The Soccer Mom Vote

Immigration

It’s a huge topic. Huge. I have wanted to cover it in some form here for quite some time but it’s so gigantic that I have hesitated. I have been intimidated. I admit it. What is the first step to understanding immigration? Where do I begin? Well, I live in Texas, so it's fairly obvious that I should probably begin with Mexico. And because it’s just my nature, I think I should probably begin at a very basic level. I’m going to start small. I’m going to start by simply bringing it up. This is me bringing it up: Immigration.

Please think about immigration. If you don’t already think about it often, please start thinking about it. Think about what you think about it.

Do you have a strong opinion? Any opinion?

What do you think about border control? Should we increase security personnel? Increase technology at the borders? Increase our military presence? Build a really big fence?

What do you think about immigrants who are working here illegally? What do you think about the employers who hire these immigrants? Do you or someone you know employ illegal laborers? I don’t want to make accusations or false presumptions, but I think a significant number of Texans would be hard-pressed to say no to this question.

How do you think the U.S. government should react to employers who hire undocumented immigrants? How do you think the U.S.government should react to immigrants who are in good standing in our country?

Do you have an opinion about English and Spanish and how they are used in the U.S.? Do you think we should be a bilingual country? Are you put off by those who don’t speak English?

What do you think the U.S.government should do, if anything, to promote economic development in Mexico?

What do you think Mexico should do to decrease illegal immigration? How do you think we should react to the children of immigrants in this country?

Do you know when and how your own relatives came to this country?

If you don't know what you think, you have time to do some research and make up your mind. Then, before you cast your vote this fall, make sure your ideas are in line with your candidate’s ideas. See the following links to find out more about the major candidates and where they stand on immigration:

Where Hillary stands

Where Barack stands

Where McCain stands

I have read the statements at each of these three links, and unfortunately, in my opinion, there are a lot of broad generalizations about what needs to be improved and not a whole lot of how exactly those improvements will be implemented. But it’s still well worth the read. We need to know where these candidates stand. And this is after all, only the first step…

Tearless Onions—That’s Just Not Natural

Recently, scientists announced that they have developed a tearless onion. Dr. Colin Eady of New Zealand is the primary researcher. He collaborated with scientists in Japan to create this new veggie that apparently looks and smells and tastes like an onion, but doesn’t act like one. The New Zealand Herald reported this onion won’t make you cry when you chop it because it has “up to 500 times less of the irritant that induces tears.”

When you chop a regular onion, you set off a chain of chemical reactions, including the release of an enzyme which is an irritant for human eyes, and basically, makes us cry. These scientists have used something they call gene silencing. They leave alone the genes we consider “good,” in this instance, those responsible for a certain taste or a certain smell and they silence the “bad” genes, in this instance, the ones responsible for making us cry.

Wow. That’s something, and it certainly seems like a great idea in the world of science, but I am not convinced that it’s the best thing inside the kitchen.

A significant percentage of my childhood memories are set in and around the kitchen. I planted onions with my grandmother and picked them with my grandfather. I washed the dirt off them and put them in a basket on the kitchen table. Later, I loaded the extras into paper bags and carried them down the street to give away to my aunt or my great uncle or a neighbor. There was no shortage of onions.

I sliced onions for brisket at Christmas. I finely chopped onions for salsa at family reunions. I diced them to cook with green beans and new potatoes. I cut them into big chunks for beef stew. I placed clean round circle-slices on plates with cucumbers and tomatoes for lunch in the summertime.

When I first saw my mother without hair, post-breast cancer and still recovering, she was in my grandmother’s kitchen chopping onions. Once, I spoke to my grandfather about the Rwandan Genocides. I was just waking up to the world’s cruelty and realizing what political powerlessness felt like. With the melodrama apropos of a twenty-two year old, I asked my grandfather, “What are we going to do now?” And he said, “Chop the onions like your grandmother told us to.”

Maybe that last statement is more responsible than anything else for my latent onion-love. Of course, some people don’t like onions. You might be one who, for the sake of your tastes buds or a delicate stomach, is forced to make a habit of holding the onions. But the vast majority of the world consumes onions like gangbusters. It is a staple in many countries and doctors say that onions can cure what ails you. “Evidence suggests that onions may be effective against the common cold, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and other diseases.“

Regardless of how you order your burger, the onion has been around for eons. Ok, maybe not eons. But there is reason to believe it dates back to 5000 BC. And now a few guys with Ph.D.s say they’ve made one better? Really? I just find it hard to believe. Perhaps I should be embarrassed by my lack of scientific complexity; perhaps I’m just being old-fashioned. But I am overwhelmed by a very strong sense of Don’t Mess with Mother Nature.

To me, it seems to be a whole lot for not much. I wonder how many years of research went into this new fandangled scallion: the money, the time, the testing. It’s all a bit off-putting to me. It might be a little different if the new improved onion was simply a by-product of important research being done toward some other, more noble end. But it seems that this is an end in itself, and I just don’t get it. Dr Eady said:

"What we're hoping is that we'll essentially have a lot of the nice, sweet aromas associated with onions without that associated bitter, pungent, lachrymatory factor... We have a burgeoning population to feed, and with climate change and other challenges, available resources are being reduced… They are such a versatile and nutritious vegetable, that if we can manage to get more people cooking and eating fresh onions, then that has got to be a positive outcome.”

All true. But I must say, I hardly think those truly suffering from a lack of food to eat are hesitating to choose onions because they are a pain in the ass to chop.

Is it so inconvenient to shed a tear or two? Isn’t that part of the inherent nature of an onion? Isn’t that part of life? You take the good with the bad, outside and inside the kitchen.

Childhood Obesity

I don’t know how to say it nicely: Americans are fat. And American children are getting fatter and fatter. I really hate to see it. I know that the standard of glamour for American women is ridiculously thin, and it’s obvious that young girls today are impacted by that. I don’t want to imply that that standard is what we need to be pushing our young girls (and boys) toward. But we need to do something to solve this pendulum of extremes between childhood obesity and eating disorders.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “the number of overweight children and teens has continued to rise over the past two decades.”

Doctors and scientists are concerned about the rise of overweight in children and youth because being overweight may lead to the following health problems:

·         Heart disease, caused by:

o        high cholesterol and/or

o        high blood pressure

·         Type 2 diabetes

·         Asthma

·         Sleep apnea

·         Social discrimination

It’s clearly not just about looking good. Studies have repeatedly shown that overweight children and teens are more likely to become obese as adults. As an average American woman in my thirties who has struggled with my own weight all of my life, I believe that maintaining a healthy weight can impact your health and your well-being more than most people realize.

Last month, CNN reported about Chef Ann Cooper, the “renegade lunch lady” and the difference she’s making in American schools . I think her story bears repeating. You can also read her blog. 

The following is an excerpt form the CDC’s web site. Check out this very helpful information and do your best to keep your children and yourselves healthy.

Child and Teen BMI (Body Mass Index) Calculator
Worried about your child’s weight? For children, BMI is used to screen for overweight, but is not a diagnostic tool Click on the link below to measure your child’s BMI.

We Can!
This national education program is designed for parents and caregivers to help children 8-13 years old stay at a healthy weight. The booklet "Finding the Balance: A Parent Resources" offers an array of easy to use practical tips and tools for parents and guardians to help their children and families eat healthy, increase physical activity, and decrease screen time.

Nutrition for Everyone: CDC’s Quick Tips: Healthy Children, Healthy Choices
Quick tips that you can use to serve your children nutritious foods.

MyPyramid.gov
Provides a tailored explanation of how to balance your meals and includes an interactive game for kids.

Energize Your Life!
Provides information about physical activity for you and your children.

FruitsandVeggiesMatter.gov
Great recipes and information about how to incorporate fruits and vegetables in your daily meals.

How to Avoid Portion Size Pitfalls
Confused about portion sizes? Play the CDC’s portion control game!

On Capital Punishment

Earlier this month, U.S. Supreme Court justices debated about lethal injection as a method of execution for capital punishment and whether it is adequately humane. The issue is not whether capital punishment should be applied, but how. Those making a case to change the method for lethal injection (the most commonly used method in the U.S.) argue that it can be unbearably painful, and thus violates the Constitution by imposing "cruel and unusual punishment."

Currently a combination of three drugs is used and when administered correctly, supporters say it should be painless and humane. But advocates for changing the method claim that the margin for human error is relatively high. They suggest using a single drug instead (the same strong barbiturate used when putting down animals).

The expectation is that the Supreme Court should make a ruling by summertime, and all capital punishment executions nationwide have been deferred until that time.

Lethal injection is the method used in 35 of the 36 states that impose the death penalty. Nebraska allows electrocution instead. (In December, Omaha Senator Ernie Chambers’ bill to overturn the death penalty in Nebraska was defeated.)

Capital punishment invariably comes up during election time, and with good reason. I don’t think the end of any human life should be taken lightly. I believe whole-heartedly in the separation of church and state. I believe in God. I believe that it is the right of no human being to take another life. I just do not think it’s for us to decide. I do not support the death penalty and I hope to see it abolished as quickly as possible.

I encourage you to think about this important issue and take your candidate to task on it before you make your vote, come election time. You can get more information from the Death Penalty Information Center, a non-profit organization that provides information on issues concerning capital punishment.

Regifting

Somebody regifted to me yesterday. They regifted! Really. They rewrapped a gift they received last year and gave it to me for Christmas. (Works better if you remove last year’s tag before you rewrap it…)

Can you believe it? Upon making the discovery, I called my sister and we immediately (but only temporarily) abandoned the spirit of Christmas and ranted on about the hilarity of it. The nerve! Who would do such a thing? Who would really regift?

Well actually, if I’m being honest, I would. And my sister would too. We admit it. But my sister and I are both blessed (and simultaneously cursed) with a directness about us that many people just don’t have. Neither of us has any problem saying things out loud. So when we are given a gift that is essentially useless to us, we have no problem turning to a close friend or relative and saying, “Hey, I got this thing for Christmas and I’m really not going to use it. I thought you might like it. Interested?”

As my sister and I cackled on the phone, we realized that for those in the world who are less direct, saying such a thing is tantamount to spitting in the gift-giver’s face, far worse than regifting. The best option for these more delicate souls is to smile, say thank you, and lock the gift away until next year when they can regift it to a more appropriate recipient.

Ok, you know what? If that works for you, you do that. I retract all the admonitions I made behind the back of my regifter. Who cares? I say good on them for giving me a lovely gift (which I really did like) and for turning their back on the ridiculous social requirements of an over-commercialized holiday. So they regifted. So what!

Further, after reading Angie’s lovely post of yesterday, I ask that you search within (your closets and your garage, if not your heart) to find the regifter within you. The holiday season isn’t over yet. And I’m guessing if you’re lucky enough to be perusing the web and reading The Soccer Mom Vote, you’ve got clothes you never wear, extra blankets you never use, and probably a hall closet full of shoes, gloves, scarves, toys, or board games that do little more than gather dust all year.  Why don’t you grab one of those over-sized holiday gift bags and fill it up with whatever overfills your closets this week?

Then give it to someone who could really use it. Take it to GoodWill. They have tons of locations everywhere and if you don’t know where one is, you can find a GoodWill location online easily.

Go.

Regift.

A Moral War

I was never a girl scout. Or a brownie. As far as I know, my brother was not a boy scout. So I have a clean slate when it comes to my knowledge of the boy scouts. It seems like a fine organization. Politics aside, they seem to me to be making a great gift to boys all over the country.

On October 30, 2007, I attended the Capital Area Boy Scouts of America 2007 Distinguished Citizen Award Dinner in Austin honoring Texas Governor Rick Perry. (I was given a free ticket.) I went to the event, enjoyed a great meal, and had a great time with some friends. I was even looking forward to hearing our governor speak, but on that count I was sorely disappointed, and it is his speech that I want to write about.

The evening began with the pledge of allegiance, which I don’t think I’ve recited since junior high. (It totally comes back to you.) Then those who knew the Scout oath and law recited those. Here they are in case you don’t know them:

Scout Oath:

"On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
And to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

And the Scout law:

“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. "

We heard from some young scouts and saw a presentation about the good that these youngsters are learning and doing in their local chapter. Then Governor Perry spoke, and I include most of his speech here, because I think you should read it:

“They Boy Scouts have had my attention for a long time and they will have my attention until I take my last breath. I believe the boy scouts are the most significant and important organization in America. No other organization has salvaged more lives, built more confidence, or created more leaders. Scouting changed my life forever. And I think it should continue free of interference to do the same thing for young men for as long as America exists. I believe that because I am the product of scouting.”

Wow. OK. I can buy that. The experiences we have in our youth and adolescence really do shape who we are. Perry continued about the small Texas town where he grew up and how it was for him, a great place to live. He went on to praise the values and life lessons that the Boy Scouts uphold:

“Scouting teaches self-reliance and self-sacrifice. It teaches that good things come to those who work hard and follow through. It teaches you can never trade your integrity for something better. It teaches young scouts to respect one another, to respect those in positions of authority, a quality I might add that is sorely missing in today’s world. Of all the values I learned in scouting, I value reverence most of all.  Every day I acknowledge God’s power in my life and in this world. It is my relationship with Him that strengthens, gives me the internal power to face every day. And now more than ever, scouts, their supporters, need all the strength that we can get. For more than 40 years we have watched our culture decline while the attacks on the venerable institutions like scouting have mounted, as the culture has increasingly told young people to look out for number one, moral values are relative, if it feels good, do it. Lawsuit-happy do-gooders, they have sought to drive people of faith out of the public square, to sanitize the pledge of allegiance, our currency, our government buildings, even the scouting oath from even the mention of God. Judges have tried to expunge the word Christmas from the public dialog, activists have tried to force the scouts to conform to a social agenda that fits their narrow view, all of it, of course, in the name of tolerance. I happen to believe some of the most intolerant acts were often performed in the name of tolerance.”

What? Whoa. He lost me at Lawsuit-happy do-gooders. He continued, as follows:

“I’m proud to say that earlier this year I signed legislation that protects the right of school children to express their faith in our public schools without worrying about a trip to the principal’s office. See, when the supreme court decision in the Dale case -- when the United States supreme court affirmed the Dale case, the rights of scouts to set their membership standards as it relates to scout masters, those same organizations started threatening public schools and other publicly financed organizations for letting scouts use their resources, their buildings. For instance, in San Diego, facilities that had hosted scouting activities for as long as people can remember are now off limits. The department of defense gets attacked for hosting scouting events on DOD property that they have allowed to be used for 60 plus years and you see, you need to know that at its core, this is really not about the Boy Scouts. The scouts are merely a listening post on the perimeter. They’re sounding the early alarm of other impending attacks on our values and I don’t believe the attacks are going to let up.”

He is referring to a couple of things here. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court held that as a private group, the Boy Scouts of America have a right to forbid atheists and gays from serving in it. Following that ruling, some lawsuits followed in California (in San Diego and Berkeley). As a result, some locations that had previously allowed the Boy Scouts to use their facilities (rent-free in one case) stopped allowing them to do so based on the fact that they deemed those events to be discriminatory (closed to gays and atheists).

In other words, San Diego said to the Boy Scouts, ours is a public facility. You may use our public facility if your event is open to all members of the community. You may use our facility only if you are using it in a way that does not discriminate against any of the citizens of our city. That seems fair to me. Perry went on:

“So if you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, if you believe that there are acceptable standards of behavior, if you believe that ethics cannot be made up on the spot, if you believe that judges need to make decisions based on the law rather than on popular opinion at the time, and if you believe that this very nation came into existence because of what George Washington called divine providence, then you have a stake in this war as well. At the beginning of this coming February, I’m going to plant my own flag in this war when a book that I have written on scouting is published. It’s my attempt to clearly state the importance of scouting values and to more clearly draw the battle lines in this very vital conflict. With it, I hope to let the world know that this conflict isn’t just an intellectual exercise. It is a battle for the very future of our country.”

Suddenly, he’s talking about war. I really have a problem with this rhetoric. Perry is attempting to create a divide between what seems to be his idea of good people who “believe there is such a thing as right and wrong” and… who else? Those of us who don’t support discriminating against gays or atheists? This language fosters an Us and Them mentality that is to me, absurd.

I am not a Christian. But I certainly can see the value of the Boy Scouts of America. It’s a fine organization responsible for helping young boys who might not have any other access to good role models. But I agree whole-heartedly with the decisions of California lawmakers who declared their buildings closed to anyone who would discriminate against their citizens. Does that put me in a category of “lawsuit-happy do-gooders” lacking in ethics who support judges who make decisions based on popular opinion as opposed to the law? According to Perry, it does. Perry concluded with the following:

“So today, my fear is not that somehow we’re going to lose our freedom to a superior power, but that the decay of our society will lead us to trade our freedom for shortsighted self-indulgence. For more than a generation, our culture has emphasized a message of self-indulgence and it’s at the expense of social obligation. We have reaped the consequences in the form of teen pregnancy, divorced and broken families, a cycle of incarceration that all too often joins young men with their fathers behind bars. The foundation of our government or I should say the foundation of our society - it’s not government or for that matter individual freedom, it’s the family. And the demise of the family is the death mill of any great society. Past generations didn’t fight to give our children the freedom to gun down other children. They didn’t die on the battle field to give parents the freedom to starve their babies because they wanted to spend their last dime on getting high. Our young men and women didn’t give their lives in battle so that video games and television and the internet could raise our kids rather than two loving parents. We must never mistake freedom for license. One is right and the other leads to oppression.”

Perry never had my vote, and he’ll never have it now (as if there was any question). I was disgusted by his black and white interpretation of right and wrong, his eagerness to divide a community along religious lines, and his blatant insinuation that the only valid definition of family is a traditional one that includes two heterosexual parents. Perry claims, along with most of the religious right, that we are fighting a Moral War. Maybe we are. But it seems to me that Perry and others like him are doing their very best to get the battle going.

How Far Do We Take Parental Responsibility?

Today’s headlines included a report of a young teenager in suburban Philadelphia plotting to attack Plymouth Whitemarsh High School. He reportedly confessed to stockpiling weapons, making plans for the assault, and asking another student for help. His arsenal included “a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle, about 30 air-powered guns modeled to look like higher-powered weapons, swords, knives, a bomb-making book, [and] videos of the 1999 Columbine high school attack in Colorado.” This boy, Dillon Cossey, is fourteen years old.

His mother, Michele Cossey, has also been charged. It appears she is guilty of purchasing some of the weaponry: a .22-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle, and a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle with a laser scope.

How does a mother make these kinds of purchases for a child of fourteen? Her actions make it pretty easy for a person (ok, at least for me) to assign some blame on poor parenting for this young boy’s misdirection. I am thankful that his intention was discovered before anything tragic happened. And I’d like to be hopeful that he will receive the help and guidance he needs to get his life on the right track. But as optimistic as I am, I don’t know what the juvenile detention system in his state has in store for him.

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein were both severely abused as children. How might the world be different if someone had paid a little more attention to them as children? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t.

On the other hand, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, both serial killers convicted of heinous crimes were not abused, but loved by their parents. (There’s a good argument however that Dahmer’s parents were seriously neglectful, and Bundy’s family was dysfunctional, to say the least, but so is mine. Isn’t yours?)

Our legal system creates some pretty clear lines about what constitutes abuse. The nature of the law requires that, for the sake of enforcement. And we’ve got a history chocked full of people who’ve done awful things. Many times the personal histories of these criminals include such remarkable trauma and abuse that, while it certainly doesn’t justify their criminality, it does explain it. Clever lawyers, often with good reason and good intentions, have created defenses for these people: battered person syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, insanity, incompetence, and mental illness defenses abound in the courtroom. Are they overused? Are they fair?

Some people, some children, are simply troubled. People do terrible things sometimes. Sometimes we can figure out what they were thinking and sometimes we can’t. And I do believe that the buck should stop with them. They did the crime; let them do the time, as they say.

But given their childhoods, did some of these criminals ever have a fair shot at being anything other than what they became? I am not by any means suggesting that parents who are otherwise responsible and loving should be held accountable for the deviant actions of their adult children. But I must ask the question, at least of myself. Of you. To what degree should parents be held accountable?

Anhedonia

Some dictionaries define anhedonia as the inability to experience pleasure of the senses. It is often related to depression. I’ve been told (by a Psychologist no less) that this term is ballied about for those who suffer from what we might cavalierly refer to as a midlife crisis. (For a bit of trivia, Anhedonia was the original title to Annie Hall.

Anhedonia: Just a lesser known word for depression, really. A new set of syllables for the same old idea. People get tired. We get restless and every now and again, we tail-spin into our own funk, our own rut. And hopefully we climb out eventually. Most of us do. But some of us don’t.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Nicole Markwald reported for KUT that Travis County suicide rates are the highest in Texas. Because I live in Austin, and because a family member of mine attempted suicide not a month before, I paid close attention to this report and then I did some research. I learned a few things:

• The elderly are at highest risk for attempting suicide.
• Each year, about one million people take their own lives, which is more than the tally of those who lose their lives as a result of warfare.
• The majority of suicides do not succeed on a first attempt.
• About 30,000 people die by suicide each year in the U.S.
• Men have higher rates of committed suicide, while women have higher rates of attempted suicide.

The general consensus these days seems to be that those who attempt suicide are more often than not suffering some form of mental illness. Depression is the obvious culprit. According to Wikipedia,

“The predominant view of modern medicine is that suicide is a mental health concern, associated with psychological factors such as the difficulty of coping with depression, inescapable suffering or fear, or other mental disorders and pressures.”

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is one of many good resources for those looking for help, for themselves or for a loved one.

The Politics of Affection

Over lunch with a couple of coworkers recently, the topic of kissing came up. My coworker, a man from the Midwest, mentioned that he never kisses any family member other than his wife on the lips. Unfortunately I responded a little too quickly with a long rambling diatribe about how uptight Midwesterners are, as compared to say, Texans. Further, I informed my friend that he must be severely repressed and his parents are clearly Puritanical. How could he have grown up in such a prudish environment? Normal people kiss. They show affection. And to further prove how smart I am, I did a little survey. My survey was simple and very informal, nonscientific, circulated only among people I know. Here were the questions:

• Do/Did you kiss your mother on the lips?
• Do/Did you kiss your father on the lips?
• Do/Did you kiss your grandparents on the lips?
• Do/Did you kiss your children on the lips?
• Where are you from?

Then I tallied the results. And what do you know? It turns out that I am the jerk. Apparently, according to my informal survey, my friend is not repressed but completely commonsensical. He and his parents represent not chaste inflexibility, but the relative norm. My family, on the other hand, is clearly a freak-show of over-affectionate wantonness. God, I hate it when that happens. I’m going to need more therapy. That said, here are the survey results…

The 19 respondents included ten men and nine women.*

Eleven are Texans and the rest are from Ohio, Nebraska, Louisiana, Kansas, Washington D.C., and New York. Regardless of where they are from, the vast majority of people do not kiss family members, beyond spouses. What’s more, I was very surprised at the number of people who responded with shock to even being asked. I received lots of “No way!” and “Ewww!” when a simple “No” would have sufficed…

Only two respondents reported kissing their mother on the lips (11% of those surveyed). One is a man from Ohio, the other a woman from Texas.

Only one respondent reported kissing their father on the lips (5% of those surveyed). She is a woman from Texas. (Not surprisingly, she is the same woman who kisses her mother.)

Only three respondents reported kissing their grandparents on the lips (16% of those surveyed). You guessed it: the same kissers previously mentioned and another woman from Texas.

No respondents reported kissing their siblings on the lips. Incidentally, of our previous kissers, two out of three do not have siblings.

Of the 19 respondents, 12 have children. Here’s where it gets interesting. These 12 respondents are broken into three neat groups of four people each:

• Four respondents who reported always kissing their children on the lips
• Four respondents who reported never kissing their children on the lips
• Four respondents who reported that while they did kiss their children on the lips at one time, they had already stopped or intended to stop “when the kids got/get older” although no one specified a particular age.

What’s more, of the 12 respondents with children, four were men and eight were women. It was the men, all four fathers, who reported never kissing their children on the lips. The mothers were equally split into two groups: those who always kiss their children on the lips, and those who kiss their children on the lips but would one day stop. 

I can’t help wonder if American men are conditioned to be a little stingier with their affection, to be a little more conscious of what is and is not appropriate given today’s headlines. Just last week, a Florida man was sentenced to death for the abduction, rape and murder of a nine year old girl and in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy promised harsher sentencing for sex crimes after the scandalous release of a convicted pedophile.

There are bad men out there who do bad things to children and in today’s incredibly global community, we are hearing more and more about them. Could this increased awareness of sexual predators be impacting the average father’s willingness to demonstrate physical affection with their children? Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe a kiss on the lips should be reserved for spouses only? Or maybe it’s acceptable too for mothers and their small children? There’s a pretty long history of kissing and it’s very culture-specific. It’s a personal question. When and who is it OK to kiss?

_______________
* I might have had 21 respondents but chose not to include my own or my twin sister’s answers in the final tally for fear of skewing the results. She and I answered the same to all questions. We kiss our father, grandparents, and children on the lips, but not our brother, our mother, or each other. 

Anonymity Breeds Mischief

The other day, I was in the kitchen when my son, who is nearly four years old, walked in carrying my keys. He entered the room intently, and scanned the room for me. He didn’t see me. Like any good mother, I kept quiet to see what he was up to.

He went around the perimeter of the kitchen opening each drawer that he could reach, until I suppose he found the right one. He dropped my keys in, closed the drawer, and turned around to find me. Standing right behind him. He was grinning from ear to ear. And I was too. I couldn’t help myself.

“WHAT. Are you doing, little man?” I asked him. Busted. He shrieked and ran from the kitchen cackling, my keys tucked away with the forks and spoons and several other drawers left wide open.

I don’t know how many times he has entered a room carrying my keys and found me there, to which I always say, “Those are my keys. May I have them?” And he always gives them to me eagerly as if that was his only intention. He answers, “Mommy’s keys! Not a toy.” And then he goes about his business.

But apparently when he thinks he’s alone, invisible, anonymous, let the mischief begin. Dude. Don't mess with my keys. Not even if you're a cute little dude. Maybe that’s just human nature. Unfortunately, children grow up and given anonymity and opportunity, the behavior that sometimes follows isn’t always so innocent or endearing. Quite the opposite.   

In late April, Ellen Nakashima reported for the Washington Post that more and more women are on the receiving end of sexual harassment via the Internet, particularly as they become more successful in the blogosphere. Nakashima said:

“Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms -- a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere...”

The article highlighted one blogger and her experience in particular. Kathy Sierra blogged very successfully at Creating Passionate Users until some very serious sexual threats pushed her to stop posting there until she decides what to do next.

I am not proposing we humans are inherently bad, but I think most tend to behave differently when their anonymity is sure. Would you do EXACTLY the same thing if you found a hundred dollar bill in a crowded parking lot during daylight hours as you would if you found it all alone at midnight? Well, would you?

Anonymity allows Internet users to speak uncensored with not only no fear of being rebuffed, but a security that they can’t even be responded to. It’s not a fair playing field. Don’t get me wrong, I see lots of situations where anonymous comments are useful and would even be preferable. There are some sites that only allow anonymous comments to provide a kind of confessional validation of sorts for those who post there. That works well for those sites. But in my opinion, in a forum where dialogue is key, as it is here, anonymous comments would be counterproductive.

The Rules of the Game here at the Soccer Mom Vote explicitly state that we do not allow anonymous comments: “If you get to comment to us, we get to respond to you. Any comments that do not include a valid e-mail address and/or URL will be deleted.”

I think that is more than fair. And disabling one’s anonymity seems to be a reasonable first step toward demanding decent conduct from people. Some folks don’t agree and feel that removing one’s right to anonymity could be infringing upon rights of free speech.

I’m a big fan of free speech. I’m not saying you can’t say whatever you want to. It is your right. It’s mine too. I’m just saying, if you’re going to say it, say it directly to my face. And say it from a place where I can plainly see you. Please say it in such a way that I can clearly hear you and understand you. And please, please don't touch my keys.