What are chaperones for, anyways?

When I looked up “chaperone” in the dictionary I found this definition: “A guide or companion whose purpose is to ensure propriety or restrict activity.” Using this definition, would you say that the seven chaperones accompanying the Alabama students on their trip to Aruba served their purpose? I think not.

This story of Natalee Holloway’s disappearance is an absolute heart-breaker. The loss of any American, especially a young American, is saddening. However, I am troubled even further by the fact that the chaperones on this trip to Aruba failed to do their job.

I think we all can remember a time when we went on a field trip in school. Maybe it was in high school, maybe elementary school. One such trip I recall occurred while I was in 5th grade. My classmates and I were lined up, escorted to a bus and shuttled over to the Erie Canal where we boarded a tour boat which was going to take us along the canal. After the ride on the boat we were again lined up, escorted to the bus where we were counted and then taken back to school. Not a single one of us went missing, thanks to the teachers taking a head count before and after the trip.

Sure, I can understand that dealing with a group of high school seniors is not as simple as handling a bunch of fifth graders. But if this same procedure was used to account for each student on the trip to Aruba, would Natalee Holloway be missing today? Probably not. Some would argue that most of these students were 18 years old and probably went on this trip expecting freedom. If freedom is what they were looking for then they shouldn’t have gone on a school sponsored trip.

Simply put, my opinion is this: Any parent who would allow their teenage child to go on a trip to another country that isn’t properly supervised is insane. And for all the children of insane parents who do manage to convince mom and dad to send them on this trip, you should expect very little freedom on such a trip. You will be counted as you enter the bus to leave the hotel and counted as you enter the bus to go back to the hotel. Don’t like it? Go to Aruba on your own then.

If only those guides and companions whose purpose was to “ensure the propriety or restrict the activity” of Natalee Holloway and her classmates did their jobs Natalee might still be with us today.

Where has all the courage gone?
Topic: War on Terror

Do you know off the top of your head how many U.S. soldiers died in the Vietnam war? Most sources on the internet place the number anywhere from 48,000 to 54,000. Now can anyone tell me how many soldiers have lost their lives in the second Iraq war? As of this writing, just over 1,500 have been killed. Now this may sound a bit harsh, and some may even find it disrespectful. But just over 1,500 KIA in over 2 years of war is not that bad.

The point of this post, however, is not about the number of soldiers who are no longer with us. It’s not about justifying the war in Iraq. I do support the war, but I’m not going to bore you with why I support it. If you were alive during the 2004 presidential campaign and heard any speech given by President Bush then you know why I support the war. The point I want to make deals with troop morale and how I feel that some parents of soldiers, whether they know it or not, are tearing down that morale.

The whole idea for writing this came when I felt the need to send a message to a group I came across on the internet. That group is called MFSO, “Military Families Speak Out.” I stumbled upon a link to their website while surfing through the stories on Foxnews.com. This group, in case you haven’t assumed already, is made up of family members (mostly mothers I noticed) who have loved ones who have died in Iraq or are currently serving in Iraq. One doesn’t have to read long to find out that they are anti-Bush and anti-war. They use terms like “occupation” and “abomination” to describe the war in Iraq. Another interesting tidbit about this site is that they seem to mention that a lot of their members actually supported President Bush before the war. This is a blatantly obvious attempt at trying to convince you that they are not a partisan group.

Here’s a piece of text directly from their homepage that should sum up what they REALLY know about the war in Iraq: “But this war, she says, is not against terrorism; it's for oil.” Let’s think about this. If this war was all about oil and stealing it from the Iraqis, why the hell am I still paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas? BECAUSE THE WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL!

These parents (read: Mothers) are mad as hell that President Bush would send their children into war where they could face their death. I mean come on, the President certainly should only use military force when there is a zero percent chance of casualties, right? No, and that’s where these mothers go wrong. Did they forget that their loved ones volunteered to join the military? Do they feel no pride at all that their children would make such an incredible sacrifice to protect the lives of others? And let me remind you, I have a good friend who is a Marine who has done two tours in Iraq and soon will begin his third. Did he once complain about the duty he was called on to do? No. Not a single complaint. He did is job, like he said he would when he signed those papers at the MEPS office.

Somewhere between World War II and this war America lost its courage and resolve. We see on the news a soldier was killed in battle and the first thing we do is cry to the government to pull our troops out. I refuse to be one of those people. I understand the sense of loss these families are feeling. To lose a loved one is a painful experience. But why try to tear down the morale of the other troops, including my good friend? That’s what you are doing when you call for the president to resign in the middle of a war! Be proud of your loved one and know they died fighting for their nation. And then support the other soldiers, I’m sure my good friend Andy would appreciate it.

America's Backwards Religious Sensitivities
Topic: Religion

Is it just me or is America becoming so sensitive to other religions that we forget the one religion that played a major role in shaping this country in the first place? Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the separation of church and State. The government has no business telling me who I should and should not worship. But the government also has no right to tell me I cannot speak to others about my faith.

Take for example this news item I came across the other day. The top cadet in the senior class at the Air Force Academy sent out an E-Mail to the other students of the academy. In this E-Mail the cadet made reference to a handful of Christian quotes. One talking-head I saw on FOX News claimed that that student had no right to speak about Christianity in that E-Mail because he was part of a “command structure.” Problem is he wasn’t a Commander, he was a student. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t it been said that students have the right to free speech on any college campus? Oh, I forgot, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to evangelicals (note the sarcasm).

At the same time that a student is being denied the right to speak about his Christian faith we have students in Byron California being forced to pretend that they are Muslims and praise Allah (Read Michael Savage’s “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” for more on this). When I read about this a red flag immediately shot up directly in front of my face. I like to think that I’m not the only person who experienced such a reaction. Why our government here in America says it’s okay to force our children to embrace Islam while at the same time trying to erase Christianity from our history and future completely blows my mind.

Simply put, here’s how the federal government deals with religious people today: If you’re a Christian, shut up or be sued by the ACLU. If you’re a Muslim, feel free to brainwash today’s youngsters into believing your religion is superior and peaceful.

Let us not forget who flew two jetliners into the World Trade Center and who also dropped another airliner into the Pentagon. It was radical Islamic terrorists, not Christians. Taking that into consideration, which religious belief do you think will do more harm to our nation?

Rainbow Party: Not your average ROY G BIV
Topic: Family Values

Allow me to set the record straight for us conservatives, or at least some of us. We are not prudes. We do not attempt to pretend that everything is peachy keen in the world. Like I said, this goes for at least some of us.
This book “Rainbow Party” that seems to be getting a fair amount of press is worth mentioning for only two reasons. Reason one: liberals are using it to falsely label conservatives as prudes. Reason two: this book is going to affect the lives –and in some cases take away the lives—of today’s teenagers. For those of you who haven’t heard of the book, allow me to give you a quick summary. The story told deals with two teenage girls purchasing six different colors of lipstick. They are doing so because they plan on attending a “rainbow party” where girls and guys gather to engage in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different color lipstick and leaves her “mark” on each guy at the party. The term rainbow comes from what is left on each guy’s member, a rainbow of lipstick. The book closes with the two girls hearing of an outbreak of sexually transmitted diseases and they decide to not attend the party.
Sure, the basic message of this book is a good one. Teenagers should be made aware of the consequences of STD’s. The problem is there is no need to mention a “rainbow party” when educating teens. I’ve been around for almost 23 years now and I never heard about rainbow parties. I currently don’t have any children. But I know for sure that I never want my child to ever know what a rainbow party is. There is no need for it.
Here’s where I get annoyed with the label prude. Liberals seem to think that because conservatives reject this book that they are prude. What’s prude about not wanting teenagers who have never heard of a rainbow party to learn of them from a book in school? One blog I read about this book claims that children will do things that they are told not to do just because they are curious. This is how he justified using the book and blamed conservatives for making the problem worse. Am I the only one who cannot comprehend this logic? Teens will do what they are told not to do, I know I did. But this is exactly what this book is doing, telling teens they shouldn’t go to rainbow parties because of STD’s. Why do we need to mention the party to talk about STD’s? The conservative view is not to avoid the subject of sex, it’s to teach teenagers only what they need to know about it, and rainbow parties are not need-to-know information.
Lets scrap sex education altogether. There is only one class needed. That class would show students pictures of STD’s and the statistics of those infected in the US. That should do the job.

I couldn't hold back any longer

It is born. A place for me to post everything I ever had to say about everything. With all that is going on in the world today I cannot hold my tongue. I need to vent, to speak out about what I believe and my positions on the topics that dominate the news. Here's were to find my opinion. Sometimes it will be harsh, sometimes not. Some of you may not be able to swallow it all, while others wont be able to get enough. Regardless, I am going to use this space to tell it just how I see it. Isn't the first amendment great?