Generation Y Less Violent?

Current generation is less violent than previous generation? Really?? Hmmmm...

I read a similar article to the one I am linking to in the March 12th Des Moines Register. Who are they trying to fool? There's still violence.

This is like Tom Brokaw calling the World War II generation the greatest. Although that generation had some good people, Mr. Brokaw's opinion is not to be construed as fact. There were some very terrible things that World War II generation faced. There are terrible things that the current youth are facing. However, I wouldn't call Gen Y the second greatest generation. Maybe Tom Brokaw would.

So, all the violent video games, acceptable drug use/abuse for new fangled ailments like ADHD, the pervaillance of drugs in smaller communities, rave parties, loud boom cars, the total lack of respect for anyone but themselves, and complete disregard to authority makes them less violent?

How about this: Police are more willing to tolerate this generation's reckless (and feckless) behavior because they don't want to deal with them and their attitudes. This generation has gotten away with more crime than my terrible Gen X ever could. We see this Gen Y, or Millennials, as they apparently prefer to be named, talking back to police officers and other citizens on our small towns streets consistently. We speak to the police officers who would prefer not to bother them when they are fighting at the quicky mart down the street because they don't want to deal with them. The police ignore the drug trading that is going on right at the courthouse square and across from the middle school, as if the brown bag that is passed is just filled with peanut butter sandwiches and an apple. This is a generation that feels entitled, and desires to be spoon-fed, lest they have to ever think on their own. And if you force them to think on their own, well, then you're not being fair.

And this: The more we make children nice, obedient robots, the less apt to deal with rebelious issues. Right? Well, instead of finding a cause for a child's inability to focus when we want them to pay attention, let's just drug them. That's what we've done to the Millenials. Approximately 8.8 million children each year are prescribed with stimulant medication to treat ADHD. It's become the miracle pill, or has it? How safe is it? Does it really help the child, or is it just to keep the sanity of the teacher, or parent, who can't deal with certain children? What underlying conditions is such a drug like Ritalin covering, especially for those children misdiagnosed in their early years? How have we in effect doomed these young children for the rest of their lives with the label ADD/ADHD and forcing them to take a pill that in the 70s and 80s would be classified as an illegal drug for kids (remember speed, uppers)? Is the current thought of less violent kids a direct result of the legal drugging up of our children? Is this all a part of the dumbing down of America?

Is this why children in the US are more inclined now more than ever before, to be overweight? Are our children so complacent with ADHD drugs that they don't have the energy or ability to play on their own without some guidance (by teachers or drugs)?

Can ADD/ADHD and other distracting behaviors be overcome without the use of drugs? Yes. And Yes. But that would take some effort on the part of teachers, school administrators and parents. They'd have to take an active interest in our children and truly help them. Work with the environment kids are in to avoid distracting objects, and becoming an example of behavior that is expected of them. That takes brain power and human relations power, that apparently schools don't want to be forced to use.

Does That Make Censure?

"The president has broken the law," says Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin). Sen. Feingold views Bush's public surveillence without a warrant as an offense against the constitution and grounds for censure in the US Senate. Feingold's five-page resolution will be presented to the US Senate today.

Republicans that support Bush, however, have rebutted the notions of censure and possible impeachment in the House, not by proving Bush did not offend the constitution, but by linking the Democrats actions with hindering the war on terror and degrading the US international reputation.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist claims that this action will "weaken the United States in a time of war."

Ah, reality check, Mr. Frist. Ok, we started a war based on weak intell in Iraq, when we still had not finished one in Afganistan and have yet to capture Osama bin Laden, the kingpin of 9/11. We have ignored our own constitution by detaining US and US-based foreigners without any due process, allowed a president to spy on our citizens without a warrant that would nullify any evidence received this way in a court of law, and weakened constitutional rights under the guise (disguise) of the unwinnable war on terror. As insurgents and the workings of an Iraqi civil war surface, the US military situation is not looking very good there. And then there's Hurricane Katrina, proving that Homeland Security isn't so secure after 9/11 after all the money we've dumped into such an idea as homeland security. You think President Bush is making the US safer, Mr. Frist, really? C'mon. I think we've done a "helluva" job weakening US foreign and domestic impressions very well, already.

And you, Mr. Frist, want to claim that standing up for the constitution would weaken international impressions of the United States? On the contrary, defending the Constitution of the United States would be a symbol of a strengthening United States, showing the world that we are responsible for upholding our laws and willing to stand strong behind the one document, the foundation that sets the United States as a great nation.

Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) claims that Feingold's censure announcement is "political grandstanding... And it tends to weaken our president." Actually, the process of censure will either prove that President Bush is strong in upholding the Constitution, or as weak as his actions prove him to be.

If we don't defend the Constitution of the United States when it is tested, either by the president or any other action by the US government, then the checks and balances imparted by the Constitution have failed.

If we don't uphold the Constitution of the United States, then we are a weak nation.

MMmmmm-Impeaches are Ripening

A case of mmmm-impeaches, please. With House Resolution 635 that Rep. John Conyers (D., Michigan) presented to the House in December 2005, the first fruits of the impeach tree were noticed as budding from the spent blossoms of impropaganda. Now, in the March 2006 edition of Harpers Magazine features an article on this bold statement from Rep. Conyers.

It is amazing, especially recently, how so many incidents, negligence, and ignorance from the Bush Administration inadvertently proves those yummy impeaches are just about ready for harvesting. And you know what that means? Delicious Impeachment Pie! Check out my recipe for impeachment pie, and when those impeaches are perfectly ripe, make yourself a couple of impeachment pies--one for you and one for a friend (or if you are impatient, frozen impeaches work, as well). Hey, if impeachment pie is too long to say, you can call it "Imp Pie", too!

Let's Call The Whole Thing Off!

Tomato, tomahto...Potato, potahto...Let's just call the whole thing off!

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I would put those lyrics to the abortion debate. But, today after reading some of the reactions from both the pro-abortion, anti-choice groups, these lyrics seem to fit right in.

You'd think with a full ban recently legislated in South Dakota, you'd think the pro-life would be rejoicing. Think again.

"As a pro-lifer, I feel guilty saying this, because people are out there all excited, but a ban is actually counterproductive," said Mary Kay Culp, executive director for Kansans for Life. Does that statement seem odd to you, too? Yes, really, she said that.

Now, apparently, pro-lifers feel that they need more time to turn society's thinking around about abortion before going for the jugular on abortion rights. Ah, you've had over 30 years to turn society's head on to the ideals of the pro-life movement, and you say you need more time? What? The posters of aborted babies, protests at abortion clinics and other places that accept abortion practices not helping society to see the pro-life movement in a good light? What's missing here??

Ok, let's look at the other spectrum. The pro-choice, pro-abortion movement. You'd think they'd be outraged at this outright ban in South Dakota and the possibility of a ban in Mississippi. You'd think that, wouldn't ya?

Nope. Their message seems to be going soft, as well. According to the article, a memo circulated by Third Way, a progressive movement, through congress a message to uphold personal liberties while accepting a moral responsibility to reduce the number of abortions. Nothing new there. I believe this was Bill Clinton's stance on abortion when he was president. And my stance, as well.

What I see happening is that both sides are beginning to realize is that being pro-life or pro-choice is all about respecting and valuing life, regardless of its stage. And in the history of both movements, there have been extremes that have devalued life. Now, they see that they are defending life, either that of the mother or that of the child or fetus. Both movements, in essence, are pro-life. They both want to uphold life.

Potato, potahto... whatever. I'm taking my ball and going home. You want to come along? I'm a bit thirsty and I think mom could make us PB & J sandwiches. Sound good?

Prepare Ye The Way...

"Pre - - - pare Ye, The Way Of The Lord, Pre - - - pare Ye, The Way Of The Lord." PREPARE YOU, THE WAY OF THE LORD. FOR THE TIME IS NEAR WHEN OUR SAVIOR WILL DWELL AMONG US. Again.

40 Days of Preparation... Starting Now! Have a wonderfully introspective Ash Wednesday!!