Mass had not quite begun this past Sunday morning when I suddenly saw the woman - who I have, in many ways, always considered a second mother - approach me and sit down next to me. We hadn’t seen one another for a short bit, mainly because I usually attend the 11:30, and I believe she usually attends the 10:00. A significant portion of my entire youth had been spent hanging out with two of my closest friends, Cheryl and Anthony, next door at their house, and a natural consequence of our growing up together was that we all became, in a way, part of each other’s families. Their father, Tony, is even my Godfather.
As Mary Lou and I talked for a few minutes before Mass, catching up with any news of our families, one of the topics upon which we touched in passing was that we both agreed that being a parent today – i.e., my friends and I – is much more difficult compared to when they were parents.
There were far and away fewer distractions for the kids, and far and away fewer things that parents had to monitor. By and large, young people of a generation ago were exposed to far less and, more often than not, had two parents in the house. Having had better role models in their lives for the most part, it certainly seems to me that the kids of my generation were in a lot less trouble than our counterparts of today.
In short, the parents of today need to have a much, much stiffer spine when it comes to saying flatly, “NO”. Unfortunately, too many parents of today seem much too willing to embrace the easy way out of conflicts and adversity and to take the quick fixes, rather than stand their ground and deal with the crying and the whining.
I mean, really, think about it – name me a parent today who wouldn’t find it a heck of a lot easier, after having had a hard day at work, to simply allow the pre- or actual adolescent to simply spend the rest of the night playing some incarnation of Grand Theft Auto, rather than having to take the time to monitor and make sure that their homework is completed (properly)?
Abdicating one’s parental responsibilities there can have dire consequences for the child, the family, the child’s choice of friends, his/her cognition of the way that the world actually works and any notion of real-life responsibilities and consequences, etc. From my own experiences of raising a genetically-pre-disposed strong-willed son, monitoring his time on the computer has been no easy task. As he now enters adolescence, it’s quite evident that in the long run, he’s going to be a lot better off than most of his peers in that respect. He is in no way a slave to his computer and video games.
He actually thinks.
Unfortunately, this is the manner in which the Republican Party has been labeled – the party of “NO”. What many people around the country do not want to see, however, is that a Republican “NO” is basically analogous to a parent’s having the intestinal fortitude to firmly tell his/her child that no, you can’t continue to have candy for breakfast. In the long run, it’s not going to work out very well for you.
While I’ve digressed a bit here at the beginning of this piece, understand that I can’t help but see the parallels of examples such as this with what’s going on in the minds and outlooks of the people who consider themselves “liberals”, which, in the end, has a lot more to do with slavery than it does some backwards notion of freedom. In several of my works here at America’s Right, I’ve taken some pains to point out the inescapable and – in my mind, anyway – eerie similarities that are shared between the manner in which a child thinks and the manner in which a “liberal” thinks. Rather than re-hash all that (you can certainly go back to some of my earlier pieces here for a further discussion), suffice it to say this: these people simply want their way, and they’re not going to take “no” for an answer.
How else to explain the violent demonstrations that we see when Leftists protest?
Just like those violent, gun-totin’ Tea Baggers, I suppose, right?
Relative to some of the more recent movements from the theatre of the Leftist bizarre comes exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi’s calling the House back early from their August recess to vote on another spending bill, which is being variously referred to as a “jobs” bill (does it really say JOBS BILL on the cover sheet? That would actually be pretty cool, in a way), “Stimulus II” (I thought we were somewhere up around “Stimulus 8.0″ at this point), and a “State Bailout Bill”. The only seeming somewhat “decent” point about this fiasco is that it will not further add to the national debt (NOW there’s fiscal responsibility!), as it will apparently re-direct as-yet-unspent funds from the Mother-of-all-Stimuli.
There’s a much, much larger point here, one to which “liberals” simply do not want to own up.
In desperately trying to ram this bill through before mid-term elections, our Speaker of the House of Representatives is all but announcing several things to the American people, which are as follows (not in any order of importance):
- When it comes to public-sector employees, she will do anything to ensure the continuation of their employment
- She is capitalizing (wait – she’s a capitalist!) on the “heart-string” members of the public sector – teachers, police, and firefighters – after all, who would ever want a teacher to lose his/her job?
- She doesn’t give a damn about people in the private sector – people who have the temerity, courage, and confidence to run their own businesses. To her, they’re simply her own personal pecuniary resources from which to extract an obscene amount of tax revenue to be re-directed to the public sector so that she can secure her power in perpetuity and continue to entrench herself as one of the owners of the federal plantation.
I’ve got quite a bit to say on this and, one would hope, since “liberals” are supposed to be brilliant, you’d think they’d catch on to the basic logic that I’m about to present. I won’t hold my breath, however.
Is there anyone in America that cannot see that Pelosi’s efforts on behalf of her constituency is nothing more than mass political payoffs? With the conservative ascendancy that is sweeping the nation and blowing more strongly in the wind with each passing day, that this is nothing more than an attempt to shore up the left wing of her base prior to mid-terms? The groups that I’ve mentioned are well-entrenched in the Democratic activist base and will certainly be soldiers for what are still being called “Democrats” in November.
The larger question, however, pertains to what should merely strike a lot of people as common sense and that hearkens back to my discussion of “children” during the lead part of this article. Let me start with this point – I have quite a few friends who are police officers, firemen, and teachers. My grandfather was a detective. I would never – not in a million years – begrudge police officers or firemen the right to belong to a union. They literally and willingly face life-threatening danger each day that they leave for work, and they protect us. That goes for all types of first-responders. In many ways, they are the civilians for whom I have the greatest respect
But, let me ask you this – TEACHERS? Why do teachers need to be in an iron-clad union that provides them outrageous benefits? Look, I’ve been an educator and administrator for nearly two decades now, and I can personally attest to some of the incredible work and life-changing experiences that can come from trying to lead a child to a greater understanding of the world. Why is it, however, that my private high school is arguably the best academic and athletic school in our state, and arguably one of the top three or five in all of New England? And all without a union? My God, how is that even possible?
Simple – our school is a school, not a jobs program.
Better yet, why don’t we look at the general and current state of public education? It’s certainly great for the adults; not so much for the kids, which, ironically, it’s supposed to be all about.
Of course, Nancy Pelosi’s saying that we “need to save the jobs of our teachers” certainly tugs at the heart strings. Who could ever say “NO” to that?
People who are members of unions need to think very clearly as they approach the voting booth this November, because the real choice that they’ll be making is a very simple but incredibly important one, which is simply this:
Do I want to do what’s best for me by voting along union lines and trying to protect my job, or do what I want to do what is best for the long-term health of my country and my children’s future?
Tough call, no doubt.
And conservatives are called selfish. That’s so laughable that I feel like crying, but I’m not sure for whom. Geez, it’s a good thing that “Card Check” doesn’t carry all the way into the voting booth. Well, not yet, anyway.
As they’re answering this question to themselves, they might want to consider that the money that’s being allocated to save their jobs doesn’t even exist yet and, quite likely, never will. Throwing a tantrum will not make it so. The friends to whom I’ve alluded who work in these fields are wonderful people, common-sense people like the rest of us. Most of them are great parents and have had the requisite “stiff spine” needed to raise their children properly. What they need to realize, though, is that the days of public-sector unions in this country have all but ended, and if allowed to continue, our nation will eventually cease to exist – at least in the manner in which we have always recognized “America” as “America”.
Time for a stiff spine, people. Time to monitor the kids’ homework. The Wii needs to be put away. There’s work to be done, but this time it’s to ensure that your children will still have the right to live as they choose.
And let me say this as well – if the Republicans do, in fact, win big in November, as many pundits are forecasting, then they’d better be prepared to stiffen their spines. We, the People will be watching very closely.
“NO? You’re damn right we’re saying NO.”
Time to grow up.