Wednesday, May 11, 2005

There are a couple of items that got to me today...

The murder of the two little girls in Zion, Illinois is heart-wrenching. The fact that one of the girls father is the murderer (he confessed today) makes me so angry that I can hardly stand it.

I've gotten angry with my children before (who hasn't), but the idea of hurting any of them is so absurd that I can't even fathom it. My hope is that Jerry Branton Hobbs III does not receive the death penalty. I would rather he be placed in a windowless cell with nothing but autopsy pictures of the children, along with the sounds of the children playing.

After he starts to get used to it, he should be turned over to a few really hardcore criminals who make him their "bitch."


*************


The other story that unnerved me came out of Wausau, Wisconsin. Apparently, An AIDS education group, the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, distributed condoms to middle-school children during a health fair.

There are those who would look at this and applaud the action, stating that it's never to early to educate children on the dangers of AIDS. I, on the other hand, take a different approach.

I believe that the more access we give and the more teenage sex is accepted - and certainly promoted - the more neccesary it is to "educate" middle school children.

What this does is only make the situation worse. What is happening is instead of correcting the problem, we are simply redefining it. Similar to gay marriage. Once we redefine the what it is (by acceptance and promotion), the more the definition becomes murky.

Mark Steyn, among others, refers to this as the "slippery slope." The question is no longer where the line is. The question is how long it will last. At some point, there will no longer be a "line." This, unfortunately, is true for our government as well.

Our country was created on the basis of our constitution. The founding fathers clearly knew what they were doing in writing this document. However, there has been a growing movement to redefine it as a "living, breathing document." Meaning that as the times change, so should the Constitution.

This, in a nutshell, is the main disagreement regarding the appontment of federal judges. One side wants to appoint judges who will follow the letter of the constitution while the other side believes that they should appoint those who will put their own spin on each law.

While I admit that I'm rambling off-topic, it does all make sense in the overall scheme of things. In allowing our values to be lowered in order to appease the minority, we slowly chip away at what has made this country the huge success it has been.

There will come a time when there will be nothing left to chip away. What will be of us then?

No comments: