….Yeah, I’m posting on that.  Some idiot talking head makes a slam at a grandmother with MS and everyone has to comment about it.  I think I have something worth saying, though, rather than just talking about it because it’s big.

I’m a stay at home mom.  A home-maker.  A house wife.

I have worked outside the home, before I got married, in a very similar field—I was a Petty Officer in the Navy, specializing in calibration. (Making sure things that measure are accurate enough.)  Before that, I was in another similar field, at least sort of—I was a ranch kid.

Perhaps some folks look at those things and are curious—what on earth is the connection between being a mother, working with cows and fixing stuff that’s used to fix planes and ships?

The hours, for one.

All of those jobs are 24/7 on-call, with holidays usually meaning that there’s more work to get done.  Cows don’t stop eating just because it’s Christmas, after all.

The job description being woefully incomplete, for another.

I was a “calibration technician,” as I described earlier.  I also did janitor work, was a security guard, maintained a half-dozen different collateral duties that included things like “mailman” and customer service.

How serious the situation is, for another.  In all of these jobs, if I screw up, a life might be lost—and it’s almost always a hurry-hurry-hurry and wait situation.  The way that if you do it for the pay, there’s a screw loose somewhere.  Probably several more, though I’ll try to avoid making jokes about uniforms.

I don’t know what other folks “hear” when I say I’m a housewife, so I’ll try to lay out what I do, trying to stick to jobs where I actually do everything a civilian counterpart would be expected to do:

Day care, house keeping, laundry lady, cook (not chef— I’m not that good), handyman, secretary, inventory management and procurement.  (explaining that last one: part of managing the house is making sure we never run out of anything, and we don’t pay too much for anything.  I just know about what the normal price is for most of the stuff we use, and I keep our chest freezer nearly full with stuff that’s on sale, be it hams for 99c or frozen veggies for a third of the normal price, knowing what brands are cheap at twice the price and which ones are over-priced if you get them free.)

After the stuff that I do, there’s the stuff we don’t do:

We don’t have to have a second car, or any of upkeep that requires. (It’s a nice-but-not-required.)

We don’t have to eat out or get takeout. (Yes, my husband brown bags it, although he does eat out to socialize sometimes.)

We don’t take days off for appointments or illness, unless TrueBlue is deathly ill.

We don’t fight over who cleans the house.  (unless I need help moving stuff)

We don’t need daycare.

We don’t fight about yard work. (Unless I need Big Strong man to move things or kill a spider)

We don’t fight over laundry and such, or pay to have clothes cleaned.

We don’t have to worry about our kids getting “quality time.”  They get all kinds of quantity time—which also lets us have mom-and-dad time without as much guilt. (Hey, rule #1 of parenting—you will probably find a dozen things to feel guilty about before breakfast.  Not counting breakfast itself.)

We don’t have nearly the stress that double income families seem to have—when TrueBlue gets home, I can give him time to decompress; when I’ve had a horrible day, it’s horrible in different way than he’s had, so my venting doesn’t add to his work related stress.  (Digression: ever notice folks that complain about stay-at-home only talking about kids only want to talk about the office?)

I didn’t take six months off from work to give birth and bond.

K, you’ve made it this far.  Notice something missing?

I didn’t make any judgments about moms who get paychecks.

I bet I still get at least one comment from someone that claims I did, though.  There’s a LOT of guilt tied up in the topic—I’d guess it has to do with the BS we’re told about being able to do everything and do it well.  Every mom I know that doesn’t have a full time paid job sometimes feels guilty about it; every mom I know that spends any time focused on anything that isn’t the kids feels guilty about it.  “Why” is a psychology type question I don’t care to look at too closely, since it’s broad enough to say more about the questioner than the topic.

Being a house wife is a job.  The lack of a paycheck doesn’t change that in the least.  I suspect that if someone looked at the background and prior statements of the woman that started this whole kerfluffle, you’d find a lot of things that are a rejection of her notion of The Way Things Were as represented in the form of whatever she’s rejecting.  Think something like the famous line about hating what they think the Church is about, rather than what the Church actually is.

An Egyptian court has ordered the government to ban pornographic websites in order to protect society and its values.

The decision and a similar initiative in parliament has fed into fears by liberal and secular Egyptians that their country is moving down the path to fundamentalist Islam, following a sweeping victory by Islamists in parliamentary elections.

The ruling came from a lower court and can be appealed. Three years ago a court made a similar ruling, but it was not enforced because at the time, officials argued filtering systems were not effective.

Meanwhile, in California . . .

Desert Sun Resort owners and Orange County residents John and Elizabeth Young filed a lawsuit March 16 in Orange County Superior Court against 500 unnamed defendants asking a judge to rule that the resort’s policy against children does not violate state law.

KNX 1070′s Margaret Carrero reports the couple were dumbfounded when they received a letter last month seeking penalties and damages over their policy against allowing kids on their property.

…The lawsuit was filed in response to a letter the Youngs received Feb. 17 from Palm Springs attorney David Baron — written on behalf of “certain individuals” — which threatened legal action against the clothing-optional resort “for maintaining and enforcing a No Children Allowed Policy and a Couples-Only Day Pass Policy”.

Listening to some individuals on the left you would think that America is but a regime away from a full-throated theocracy.  Something tells me we are very, very far away from realizing the delusional nightmares of said individuals.

But Rick Santorum is considered kooky and extreme.

There was no clearer demonstration of this fact than the HHS mandate regarding health insurance coverage of abortificants, contraception, sterilization, and other grave evils.  The impact of this ruling has been stunning.  Not only has the decision outraged conservative Catholics, but even erstwhile left-wing Catholic defenders of the president have taken this decision to be the last straw.  Bishops, often reticent to enter the political fray, have issued clear condemnations of this decision, even suggesting that Catholics engage in civil disobedience.  The mild-mannered visiting priest at our parish offered a blistering homily, discussing how this mandate violates the very principles that this country was founded upon. Like the ents awakening from their slumber, Saruman and his orcs – meaning President Obama and his allies – have awakened a sleeping giant.

But our anger is not enough, nor are our prayers.  Patrick Archbold puts it all in perspective today.

As I said, this is just the latest battle, but it’s one we must win.  We can’t win the war here, but we can lose it.  And to win a war you don’t just need chaplains, you need generals.

In the wake of the Obama Administration’s decision to force contraceptives on Catholic institutions many Bishops have been calling for prayer and fasting, and that is right and just.  But when faced with an existential threat, you don’t just pray the Nazis away, you have to fight on all fronts.

It is fine to pray that the Nazis will stop being Nazis, but it is also right and just to pray for good aim.

Our Bishops need to realize what is at stake here and act accordingly.  Many Bishops have already written letters and made videos condemning the unconstitutional actions of the administration.  That is good, but more is required.  Open and vocal defiance is required. The Most Reverend Joe S. Vásquez, Bishop of Austin issued a letter this Sunday in which he proclaimed “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.” That is a good start.  Every Bishop needs to do the same. It must be made clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.

Yet even more will be required. Some have called for very visible civil disobedience by the Bishops to the point of getting arrested.  I think this may be a good idea. Yet even more.  Kathleen Sebelius is at the spear point of this war on our Church promoting and now forcing abortion and contraception at every turn.  If the scandal caused by this “Catholic” woman does not merit excommunication, the remedy is meaningless.  Any Catholic who is complicit in this war must be held to account, publicly.  This is a war.

We will not comply.  We should never have to choose between being a Catholic and being an American.  This is an existential threat for the Church in this country as well as for the life of the country as a whole.  If we are to win the war, we must win this battle and we need generals willing to fight to the last.

If you are not convinced that we are in the midst of an all out assault on religious values, here’s another story to consider.

Demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls, refused to allow a Catholic priest to give a closing prayer, and shouted down a pro-life speaker at a Rhode Island right to life rally on Thursday, according to its organizer. The event marked the third time protesters associated with the movement have disrupted a pro-life meeting in a week.

About two-dozen members of Occupy Providence hiked from Burnside Park to the 39th Annual Pro-Life State House Rally organized by the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee on Thursday.

The pro-life organization’s executive director, Barth E. Bracy, told LifeSiteNews.com that, near the end of the rally, the Occupiers “strategically fanned out with military precision.”

That’s when they “started showering condoms down on some of the girls from a Catholic high school.”

They threw condoms on Catholic school girls.  This is what passes for civilized debate for a portion of our country.  Not only do they contemn religious values, these individuals have absolutely no regard for the human beings on the other end of their temper tantrum.

And this is not a mere partisan issue.  Look at the comments on the National Review Article about Chris Christie’s appointment of a gay marriage advocate to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Take a gander at some of the vitriolic rhetoric being spewed against proponents of traditional morality.  And many of those commenters are people who consider themselves to be right of center.  Here’s somebody calling himself “FAR52″ laying down some logic.

My guess is that Christie will be defiant and call out homophobes like Maggie for what they are — hopelessly stuck in the past.

Who can argue with such well-examined reasoning?

One of the unfortunate lessons of this primary season is that there exists, even within the conservative movement, people who are either contemptuous of or who fear those of us who stand up for traditional morality.  They see us as proponents of big government on the right.  What they fail to appreciate is that conservatives are often fighting a rearguard action.  We’re the ones trying to prevent government interference.  We’re not looking for more government intervention in our daily lives, because often that intervention is done to the detriment of traditional values.  The last thing we need is more government interference, and yet we are painted with the brush of being advocates of expanded government in social affairs.  In almost all cases, the opposite is true.  We’re continually fighting various encroachments against religious liberty, and the HHS case is but the latest example.

This is not about elections, at least not primarily.  This is about preserving our cultural heritage.  This is about fighting for the religious liberties that are the absolute bedrock of our civil society.  Truly, enough is enough.

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

My goodness.  I can just see Santorum delivering these remarks on a balcony with a hammer and sickle proudly displayed behind him.  Did he also poound a shoe on the podium, because the man must surely be just shy of being an out and out Communist.

Jeff Emanuel has unearthed two more shocking quotes that reveal Santorum’s obvious Stalinist tendencies.

What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.

I mean is there any difference between this and Mao?  Frightening words – compassion for the poor?  Don’t you remember those lines in the Constitution about how we’re supposed to treat the poor?  ”Are there no prisons?  Are there no union workhouses?”  It’s in there, right next to the stuff about the right to privacy.

That is nothing compared to these lines which gently echo The Communist Manifesto:

I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.

Opportunity for all Americans?  Selfless families?  Common good?  What, is Rick Santorum advocating for the American version of the Great Leap Forward?

Lucky for us, Jeff Emmanuel is here to shine a light on Santorum’s dastardly plot to make us all slaves to the great leviathan.

This is wrong on several levels. While there is absolutely a role for government in creating and maintaining a social safety net (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.) for the population that cannot take care of itself (whether that should take place at the federal, state, or local level, and in what measure each, is a different discussion), Santorum’s instinct appears to be to use government to expand that safety net to all who may be in need or want of charity.

So, government should create a safety net, but Santorum is wicked because he wants to actually provide a safety net to those who need it.  Yes, that is cunning plot on the level of fluoridation.

Further, he accuses conservatives in Congress who disagree with a significantly expanded role of government in enforcing redistributive charity and welfare of being “cheap liberals” who haven’t “though [enough] about” the issue of “the poor” to recognize that making decisions about charity is clearly government’s job to do.

Hey, are we in Nebraska, because that’s a really big strawman.  But not as big as this one:

I’m not criticizing Rick Santorum for being concerned about his fellow man. However, instinctively turning to government to cure all that ails our society and individuals within it – and calling that a “conservative” instinct – shows a lack of understanding about the role of government itself within our society

Yes, from these three pull quotes it’s patently obvious that Santorum wants to turn to the government “to cure all that ails our society.”  Arguing that there is some role for government to provide a safety net to the poor, arguing against hyper-individualism, and defending the role of the family in shaping our society are all clear signs that Santorum is a utopian statist.

I don’t agree with every single word in the three highlighted passages, but there is absolutely nothing in them to justify the caricature of Santorum that has emerged on certain right-wing blogs.  Santorum is not a libertarian, and that’s a good thing, because libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing.  Santorum understands the nexus between social and fiscal conservatism, and gets that without strong families we can’t have a flourishing economy.  What Santorum rejects is the atomization of society.  We can’t go it alone.  Communities are the backbone of society, and the modern state has displaced these communities.  When libertarians disparage these local institutions, it is they who wind up promoting the very kind of big government welfare state that they supposedly oppose.

Edmund Burke wrote about the little platoons in the Reflections on the Revolution in France.

To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.

This is precisely what Santorum is getting at when he speaks of families contributing to the general welfare.  This is not big government statism.  It’s in fact the very opposite of it.

Santorum seems to me to be a Hamiltonian in his attitude towards government.  Hamilton did want an energetic, efficient government.   But he also wanted the federal government to be a government involved in relatively few affairs.  A government that dipped its hands into too many different agendas would wind up being a less efficient government.  And why did Hamilton want government to be efficient?  To defend individual rights.  This is where Santorum is coming from.  Unlike leftists and even some right-wingers, Santorum doesn’t want government to grow so that it can simply make everybody happy.  His “big government” conservatism, if you want to call it that, is one meant to protect and defend the natural law.  There can be some disagreement about how government should go about accomplishing this, and I think that at times Santorum can be over-zelous.  The point is that this is not some utopian, statist vision being promulgated here.

This anti-Santorum sentiment is a reflection of a couple of things.  On a very raw level it represents resentment of a candidate getting further than one’s preferred candidate.  Red State, by and large, is a very pro-Perry site.  Ace of Spades, another blog that has all but called Santorum a socialist, is another pro-Perry blog.  As you all know I am a Perry supporter myself.  But I never put all of my eggs in this one basket the way that others have.  I didn’t join in the chorus of those who wanted to transform Newt Gingrich into a progressive socialist (though I do share some of the concerns about his philosophy, and have criticized them).  I am sure not going to join in the Santorum bashing in some foolish attempt to raise the stature of a candidate who is, let’s face it, going nowhere.

More importantly, this represents the division within conservatism between traditionalists and the more libertarian-inclined.  I had started writing a post about how this also represents a fundamental difference between conservatives who have children and those that don’t.  While I think there’s something to that as well, I don’t want to overly complicate matters.  In the end, as I’ve said before, there are those on the right who take the work of Any Rand seriously and those that don’t.  Those that are either Randians or who are at least sympathetic to her therefore view Santorum as some wild-eyed religious freak who is no better than the other non-productive members of society.  They don’t really understand his talk about communities and his disdain for hyper-individualism.  They interpret this as an embrace of the nanny state.  That is not what Santorum means, but in today’s era of government interventionism I can see why they would misunderstand Santorum.

What’s really aggravating about all this is that in being so quick to destroy every conservative that even hints at some kind of “impurity,” conservatives have all but guaranteed the nomination of the man they most despise.  So congrats, purists, you’ve managed to do it again.

The moment that encapsulated my evening was the appearance of Howard Stern as “Fartman.”  For those unfamiliar with the character, well, here’s a description.  You see, at the ripe old age of 15 I thought Howard Stern was the height of comedic genius.  And here was my idol appearing on stage at the MTV Video Music Awards.  But what should have been the greatest part of the night was ruined by my father’s ranting about the absurdity of Howard Stern and his ridiculous costume.  Oh, how Howard Stern represented the decline of western civilization.

I was actually relieved when the night was over.  It was more unendurable than the evening a month earlier when my father repeatedly yelled at the television during George Bush’s acceptance speech at the GOP convention.*

It should be understood that I spent many an evening watching television with my dad, and most of my memories are quite happy.  But when it came to MTV, we just didn’t see eye to eye.  When we finally got cable early in 1990, my father initially threatened to get rid of MTV.  It was a rather empty threat, but it nonetheless indicated early on that MTV was the station that should not be named.  Many a time I’d tune into MTV to watch videos – yes, once upon a time they did play videos – and I’d have the volume as low as I could possibly have it while still (barely) being able to hear it, just so that my father didn’t know I was watching.  Not that he would have actually done anything about it.  He was kind of all bark and no bite when it came to such things, but it was better to avoid any unnecessary and unwanted commentary.

Fast forward seventeen years.  I was listening to Laura Ingraham discuss the 2011 MTV Music Awards.  I hadn’t watched it – in fact I haven’t watched the show since about 1995.  I’d like to say that the cultural rot finally got to me, but my original reasons for turning off the show were much more shallow.  Once TLC of all bands won best video for their insufferable “Don’t Go Chasing Waterfalls” nonsong, I realized that I had no use for the network.

Through the years it seemed that things only got worse.  Britney Spears was making out with Madonna on stage, Lady PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!! Gaga was wearing meat suits and dressing like a man, and a bunch of crap bands that I never heard of won best video.  (Seriously, I had to look at Wikipedia to find out who these bands were.)  And as I listened to Laura play “highlights” of the show, all I could do was shake my head in disgust.

In other words, I have become my father.  Only, I don’t have some idiot son forcing me to watch this crap.  No, my sweet two-year old is content to make me watch Ponyo and Shrek repeatedly.  And I will be sure that’s all she, her sister, and whatever other siblings may come will ever watch.  Of course by the time they’re of age MTV will have gone to an all reality format, so it will be a moot point, although I’ll have to ban them from watching Season 20 of Jersey Shore.

It’s funny, but I just happened to come across this video the other day.  It’s from the humor site College Humor, and it’s called The Six Ways You’ll See Your Dad.  I have to admit that for most of my life I was stuck on number one, though at times I definitely viewed him as number three.  But right now, I definitely identify with the sentiment at the 3:44 mark.

* Oh, did I tell you?  My father was a lifelong conservative – the kind of guy Archie Bunker was probably modeled after.  But in 1992 he, for some reason, decided to vote for Bill Clinton.  For about ten months I simply could not talk politics with my father.  Then my father was probably the first person to hop off the Clinton bandwagon.  In fact I’m not sure he even made it to the inauguration before regretting his vote, and by March his hatred of the man had surpassed my own.