Thanks to all of you for your kind words and encouraging comments and everyone's support.

I especially wish to thank Pops, for writing so eloquently and often poignantly about his father's last days.  It has been comforting in this time since mom has gotten sick.  She is steadily declining to the point where I have to decide whether to make the trek to Wisconsin to see her one last time (Which was kind of why her church sent her out here) only to turn around and go back again for a funeral or wait.

Savannah and the miniature poodle, Boston Blacky, have become quite attached to each other.  The other day she sat down with him and took the dog's food, poured it into his water bowl and, spoon in hand, commenced to eat it like cereal.  Until Tabitha caught her and made her quit.

The laptop is still belly-up so updates are not as quick as they were, but there is a man in the church who is a tech and will look at it for me.  Hopefully he can do something.

Remember, the Good Book says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain..."

Not much time to update since the laptop went belly-up but here are a couple of things, "hot off the wire."  Mom was in the hospital last couple of days, didn't sound very good at all, but they pulled her through.  My brothers, who live there in Shawano area, had to choose a nursing home for her, though, so she will be moving.  Dad had been working so hard helping her that he was gonna get sick and this was the final blow.  I know my brothers know the area and the local scuttlebutt and can make a better decision than I could.

Giant youth conference at the church called, "Heritage," meant to teach the old-time religion to a new generation.  Oftentimes people are quick to just dump the old ways of doing things without looking into why some of those things were put into effect in the first place.  Ashley, who has a gaggle of girls staying with her, has been talking about it a little on her blog.

Speaking of blogs, in response to Jerry saying that it getting too political could hurt it, when I first started this, the 4th entry I ever did, in fact, said,

"Just a note of explanation now that i have sent out a mail to all my friends and family about this blog.  I have a wide variety of friends from a wider variety of ideologies.  What this means to you, gentle reader (don't ya love Miss Manners?), is that some of you will wonder why there isn't more church stuff, or more political stuff, or more writing stuff, or more funny/weird stuff and while you are wondering about that, the other people will be wondering exactly the opposite, e.g., why so much church or politics, or who cares about the difference between a trochee and an iambus and if he's such a big-time, fancy-schmancy writer, why does he use ridiculously long, yea, verily even, run on, sentences?

"Oh, and i MUST clarify one other thing.  I really am not a big-time writer.  I have had a couple of very minor pieces printed in a vanity press.  This is where this exercise is supposed to come in handy.  I get to practice on my friends and relatives and any total stranger that happens to stroll by."

So, you probably want to keep that in mind.  I don't intentionally offend, but I don't see any reason to sugarcoat anything I believe or think or else the idea of a web-log, an online-journal, becomes a little silly to me.

Remember, the good book says, "To thine own self be true."  Or was that the Bard?

I have said before that Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is probably one of the most important books a person can and should read.  While Orwell's 1984 may be more accurate I think Bradbury leaves us with a true glimmer of hope, which Orwell does not.  Both books should be read by every member of every society and if you do read 1984, when you get to the end, take a piece of paper and cover the last paragraph, especially the last sentence of the book.  Don't let yourself read that until the very end.  It gave me cold goosebumps and nightmares.  Fahrenheit 451 did not do that, exactly, but made a vivid, lasting impression on me when I first read it when I was 15 and the several times I've read it since.

If you are not familiar with Bradbury's story, it is set in a future time surprisingly like our own in a country very much like ours.  The Protagonist, Guy Montag, is a fireman of the time whose job is not to put fires out, but to start them.  Houses are all fireproof but books have been outlawed completely.  If you are found to own a book, your books and house are all burned and you are imprisoned.  The title comes from the temperature at which book paper combusts.  Written in the early 50's, Bradbury describes a society where people never go anywhere without their "ear-bud" radios plugged into their ears.  They watch TV on giant, wall-sized screens and never do anything else.

Books came to be outlawed by a process remarkably similar to the "Political Correctness" we see today.  Some group found a certain book to be offensive and protested its printing, held burnings and got it banned from libraries.  Another group found a different book offensive.  Some found the Bible offensive, others found other writings offensive as all the while the people became less and less involved with the government and how it was run and more and more involved in personal entertainment.  They eventually became so complacent and believed the propaganda spewed into their ear-buds and out of their TVs that it was not difficult for the government to pass laws, at first outlawing only certain books nobody ever really cared about or read anyways.  The people continued feeding their minds on the pap from the carefully crafted, inoffensive TV shows while the government banned more and more books until finally all books were against the law.

It all started out with people being made to believe they could not say whatever they wanted for fear of offending someone or some group while at the same time others became so thin-skinned that they took everything as a personal insult and provocation.  The right not to be offended took the place of the right to free speech.

(Obviously, there are some books that may belong on public or private library shelves that are not appropriate for a middle-school library and you can read my piece on book banning to learn how to deal with that and when.)

Here in the United States we place a very high value on our Freedom of Speech.  It was the first one of ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution that we refer to as "The Bill of Rights."  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  This has been interpreted to include a large number of things I don't know that the founders intended or could even have imagined, but any American citizen has the right to say whatever they want about whatever they want without fear of retaliation.  Our law even protects works of art as well as political speech and prohibits the government from establishing a state religion while also prohibiting the government from interfering with any religion.  It is a great law, but the Supreme Court has given it some few limits.  For instance, you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "fire!" when there is no fire.  We are protected from libel and slander as well.

So, if you want to make a statement by burning the very representation of your country that fosters this right, well, okay.  Personally I don't understand it and you will never get me to acknowledge your ideas by doing it.  It is the type of thing the REVEREND Fred Phelps' followers do.  You can say what you want and do what you want because we are free; I just hope you also have the poor judgment to do it at a V.F.W. July 4th celebration because I think that if you are one of these ignorant, inarticulate, irreverent fools who believe burning the flag makes some sort of statement, you would deserve what you got.

I don't know if protestors even use this anymore.  I think nowadays it's flag-waving that everyone does.  (You can ask Carter about living in Washington State where protestors drive their cars sporting their yellow ribbons to protests where they spit on returning soldiers and scream vitriolic epithets at them.)  Anti-war hippie protestors of the 60's and 70's that used to burn the flag appear to have learned that most people, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, don't have any respect for them when they do this.  Besides, it has been established that this is a legal form of free speech which kind of takes the edge off it.  It used to be a deeply shocking and dangerous form of expression, but now the people they are protesting just say, "Well, you have the right to say what you want."  So I don't know how much this even actually goes on any more, if at all.  I did read about a neighborhood in New York that had 8 homes' flags and poles burnt, one being the flag of their fallen Marine son, but this sort of thing is already covered in vandalism and arson laws and is not about free speech.

Aside from the fact that we value our freedom of speech so highly in this country there are several valid, practical questions to consider as well, a few of which my liberal blog-buddy Jerry brought up a while ago.  If it's against the law to burn the flag, does that include any and all flags?  The paper one the newspaper prints every year?  A photo of the flag?  A 3x5 cotton flag?  A confederate flag?  A Christian flag?  A Union Jack?  The flags of other nations?  A photo of someone burning the flag?  What is the purpose and intent?  To protect us from the one irreverent (and usually irrelevant) fool that feels the need to express himself this way?  What if someone wants to hold an anti-religion rally and burns a Bible?  Or a Koran?  None of these things are things I would do, nor would most right-thinking people who are interested in communicating their beliefs and actual debate.  It's like name-calling, you stinky poop-head.

Besides, shouldn't you include the guy's house I see every day that has a filthy, faded U.S. flag and tattered POW flag that you can barely read the words on?  Isn't that equally disrespectful and disgraceful, if not more so?  I don't think the flag that flew over Fort Sumter is in as rough condition.  There are way too many people who, in what I desperately hope is patriotic fervor, fly dilapidated, tattered pieces of cloth that excuse themselves as flags.  Those little flags that you attached to your car on 9/12/01 that are just little strips of cloth (or plastic) need to be changed now, sir.  What started out as a national solidarity under the proudest flag that's ever flown over the greatest country in the world, has turned into something of an embarrassment.  I think the real problem is that many people do not really know they are doing something wrong.  The Boy Scouts have put together a nice little easy-to-read guide for proper flag handling and the VFW has put together a little more in-depth flag etiquette and history, including a little more detailed instruction on disposing of a flag that is no longer serviceable.

To me this was a poorly conceived electioneering device and the elected officials from both sides ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Come on, you guys; do some real work for a change.

Remember, the good book says, "Let despots remember the day/When our fathers with mighty endeavor/Proclaimed as they marched to the fray/That by their might and by their right/It waves forever."  Or was that Sousa?

Whether to adress the comments I have received in the comments section or as another entry was difficult.  Apparently blogging is like everything else in life, people hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read.  The comments on part II indicate a lack of understanding of part I, thus, part III.  I really wanted to get on to other things, but I don't like my words misunderstood or worse, purposely misconstrued, so a final outing (pun intended) on the subject seems necessary since .

But where to start?  I guess first is the claim that Society must be educated.  This may be true.  Society needs to be educated that almost all pedophiles are male and one third of all sex crimes are comitted against boys.  81% of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys.  A copiously documented article by a Ph. D. on the subject is here:  http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3 along with a brochure by the same doctor: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02

To say that allowing this change is not going to lead to anything else is a head-in-the-sand approach.  Establish gay marriage and polygamy will be next.  As I said previously, it may not be in the near future, but it will come.

As to comparing the issue to the civil rights movement of the 60's you will find that many black people find a comparison offensive.  Colin Powell from his book , "My American Journey":  [In testimony before Congress on gays in the military], I said, "I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure." Congresswoman Pat Schroeder quoted a 1942 government report and claimed that the same arguments used then against racial integration in the military were being used against gays today.  She had her logic wrong. I responded, "Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. The linking of gay rights and the civil rights movement got a mixed reaction in the African-American community. The Congressional Black Caucus favored removing the ban on homosexuals in the armed services. But other leaders were telling me that they resented having the civil rights crusade hijacked by the gay community for its ends.

So no, it isn't about that.

Yes, this country was founded because of religious persecution, usually, as has been the case since John the Baptist was beheaded, because they preached against the sin and immorality of the time.  The pilgrims preached against the established religious practices and immoral behavior of political leaders and were shipped out rather than burnt at the stake.

Besides, the "religious" arguments at the end of Part II were intended for Conservatives and Christian believers.  Obviously non-believers will disregard this part, although most married people have said the Scripture I quoted in their vows.

The Good Book says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Thank you to everyone that commented on my post about the marriage definition amendment.  I had not planned on doing another post about it anytime soon, but having read these comments I would like to address a couple of points before going on to something else because I believe that what people said was sincere.

I was always told (and taught in public school sociology class) that homosexuals were not distinguishable by any outward features, e.g. if a man talks soft or a woman has a haircut like a man’s that that does not mean they are gay.  Homosexuals are just like everyone else and anyone you know and even those you might least expect could be homosexual and you would never know.  This is true.  In fact, if I were a gay person I would find this latest advertising campaign that shows a dog walking like a cow and mooing, extremely offensive because it’s saying that you can tell by these outward signs what a person is.  It is meant to depict, by having a dog saying “moo,” that some people are “just born that way.”  But it’s still unnatural.  A dog saying “moo” is unnatural and the other dogs in the pack might or might not let it run with them, the normal dogs barking and chasing squirrels and eating trash, not ruminating.  This ill-thought advertising campaign was conceived by our former mayor who is now the president of the gay and lesbian society here.  She did a lot of stupid things as mayor, too.

Now, why should the rights of the God-fearing Christian majority be infringed by having to subsidize these unnatural unions?  Why are the rights of Christians always the first to be thrown out?  You are not seeing, aside from the larger problem of the overall moral decay of modern society, that the practical upshot is, in fact, that once you validate marriage as being anything other than one man and one woman, you have to validate all of the other types as well.  This is not taking away anyone’s rights.  Besides, many rights are taken away from us all the time by merely submitting to the rule of law.

Which leads to why the government has to be involved.  The government is already involved in everyone’s day-to-day life.  You cannot steal.  You cannot murder.  You cannot peddle child pornography.  These are laws of our land and we live by them every day.  You can murder someone, but there is a penalty to pay.  Life is sacred, the innocence of children is sacred and marriage should be sacred as well.  Go ahead and live in whatever sin you wish, just don’t ask me to condone it or vote that you should be allowed special privileges to do it.  I don’t feel sorry that the government doesn’t allow someone to steal my car (as if anyone would steal my car, but that’s another entry).  I expect to be protected.  45 states already have definitions of marriage as being a contract between one man and one woman, so really it is representative of the majority of the states.  When was Democracy ever “minority rules?”

The last thing is love.  I think it will probably shock almost every one of my readers to find out that I believe that gay people can be as much “in love” as straights.  Christians, Pseudo-Christians and Christian-Wannabes have allowed love and especially marriage to be cheapened to the point where this conversation is even necessary.  The big problem is Christians.  The harder-core the Christian, the more at fault.  “Umm…Herb, I thought YOU were a hard-core conservative Christian?”  I consider myself as such and I don’t think there is enough leadership in the basic Christian community in the area of instruction about marriage.  Christians have allowed divorce to become a rampant ill in our society by condoning it.  By not teaching, preaching and preparing people for what marriage is supposed to be about you have set them up for failure.

Love is not a twitterpated, giddy feeling of attraction to a person, although that can lead to true love.  True love is a decision.  It is a conscious, committed, decision that grows stronger and stronger the more it is tested; even when the “twitterpation” has been worn down by dirty diapers at three in the morning, the Bible lets us know that we can set our affections.  We can choose who and/or what to love.  It is deeper than a feeling.  “Oh, I just couldn’t help myself falling in love” is really not true.  You felt attracted to that person, maybe by their wit or looks or charm or the way they looked at you, and it led you to want to be closer to them.  Of course it is not always a conscious decision; a couple of lonely people are attracted to each other in some way and immediately decide then and there that if that person will have them, they will stay with them through thick and thin, but it is the commitment part that is love, the setting of affection on that one person forever no matter what, not the goosebumps you feel when their hand touches yours.  That all works into it of course, but the bottom line is that love is that decision to stay forever.  Christians are only allowed to dissolve a marriage in the event of adultery and Jesus even said that that was because of the hardness of an unforgiving heart.  Christians have made this teaching worthless by making all manner of frivolous exceptions.  While there can be situations where divorce is unavoidable, much of the divorce that goes on in our country could be considered frivolous.  For example, a situation where a man (I use the term loosely) sleeps around on his wife and abuses her emotionally is not, in my opinion, frivolous.

That being said, one person can, in fact, set their affections on another and commit to stay with them and be loyal to them for the rest of their life.  This does not mean that it is any less of a sin or that I have to condone it.  God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Eve and Louise or Adam and Eve and Steve and Louise.  When God made the first man he took a rib from the side of man, not from his head to be above him or his foot to be beneath him, but a rib from the side of him, to create a helper for him (and most men need help from a woman, believe me) to be with him.  It was only one rib and even after the fall of man, God did not create another woman for Adam.  They were to stay together, “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.”  In our promiscuous society we often forget that a woman and a man are supposed to “save themselves” for marriage and the act of consummation is supposed to bind the two together in the same manner, to become one.

Marriage between one man and one woman forever is what God intended; what is commonly called “The Nuclear Family” is how God created it.  Of course Hollyweird has tried to cheapen and mock this teaching by making everything okay and Christians who know nothing about their Bible or even their own religion fall prey to their machinations.  The Marriage Definition Amendment is only one step in saving our society from itself.  Christians need to re-learn their own teachings, what they are and what they mean.

Remember, the Good Book says, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Coming next, The Flag Burning Amendment

People who oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman are wrong.  This issue is being touted by the media as a ban on gay marriage who say anyone who supports the measure hates gays, which is not the truth, but an example of the standard these days for the pap frequently pawned off as journalism is to take the worst possible look at something, from the liberal side, fire off a couple of cheap shots at conservatives and then on to the next story.  Of course they have to sell ads or Mad Ave will get mad (whenever you watch TV you should always observe who is mainly paying for the program, even news).  My problem is that if you say anything against them, for instance, if you point out that it is an unnatural act and a sin against God and nature and nothing more than lust-fires burning out of control, the first word out of their mouth is "homophobe"; often when they have no knowledge of where you come from, who your friends are or why you believe what you do.  Homosexuality is a form of sexual deviancy.  Normal sexuality is one man and one woman.

Oh, I heard that.  So, you want to know who I am to define for you what is normal.  Hah!  See, that is the crux of the whole problem.  Who am I to tell you what is moral?  But then again, who are you to tell me what is moral?  You are equally intolerant and miss a larger point.  The fact is that without a moral compass of some sort, we get on a slippery slope.  The standard backbone of culture for the last six thousand years has been: marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.  Leave it alone because if I cannot impose my morality on you nor you me, then there can be no end, because who is anybody to tell anybody what to do, and have the government subsidize it to boot.

By what seems to me to be a logical progression of the argument, the government should also allow polygamous marriages.  They have been backed by various religions and cultures over time and are once again being espoused (pun intended) by Hollyweird itself having new stories about it.  You are no better than they are and cannot impose your morality on them.  "Well," you say, "There are children under the age of consent involved."  That is your morality that you are imposing on this poor minority of religious people.  Why cannot their morality change the age of consent?  Why is your morality so much better than theirs that you can make a law against it?  Besides, the Colorado Court of Appeals just ruled that since we have no clear legislative or statutory guidance on what a common-law marriage is, we have to go back to centuries-old English common law, the basis for Colorado's common law, where a girl who is 12 and a boy who is 14 can just say, "I intend to marry you" and they have a common law marriage.

What about communal marriages?  Instead of a mere one man and two or three women or two men or two women that love each other, what if one of them falls in love with someone else?  Or they all fall in love?  Add the third, fourth or fifth parties to the marriage?  It's only fair.  What if the 14 year old boy states he intends to marry a 40 year old man?  What if your particular deviancy is to be bisexual?  Add another partner?  You could have a whole household orgy every night.  The Romans did.  Before their civilization fell.  What about the woman who got married to a dolphin?  I don't have the link handy but the ceremony was performed by a clergyman and some people believe that dolphins are smarter than us anyway, so, why not?  "Herb, you're getting ridiculous now."  Am I?  Are you going to tell me that anyone in their right mind would have thought 100 or 200 years ago that this was an issue that required an amendment to the Constitution to resolve?

Why a Constitutional amendment?  Why get the government involved?  Because we are a nation of laws, governed by rule of law. We have laws protecting us from murderers and thieves and child molesters.  Why can I not be protected from a fringe minority's deviant behavior being paid for at my expense?  Look at it.  Do you want to Pay Social Security (Which my president tried to fix and was stonewalled by the elder Senator from Massachusetts who said, quote, "Why are we bothering with this?  All we have to do is raise the tax that everyone pays in and move on." end quote) Benefits to the surviving spouses?  How many of the surviving spouses?  What if the spouse is a dog?  Not an ugly person, but a real dog, because that is what they are into? Or a dolphin?  What about the orgy commune?  Who gets paid what to whom?  How will divorces be handled?  With more and more marriages and more and more types of marriages there will necessarily equal a need for more and more divorce courts, more and more judges, etc.

Marriage has been a man and a woman in all major cultures from the beginning, not just Judeo-Christians, so why change it now to satisfy the lust of a minority?  I contend that the government is not establishing a new religion or preventing the free exercise of the same, but protecting its interests and the interests of its people.  Besides, how far down the road of moral decay will you let the country go?  Did you know the Dutch already have a political party made up of pedophiles [their word] whose platform is lowering their age of consensual sex from 16 down to 12 and decriminalizing child pornography?  We already have NAMBLA marching on congress, how long will it be until the issue is whether over 8 really is too late?  You say that I am an alarmist, using scare tactics but just look at how the morality of the country has slipped over the past 100 years.

Lust will always be with us and so will rebellion, which are the two things that really make up this matter.  People are always going to be filled with desires of all sorts (including the lust for money and the lust for power) and we (especially we Americans) never like to be told what to do.  I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it.  Now, see, if you add, "And I don't care who gets hurt doing it" then we have a problem.  Go ahead and commit your sin, but at least care about who is going to get hurt.  For example, there is one group who could have stopped the spread of AIDS by merely modifying their behavior slightly, not quitting their behavior, only modifying it would have slowed its progression and they are still acting irresponsibly, now seeking political sanction for their deviant sin.

What people do in their own homes is and should be their business and I don't want to know about it.  This also does not apply to private industry.  If Apple Computer or CSAA Insurance or Levi Strauss want to offer benefits to employees by criteria they define, that is their business.  It is their private business and the government should not be involved.  Let them provide for their employees how they want and if you want to support those businesses go ahead.  Personally I think it is hard to find a company in any industry that supports every belief so I recommend making business decisions, e.g., buying a computer, based on business criteria, such as price, quality, etc, although I have never bought a brand new pair of Levi's Jeans since they refused to help the Boy Scouts.  Even though they later reconsidered their position I found that the less expensive brands cover me just as well.  Thrift store jeans, Lee, Wrangler, even *lowers voice to a whisper so the haters won't gig him* the Wal-mart store brand, Rustlers, *resumes normal tone* are good enough.

 But still, who are you to tell me what is morally acceptable, and who am I to tell you?  I think I have made a strong case that the government must be involved at some point or there will be chaos and lawlessness.  As to my own morality, the only final authority I accept is the King James Version of the Bible.  It has been used for the last 400 years as a guidebook to many individuals and nations, ours included.  I also think that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove, at the very least, the diligence and care with which these Scriptures have been handled and preserved as they were handed down, to avoid mistakes.  But people will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, which is why, even though the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt commit no murder" they still had to have laws about dealing with murderers, same with stealing, etc.

A constitutional amendment is necessary to define what marriage is.

Remember, the Good Book says, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

When I worked at big-name Insurance company, one of the first classes they put everyone through, even if you were "only" a mail-clerk, was called "Basic Insurance Course."  One of the interesting things about insurance policies is the copious number of amendments that are added to very old policies.  Read More

I had started this entry before I blog-frogged around and found some others that were similar topics.  I don't know if there was a theme or not, but I had thought about this the other day.  I have been really working on keeping ahead of myself on updates.  Sometimes I'm too much of a perfectionist, though.  *Heavy sigh* Instead of, "Always a bride's maid, never a bride" it's, "Always a perfectionist, never perfect."  Anyway, here goes...Continue Reading

We get to see a lot of different kinds of neighborhoods traveling around to Margaret's clients.  Occasionally we will wind up having a little spare time and we try to find something to do in the locale because there is no time to go home.  We were on the North Side of Colorado Springs (not to be confused with the North End, as Northenders will tell you) and had an hour to kill.  She needed to go to a neighborhood called "Trail Ridge at Northgate" off of Voyager.  I apologize to those of you who don't know this area, but it is a very nice, upper middle-class area where the big, cookie-cutter houses go for $300k – $700k and beyond.  Covenants protect the scenery and make sure that no one has a purple house with an orange door or a '76 Chevy pickup truck leaking oil on the driveway or a transmission that doubles as a lawn ornament and bird bath.  Not in my league and I'm not sure how well I'd fit into a neighborhood like that.

There is a scenic, almost idyllic park not far from there called Mary Kyer Park.  It is down the hill from a school that emphasizes arts and creativity and science called the Da Vinci Academy.  Everything about the school, from the classroom design to the landscaping is made to enhance creativity and learning; a high-class, high-end school, to be sure.  There is nothing like it on the South side.  I don't know if it's public or private or whether you need a code to get in there or not.  In the park there is a manmade little waterfall that runs into a pond that bubbles with aerators that recycle the water back to the top.  A pair of geese and a pair of mallards live on the end away from the playground.  Picnic tables with generous space between them separated by scrub oak that seems old enough to have been original equipment surround the pond and the safe, modern playground equipment is equally separated by wide expanses of lush green grass, so you could easily see your child from any part of the park.  Of course the young boys play on the rocks of the manmade waterfall (even though the sign says not too) and make up games as they have done for thousands of years in real rivers on real rocks and then accuse each other of cheating and rewrite the rules over and over again.  There is nothing new about that.  On the South side of town we would probably have to drive to Fountain Valley Park to get a similar effect, with the bike and hiking paths and water and such.

If the distant sound of children playing doesn't bother you it is a very nice, peaceful, even serene place.  I had fetched us a couple of lattes and a couple of ice creams from a nice place on the other side called Summit House Coffee and we sat watching the occasional mom stroll by or child on a bike.  Margaret likes Mint Chocolate Chip and I try the Raspberry truffle.  Very good.

We sit at one of the picnic tables under the shade of the scrub oak, Margaret thumbs through an old magazine while I laugh at the antics of the boys.  There is litter blown about here.  Someone has recently had Subway at this very table.  As we sit, a group of teenage boys on bikes rides up and starts rummaging about through the bushes looking for something.

"I think mine is over here."

"That one is mine."

"You boys looking for something?"

"We had to find our cups from Subway so we could get refills, but they blew off this table."

I point around at the littered underbrush, "Any of this other trash from Subway belong to you fellas?"

"Oh no sir, just the cups.  Bye!"

Uh-huh.  The only thing worse than no respect is fake respect and the only thing worse than fake respect is condescension.  Oh well.  They were obviously never Boy Scouts.

We settle quietly again.  Maybe I was too hard on them boys.  Maybe they didn't leave their trash in the bushes.  I scan the sky for a flock of pigs.  We sit.  It is quiet, serene, calm, the way you might picture a high class neighborhood.  In the midst of the stillness comes a sound.

"HONK! HONK! HONK! HONK! HONK!"  It's not the geese, "Herkimer!  Herkimer!  HONK! HONK! HONKITY-HONK!"

Our nerves are jangled and Margaret says to the air, "She could get out of her car and go look for her kid, rather than disturb the rest of us."

"HOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKK!"

Suddenly three kids come flying over the hill, mouths full of apologies.

"$*#@#$&!  Get your $#*@#$#^@# ^% in here NOW!  #*#%^#*@)_!@)$#@)$(#!"

"VRRROOOOOOOMMM!"

As peace returns Margaret observes, "Well, that's the way to act in a classy neighborhood."

To which I reply, "Well, I guess that just because you have a big house and more money doesn't mean you automatically have class."

Remember, The Good Book says, "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."

I got to talking to the neighbor last night.  He's a young guy, just fresh back from Iraq.  His dogs and my dog play with each other and so we stood visiting.  He has the new CAB, Combat Action Badge.  Since only 11-series MOS can receive the CIB, Combat Infantry Badge, the army has designed this one.  Carter has earned it, but I don't know if he got it yet.

Anyway, I had not seen the award before, only heard about it.  Here is a picture of it from http://www.army.mil/

You'll see a lot of other pictures there, too.  Soldiers interacting with Iraqi citizens everyday, for example.  You can learn a lot about the military by reading their websites.  You can also learn a lot from talking to people who have been there, done that, got the CAB.  My neighbor was shot in the vest twice while he was over there.  (These must be the vests the liberals are still saying the guys don't have.)  Told him about Carter's near miss, he's been there, too.  Told him about some of the liberal blogs I've been reading, he said the same thing that Carter said, people don't have a clue about what's going on over there.  (Someone else also pointed out that there was zero on any of the leftist "human rights" websites about the torture of American Soldiers.  Guess Amnesty Int'l doesn't count US Soldiers as human.  Surprise, surprise) They only know what they see in 5 second sound-bites on TV and what they read in the left-leaning press, if they bother to pick up a newspaper at all and many of them would never even consider reading an Army newspaper or other source of information.

The neighbor's been there, my buddy for 30 years (it's a shame about his looks, he's really a nice guy), Carter, has been there, the guys I run into everyday at the 7-11 have all been there.

The problem is not the Iraqis.  The Iraqis like the soldiers and like us being there.  We have built new schools and hospitals and roads.  We have given their school children new textbooks and other books and toys.  We have rebuilt many, many people's houses.  The Iraqis like us and they like freedom.  They like being able to speak their mind and not have to worry about their sister or wife or mother being "punished" for it or them being hacked into bits and laid on their front steps.  Most of the Iraqis like us.

The problem is that we have brought freedom and democracy to an area of the world that nobody ever thought it was possible.  My neighbor said that most of the people he's been fighting are not Iraqis, but Syrians, Lebanese, Turkey, places that have something to lose if Democracy and Freedom become a way of life.  They want us to fail and are thrilled by the way our own press treats the issue.  The guy next door said that they had to be so careful of what they said around their "embed" because they were constantly looking for something bad, something negative, to send back.

Remember, folks, what drives the media is not a search for truth, but advertising dollars.  What will sell more papers?  What will sell more TV ads?  Advertising is, of course based in Mad Ave, which is in bed with Hollyweird and all the stars that get up and blather on about things they know less than nothing about.

If you want to help in some way, there are several places to go, here are a few:

Soldier's Angels

Army Emergency Relief

Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society

USO

VFW

Operation Give (this is also a good one for giving toys to Iraqi children)

If you are interested, the VFW also has a news page.  I read this quote from Jim Mueller, National Commander of the VFW:

"From the commanding officers on down to the privates and airmen, our troops know that their mission is important. They are enthusiastic. Their morale is high, and they know they are helping to make a difference to an entire nation--and the Iraqi people know this, too. Everywhere I went, the message that the Iraqis wanted me to take back was for America to be patient, that 'We want to get this democracy right the first time."

Want firsthand information from the people who really know?  Try reading the Department of Defense website and its veritable plethora of links to every branch of service.  http://www.defenselink.mil/sites/

http://www.defenselink.mil/ & http://www.defenselink.mil/news/articles.html

You might say that they would be biased, but if you think a little further you should realize that the mainstream media has access to all this same information and if there was something wrong with it, they wouldn't hesitate to tell you about that.

Another source of information might be military blogs and blogs of family members.  If you read The Patriette's blog http://www.thepatriette.com/ you will see an area called "Milblogs."  Try a few of those, too.

Remember, The Good Book says, "A gossip goes around spreading rumors, while a trustworthy man tries to quiet them."