the piano and decide to write a song in a particular mode. It just comes out and there is nothing I can do about it, unless it is too boring, so then I have to jazz it up again. And what is it with music reading? (This is a rant, in case you can't tell.) It is so entirely complicated and I don't know how six-year-olds learn it! I guess it's like learning another language, except in that language they speak all in math language. Since when did anything creative involve math? (I am sure that question is going to be answered by all you smart comment-people who will say things like architecture and interior decorating, and, of course, music.) But, but, in the world am I going to compose something and do all that math to figure out whether a particular note is a 16th note or not? It would take all day. I would need a voice recorder, a metronome, a long piece of paper and maybe a math professor with me. And that would be for only one note. So for a six-minute composition, it would take me a whole year to write it down, give or take a couple of months (yes, it's an estimation). And then I have to marvel at all these people who can read music and play at the same time. W-O-W, you guys knock my socks off. If that isn't multi-tasking, then I don't know what is. I thought that all you had to do was feel the beat in your head, remember how it goes and let your fingers do the rest. No. You have to remember what key it is in, remember what time it is in, look at two different staffs, divide and multiply notes, usually very quickly, play with your left hand and your right hand parts that are usually very different, remember which note corresponds to each key, be able to actually tell which line the notes are on (maybe my eyesight is just bad, but all those lines gets kind of blurred together, like all the zeros you have to use in Chemistry), keep a beat, stay awake, know what general terms like crescendo and forte mean relative to the song you are playing, sometimes you have to sing, so you have to watch three staffs and move your mouth and hit the right notes, AND don't forget to turn the page!!! And if you know half the song, you can't get too caught up in playing the part that you accidentally memorized and then forgetting where you were on the page and having to go searching for it.

GOOD GRIEF!!! That is enough to give any sane and very healthy person a heart attack. *has one* *goes to the hospital* *gets lots of drugs* *feels better magically* *comes back* *continues blogging*

Now I am just not sure about taking piano lessons. I have really wanted to ever since I was little, and now here is my chance. I have gone back and forth and back and forth and back and forth......and I am just very apprehensive about taking them. There are certain things I want to learn. It's not like I don't think that I should learn music reading (and I am saying that because, again, all you smart comment-people are going to say "you really should learn music reading because you should."), that is just something I feel that I can try and focus on at home while what I really want to learn is how to play the piano better. What I mean is that, if I sign up for lessons, they are going to start me on music reading. They always do. It's like if you sign up with a doctor and go in for your checkup, it is a given they are probably going to find something wrong with you and put you on two or three medications (my I-hate-doctors rant is another post, thank you very much). I will not learn anything BUT music reading, because I will have to start with the most basic basics, like Mary Had a Little Lamb or Chopsticks, and I will advance in six years to anything it takes any skill to play. But I just want the piano skills, to know different playing styles so I can play by ear better and compose more interesting music.

If anyone who lives around me knows of any teachers that would focus more on style and VERY EXTERMELY little on music reading, I beseech you to inform me of said wonderful person at once!! In the mean time, I will piddle along in my little uneducated ways....Marck actually bought me a little book-and-CD Rom kit titled, "How to Read Music in 3 Easy Lessons." It doesn't have me quite convinced, but neither have I looked at it much since I got it. Sorry, Marck, I fully intend to, I just haven't. Since my "beloved" music theory book is now back at the library, I shall concentrate on my little kit.

Thus ends the flow of the Fountain of Frustration.


P. S. And don't criticize me about how my background looks like usic composition scratch paper. I like it for what it stands for, being a musician and all.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Lead us not into temptation.

I was reading, just at this very moment practically, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.  Be quiet....yes, I am still reading it.  I happen to take my time and read millions of books all at the same time because I have ADD tendencies when it comes to books I want to read (besides being a slow reader which is INCREDIBLY annoying).  So no questions about not having finished it yet.  That said, I was reading it and he just casually mentioned this which I will now quote:  "Each has done something to himself which, unless he repents, will make it harder for him to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage worse when he does fall into it."

Now isn't that interesting!  (You:  "What is interesting?  I don't see anything.")  He does not talk any more about it, but it stood out to me...........tempted into rage.  Yes, isn't that an interesting way to look at it?  Of course, it may be that I've had too much ice cream and too little sleep in the past few days and it's just me.  But I thought it was very interesting, as you can probably tell since I keep saying it is.  

The thing is that when I think of temptation, I think of things like lust and everything that goes along with it, if you understand what I mean.  I guess Christians see that as the biggest temptation and the biggest sin (though it is forgiven, since we all know the only non-forgiven sin is blasphemy), but anger is something that we, as humans, have a harder time with but don't even realize.  An angry person isn't scorned as perverted.  Sure, if that anger is taken to the level of murder, then that would be another story.  But what about just simple anger?  It comes out all the time, every day, usually to the people you care about most.  And as I look at it now, of course it is a temptation to be angered at someone.  It's not something uncontrollable that happens.  I believe to be angry is a conscious decision.  Say your sibling, parent, spouse, kid, or whoever, does something that really upsets you.  Maybe they borrowed something of yours and lost it or even broke it.  On top of that, it was very important to you that you have this whatever-thing on a particular day for a particular thing.  The temptation is to be angry at them and start a fight, consisting mainly of blaming and putting down this person.  It is the easiest thing to do.  It almost feels good to let it out on someone.  But you could choose not to be angry.  I think that being upset and/or disappointed is unavoidable, but anger is not the only way to deal with those feelings.  Surely the person is sorry and asked for your forgiveness.  If he or she didn't realize that they broke it, you can even choose whether to confront them, as confrontation really could only make them feel bad.  However, sometimes it is necessary as you need to kindly ask of them not to do it next time you let them borrow something.  (Of course, children should be lectured and often times punished, as it is part of their bringing-up.)

But thinking about anger as being a temptation is a very interesting idea (there I go again saying it is interesting).  It makes me want to give in to it less.  It seems like a better reason than all the other unwritten reasons that I can't remember that I had for trying to not be angry.  I can't quite describe why I think this is such a fascinating view on things, but I just do.  I guess it means everything bad is a temptation.  And it is, I just never thought about it before!  You can covet, or you can choose not to.  You can be tempted to not honor your father and mother, but you can choose not to.  Stealing is another one of those temptations that are more obvious-seeming in terms of thinking of them as actually being temptations, as is murder.  Even stuff not necessarily in the Bible like laziness.  It's tempting to be lazy, I just never thought of it that way.  I just thought of laziness as something which gets me nowhere but for some reason I am naturally talented at.  

Just a thought.


Sunday, February 1, 2009


Music and Lyrics by J. C. B.

Fairest of light streams down my face
Leaving emotions without a trace
A heart beats when others set the pace
Must you turn everything into a race?
Trying so hard to steal second base
Though I like it when you start the chase
Draped over my chest is a cover of lace
Flowers for one in a hollow vase

Coming one day to
I won’t turn away you
Just must wait

I think differently from you
A new plan
You’ll have to think it all through
In your hands
There’s nothing I can do
Where we’ll stand
A vision so new

Serenity I will abate
Whilst you leave your life all to fate
Again I ask you to please wait
I fear it’s that word you’ll always hate
Hopeful I stand for you at the gate
Admitting I cannot use my heart for bait
If you come at all you’ll be coming late
Who grows more anxious at this rate?

I know you want me now
Just a taste
But if you get your way
It will be a waste

You know one day
I’ll stand and say
I love you too
It’s tried and true
I love you now
Though I don’t know how
So wait and see
Love’s eventually…

Blog Widget by LinkWithin