Free Republic

Prayers most definitely sent! God bless this precious little one and his family!

I reject that line of reasoning.

Back in the late 1980's, a commuter airplane crashed into the Potomac River in the middle of a brutal winter. A passerby stopped his car, got out, and dove into the freezing waters in an effort to get people out of the sinking plane.

He saved 6 people, telling them he wanted to try to bring out one more (the plane was now completely submerged and sinking deeper still).

He never resurfaced.

He was completely blameless in this situation, did nothing to cause the accident, was unrelated to any of these individuals. Just an average human being, reacting with loving heart, that was capable of extraordinary bravery in the face of an extreme situation.

Six people are alive today because of his selfless sacrifice. I'm sure that some might want to look at his circumstances and think him foolish; but for those six people and their families, he is a HERO.

I saw a video just a few years ago where a chopper had an accident and wound up overturning in a creek bed. Friends of the chopper pilot were nearby. The pilot was trapped upside down and underwater. A huge hulk of a man, knicknamed "Tiny," charged into the water, oblivious to the danger, and literally hoisted the helecopter out of the water enough for other friends to unfasten the pilot and get him out.

Back when I was a child, my brothers were working on our back porch (an enclosed porch), fixing their minibike. Although they had taken the precaution of draining the fuel from the minibike, their efforts were not complete. A spark from the sparkplug ignited the fuel. They jumped back from the bike, which tipped over and knocked over the recipticle they had put the drained fuel in, causing a wall of flames on the back porch, trapping them in the corner.

My father heard my brothers screams from the front yard, charged through the fire and pulled my brothers to safety, then retreated into the house for the fire extinguisher, which he used to put the fire out. Because he reacted so quickly, none of my brothers was hurt and the damage to the back porch was minimal.

I believe that every person possesses the capacity to perform great acts. Not everyone is confronted with situations where they must act; not everyone believes themselves capable of them. Most people do not actively seek them out, or think to themselves, "Hey, I could really be a hero if I do this." They JUST DO IT.

And thank God that they do.

Prayers for this boy's safe and quick return to his family!

It is my contention that Mark Levin should father as many children as possible (within the confines of marriage, of course, with Mrs. Levin). With that kind of superior brain power, 20 or so kids just like him would raise that national IQ at least a few percentage points.

He is spot on! The decisions the President makes on the Supreme Court nominees are as critical domestically as the War on Terror is for national security.

Dear PPaul:

I remember this story. It was from a few years ago, but the original poster isn't making this up. I was stunned when I heard about it. I hope they can find a link.

No insults from this end, RCA. That would be a wonderful option, if it was an option, and it was what we hoped for when our own children were born; however, medical complications and the ensuing medical debt were too overwhelming for us to overcome and I had to work.

Instead of going the daycare route, my husband and I work opposite hours, opposite days. It's been a real strainer for our marriage, but we live secure in the knowledge that our babies are being raised in trusted hands: our own.

If a couple can afford to have 1 parent stay at home, then they should. Those first few years of a child's life form their personality for a lifetime, and that is the single best investment of time that a parent can make. I realize, however, that this isn't a possiblity for a great many parents, for any number of reasons.

Thanks for the clarification.

I have a few possibilities of my own to add, if I may:

1. Immaturity/bad habits/contentious disagreements on the part of one or the other spouse that is overlooked or ignored before the marriage, because of the "Frog Prince" or "Frog Princess" syndrome (he/she will magically transform at the altar or marriage "will change him/her.").

2. Inability to adjust to a new lifestyle, and the sacrifices in spending that accompany it.

3. Belief that spouse is supposed to be the source of unending happiness, even when outside events put pressure on the marriage.

4. Willingness to disparage spouse, particularly verbally, when the disagreement is not about something personal in nature.

5. Failure to respect spouse, or to acknowledge their good deeds.

6. Failure to recognize how spouse expresses love (men tend to be doers, women tend to be sayers).

7. Failure to be responsive to spouse's needs for physical affection (whether it's hugging, kissing, lovemaking, or even to rest when exhausted).

8. Marrying someone who seems a good choice "for now" or "because someone better might not come along."

9. Marrying someone with incompatible political, religious, or child rearing beliefs, vastly different goals, different moral structure, etc. While many couples can overcome these differences and thrive under them, having these in common dramatically increases the chance for a successful marriage.

10. Consistently putting the needs of friends, family members, etc. ahead of spouse. A person more attached to their parents, best friends, or siblings is doing a disservice to their spouse.

I'd like to see a study that focuses on some of these things.

"or that the women who keep their job after they marry are simply not as likely to have the physical characteristics or personality that men find admirable in a wife over the long haul, or that women who marry and keep their jobs are less likely to be satisfied by any men."

I don't agree with this statement.

Just a quick scan of my posts in the past will reveal a deep respect, love, and continued passion for my husband of 12 years. I don't need any man, I have the EXACT man that God intended for me and I am honored to be his wife.

I am also a working woman. I am not working because my husband does not satisfy me, or that I crave material possessions, or need a career to feel complete; I am working because several years of medical issues and the ensuing medical bills have put a financial strain on our household. I fully intended to quit working after our children came, but complications in both my pregnancies and deliveries made that impossible. A battle with cancer also made a physical and economic impact on my family.

Just when there was light at the end of our financial tunnel, the Lord has blessed us again with another child (I guess I still possess the physical characteristics my husband finds admirable, even at 40 years old). Given what we already know is waiting for us (yes, even after insurance pays), it will put us back in the hole again to the tune of thousands of dollars.

There are a number of couples on my street where both parents work. I can honestly say that these are strong and loving couples; but the one thing that they all have in common is a strong belief in God and a firm dedication to their wedding vows. They share the same outlook my husband and I share; we are a team, working together, for the best interests of the family.

A gross, and inaccurate, generalization.

It is a sacrifice for me to work, and not stay home with my children. We got slammed mightily with medical bills (even after insurance paid what they considered "reasonable and customary") that we are STILL paying off, and we are looking at more medical bills in the next few months.

If I didn't work, we would have lost the house, there would be no new clothes for two (soon to be three) growing kids, no money for life insurance (if I died tomorrow, at least my family would be financially secure), no money for vaccinations or other basic NEEDS. Not wants, or desires, but NEEDS. We are working hard to do what is right and pay off our financial obligations to the medical providers who saved not just my daughter's life, but mine.

I walked away from a job where my take home pay was $1K a week to work part-time, making half that amount, because even though we had exhausted our funds for medical bills, I wanted to spend time with my children. I could have tossed my kids into daycare and eliminated our debt in half the time. My husband and I work opposite shifts, sacrificing plenty of time in our marriage (we see each other 1 day a week at most) so that WE and WE alone are their caregivers. Every single decision we have made starts with one question: what is best for the children?

I congratulate women who stay home and do without to raise their babies. God bless them. But to suggest that women who work care less for their kids is, quite simply, ridiculous.

A perfect example of your sentiments can be found in two historical female writers, courtly love poets Christine de Pisan (City of Ladies, if I recall correctly) and Marie de France (Le Fresne). They helped not only to capture the courtly love ideals but to promote them, thus furthering the noble virtue of chivalry throughtout the upper classes.

Heloise is another brilliant historical female mind (of Abelard and Heloise). Her writing is extraordinary.

Austin's unique perspective in her many works also reflect your sentiments.

Bronte and Shelley break the mold, with fabulous results.

Historical factors may have also played on part in the prominence of masculine great works. Women were typically the connecting point between the family and the rest of society; as a result, their attentions were devoted to not just home and family, but to maintaining the bonds between their families and other families. This served to occupy the vast majority of their time, leaving room for little else. Great historical female writers may have gone unnotice or failed to flourish for sheer lack of time.

Improbable? Not really. My own experience is such that after the birth of my first child, my writing took a back seat to the needs of my son. After my daughter came, I found myself in near retirement status. Only now, several years later, am I finding a few moments here and there to write. Given the tools available to our ancestors, it is actually easier for me to put together 30 pages of material than it was for them...by virtue of the fact that I can type 100 words per minute, versus writing them with quill and ink, or pen and pencil by hand.

You are most welcome. Always glad to help!

You made perfect sense and yes, I completely understand your desire to learn more about the origins of language.

Dear Our Man:

You are what would be classified as a "divergent thinker."

The vast majority of people are convergent thinkers, meaning that they use the sum total of their knowledge to arrive at a singular conclusion. Schools are geared towards convergent thinkers, even our test structures focus on this metacognitive thought process.

Divergent thinkers (estimated 3% of the population), however, start at a particular point and move outwards. Instead of focusing their knowledge to come to a conclusion, they use their knowledge to examine the possibilities.

Some of the world's greatest minds are divergent thinkers (Einstein, for example). Nowadays, these children are labeled ADD or ADHD and drugged.

I kept insisting to my girlfriend that her son was a divergent thinker. He asked a thousand questions, always wanted to know "why," always followed a question with a question. This child is exceptionally bright and easily bored.

Exasperating, heck yes! But instead of trying to find an open school environment where he would thrive (I warned her that a typical classroom environment would stifle him), she chose a strict Catholic school first (which was a miserable experience for everyone) and now public school (more misery for everyone), and her son is medicated.

This is not to suggest that all divergent thinkers are brilliant and all convergent thinkers are not. You can find genuis in both groups, and average or below average in both. Still, we need to recognize that it's not only gender and age that impact learning, the metacognitive channels can be different, as well.

May I take a stab at answering this?

Even though I am not a man, I have what many consider to be a masculine mind. My thought process is more logical than emotional, my interest in things spurred by the logical and mechanical progression than by the creative, and I excelled at sciences while in school. In high school, my aptitude tests ranked me in the 99 percentile for spacial relation, cause/effect, and other metacognitive abilities necessary for a mechanical or civil engineer. I do not find this surprising, as I come from a long line of engineers.

The love of language can be viewed as a science. I was interested in the proper use of words, their origin and transitional meanings, their placement in a sentence and its impact on the "mental movie." Without consciously recognizing it, I studied the written word for structure, the narrative voice used to convey the story, the development of the characters, and the logical progression of events.

This love of language invariably leads many to examine how others use it to convey their thoughts, which can quickly blossom into a love of literature in general.

While I do not presume to place myself in their category by any means, great writers have all of these things. There is a cadence to their stories, a sometimes painfully slow development of their characters that is nonetheless worth the pain, and a logical construct of the plotline.

This is not to say that great writers choose a formula for their works, but instead their writing style is a formulation of these things. BIG DIFFERENCE.

If we examine Hawthorne's "The Scarlett Letter," for example, an often overlooked aspect of this book is the changing narrative perspective. The book rotates its focal point by three - first the "townspeople," then Hester, then the immediate circle around Hester, back to the "townspeople," repeat the cycle.

This construct was necessary for Hawthorne to explain the full impact of Hester's actions not just on herself but on those around her. In less logical hands, it would have been a silly romance novel. While I have no proof, I believe this construct was intuitive at first, and then a progressively logical outgrowth as the story unfolded.

In Melville's "Moby Dick," considered by many as a masterpeice in literature, each chapter is a short-story within itself, plumbing the topic at hand with a consistent narrative voice, but a differing tone to convey the underlying sentiment. At the same time, each slowly advances the overall story.

If you have ever pulled back from a book and said, "WTF?" at an odd plot twist, silly surprise, out-of-character action by one of the key players, or other event that seemed implausible or ridiculous, you are in the hands of a skilled (but still novice) writer.

If you have ever pulled back from a book and said, "My God!", you are in the hands of a master.

Despite garnering over 45% of the market share, I cannot stomach the vast majority of dreck masquarading as "romance novels." They are silly, inconsistent bits of fluff. Conversely, I am quite drawn to romantic storylines woven by men, as they tend to be neither silly nor inconsistent.

If you look at science fiction, fantasy, or horror writers, where the reader is asked to suspend reality for the purposes of accepting the parameters of the story, there are typically boundaries (written or implied). Great writers will create masterpieces within these boundaries, novices will set up boundaries and then break them for convenience. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of great sci-fi/fantasy/horror writers are men, because they do not break their boundaries.

While not detracting from the achievements of many accomplished female writers, I hope that the above helps to clarify why men would be drawn to the science of language, the love of literature, and ultimately pen the majority of the world's great masterpeices.

I stated in our first interaction that I do not think she would have gotten a harsh sentence if she had chosen to drive legally; if she had demonstrated (as society has asked all drivers to do) that she is capable of operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner before accessing the public roads. She failed to do that, which made her presence on the road, behind the wheel of a vehicle, illegal.

She CHOSE to not get a license.

She CHOSE to conceive several children out of wedlock with an obviously unstable and unsupportive man, whose subsequent abandonment left her in an untenable predicament.

She CHOSE to drive illegally.

She CHOSE to pull out of the street infront of the motorcycle.

She CHOSE to accept the plea bargain.

She CHOSE to violate the plea bargain.

She is now facing the culmination of a number of poor choices; changing any one of these would have changed her fate.

Actions have consequences.

Who do I feel sorry for?

Her CHILDREN, and the family of the motorcyclist who died. They didn't have a CHOICE.

The reason the number is staggering is simple: you are wrong.

You can drive a car around on your private property all day long if you want to; have it at. Give the keys to your kid and let him do it, too. No one will stop you.

Access to the PUBLIC roads and permission to DRIVE on them is regulated (licensed) to protect the PUBLIC. It is a privilege.

But let's follow your line of logic for a moment and presume it is a right. Along with all of our rights come the RESPONSIBILITY to excercise them with care, so that they do not impinged on the rights of others. SOCIETY has determined that is it the responsibility of individuals to demonstrate an ability to exercise the proper operation of a motor vehicle before being allowed acces to public roads.

This woman chose to exercise her rights in an irresponsible manner and is facing the consequences of her choice. Boo hooo. Actions have consequences. Heaven forbid.

Elsewhere on the thread it mentioned the creation of children. Parenting your children is a NATURAL right; however, if one abuses the children, neglects the children, refuses to carefully fulfill the responsibilties that accompany the right to have children, they will lose the right to parent them.

You see a danger in confusing rights with privileges. I do, too, but in a different way. Everytime we slap the term "right" onto something, we empower the government to enforce our ability to exercise that right, and to protect it.

Like the folks that claim medical care is a right. Medical care is a service, a privilege, not a RIGHT. But because enough folks have bought into the lie that it's a right, we now have the federal government stepping in to enforce it's delivery, while stealing from our pockets to pay for it.

Tread carefully, my friend. You seem to be suggesting that rights do not come without responsibilities, and freedoms are somehow free, when this is distinctly NOT the case. It's actually this line of careless thinking and course of action that INCREASES the reach of the government and leads to an erosion of our freedoms, because the nanny-staters impose more laws to "protect us" from folks who aren't responsible in the first place.

On the contrary.

If she had insurance, they would have defended her in a civil suit. Oh, wait, but she needed a LICENSE to get insurance (which she did not have).

A DMV hearing (which is needed to determine if a motor vehicle related death should result in the suspension or revocation of a license) is not a lengthy trial. You do not need a lawyer for a DMV hearing; you can represent yourself and are given considerable instructions and leeway by the Judge so that you can best present your side of the story. You can ask the Judge for advice, instructions, and question any of the other parties at your discretion. Further, a competent accident attorney would do this for a nominal fee and work out a pay plan with her (might even do it pro-bono). But in the end, she didn't need to even think about this cost, as she DIDN'T have a license to begin with!

She could have gotten a pro bono attorney to help her with the legal case, too, or stayed with her public defender. She avoided jail time for vehicular manslaughter. Under the terms, she would have been eligible to apply for a driver's license in under 3 years.

Less than a year later, she's tooling around again, ILLEGALY.

Violate probation, the original sentence kicks in.

I should have read further in the thread before posting, Untrained. You said everything I wanted to say, but so much more succinctly!

She does have the right to travel freely; she can walk, ride a bike, etc. The operation of a motor vehicle and it's presence on the road is not a right, but a privilege licensed by the State.

That privilege was not granted to her, as she failed to comply with the requirements necessary to receive it. She then abused it, TWICE.

I can sympathize with folks who are involved in a motor vehicle accident that results in a death. My sister was involved in one where a young boy died. Despite the fact that she was not at fault (won the DMV hearing, was cleared by a grand jury, and won the civil suit), she was utterly devastated and even more cautious whenever she found the strength to get behind the wheel.

For whatever reason, this woman took the plea bargain. She is obligated to adhere to the terms of it; she did not.

If she hadn't flouted the law, hadn't tried to skirt her responsibilities to operate her vehicle with the right training and licensing, she wouldn't be in the situation she's in now (I have no doubt that her driving without a license and insurance was a major factor in the decision to prosecute her). Further, if she thought about her kids more, she would have taken the steps necessary to keep her sorry butt out of jail now.

In her world, obviously, the rules were designed for someone else.

Thanks for the heads up, Hal.

A movie about 9/11 has already been made. Appropriately enough, it was entitled 9/11.

Two French brothers were making a documentary on New York City Firefighters. They chose a "probie" to follow and the Ladder Co. got him assigned to their group.

This was the FIRST fire station to respond to the 9/11 attacks at the Twin Towers. The Captain of the station made the FIRST official call on the impact of the plane and the damages. It is the ONLY known footage of the first plane striking Tower Two; every other outlet has footage of the second plane striking Tower One.

It shows what it was like inside the tower, and actually had footage of that happened inside Tower One as Tower Two fell. It also records the real events on the street as Tower Two fell, with great follow up interviews with the fire fighters who survived.

It is available on video for just about $10. I bought it and every September I sit down and watch is again, and never fail to cry with the same intensity I felt on 9/11.

EVERYTHING ELSE THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE IS CRAP. We already have an excellent record of that day, life before, events afterwards, and its impact from the people who were there and experienced it all FIRSTHAND.

I refuse to go and see this movie.

Never apologize for a prayer request, my friend.

As you indicated, it's not uncommon for preemies to be fed through a tube. Also, regulating body heat is another concern. As long as their blood/oxygen ratio is good, they are under a heat lamp, and they are getting nutrition, they WILL come around, of this I am confident (mother of a preemie myself, been through what you are going through now).

Definitely will say some prayers for your little ones and for your wife. Didn't have any problems with my epidural, so I can't comment on that, but I know women who have and usually whatever difficulties they encounter are limited in nature and short in duration.

PRAYERS SENT!