Bureaucracy is Bureacracy, No Matter How It's Packaged

From today's Wall Street Journal re the housing crisis:

"An Obama administration effort to reduce home foreclosures by lowering the mortgage payments of struggling borrowers before they fall behind is failing to help as many people as expected.

Among the problems: Some homeowners are being told they must be behind on their payments in order to receive help, which runs counter to the aim of the proposal. In other cases, delays are so long that borrowers who are current when they ask for a loan modification are delinquent by the time they receive one. There is also confusion about who qualifies."

The above exemplifies precisely why bureaucracy, or too much government oversight, always fails. It's like the difference between your local hardware store and Home Depot. Home Depot may try to be everything to everyone, but the service will never be comparable to the family-operated store down the street.

Here's another example from the WSJ -- this time about health care:

"The U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. The government-run health care system has pauperized the entire population. A pauper may be treated well or badly treated. But a pauper must accept what he is given."

Indeed.

Fundamental Change

Five days before Inauguration Day, President Obama said this:

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Read that sentence again. This is an extraordinary statement -- because the desire to fundamentally transform something suggests that whatever it is that needs transforming is so deeply flawed, so utterly messed up, that it needs to be completely re-examined. And this, dear readers, is how our current president views America.

Tell me that's not messed up.

Are You a Kool-Aid Drinker?

So perhaps you've heard the term "kool aid drinker." A kool-aid drinker is someone who believes what they are told without thinking for themselves. Boy, do I know a lot of kool-aid drinkers. I bet you do, too.

Be careful not to make the assumption that kool-aid drinkers are dumb. More often than not, kool aid drinkers are perfectly intelligent people. The problem they have is twofold: they don't take the time to do their own research and are thus dependent on others to tell them what's going on the world (a huge mistake since the bulk of this information comes from biased sources), or they want to be part of the crowd. Either way, they're doomed to be part of the status quo. Which means their intellect will be permanently stunted.

Here's how you can avoid such a fate: When you hear something in the news, don't assume it's true. If you care enough about a particular issue, refrain from making a judgment call -- and, whatever you do, don't repeat what you simply heard on television; that's precisely how misinformation gets spread -- and do your research. Read periodicals instead of mainstream magazines. Search the Internet. (But beware of sites that attack people personally. If they do, they're biased.) Visit your local library; you'll find a plethora of unbiased information there. Listen to NPR as well as FOX. (Or FOX as well as NPR.) In short, take the time to gather all the information -- and then decide what you think. Then, when you speak about it in public, you'll know what you're talking about.

Of course, if you're too darn busy to do any of this, just click on No Bull Mom each day. I'm happy to do it for you.

Child Care and Media Bias

Below is an article I wrote last week about child care in America -- in response to a front page article in last week's Parade magazine (you know, that insert that arrives in Sunday newspapers across the country). Six newspapers declined to print my article.

This is but one example of how media bias works -- in this case, it's the newspapers (98% of which are left-leaning) that don't want this information out there. Is it possible they just didn't have the space to print my article or there was some other reason they didn't print it? It's possible -- but unlikely. I have a lot of experience with this -- and I can assure you the real reason is that they'd rather have the Parade magazine article, which touts a demand for universal child care, stand on its own without a rebuttal. This is the reason blogs are so vital in this country and why Internet news will someday destroy American newspapers and television.

America’s Supposed Child Care Problem

By Suzanne Venker

When it comes to child care in America, its advocates are committed to forcing a square peg into a round hole. They insist we can make universal child care work; all we have to do is turn our attention to Europe, where “high-quality child care is a right of citizenship,” writes Leslie Bennetts in this week’s Parade (7/19/09) magazine. Child care advocates routinely point out that the United States lags behind most Western nations. “In Sweden,” writes Bennetts, “all working parents are entitled to 16 months of paid leave per child, and mothers can take 480 days at 80% of their salary.” In Lithuania, “mothers can stay home and receive 100% of their pay for the child’s first year and 85% for the second year.”

For women like Bennetts, Europe’s model is the panacea for America’s supposed child care problem. That these individuals are comparing apples to oranges – since America is a capitalist nation (though we’re becoming more European every day) and Europe is largely socialist – is somehow lost on them. For a select few, Europe may be considered superior to America when it comes to child care; but the fact remains that most Americans disagree. Indeed, there are two great stumbling blocks to the push for “better and more quality child care.” The first is that most Americans simply aren’t on board with the idea. According to Necessary Compromises, the lengthy 2000 report from the research organization Public Agenda, 60% of parents of children five and under believe parents, not the government, are responsible for their children’s care -- and a whopping 72% believe they are responsible for the costs incurred. Even a majority of low-income parents believe bearing such costs is “their responsibility and not society’s.” With numbers like this, child care advocates may be banging their heads against a wall all the way to their deathbeds.

It isn’t just about money, either. When it comes to day care centers, parents of young children overwhelming concur that this environment is the least preferred option for child care -- and 62% of those who do use professional day care centers are satisfied with their current arrangements. None of this information suggests a clamoring for “more and better quality child care.”

The second stumbling block to child care advocates’ push for universal child care is the paradox of their own argument: You can’t insist upon “high-quality” care – which simply translates to paying child care workers higher wages -- and simultaneously make child care more affordable for parents. Making child care affordable for everyone who wants it creates more demand for staff; and the higher the demand, the less child care providers will be paid. Supply and demand requires an economic equilibrium of price and quantity. Thus, an increase in the number of workers tends to result in lower wages. Clearly, the only way to make child care more affordable in this country is to keep the demand at a minimum. Rather than opening it up to every parent in America, it should remain in place for those who are truly in need – which, incidentally, was its original intent. Even Dr. Stanley Greenspan, the eminent child psychologist who has devoted his life to early childhood development, has said the only way to create good quality child care is to have fewer parents using it.

Finally, there’s the personal toll. Not only does greater demand for child care result in lower quality, it results in fewer children getting their needs met. There isn’t a parent in the world who doesn’t know that very young children require vast amounts of time and attention. No child can receive this time and attention at a day care center -- if for no other reason than sheer numbers. Because of this, most parents in America (70% to be exact) believe having a parent at home most of the time is the best possible scenario. In her article, Ms. Bennetts quotes Art Rolnick, senior vice president and director of research for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (though why she does is anyone’s guess), who says this: “Some policymakers say early childhood education is the job of the parents, but I don’t think they understand how critical brain development in the early childhood years is to success later in life.”

Early brain development may be important, but it certainly isn’t at risk when young children stay home with their parents. What is at risk when parents and children are apart is a child's emotional development. “The infant’s emotional security is what’s important, and for the infant, a mother is the environment – pre-natally and post-natally. As a society, we are uncomfortable accepting this – but it is a biological fact,” writes Diane Fisher, Ph.D. in a 1997 congressional testimony. “Intellectual skills are more resilient and can be compensated for. An infant can recover from a deprived intellectual environment much easier than she can recover from emotional abandonment or neglect.” An inconvenient truth, to be sure -- but a truth nonetheless.

Universal child care can never be a success. It isn’t feasible. It isn’t practical. It isn’t even ethical. "The absence of quality care is one of the main drivers for people leaving the workforce,” says Diane Klein, president of corporate voices for Working Families.

Maybe so. But I feel confident this is a reality most Americans can live with.

Confidence vs. Arrogance

The issue of confidence (as compared to arrogance) is a subject I've tackled before and probably will again. It's one I feel strongly about -- and in light of my recent post about Obama being a narcissist (which is a form of arrogance), I thought I'd elaborate.

Confidence means (1) full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing, or (2) belief in one's abilities. Confidence is a good thing -- something to which we should all aspire. Arrogance means "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." Arrogance is a bad thing -- something to which no person should aspire.

There is an undeniable difference between these two personality traits, though it's certainly easy to confuse the two. Happens all the time. So how can you tell the difference?

Let's begin with our current president and the last one -- who have both been referred to as arrogant. If you take a really close look at both of these men -- regardless of your politics -- it's clear Obama is arrogant and Bush is simply confident. For one thing, Bush didn't feel the need to hear himself talk the way Obama does. Obama has taken up more air time in his first few months in office than any other president has during their entire term. Says a lot.

Second, Bush is a religious man who openly discussed his faith in God -- and admits God was instrumental in his role as president. Obama has no allegiance to any religion and does not discuss his faith -- whatever it may be. This is fine, nothing wrong with that. But Bush's open adherence to a higher authority clearly demonstrates a lack of arrogance.

Third, Obama passes the buck whenever possible. Confident people don't do need to do this.

Confident people get lumped in with arrogant people all the time. The label is usually hurled at them by people who are either envious or insecure about their knowledge about a particular subject. But the main difference is that truly arrogant people, like Bill O'Reilly for example, need to dominate the scene. And they have a style about them that makes people feel inferior or suggests they are God.

Confident people have a tendency to make others feel inferior, too -- but it's not a result of their need to overpower people or make them feel bad about themselves. On the contrary, confident people love other confident people and have no desire to dominate the conversation.

In most cases, the only people who feel inferior next to a confident person are those who know less about something than the confident person does. Or they lack self-confidence themselves and are envious of the confident person. But unlike arrogant people, confident people don't make others feel icky -- though they may inadvertently make someone feel like they should go home and study up on something. See the difference?

I love confident people, and I hate arrogant people. I bet you do, too.

Obama's a Victim AND a Narcissist

I've been silent long enough. (Hard to believe!) What I mean is that I've given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt for about a year now. I haven't used my blog to trash the man. But now I simply must speak my mind.

Everyone in the spotlight gets in trouble for using poor terminology or saying something they didn't exactly mean. It's inevitable. That's not what happened with Obama and his "stupid" comment re the latest fiasco about cops and race. Obama showed his true stripes -- and America is beginning to see what they've done.

What they did was vote into office a man they thought was God. A man who represented what they wanted America to represent. A man who sounded so damn good next to George W. Bush they had no choice but to vote for the other side. A man who articulated so clearly what Americans wished they could.

What they got was a narcissistic media hound who tells people what they want to hear. There is no substance. No answers. No nothin. Just a lot of hogwash that people gobble up because they want so much to have a black man as president.

Not only is Obama a narcissist, he's deceptive. It's not that he's knowingly, willingly pulling the wool over our eyes; it's just the way he is. You must keep in mind this man's personal life: his father left him, his mother died young, and his heritage is unclear. These are no small matters. Obama's personality and background cloud his common sense and sense of fairness. His mother believed she was a victim (I read a long biographical piece about her last year), and so does Obama. So do all modern liberals. And the victim mentality is not something you want someone in charge to have. A victim is never fair. Victims retaliate. Victims cannot be trusted to think clearly. Ever.

Barack Obama is a victim, and that's why he jumped the gun and assumed Sgt. James Crowley acted inappropriately. That's why he sided with his buddy, who's black and has a fancy title.

Even when caught, Obama can't apologize appropriately. He doesn't know how to apologize because his victim status and deep-rooted narcissism won't allow him to. Here's his pathetic attempt:

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."

Huh?

It's just a matter of time, Mr. President, before America wakes up and sees what they've done.

Taxes

Below is from Rural Revolution: (Thanks Patrice!)

Taxed to death

_______________________
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax him fast!
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers, Then tax him more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, Taxes drove me to my doom
When he's gone, Do not relax, It's time to apply The inheritance tax

* Accounts Receivable Tax
* Building Permit Tax
* CDL license Tax
* Cigarette Tax
* Corporate Income Tax
* Dog License Tax
* Excise Taxes
* Federal Income Tax
* Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
* Fishing License Tax
* Food License Tax
* Fuel Permit Tax
* Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
* Gross Receipts Tax
* Hunting License Tax
* Inheritance Tax
* Inventory Tax
* IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
* Liquor Tax
* Luxury Taxes
* Marriage License Tax
* Medicare Tax
* Personal Property Tax
* Privilege Tax
* Property Tax
* Real Estate Tax
* Recreational Vehicle Tax
* Road Usage Tax
* Service Charge Tax
* Social Security Tax
* Sales Tax
* School Tax
* State Income Tax
* State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
* Telephone Federal Excise Tax
* Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
* Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
* Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
* Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
* Telephone State and Local Tax
* Telephone Usage Charge Tax
* Use Tax
* Utility Taxes
* Vehicle License Registration Tax
* Vehicle Sales Tax
* Watercraft Registration Tax
* Well Permit Tax
* Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the world happened? Can you spell "politicians?" And I still have to press 1 for English!?!?!?!?

GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN! Send this around the USA at least 100 times!

Obama's Deception

Paul Matten of New York got it right this morning in his letter to the editor to the WSJ. He writes:

"Ted Can Dyk suffers from the illusion that President Obama's 2008 rhetoric of bipartisanship was sincere. Barack Obama, the most liberal among 100 senators, deceived enough independents with his campaign talk of bipartisanship to the detriment of poor John McCain, who for many years actually engaged in bipartisanship. Independents are beginning to understand Mr. Obama's true nature and intent. This will lead to Democratic losses in 2010, and Mr. Obama's repudiation in 2012."

Shedding Our Riches

First, a quick overview of Michael Gates Gill’s How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Son of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else: The author was raised in a lifestyle of ease and comfort – on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, with a summer cottage in Connecticut -- and doesn’t realize until he's in his sixties that a simple life is the ticket to lasting contentment. At 55, Gill loses his job as an executive, gets a divorce, and exhausts his savings – and finds himself taking a job at Starbuck’s. Simply put, he transitions from living a life of wealth and entitlement to a life of service – and discovers true happiness. While his story is a sad one (though ultimately uplifting), the message is important: It took the author a lifetime to shed his riches -- only to end up richer than ever. His book is a fascinating study of human nature.

The parallel between Gates’ story and today’s economic environment is palpable. Americans are shedding their riches in ways they never imagined. Like Michael Gill, today’s generation has been forced to cut back, or simply cut out altogether. Like Gill, their previous lives have been taken away from them and they’ve had to create new ways to live. Before he "became like everyone else," Gill candidly identifies his former sense of entitlement. This mentality was a direct result of always having had his needs met and never wanting for anything. Sounds like a typical environment for upper class society – yet eerily familiar to today’s middle class. While most of the modern generation hasn’t bumped elbows with the likes of Jackie Kennedy or Ernest Hemingway, as Gill did, they’ve certainly lived a life of privilege. In fact there’s a new book out -- The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. and W. Keith Campbell, Ph.D. -- that identifies the pervasiveness of this issue. “When children of prosperity get whatever they want, they learn that the world revolves around them. This theory also suggests that people raised in hard economic times should be less narcissistic – duty-oriented, good savers, unconcerned with seeking fame. And indeed they are – this is a spot-on description of the Greatest Generation.”

Had Gill (or the modern generation) been born in less than ideal circumstances, if he had wanted for more and been given less, he would not have spent an entire lifetime searching for life’s meaning. It would not have taken scrubbing toilets and serving coffee to appreciate the value of hard work and sacrifice. Not that Gill minds. Despite his resurrected riches -- his book is set to become a movie in 2012 – the author still works at Starbuck’s simply because he enjoys it so much. Because he’s found a purpose.

Happiness and purpose (consider the wildly popular The Purpose-Driven Life) is a topic that’s become all too familiar to Americans. Research has proven that despite the modern generation’s relative riches and easy lifestyle, young people are unhappier than ever. To the outside observer, Michael Gill’s (or the modern generation’s) upbringing – a top-notch education, unlimited resources -- seems advantageous. But affluence can be a liability. For it wasn’t until Gill stepped out of his comfort zone, until he was stripped of the good life, that he ultimately “saved his life.” This is a lesson the modern generation could stand to learn. “Helping others has benefits for the self as well – not only in becoming less narcissistic, but also in becoming happier. Research consistently finds that people who focus on status and materialism are more likely to be depressed, and those who focus on close relationships are happier,” writes Twenge and Campbell.

Americans have been living a life of entitlement for too long. What we saw as unbounded opportunity became out-and-out greed. We all know people who’ve had to completely readjust their lifestyle in light of our new economy, and it’s been painful to watch. But it’s also been a Godsend. Americans are learning early on what it took Michael Gill a lifetime to discover: a simple life, without all the bells and whistles, is the best life.

Starbucks Addendum

In today's Wall Street Journal:

"Starbucks Swings to Profit Aided by Cost Cuts." CEO Howard Schultz has had to "close stores, reduce the number of bakery suppliers, and work to make stores run more efficiently."

Starbucks Is a Case Study in Liberal Politics

Evidently I'm a little late: I had no idea Starbucks is liberal. "Flaming liberal," as my friend's husband, who works for Starbucks, confirmed. The entire concept of a "liberal business" is rather laughable -- and is, for those of you who don't know, the reason Starbucks ran into a bit of trouble earlier this year. Apparently their concept of full health benefits for all employees -- even if the employee only works one shift a week -- went south.

Duh.

I didn't know any of this when I read Michael Gates Gill's How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Child of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else last week. I read it on the way home from a family trip -- while my husband drove. It didn't take long for a spirited conversation to ensue.

There are two main angles of this book -- one is Starbucks' political bent, and the other is the book's message: that hard work, humility, and respect comprise the underpinning of a happy and satisfying life. Put another way: Money and prestige can actually harm one's ability to find happiness. I will blog about this second point later this week.

While I loved (and wholeheartedly agree) with the author's message, I had to chuckle at Starbucks' environment. Starbucks has been enormously successful, of course. I never thought about why it was; but having now immersed myself in its mission, there's no question its success is due to the way they treat their customers -- whom they prefer to call "guests." (Here's the onset of the liberal underbelly: creating terminology that has a feel-good ring to it. In fact at one point, Crystal, the author's manager, even stresses the importance of feeling good.) When Starbucks' "guests" come in to the store, they're not viewed as just another ching-ching in the register; they're talked to as if they're guests as a party. The employees -- excuse me, "partners," they're called (more liberalness) -- ask the guests about their lives, and the guests are all too willing to share, as people often do.

Despite my caustic attitude, I concede the concept works. In fact I know it does because I once managed a cafe in New Jersey and the mission was roughly the same. People loved to come in to purchase their lunch to go not just b/c the food was great but because the owner and I chatted at length with them about their lives. Most people come to public spaces like Starbucks not because they can't make a decent cup of coffee on their own but because they're social animals. They like to chat, be around like-minded people, talk about themselves -- and have people show a vested interest in them. In many cases, places like Starbucks replace what people can't get at home.

This was certainly the case for author Michael Gill. Starbucks filled a void that was lacking in his personal life. Starbucks became his life, so much so that a simple move from 93rd and Broadway in Manhattan to another store in suburban New York prompted the author to write parting poems for his co-workers and even the customers. Feeling good at work replaced his loneliness at home -- and Starbucks was happy to oblige. Moreover, "partners" at Starbucks insist on treating one another with kid gloves, as though one's emotional stability is so fragile it will break at the slightest misstep. (My friend's husband told me of the time he said something self-deprecating -- he was being funny; he's a perfectly confident person -- and the higher ups at Starbucks quickly assured him that he is too wonderful, as in, "Don't say such things about yourself!") Whether this hyper-concern for confidence building, or getting too close for comfort, was part of the reason the company floundered this year, I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised. A dynamic like this is about as sound as sleeping with one's boss.

Bottom line: Starbucks is a case study in liberal politics -- and it took a nose dive specifically because of its socialist tendencies.

Just like Obama's popularity.

A Conversation b/w a Liberal and a Conservative

Below is priceless blog by a man named Jeremy E. Sarber, a Baptist pastor from Indiana. Enjoy.

I try and avoid the inside of Starbucks and use the drive-thru almost exclusively. When I go inside I feel like a fish out of water. No one may ever refer to me as a southern boy again since I’ve been way too influenced by Hoosier culture over these last 16 years, but I have a southern boy’s spirit. Needless to say, the Starbucks atmosphere is a bit too trendy for any self-respecting southern boy. I’ll admit I do love their coffee though.

Today I stopped by for a cup and my bladder forced me to go inside. I ordered my drink, ran to the bathroom, and I fully expected to come out, grab my drink, and get out of there as quickly as possible. I mean, it’s hard enough for me to swallow my pride and order something called a grande latté (why can’t they just call it a medium coffee with a lot of milk?) but to mingle among the pompous business men and the new age college kids, even for a few minutes, is too much. I did it though.
When I came out of the bathroom, my drink was not quite ready. I sighed but waited patiently. Finally, it happened. A liberal, no doubt a Starbucks regular, spotted a conservative on his territory. He walked up, stood next to me, and asked the barista for a water. As we both waited, he began making small chat. We went through the generalities like where we’re from and what we do for a living. I told him I was a church pastor. His response took me back and I immediately knew what I was dealing with.

JEREMY: I pastor a church in Etna Green.

LIBERAL: You’re a pastor, huh? So, what is your stance on abortion?

JEREMY: (purposely looking at Liberal like he asked a stupid question) I believe it’s nothing short of murder and all participants should be punished as murderers.

LIBERAL: Everyone against abortion says that but what’s your reason for believing that?

JEREMY: Do you want the legal answer, the Bible answer, or the common sense answer?

LIBERAL: (looks at me strangely and laughs a little) The common sense one.

JEREMY: Abortion ends a life that would have been if left untampered with. Is that not murder?

LIBERAL: But its not even born yet.

JEREMY: But the child would have been born and lived like you and me if the abortion had not taken place. That’s ending a life that would have been.

BARISTA: Here’s your water and here’s your latté.

JEREMY: (to barista) Thank you. (to Liberal) Let me ask you something. Do you approve of the death penalty?

LIBERAL: Not really.

JEREMY: (shocked he allowed himself to be set up like that) So you disapprove of killing a known murderer but approve of killing a yet innocent child?

LIBERAL: Well…

(pause for Liberal to collect his thoughts)

LIBERAL: Well, I think a woman has the constitutional right over her own body.

JEREMY: I do too. But I also believe the constitutional rights of life and liberty supercedes the right to convenience.

He grinned and nodded as if to say, “Well played, Conservative. Well played.” I smiled back and handed him my card. I went on to tell him that about my site and instructed him to visit tonight because I would surely be writing about this conversation. I’m really hoping he stops by to leave a comment. We’ll see.

I Need a Favor

I am in the midst of trying to gauge my readership better, and I'm thrilled to find that my readers hail from about half the states in the U.S. -- as well as Thailand, Canada, Europe, Poland, Australia, and India! If you have a moment, it would be great if you could email me (suzannevenker@yahoo.com) and let me know precisely how you stumbled upon this blog. Thanks!

Addendum

I added several paragraphs to my post titled "Reader Comments," if you'd like to check it out.

Divided We Stand

Below is a comment I pulled from www.opposingviews.com re a political piece I wrote about Sarah Palin and the divide that exists in this country. The writer, Khannea Suntzu, makes an interesting point:

The teachers had a problem maintaining control over the school, so they divided half the playground into kids that had to wear red and half that had to wear blue. Nobody was allowed to wear any other color - and both sides were then urged on to pick on anyone wearing a different shirt. This trick has always worked, even in ancient Rome.

So that is where the US has come - voters played like a fool to reject anyone not of their political signature, so neither side gets what they want, and no new political color can enter the system. Looking in from the outside, it is laughable. And you bet, we laugh over it a lot here in Europe. We are taking bets - and the consensus is drifting towards a civil war in the US within one generation.

The civil war concept may sound far-fetched, but Suntzu is correct in recognizing the partisan politics that plague America. While I wouldn't hold Europe up as a model -- I'll let modern liberals do that -- it's true America has never before been so divided. What many people do not realize, however, is the reason for it.

America used to be much more unified as a nation. Regardless of political party, most Americans subscribed to the same basic theory: "live and let live -- but with a few caveats." It wasn't until the caveats were thrown out, due to the 1960s liberation movement, that America began its descent. Once freedom became a matter of doing whatever a person wants and the personal responsibility aspect was obliterated, Americans divided up -- as the writer refers to in the playground comment -- into two distinctive groups: those who still believe in caveats, and those who don't. Today's liberals don't like caveats. Indeed, they have nothing in common with old-time liberals like Joe Lieberman. Old-time liberals still believe in caveats. Like today's conservatives, they believe in the moral order that helps govern the universe.

Russell Kirk explains conservatism this way: It is neither a religion nor ideology; "it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order ... The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling the best with necessary reforms from time to time."

You may not be someone who thinks of himself as conservative -- yet is. You may be under the impression that conservatives are inflexible and close-minded -- and this doesn't describe you. But this is a caricature modern liberals have created. It's modern liberals, who are becoming known more and more as "progressives" today, that don't subscribe to the philosophy above. But they are in the minority. Self-described liberals comprise only 21% of the American population, according to the most recent Rasmussen report. Surprised? It is this very small (albeit loud) group who believes that "conserving tradition" is stodgy, out of touch, a stick in the mud. But conservative-minded folks believe wholeheartedly in reconciling tradition with necessary reforms. They're not stuck in the past at all; they just don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

And so Mr. Suntzu is correct: Americans are at a stalemate. And until we learn once again to embrace a universal moral order, we will be stuck in this spot for a very long time.

Back from Vacation

I'm back, but please give me some time to recover! Will resume Monday...

VACATION

I'll be out of town until the 16th.

Boys Need to Kill Things. Let Them.

In addition to the bogus definition of self-esteem, Boomers also instilled the notion that there are no real gender differences. For a balanced, accurate study of this issue, I recommend Taking Sex Differences Seriously, by Steven Rhoads. (Great guy, great book -- though this one's not for casual readers. It's loaded with facts and isn't what I'd call an easy read.) Rhoads cuts through all the crap feminists have churned out and makes a powerful case for letting boys be boys and girls be girls.

Which is why, when my son wants to turn a telephone into a gun, I let him. When he points it at me, I don't tell him never to do such a thing; instead I play dead. Do I think it's terrible to tell a boy not to point a gun at someone? No. But doing so isn't teaching him not to kill, if that's your goal. The chance of his turning into a killer because his parents didn't redirect his actions when he was young are just about nill. Boys love the idea of war. In fact just yesterday when I was instructing my son and his friend to clean up their mess, I asked them why these little balls were all over the place. To which they replied, "We were pretending they were bombs."

So what if your girl doesn't like dresses and your boy prefers piano to sports? Fine. What if one gets more estrogen or testosterone and acts more like the opposite sex (or is possibly even gay)? Fine. It's not that none of this can't happen; it's that it's rare. (Did you know that only around 3% of the country's population is gay? Three percent!) In other words, rather than cater to the very small group of boys and girls who don't act like typical boys and girls, why not embrace the majority? It is possible to cater to the masses without making the minority group feel marginalized. The days of fathers telling their boys to "quit acting like pansies and pick up a gun" are over. At least in the urban areas it is. (Not much we can do about truly backward folk anyway.)

But again, in typical American fashion, we go overboard. In our attempt to be inclusive, we marginalize the majority instead -- by telling boys it's bad or wrong to shoot a gun and telling girls they should love sports. All just so the few who are different don't feel bad. But then we end up with even more people feeling bad for doing what comes naturally.

If we truly want to be inclusive, we need to acknowledge the natural state of things while at the same time assuring those who aren't part of the masses that they're special for being different. Maybe we tell them God has a special plan for them. Maybe we tell them they're going to be emotionally superior to the masses for seeing the world in a unique light. Maybe we'll come up with some other explanation. But to attempt to eradicate nature is just plain wrong.

Mother Nature is stronger than we are.

I'm Okay--You're Okay Parents

This past weekend at Mass (for those who are interested: I'm not Catholic; my husband is; and both our children attend Catholic school), Father Jack -- who makes excellent observations about society -- told the congregation to "change the culture," rather than "letting it change you." His sermon was entirely fitting for this next blog.

I've been absorbed in several books as of late: The Narcissism Epidemic, The Me Generation, The Parents We Mean to Me, and The Self-Esteem Trap. They all cover the same basic theme: how parenting has changed dramatically, as children are now considered their parents' equals as opposed to their charges. "[Jean M. Twenge’s] study conclusively shows that there has been a tectonic cultural shift in what we teach and expect from our children. People whose birthdays fall between the early 1970s and the 2000s – adults now in their thirties down to grade schoolers and toddlers – have all been marked by this change," writes Dr. Young-Eisendrath, author of The Self-Esteem Trap.

Unlike Richard Weissbourd, author of The Parents We Mean to Be who tells parents exactly what they need to hear, Dr. Young-Eisendrath hesitates to lay blame squarely in parents' laps. I appreciate her point. She's trying to say that individual parents shouldn't beat themselves up too much for creating this environment because society as a whole condones such practices. In other words, even when conscientious parents question modern techniques of childrearing (such as time-outs vs. spanking, or talking through problems with your children as opposed to doling out punishment), the environment assures them they're doing the right thing. So unless you're 100% certain you know what you're doing as a parent -- and let's face it: Who is? -- you're going to struggle.

That said, many parents are clear about what's best for children. The most obvious example are parents of large families. I don't mean parents of multiples; I mean traditional-minded parents who choose to have large families -- and who raise their kids the old-fashioned way. What do these families have that others don't? Well-behaved kids. Smart kids. Independent kids. Kids with manners. Kids who stay out of trouble. Kids who think for themselves. Kids who don't expect a lot. Kids who don't think they're the center of the universe. Kids who know how to share. Kids who expect to wait their turn. Kids who aren't spoiled.

There are many families in America -- whether they have large families or not -- who still parent the old-fashioned way. They believe in the tried and true methods of child rearing and accept that some things in life don't change. Does this mean these parents never make mistakes? Of course not. But it does mean they don't allow the culture (the supposed "experts" or the junk they read and hear in the media) to change what they know in their heart is right.

As the welcome on my website explains, America has experienced a bona fide cultural movement in parenting -- and it began with the Baby Boomers. Not only were they the first generation to suggest mothers get out of the home and into the workforce, they were the first generation to treat their children with kid gloves. Because they were disgruntled about some of the ways in which their World War II parents raised them, Boomers suggested kids be raised in a whole new way. They were enormously successful in their desire to eradicate traditional parenting and replace it with a different approach -- using an "I'm Okay, You're Okay" philosophy of childrearing. Their intent was noble, but the implementation has been disastrous for this country.

"Lives have been shaped in part by a style of parenting and educating that has dominated child rearing for the past several decades – a style that continues. In fact it is being embraced by new parents who are locked in to a cycle of cultural demands and effects they might not even be aware of," writes author and fellow baby boomer Polly Young-Eisendrath, Ph.D. in The Self-Esteem Trap. "As a parent and a therapist, I believe that never before has it been so confusing and destabilizing to be a parent."

Indeed it hasn't. Parenting has taken on a whole new meaning in the twenty-first century -- and very little of it has been for the better. Children enter this world exactly the way they did one hundred years ago. They have not changed at all, and neither have their needs. By changing the way we parent, we have changed who children now become.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not against change. But I am against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because World War II parents weren't so great at "understanding the individual," or listening to their children, doesn't mean they were clueless about how to parent. Given the choice, most children would be much better off being raised by the World War II generation than by the Boomer generation or their children -- who make up most of today's young parents. Thank God for baby boomer psychologist Young-Eisendrath, who has the courage to face the demons of her own generation. What we need to do now is accept the truth of her observation, embrace whatever role we play in it (if we do), and change our parenting style. Here is a sampling of some of her comments:

"The crucial features (of our upbringing) led us, as a generation, to long for praise and approval. This longing was so strong that it blinded us to many beneficial components of our growing up, and the role they played in our later successes. Parental authority, coping with adversity, the discipline of daily life, moral and ethical training, and an emphasis on contributing to the welfare of others were largely forgotten when we became parents ourselves.

When we Boomers became parents ourselves, we cast all of our anxieties about self-esteem and self-confidence into child rearing strategies that imitated our own cures. We wanted to affirm our children’s individual selves and help them grow up naturally, opening like flowers in the sunshine of our positive regard. We mistakenly believed they would thrive if they just got plenty of praise, acceptance, and respect for their own thoughts and feelings. We didn’t see this as indulging them, but simply as supporting them.

Unfortunately, children are not flowers. We misunderstood self-esteem and self-confidence. They do not come from liking yourself or being praised for just being. They are by-products of things done well, developing an attitude of self-respect through recognizing your actual strengths and weaknesses, knowing how to be ordinary, and learning the rules of interdependence."



"Shifting our attitude is the key to climbing out of the self-esteem trap and removing the anvil of the special self. The problem of the special self is not the fault of individual parents, children, teens, or adults themselves. It is a mistake made innocently by a whole generation."

So if you are a traditional parent -- which, let's face it, if you're reading my blog you probably are -- please tell every modern parent you know to read this blog. We simply must solve this monumental crisis in our society. Admit it: Wouldn't it be lovely to have someone else's child look you in the eye, greet you by name, say please and thank you, and be grateful for whatever you put on their plate? Wouldn't it be lovely if most children didn't expect praise for the slightest little endeavor or think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread? Or who just thought you deserved respect simply because you're the adult? It really can be this way. You just have to make up your mind to parent your kids the old-fashioned way -- and to hell with what everyone else does.

Change the culture. Don't let it change you.

Reader Comments

For your entertainment, below are various comments on some of my posts. Some of you may wonder, "Gee, doesn't this kind of stuff bother you?" and the short answer is: yes and no. Yes because I'm a human being, and no because I'm used to it.

I remember when my book first came out in 2004 there was a piece in our local paper. The response the following week was shocking. For writing a book that highlights the needs of children and supports at-home moms, I received a handful of responses in the editorial section. One was written by a group of six "enlightened, educationally diverse women" who said they would never read a book as "regressive" as mine. They opened their diatribe by saying, "What kind of mother wears dangly earrings anyway with small children around?" They also insisted on referring to me as "Mrs." instead of "Ms." since I'm so clearly backward.

My first reaction was a punch in the gut. I'm sure they would have loved to know that. But after some time passes and you have a chance to collect your thoughts, you realize the kind of people you're dealing with. If a person cannot respond intelligently and thoughtfully to your book or article -- without the personal attacks -- you learn to write them off. My husband always asks why I don't respond more often, and the answer is: There's no point.

Instead I choose to focus on the hundreds of letters, emails, and positive comments that have been directed my way. The handwritten letters mean the most. (Of course no one uses snail mail anymore.) And my favorite was the mom of a toddler who told me she quit her job after reading my book. That little girl's life was forever altered, and that made the vitriol that was hurled at me worthwhile.

So that's the short of it. Now, some samples:


Re Sarah Palin:

"Noses are like opinions. When infected, they shouldn't be blown in public. Get Ms. Venker a never-ending supply of antibiotics. She and the know-nothings will continue to sneeze and send their germs indiscriminately."

Re Feminism:

"Your words make me ill. really, really ill. gross. how could you dismiss women's desire to not be dependent on men? you are an embarrassment to women. i can't believe that someone would say such things. what on earth is wrong with you? so women SHOULD be dependent on men? and NOT love themselves? based on my life experience, and all my amassed world knowledge, that is a recipe for depression and abusive relationships. i am still in shock about your words. your words are extremely dangerous to women!"

Re Sex:

"This article is sexist, essentialist, and somewhat creepy. Women who engage in sexual activity should feel good about it, should enjoy it. They shouldn't be ashamed of it, which is what you're saying they should."

Palin, Cont.

Click here.

p.s. Thanks, Ms. Dowd. You're proving my point for me.

As someone who knows Ms. Palin personally told John Fund of the WSJ, "The Beltway media can't understand someone not consumed with presidential ambition," one told me. "Maybe Sarah Palin won't run for president and maybe her family situation made it tougher to handle the barrage of attacks that come with that territory. The real issue that should be asked is why a mean-spirited system has to treat people who run like that, instead of why someone may choose not to go through it."

Why We Should Care about Jon and Kate

As a rule, I do not watch reality television; so I cannot vouch for the details of Jon and Kate's marriage the way many people I know can. But I do know this much: There is much to be learned from their story -- particularly for the modern generation.

Aside from the obvious -- that money and fame can bring out our darkest impulses, or at least shed light on our priorities -- the most obvious reason for Jon and Kate's fall has to do with the lack of respect the two have for one another. Having watched about 10 episodes at the beginning -- several years back -- and then parts of some recent episodes, I see a change in Jon. I remember thinking several years ago that he appeared to have respect for Kate but winced a bit when she spoke. My husband would watch the exchanges between them and say, "They won't last. He'll put up with that to a certain point, and then he'll check out." He was right: Inherent disrespect will destroy any marriage.

I do not mean to play marriage counselor here. Really. In fact I've remained largely silent about marriage. But as someone who's witnessed a lot of divorce -- my father was divorced (before he married my mother), I've been divorced, my sister has been divorced, and my husband is a product of divorce -- I have strong feelings about marriage. I also have strong feelings about the modern generation: where we've gone wrong as a society, and how we can do better.

Jon and Kate's story is an important one. Jon and Kate, in their early thirties, are the quintessential example (the size of their family notwithstanding) of modern parents: They are young; they are raising kids amidst chaos; and they act more like roommates than they do husband and wife (and I'm not just referring to sex, though that is definitely a biggie). Kate points out that families of multiples are more prone to divorce, and I appreciate that statistic (if it is indeed true; I haven't researched it). I can see how this would happen. Raising children brings out the best and worst of all of us, and the two greatest stresses on any marriage include being the parents of very young children and being the parents of teenagers. These two experiences can, and often do, strain marriages to the breaking point. It's not popular to talk about -- Who wants to think of children as being harmful to a marriage? -- but it's a fact nonetheless.

Still. The fact remains that there are parents whose marriages survive -- and thrive -- despite the reality of child care. Rather than focus on the marriages that fail, wouldn't we do better as a society to follow the lead of those who thrive? Why do we insist on turning to marriage "experts" in the media when the best examples are often found in our own backyards? Look for the folks who've been married for decades. Ask them what they think. Ask them what they did. Or just observe. We can learn a lot if we just observe.

The reason Jon and Kate's story is so important is that, like so many young couples today, their marriage is missing two key ingredients: respect, and the belief that they come first and their children come second. A friend of mine wrote a great blog about this. Check it out.)

In this month's Parents magazine (June 2009) is an article called "Happy Parents, Happy Kids," by Holly Robinson. Robinson admits she used to put her child before her husband, using an example of the time she planned a special weekend with her 5-year old son, Aidan. The two of them were going to take a hike, go to the science museum, and hit a new restaurant she claims they (as if her son gives a whit about a new restaurant) wanted to try. This was a weekend jaunt -- not a weekday excursion while her husband was at work (since, naturally, she works, too). It took the author's mother -- who's clearly from a different generation -- to ask her daughter what her "poor husband was going to do while you're off having fun."

Robinson then writes, "She clearly didn't realize how much times had changed. When I was Aidan's age, family life wasn't focused on the kids. We used to play by ourselves outside all day and go to bed early. My parents would routinely trot off to cocktail parties, and my husband's parents took week long, child-free vacations."

Hello? And this is bad because...? Parenting has shifted so dramatically that many couples today have no idea how to navigate the muddy waters. Children's needs haven't changed one bit. They still need a parent at home, as well as two parents who love each other, are committed to one other, and who stand together on every action they take. "If you and your spouse become distant, it places pressure on your kids to fulfill your emotional needs," writes Robinson.

This is precisely what is happening today. The modern generation has changed the entire dynamic of family life -- by removing both parents from the home, living stressful and chaotic lives, ignoring their marriages, and catering to their children. This is not the way healthy families operate. Healthy families require a parent at home, parents who love and respect one another, a peaceful environment for children, and a clear understanding on everyone's part that Mom and Dad are the boss -- and children are welcome accompaniments to an otherwise happy life.

Jon and Kate's story demonstrates what can happen when parents put their children before each other. It also shows what can happen when one partner treats the other with such disdain that divorce is inevitable. In the July 6 issue of People magazine, Jon Gosselin says this about his marriage to Kate: "I was too passive. I finally stood up on my own two feet, and I'm proud of myself."

So what's the answer for modern parents? Pay a little bit less attention to your kids and a lot more to your spouse. How to cultivate a good marriage is not complicated. It's hard as hell, but it isn't complicated. Men need affection, respect, and tons of sex to be happy. Women need affection, help on the home front, and to be understood. While both parties are responsible for meeting one another's needs, men are far better at holding up their end of the bargain. Most men (not all) will follow the lead of any good woman who treats him with respect (and hopefully, gives him lots of sex; but they'll even compensate for this if they have to as long as the respect is there).

The problem is that men get no respect today. Their needs have been completely dismissed in a world where women now rule. Women's magazines. Women's needs. Women's desire for balance. Women's health. Women's depression. Men are lucky to even be considered for marriage, since we can just get their sperm and move on with our lives. And those who do marry -- which is to say, most men -- have no voice on the home front. They just mill about, doing whatever they're told. Like Jon did.

Treating your husband like he's a boarder in his own home -- as if he's an idiot whose sole purpose in life is to provide you with sperm and be ordered around -- is a recipe for disaster. Kate should have read The Surrendered Wife. She may have saved her marriage.

Bottom line: Treat your spouse with respect, and never put your children before your marriage. It really can be as simple as that.

Sarah Palin and Liberal Dominance

Theoretically, conservatives should be able to take a lot of heat from the media. After all, the liberal media represents the minority, not the majority, in America. Despite their constant presence in our lives, the beliefs of those in the media are in stark contrast to most Americans' beliefs. That's something conservative-minded Americans can take comfort in.

Second, traditional Americans are a confident bunch. Generally speaking, they lay down at night knowing the truth is in their court. Liberals toss and turn with anger, resentment, or just a steadfast conviction that they're victims of an unjust society.

Third, the more personal the attack from the Left is, the more satisfying this should be for the conservative. When Maureen Dowd trashes Palin's character, instead of questioning specific topics she might take issue with, the more foolish the Left appears. Take a stroll through the Huffington Post and you'll find scores of articles trashing Palin.

Sarah Palin should take comfort in all the trash that's come her way: Her mere presence shakes the Left to its core. As an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal says, "Mrs. Palin seems, in particular, to drive feminist writers into condescending fits." Indeed, the more of a fit people have, the more you know you're on to something. People only spew vitriol when they're up against a wall.

So why, then, isn't the superiority of conservative thought enough to withstand the pressure from the media? (And I'm not suggesting Palin stepped down for this reason alone, but she has complained about this many times.)

Two reasons. First, power is power -- no matter whose hands it's in. If the powerful in America do not agree with your politics or worldview, you're basically screwed. Because no matter how carefully you plan your speech, no matter how prepared you are for the attacks, the powerful will twist and turn anything you say to their advantage. We know the media is liberal. But do we appreciate what this really means? I don't think so. If you haven't been on the receiving end, it's difficult to appreciate just how insidious it is. I suspect Palin had no idea how evil the regime is. Consider this diatribe from Mark McNamara.

Second, there aren't enough powerful conservative voices out there who are willing and prepared to take on the media -- which makes it a tough road for the lone conservative. Everyone needs support to do their thing. That's why the liberal media have been so successful: They have thousands of cohorts! It's also why talk radio is so vital. Talk radio is a critical component of our democracy. Without it, conservative America would retreat to their own little world, try to function accordingly -- and feel hopelessly alone in a world gone mad.

The irony of the whole thing is this: Because the powerful in America happen to be liberal, it makes it seem as though America is liberal. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals have the upper hand, yes. And they have the microphone, which is terribly unfortunate. But they're also like high school cliques: Their inherent insecurity requires them to stomp on others whose voices don't support theirs. It's how they survive. In other words, they're a sad bunch. So don't be angry with them.

Feel sorry for them.

Dissecting Affairs

The following is one of the responses to the link below about Mark Sanford on Smart Girl Nation.

"It seems to me that if a man can cheat on and lie to his own wife, he certainly isn’t going to be any more loyal to his constituents. It’s not about his affair with another woman, it’s about his honesty and sense of commitment. Obviously, he has none."

This is an extremely narrow-minded and provincial view of morality. To suggest that a person who's been married for 20 years -- with no history of cheating -- and who's been cleared of any political wrongdoing has "no sense of honesty and commitment" is ridiculous. Such a statement can only be made by someone with very little life experience. Marriage is complicated business, and it takes two people to make it work.

What do we know of Mrs. Sanford and her role in her husband's lapse? Why are we so quick to dismiss the other party -- whether male or female -- when it comes to affairs? The assumption is that the "jilted" party is somehow more moral for not having an affair. But what do we know of her as a person? Perhaps she's abusive. Perhaps she refuses to use birth control. Perhaps she's a witch. Perhaps not. The point is...we don't know. We have no idea what the Sanfords' story is: what goes on in their marriage, who's to blame for what, etc.

When I was divorced in 1995, people always asked who divorced whom. This was a silly question, and seeks to blame one party over another. While, technically speaking, I did the divorcing, my ex-husband was the one who was not ready to be married. His actions left me little choice. To the outside observer, the "wife" divorced the "husband" -- making it seem as if I no longer wanted to be married to him. In fact the opposite was true.

Generally speaking, men are of two animals: broken and lost (and thus morally corrupt), like Bill Clinton; or they're good men who've been pushed to the breaking point after years of not getting their needs met. My bet is that Sanford falls under this last category. This doesn't mean what he did was okay -- even he knows that. But to suggest he's dishonest or incapable of commitment smacks of naivete and moral righteousness.

Never judge a book by its cover. Until you know what's between the covers, you can't have an opinion.

Mark Sanford, Cont.

Click here.

Understanding Human Nature

Even Colin Powell's Finally Getting It

From today's Washington Times:

"Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much," writes Jon Ward.

Naw, ya think?

It's Official: Democrats Have Woken Up

Guilt and the Spin Sisters

In Cookie magazine (May 2009) there's a feature on two Today show producers who have written a book about surviving the first year of motherhood. Personally, I find it comical that women who are absent for the majority of their children's waking hours would dispense any motherhood advice whatsoever. Nonetheless, Alicia Ybarco and Mary Ann Zoellner are the authors of the book Today's Moms; and they recently spoke with Cookie magazine about their lives.

"Being a producer [at the Today show] is extremely demanding. The hours can be crazy. There've been times I've come home to feed the baby and put her to sleep, then gone back to work until 4 a.m."

Why, oh why, do these women have children? Really. I'm not being sarcastic. I want to know.

Later in the article, the following: "There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wonder, Could I have given more to the job? Could I have done more with my family? The guilt is there where ever you go -- it's just a matter of whether you choose to listen to it."

It's the quintessential trademark of modern motherhood: mommy guilt. Guilt and motherhood is a very new phenomenon; it just didn't exist 20 years ago. Is it unjustified? Yes and no. Certainly mothers need to relax more; they needn't worry that every little thing they do or say will cause their children great harm or send them to the psych ward. But when it comes to the idea of having babies, only to leave them each day and pop into their lives every once in a while for a quick hello -- then guilt is not unjustified. It's normal. It's natural. It's your conscience telling you something's very wrong here.

Notice it's the women in the media -- the spin sisters -- who perpetuate the notion of guilt. That these women need to ease their consciences by convincing Americans that guilt is overrated and an unnecessary emotion is criminal. Thankfully, most women in America do not live their kind of lifestyle. What a horrid existence these spin sisters live -- in having to fend off their consciences every single day.

Allow me to answer your questions, ladies: No, you could not have given more to the job -- and Yes, you could have done more with your family. Much more. But something tells me you already know that.

But it's this quote that should be of the most concern: "Guilt is a worthless emotion. We're great examples to our children because we're working moms -- and that's the reality of it. If I'm proud of what I produce, it makes me a better mom when I get home."

Yes, those babies of yours are so pleased that you're proud of your work. They wanted nothing more than to come into this world and see you do well in your profession -- even if they only get to see you for an hour each day. It's worth it to them -- as long as you're happy.

For those of you who want an alternative view to the bunk that's churned out in women's magazines, click on "Everything You've Been Taught about Guilt Is Wrong" in the June archive to your right.