Gifts to the ex - would you?

This IS a topic that has presented itself in our family. To protect the innocent, I won't discuss here how it all went down. I haven't seen anyone write about it before but I love this perspective.

If the relationship between the adult parents (sometimes an oxymoron) is healthy (which it should be but realistically, often isn't), it would be completely acceptable for an ex to help facilitate a gift to their children's other parent. It still does remain my job as a mother to show my daughter & son to uplift & celebrate their father. The problem occurs when the relationship between the adults is not healthy, brings with it conflict & turmoil and actions as this are not meant in a genuine, compassionate role but as an act to cause turmoil. And/or the ex spouse/other parent wants recognition for their efforts, instead of allowing it to be a gift from the children.


FIERY STEPMOM SAYS:

"Recently, in a stepmom facebook group, a poster asked the following question: "How do you feel about BM giving DH a Father's Day present? If you are a BM, do you plan to give DH a Father's Day present (either from yourself or via the kiddos)?"

Presents and recognition for parents, bio and step, is often a source of contention and stress in stepfamilies. Biological parents feel the obligation to recognize the other on events such as Father's Day and Mother's Day, and want to set a good example to their children, but stepparents often feel infringed upon when a gift comes to their spouse from the ex, or even from the kids but made with help from the ex. Gifts inadvertently become another way of putting kids in the middle, even when all adults have the best of intentions- and not all do! Some exes even use gifts and recognition to manipulate and guilt trip the other parent, or to give something disrespectful or suggestive. One stepmom mentioned that her husband's ex gave him pairs of pants for Father's Day with the comment that he needed to "stay in them"?

So where should split parents draw the line?

Obviously, the answer is going to be different for everyone, but here is my general rule of thumb: Would you give it to your boss?

Split parents, with rare exception, have to work on forming professional relationships with each other and disengaging themselves from the personal history. So in order to find the right balance between respect and recognition, it would help if moms and dads treat each other as they would treat their bosses (or clients, if you prefer to feel more in charge of the situation) - with respect and good will, but not with familiarity.

So, would you give your boss a Christmas present? Well, it's possible you might give a card. And she might happen to eat some of the cookies you left in the staff room, but you probably wouldn't. Would you give your boss a father's day card? It depends on your relationship. If you saw them that day you'd certainly wish him a happy father's day, and sure f you both had kids and you were on pleasant enough terms that it was a common non-business topic of conversation a card might be in order. But you wouldn't get them a gift. You wouldn't help their children get them a gift unless for some reason you both saw the kids on a regular basis AND there was no one else in the picture to help them. It's possible, but unlikely. You'd certainly encourage them to give a gift, but you wouldn't be a hands on helper.

So parents (and stepparents) out there struggling with this boundary, I would say you can absolutely recognize the other parent with a card or something small, but refrain from giving major gifts yourself unless you are truly one of the rare ex-couples who have developed a friendship post-separation. And if your ex has a spouse in the picture who can help the kids get a gift, allow that individual to do so. They know your ex better now, after all, and it is their place. You can and should model appreciation for your children, but modeling boundaries and respect is just as important, and far, far more peaceful. "

http://fierystepmom.blogspot.com/2012/06/would-you-give-it-to-your-boss.html

A look beyond

Last night while staring at graduation cards, my eyes alighted on one that said "Son, on your Graduation". It was an unexpected reaction, immediately choked up, tears in my eyes. I guess I thought of Ryan graduating. Which is ridiculous because he just turned 11. We drove home, talking about Kayla turning 18, graduating and I shared the experience. I say I think it's because everything I am, I do - is for my children. They are the reason for life. They are what drives me to be better, what gets me out of bed some days. What keeps me going. I can't imagine my life without them, as they move on to their own lives - not that I don't want them to move on but just the simple recognition that they won't be... - HERE. I miss them already and feel a bit silly recognizing that. Tears stream down my cheeks at this sudden emotional spillage. They bring me joy, some pain, cause me to grow (up), to laugh. It's difficult to look beyond that and see what I will be without what has been my entire life. At 18 I met their dad, we settled into our life, I always knew I wanted to be a mom - and not just any mom - but the best mom ever. We had to work hard to have our first and the second was a surprise so I remind myself to enjoy the experience, even when it's very tough & grueling. I have begun to feel excitement as McKenna approaches her own graduation next year, for her to begin her own life. Perhaps because I'm moving through the motions of letting go and feel wonder at the awesome person she is and the life experiences she has to look forward to. But I am not even close to that part of acceptance with Ryan and with him being "the end", I'm curious to see if I move through it the same as I have with McKenna. Perhaps it will be easier then - right now we are still in that wonderful place where he loves me, thinks I'm great and wants to snuggle every night before sleep. Perhaps as we move into the "I hate you, you are a moron" teenage season, I'll move through the letting go place. Regardless, it is inevitable. And I will always, always be one of those parents and grandparents, on the sidelines, cheering my kids and their kids on through life. They will always be secure in the fact that I absolutely adore them, that I am dependable, that I am present. I may be actually annoying sometimes, with my 5th wheel parked outside their home - while I try to find the balance of not enabling and not being disconnected. Not meddling and not disregarding. Being ever present, loving and cherishing the most precious gifts God chose to bestow upon my quick existence.

Who Will, Men of Courage?

Who will teach my son to follow Christ?
Who will accept the responsibility of providing for my family?
Who will ask God to break the chains of destructive patterns in my families history?
Who will pray for and bless my children to boldly pursue whatever God calls them to do?

I am their Father - I will!

I accept this responsibility and it is my privilege to embrace it.
I want the favor of God and His Blessing on my home. Any good man does.

So - where are you - Men of Courage?
Where are you Fathers who fear The Lord?

It's time to rise up and answer the Call that God has given to you!

And say I WILL! I WILL! I WILL!

The Porch

Imagine – a world without a basket of flowers hanging on the porch.
A world without beauty, only dead where the sun has scorched.

Imagine – a soul without a light shining through.
Dry as the water evaporated from the desert’s morning dew.

I have seen that place and never wish to return,
to the endless wanderings of a soul that’s been burned.

My Father, He guides me on a new winding road
And carries me through the burdens of my load.

I’ve found the beauty of the basket on the porch
And tasted the mountain dew that healed where the sun scorched.

Sweet is the water that pours from the grave,
That opened for Jesus so MY soul He could save.

So worthy am I, not fit for this world,
Yet He loves me so deeply, He let the truth be told.

My eyes have been opened and my soul knows the light,
I could never return to the rubble of my previous life.

I bid you to come and take up my hand,
Walk with me and our Lord and dance in the Promised Land.

Many are waiting for you and me to come,
To join the army of The Only and the home of The One.

RebeccaFM/RamFMTalk 6/5/2003

What's Up Pussycat?

Wow. Hearing a lot in the news about the government & the presidents intent to step in and attempting to force what appears to be Christianity based religions to go against their beliefs and values of their faith. We don't force other religions to go against their value systems when we don't agree with how they operate. Why Christianity? Once we allow the government to get it's foot in the door on that level, we should be very very worried. Making dropping out of high school illegal. Government control. Always under the guise of what's best for our country and "freedom", which ultimately lead to control & desensitization of a nation & the next generation, to allow a certain group to be wiped out and a country to be under one control. It takes time to put the steps into place. Hitler was very very patient and it was only the older generations that understood what he was up to.

"Bloggers Beware" $2.5 Mil Libel Suit

"Bloggers Beware’

That was the headline on a conservative blog following a $2.5 million judgment this month against blogger Crystal Cox in a defamation case tried in federal court in Oregon. It’s a case followed closely in both the blogosphere and in the traditional media, as it highlights the proliferation of blogging, the blurring of lines between journalists and bloggers and more libel cases born out of blog posts.

“There are a lot of malicious people out there,” says Bruce Johnson, a Seattle attorney with Davis Wright Tremaine and author of Washington state’s current Shield Law. “You’re not going to be able to get rid of them all. They will continue to basically write graffiti on the bathroom wall, and in this case, the Internet provides the bathroom wall,” says Johnson.

According to the Media Law Resource Center, bloggers have been hit with $47 million in defamation judgments. Just two years ago the total stood at $17 million, revealing a sharp increase. MLRC’s Dave Heller sees a rise in ‘fringe publishers’ and says the case against Cox was, in some ways, "extremely rare."

Crystal Cox calls herself an investigative blogger who is also a journalist. The Montana real estate agent wrote extensively about the bankruptcy case of Summit Accommodations. Kevin Padrick, an Oregon attorney with Obsidian Finance Group, was appointed trustee in charge of paying Summit creditors. Cox accused Padrick of, among other things, committing tax fraud.

Padrick sued and won a unanimous jury verdict.

According to published reports, there is no evidence Padrick did anything improper. Cox tried to invoke the Shield Law, which allows journalists to protect confidential sources, but Judge Marco Hernandez ruled Cox was not a journalist and therefore not entitled to the protections. He wrote, "there is no evidence of any education in journalism, any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity or proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking or disclosures of conflicts of interest."

Dave Heller says what’s remarkable about the Cox case is the court reverted to common law libel standards, meaning she had no defense except to prove what she had written about Padrick was true. Bruce Johnson believes Washington state’s Shield Law would have afforded Cox some protections because it is technology neutral. “I think it’s moving gradually toward more blogging being protected,” says Johnson.

Many bloggers, initially shocked by the size of the judgment against Cox, have since distanced themselves from her. David Goldstein, who founded the liberal Seattle blog "Horse’s Ass," says as more mainstream media reporters and anchors blog, the lines are getting blurred, but getting it right is vital no matter what your medium. “Just like anybody can claim to be a journalist, anybody can claim to be a blogger,” says Goldstein, “And if you look at the court records, she really appeared to be neither.”

Crystal Cox did not respond to our emails and phone calls seeking comment. It appears, however, she plans to continue to fight. She represented herself in the defamation suit, but now has legal help from UCLA Law School and blogger Eugene Volokh. He has taken the case pro bono in hopes of getting the decision reversed. Volokh has written about the First Amendment’s protection of the press, arguing it’s not solely intended for the media as an institution, but anyone doing the work of journalism.

Goldstein agrees, but accuses Cox of harassing Kevin Padrick and getting her facts wrong. “We’re in the business of criticizing people,” says Goldstein, That’s what journalists, that’s what bloggers do. So we have an obligation to be at least accurate with that criticism.”

Kevin Padrick says the issue is much bigger than whether or not Crystal Cox was acting as a journalist or not. “False allegations can be made against somebody,” Padrick says, “and they will have to live with those false allegations for the rest of their lives.”

Since the attacks against him hit the Internet, Padrick says his business is way down. He partially blames the easy manipulation of the search engines to keep even false content front and center.

Crystal Cox has hundreds of web sites and by linking the content it gives the appearance of multiple sources. Google Padrick’s name and up comes dozens of Cox’s blog postings.

“Through search engines, we are allowing bloggers to have a power that is disproportionate,” says Padrick, “and yet with that power has to come the responsibility.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/22/bloggers-not-journalists/

May my daughter remember my determination this way

"I grew up in NYC alone with my mom. She was a single parent and while life wasn't always easy, it sure was fun. Even as a child, I understood that, financially, we were living on the edge. but somehow we always got by. My mom was determined to give me a well-rounded childhood-n matter what it cost.

She could have chosen to live in a less expensive neighborhood but she was never one to compromise. We lived on Central Park West, went to Broadway shows and dined at the city's best restaurants. I went to private school and summer camp, took ballet and piano lessons, and learned to ski in Vermont on weekends.

My childhood sounds like on grounded in privilege but that’s only one side of it. My dad was gone, leaving us with no money when I was very young. My mom was strong, beautiful and artistic and an uncanny ability to convince people that she could do almost anything. She used all these qualities to supplement her meager financial resources and combined, they magically arrived us through life one day at a time. I don’t remember ever hearing her say the word "can't".

My first memories of Mom in the working world were formed by earing her tell stories of being a model. She was one of those women who made heads turn every time she entered a room and for 10 years she posed for advertising, runway shows and department stores. I never learned precisely why her modeling career ended but I remember hearing vague stories about lecherous photographers and creeps who couldn’t keep their hands off her.

So she eased herself into another career and soon our apartment was filled with paintings and art supplies. There were easels in every room, some for paper and charcoal drawing and others for canvas & oils. Shed often paint all day and well into the night; I still remember her - brush in hand, working as she watched Johnny Carson until the wee hours of the morning. To this day I have no idea where she sold all of her artwork, but she found a market somewhere. She produced a prodigious amount of art that was apparently good enough that she sold all of it, earning enough money to pay the rent and my private school tuition.

When I was 8 years old my mother decided to spread her wings even farther and using her artistic talents, became an interior decorator as well as a landlord. I became her willing assistant. It was my first encounter with entrepreneurship. My mother had saved just enough money to rent an unfurnished, unoccupied apartment on east 56th Street, where we spend weekends painting walls and drawing floor plans. I would measure and she would draw.

Once the apartment was painted & my mothers decorating plans competed, we'd it the auctions. Mom read the paper to see what was coming up for auction that would fit her designs. I'd have fun going along after school and offering my opinion on which piece of furniture I thought would look best in the new apartment. We refinished or repainted furniture when necessary and in a matter of weeks listed the apartment in the "For Rent" section of the NY Times.

The phone rang off the hook. Within a week we'd found a tenant and rented the apartment with a year’s lease. By the time I was twelve, my mother, repeating that same scenario many times, was managing more than twenty apartments, all of which she'd decorated and subleased at substantial profit.

But times change. A few years later the NY rental market began to falter; Mom's business was slipping away. Overnight, rentals had become a thing of the past; people with money were buying their apartments instead of renting them. Undaunted, Mom entered school and after 6 months of classes, proudly announced that she had earned her real-estate license. If she couldn't rent, she was going to sell. Our days of refinishing furniture & visiting auction houses were over.

Mom started working at an up & coming firm on Madison Ave that was carving out a lucrative niche market by catering to wealthy clients looking for luxury apartments in Manhattans newly converted co-op buildings. Her first client was Woody Allen; a new career was born, a new adventure begun.

Mom's goals were straightforward: to be a good mother, enjoy a full life by embracing new experience and marry a wonderful man with the same objectives. She never did find that perfect man but she scored high in every other regard. Flexibility was an intrinsic part of her nature and helped her overcome setbacks without losing her enthusiasm for her dream.

As for me, she gave me the gift of knowing I can do whatever I want and the courage to follow through. I new as long as I was doing what I loved, money would follow. And, in genera, it has."


From Bob & Melinda Blanchard "Live What You Love"

AOM: The Thousandth Man

The Thousandth Man
By Rudyard Kipling

One man in a thousand, Solomon says,
Will stick more close than a brother.
And it’s worth while seeking him half your days
If you find him before the other.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine depend
On what the world sees in you,
But the Thousandth Man will stand your friend
With the whole round world agin you.

‘Tis neither promise nor prayer nor show
Will settle the finding for ‘ee.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine of ‘em go
By your looks or your acts or your glory.
But if he finds you and you find him,
The rest of the world don’t matter;
For the Thousandth Man will sink or swim
With you in any water.

You can use his purse with no more talk
Than he uses yours for his spendings,
And laugh and meet in your daily walk
As though there had been no lendings.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine of ‘em call
For silver and gold in their dealings;
But the Thousandth Man he’s worth ‘em all,
Because you can show him your feelings.

His wrong’s your wrong, and his right’s your right,
In season or out of season.
Stand up and back it in all men’s sight—
With that for your only reason!
Nine hundred and ninety-nine can’t bide
The shame or mocking or laughter,
But the Thousandth Man will stand by your side
To the gallows-foot—and after!

Hat tip to Gilberto C. for this Manvotional

http://artofmanliness.com/2012/01/07/manvotional-the-thousandth-man/?utm_source=Daily+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f38d118bec-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN/

Mr. Chadwell Part 1

As you might expect, I have lots to say about this. I'll start off, however, with the frank admission that I had never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli either. I now understand that Obama apparently invoked the treaty in his recent speech which probably explains why this issue came to our attention, ultimately. So, understandably, in reading the treaty I'm struck by the language used. I'd like to share some observations with you about this which will serve as a foundation of sorts… a backdrop, maybe.

And by the way, thank you for bringing my attention to it. Every time I encounter something like this, it drives me to learn more about it, and in that process I become better equipped to deal with it. I'd much rather hear this from you than, say, some secular type whom I'm trying to persuade as to the founding of this nation and be left flat-footed, caught be surprise. So thank you, thank you, thank you!

For one thing, and understand this is a minor consideration but a consideration nonetheless, but the article you cite is associated with Stephen Jay Gould. Gould died a while back, but I think it's at least minimally relevant to understand who Gould was. Gould was a rather well known atheist and evolutionary, uh… scientist. I was going to say "biologist" but some of those guys get picky about their precise title, so I'll use the broadest one I know. Gould was bothered by the fact that the fossil record provided precious little in the way of transitional forms and if Darwin had been correct, we should have an incredible wealth of transitional forms. So, he came up with the theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" to explain away this lack of transitional forms.

What's my point? My point is that everyone has a bias. I most certainly have a bias, so do you, so did Stephen Jay Gould and those who share his world view. Hopefully you have seen by now enough evidence to persuade you that the popular evolution story which we were all fed is demonstrably false and literally impossible. And again, I don't disbelieve evolution if evolution simply means "change over time". I can agree to that and compromise NOTHING in the way of my Biblical world view. But if "evolution" means all living things descended accidentally from a single common ancestor, (this is the story we were fed in school) is laughably absurd and has, in fact, very little (if any) evidence to support it. Still getting to my point… The question is, if people like Gould can look at the plain evidence and simple problems associated with evolution and their naturalist world view and persist in interpreting that data to their favor, then they are obviously prone to twist anything else to their favor if it threatens their world view. These guys (as you've seen in the Expelled movie) will go to GREAT LENGTHS to defend their world view and deny God. Think of Michael Ruse in "Expelled" when he so confidently asserted the life arrived "on the backs of crystals" as if that explains anything. Think of Romans 1:22 which says "Professing to be wise, they became fools."

Now I understand that this alone does not disprove this whole assertion about the Treaty of Tripoli. But it demonstrates the lengths to which people of this world view will go in order to defend their view and to assail the truth. Therefore, their conclusions ought to be treated with careful scrutiny and suspicion, and if their conclusion turns out to be valid, so be it. But there's a good chance it won't.

New e-mail coming. You may post these as comments if you like… up to you. Right now I'm really just writing to you, personally, not so much "to your blog". I'll break this up into several e-mails, 'cuz this is going to get complicated.

I hope it's clear that, since this is the first time I've heard of this treaty, I'm actually reasoning this through to a large extent as I write whatever it is that I write. So while I most certainly do have a bias, I will try to set that aside and just focus on the question at hand and see what reasonable conclusions can be reached. It's a very interesting problem.

There are many passages in the Bible, for example, which skeptics love to point to as being contradictory and of course then they stomp all over the Bible and say that it's obviously not divinely inspired by some "perfect" God. But these always turn out not to be contradictions when the passages are examined more carefully. It always turns out that one part of the contradiction has simply been… often times it has to do with us imposing our way of doing things from our historical context and our culture onto their way of doing things in their historical context and their culture. When you get a little bit into their culture and historical context, the contradictions fade away and things start to make sense.

It's possible that something similar is happening here with this treaty, and that what the secularists are really doing is pulling this article out of its historical context in a way that is misleading. If that strikes you as a bit of a stretch, well, join the club. But we have to account for the thoughts expressed elsewhere by those same founders. If we just ignore all of that then most certainly we're missing something.

Make sense?