Monday, September 14, 2009

A World Without Mommies

A: "There are no Mommas on this show." [said musingly] "Why not?"
Me: "Well, I really don't know why there are no Mommas."
A: "Who feeds them? Who takes care of them? ...Oh well, I guess they just have to take care of themselves." [weary sad sigh]

Sometimes I wonder if my kids even notice me.
I guess that's normal... especially when you spend your days running errands, cleaning and serving meals. Those days stretch into months, and the months stretch into years, and you think if you serve one more piece of string cheese you just might puke.

Sometimes I don't notice myself, so it's not far-fetched to believe at times that my children see right through me (until they want dessert, a treat, or some injustice rectified) as well.

Conversations like that (had after watching "It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" on the way home from school) talk me down from my ledge. I don't mean that in a desperate, suicidal way... more in the "I'm crazy with monotony and unappreciation" way that Mothers sometimes feel.

Sometimes a five year-old can know just what to say to make you realize that your existence is noticed, noted, and appreciated in a basic primal way that means everything.

To my daughter, a world without Mommies is a sad, weary place.
I have to agree with her.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Classical Liberalism

This post is about politics, and pretty much completely deviates from the usual bantering tone of my blog. If politics bore you to tears or you just can't live with knowing that this entry contains no references to poop or potty humor, well... you might want to just skip right on past this one, mmmkay? :D

So, yesterday I randomly got into a low-key political discussion with a Facebook friend (and family member) of mine. We don't know each other very well, and aren't familiar with each other's politics, so it was interesting to note our similarities and differences.

Before I go further, I feel that I should point out one thing:
The idea of 'politics' has always overwhelmed me. The political spectrum is so huge, and there are seemingly endless things to consider. It is a struggle to even decide just where you stand sometimes; and that's before adding all the individual issues and candidate stances into the mix. So, I've largely shied away from taking a hardcore stance, feeling that there was no label that quite fit where I stand....

So, back to the Facebook discussion...
I posted this (in response to the question regarding whether I lean to the right):

"I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I guess the best way to put it is to say that I'm socially liberal & fiscally conservative. I also believe that most of the governing should be left to individual states. The federal gov't has their hands in way too much, IMO."

Another individual responded that this made me sound like a classic libertarian. Hmmm. Interesting... I hadn't thought of that. Of course I had to look into it - it would actually be nice to discover that I 'fit in' somewhere in the political world, rather than being the adrift Independent with no real political comrades.

When looking into it further, I came across this:
http://libertarianwiki.org/Classical_liberalism

Wikipedia has this to say about Classical Liberalism:

"Classical liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (natural rights is also used). These principals apply to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories, and it is stated that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies, not just western cultures. (Classical) liberals prefer a laissez-faire style of government with a microeconomic focus and understanding of economic operations.

Classical liberals reject wealth transfers (though admire the goal of helping the needy), tariffs or other trade barriers such as quotas, regulated markets (also known as a mixed economy ), capital controls, and wage and price controls. As a general rule these macroeconomic policies are considered by them as reducing the general welfare of society. Social security and tariffs, for example, are viewed by Milton Friedman as perverse wealth transfers, meaning wealth transfers from poor to rich. Hayek and Friedman also believed that economic freedom would help build and protect political and civil freedoms, while a loss in economic freedom meant a loss in civil and political freedoms. "


Well, wow.
This pretty much describes me to a fine point!

Don't interfere with people's individual/natural rights.
Limit the hand of the federal government.
Don't take my money! (Even though I agree that helping the needy is noble, I don't necessarily want to fund it)


So, hmmm. Perhaps I have a place in the political world after all. :)