srmaher

I need some help here. I am the father of two very active young boys (5 and 3), and I can't stop feeling guilty about not spending the kind of time they want from me. For those who have little boys know how active and energetic they are. This makes it tough because when I get home late from work each night I am exhausted and they want to play and wrestle. I do the majority of the time knowing that one day they will be grown. The real issue is this, when ever I am home, they want to spend every second playing, which is awesome because i would rather have them want to spend time with me than the other way around. But I feel so guilty saying no when they come and ask me to play. Even though in my head I understand that I need to get some reset to recharge my batteries, but when I say no I feel a ton of guilt. Its all or nothing really, in my mind I reason that I should as much time with them as possible. But what does that really mean? in other words, obviously i need to go to work among other things but any down time that I have I feel the need to spend it with them. I guess I fear that this is the time I need to bond with my sons to create that relationship that they will need as they get older and face a tough world. There are the two questions that I continually ask myself. How much time is sufficient to spend with my boys and not feel guilty? How much time is sufficient to bond with them so they get that healthy connection? I understand that you I cant put a fixed amount of time on something like this. Though I can't seem to find a balance where I feel at peace knowing I have done my job as a father. The second question is related to the first (which might help clarity my overall concern), another thing I worry about is that by spending so much time with them, I will harm their sense of independence, that they will expect to get the kind of attention from others as they have gotten from me. I am hoping for some council and advice on this matter. I am hoping that some people have had similar thoughts and feelings and have come up with some good solutions.

There is no question Muslims in America are safer than those in Muslim majority countries. My comment is a little off topic but related to the idea of tolerance and safely. The reality is, that how unsafe non-muslims are in areas that are prodomintly muslim. For example, I am sure everyone has seen those moronic bumper stickers "coexist," well, an artist in France was painting (Graffiti) the word "coexist" on a wall and was beaten up be a few muslims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2947822/Graffiti-artist-attacked-gang-Paris-ghetto-drawing-word-coexist-Christian-Muslim-Jewish-symbols.html Just last week, a Jewish man conducted an experiment where he walked around Paris in areas dominated but Muslims for 10 hours, and the way he was treated speaks volumes about the tolerance of this culture. How many comments would a jew in America receive if he walked around major U.S. City for 10 yours. Keep in mind, these are just two examples that came to my mind, AND that just happened within the last two weeks.

Great video showing who really pays the most in taxes. Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?:

Instead of going through each of the six examples one by one, let me ask you this. Do you think it is a good thing that "white privilege" is being taught in our schools, from elementary all the way up to the University level?

I didn't say that the idea behind white privilege was to end racism. But it does fuel racism. It causes division and resentment. As to white privilege being very real, how?

I wish everything didn't have to be political, but unfortunately politics has found its way into everything. Including sports, but thats a whole other discussion. So why is that everything seems to be political? You might find this article interesting which helped me better understand this. http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/11/19/what-tocqueville-can-teach-us-about-the-culture-war/ As to you being a left wing liberal. I am not accusing you of being one. But the media is, and they are the ones propagating such. All I am saying is that this idea is toxic, and if we continue to go in the direction we are heading I don't think its going to end well. I enjoy our civil discussions!

To begin with, the idea of "white privilege" is disgusting and destructive. We have already witnessed what these kind of ideas have produced. More specifically, in the aftermath of post World War I, many Left-wing Jewish Intellectuals actually thought that one of the best ways to deal with antisemitism was for Jews to recognize their own anti-semitism in themselves.Instead of healing, it reinforced the anti-semitism that already existed in Germany. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces of the puzzle together in that the same foolish ideas are being propagated by left wing white liberals today. The narrative is that whites don't realize how racist they are. Therefore they need to be re-educated about their unknown "white Privilege," and racism. Whats scary is that these ideas are actually being taught as part of curriculum in elementary schools. White privilege conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpvFnL6dOk Wisconsin Holds White Privilege Conference You think they make this stuff up, but it’s real. http://online.wsj.com/articles/political-diary-wisconsin-education-follies-1403521121 Does anyone really think pushing the narrative that whites are somehow privileged is going to help heal racism? Only those on the left think so, which ironically comes from left wing white intellectuals. Those that are pushing the whole "white Privilege" scam reminds of a guy name Kurt Tucholsk'y. I am going to write more about him soon because his experience is so closely related to ours. You can read about Kurt Tucholsk'y in an article published in 1968 called, Tucholsk'ys complaint http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/kurt-tucholsky-and-the-ordeal-of-germany-1914-1935-by-harold-l-poor-kurt-tucholsky-what-if-translated-by-harry-zohn-and-karl-f-r/

Or fine business owners who keep their shop doors open past 5:00pm because is "unfair" to their competition. Seriously, so absurd.

"Socrates, Moron." Has to be one of the best lines in the movie.

I agree with your point that the Nazis targeting people other than the jews> I actually removed that point from the post because I try to keep them within a certain word count. As a general rule, It usually starts with the Jews than the scope of victims grows. Anyway, your point is well taken and I am glad you brought it up.

I think it would be of value if you elaborated on that idea.

HBO produced a film several year ago called Conspiracy, dipicting the secret meeting held by fifteen of the highest-ranking officers of the Nazi party. It was here where Reinhard Heydrich revealed his plan in how to carry out the “final solution,” in which every Jew in Europe was to be killed. The movie closed with a scene that depicted a conversation that supposedly took place between Hydrich and Adolf Eichmann. Although there is some debate as to whether or not the conversation actually took place, the principle of the story told by Hydrich is indicative of where our society is in 2014. I have also included a youtube clip of the conversation from the Movie. Heydrich: He told me a story about a man he had known all his life, a boyhood friend. This man hated his father, yet loved his mother fiercely. His mother was devoted to him, but his father used to beat him, demeaned him, disenherited him. Anyway, this friend grew to manhood and was still in his thirties when the mother died. The mother, who had nurtured and protected him, died. The man stood at her grave as they lowered the coffin, and tried to cry, but no tears came. The man's father lived to a very extended old age, and withered away and died when the son was in his fifties. At the father's funeral, much to the son's surprise, he could not control his tears. Wailing, sobbing... he was apparently inconsolable. Lost. That was the story Kritzinger told me. Eichmann: I don't think I understand. Heydrich: No? The man had been driven his whole life by hatred of his father. When his mother died, that was a loss, but when his father died and hate had lost its object, the man's life was empty..over. Heydrich: That was Kritzinger's warning. Eichmann: What, that we should not hate the Israelites? Heydrich: No, but that it should not fill our lives so much that, when they are gone, we have nothing left to live for. So says the story. I will not miss them. http://youtu.be/_ZMuOhuB3Wo In a nutshell, Kritzinger warning is directed to those who find meaning in life by projecting their hatred onto others, usually those they believe victimized them. The Nazi’s are a perfect example of following this pattern in that they chose the Jews to be the object of their hatred. The Jews were an easy target and were blamed for Germany’s losing the First World War. Those who fit this pattern of behavior often convince themselves that they are noble and virtuous because they believe they are fighting a system of oppression. The clearest example of this is the terror organizations like Hamas and ISIS, who think they are victims of Zionist Jews and the great Satan, also known as the U.S. Although Kritzinger warning is intended for those like the young men illustrated in his story that found meaning in his life through the hatred of his father, his warning is also for members of society. All of the atrocities of the 20th century were the direct result of what Kritzinger warned about. The communists, Fascists, and Socialists all rose to power by identifying an “object” by which they channeled the people’s hatred onto. What worries me in light of the recent events in Ferguson Mo, is that many of the same patterns spoken of by Kritzinger are evident in the rioters and the messages from the so called civil rights leaders. For decades, minorities have been told that they are the victims of a racist white establishment. This narrative as been used to explain why there are such large levels of black unemployment, the large number of blacks incarcerated, and the high number of blacks living in poverty. The scary thing is that this message of victimhood shows no sign of stopping. Just a few days ago Time Magazine published an article defending the rioters in Ferguson. It wouldn't be so depressing if this were written by a blogger living in his mother’s basement, but Time? Although Derek Zoolander was right when he told Matilda "Yeah, well, fortunately for you, not too many people I know read your little TIME magazine, or whatever it's called.” But just about everyone in our society is exposed to news outlets and our educational system, which have all signed onto this narrative. Rather than seeing the world through the lens of what is right and wrong. The left, which run the media and our educational system, fan the flame of hatred because they see the world through the lens of race and victimization. Ben Shapiro of truth revolt best explains the current mindset of those who support the Ferguson protester. Although Shapiro does not mention Kritzinger, it’s pretty clear that the patterns of behavior exemplified by the rioters, and the so-called civil rights activist are alive and well. “Because facts do not matter to those attempting to rectify what they perceive as an unjust universe…individuals do not exist. Individuals are merely stand-ins for groups. Wilson was a white cop; therefore, he was the Racist White Establishment. Brown was a black teenager; therefore, he was the Innocent Black Victim. The parts have already been written; Wilson was merely unlucky enough to land the starring role. Days of Rage provide the outlet for delusional anger. Radical Muslims need an external enemy to justify their own brutality; protesters in Ferguson need an external enemy to justify their own failure to make good in the freest country in the history of humanity. In light of the Riots in Ferguson Mo and the growing presence of terror organizations in the world, the warning given by Kritzinger ought to open all of our eyes to see the writing on the wall. If things don’t change, I am afraid we are heading down a very dangerous road.

Thank you for posting this, great source. I may offend some by the following, so sorry ahead of time. But the left (The U.N. is a perfect example of the left) reminds me a lot of a school yard bully. They target those who "weak," or will not fight back. Instead of being pre-occupied with condemning real evil, they spend a great deal of their time investigating Israel for war crimes and accusing the U.S. of violating human rights. They like to impose their ideology onto third world countries because they know they can. Now, in regards to their condemnation of Israel and the U.S., It wouldn't be so bad if there was actual evidence to backed up their claims, but to ignore the atrocities commited by North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, to just name but a few, only shows how useless (dangerous in many respects) the U.N. is.

You be suprisedd with how many audiobooks are on youtube. Check it out. Also, check out booktv.org, they also have a YouTube channel. Each week they feature around 20 new books, where the author speaks for around an hour about their book. I have found they talk about the most important ideas from their book to get people to buy it. Anyway, the website is a treasure.

Bloomberg conducted a study a few years ago that showed most Americans no longer have faith in the American Dream. Bloomberg reported; "The widening gap between rich and poor is eroding faith in the American dream. By almost two to one — 64 percent to 33 percent — Americans say the U.S. no longer offers everyone an equal chance to get ahead, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. And some say the government isn't doing much to help." "The lack of faith is especially pronounced among those making less than $50,000 a year: By a 73 percent to 24 percent margin, they say the economy is unfair. Even 60 percent of those whose annual income is $100,000 or more bemoan the absence of a fair deal while 39 percent say everyone has an equal shot to advance." These results shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, the Media's preoccupation with income inequality ends up creating the perception in the minds of people that the American Dream is a myth and that the rich are getting richer at their expense. No wonder they want the government to intervene. The truth of the matter is that the American Dream has nothing to do with income inequality, but everything to do with whether or not you come from an intact family. The National Review featured an article on its website a few weeks ago, "What an Intact Family Has to Do with the American Dream, in Six Charts." The article discusses a study that reveals why those from intact homes are more likely to achive the American Dream. As the family continues to fall apart, its only logical that we will see an even greater divide between the rich and poor. Rather than focus on the root cause of the problems in society, this generation will turn to the government even more which will only make the problem worse. To save the reader time, I went ahead and highlighted the main ideas from each of the six categories listed in the study. One: Fewer families are headed by married parents. “One big reason ordinary families are struggling is that fewer families are headed by married parents.” This matters “because married parents are more likely to pool their income, save more, and spend more on their children, compared with single parents. To make matters worse, this retreat from marriage is concentrated among Americans without college degrees.” Two: Children raised in intact families are less likely to fall afoul of detours on the road to the American Dream. “Boys and girls raised in intact families are more likely to flourish in the labor force later in life. One reason? They are less likely to fall afoul of the detours on the road to the American Dream that can put teens and young adults on the wrong track. A nonmarital birth, for instance, puts a real economic strain on both women and men. That’s partly because such births can derail schooling and decrease adults’ future chances of getting and staying married. And a stable family protects them against these kinds of detours. The chart below shows that young men and young women from intact families are, respectively, 5 and 12 percent less likely to have a child before marriage, compared with their peers from single-parent families.” Three: Children raised in intact families are more likely to acquire the human capital they need to live the American Dream. “Children from intact families are less likely to drop out of high school...to put this positively: Young men and women are more likely to acquire the education they need to compete in today’s global economy if they were raised in an intact home with both of their parents.” “Having two parents in the picture typically increases the amount of time, attention, encouragement, and money that can be devoted to a child’s education. It also protects children from the household moves and emotional stress associated with family instability, both factors that seem to hurt children’s odds of educational success in high school and beyond.” Four: Young men and women raised in intact families work more hours. “It’s a simple idea: On average, the more hours you work, the more experience you gain in the labor force and the more money you make. What’s clear from the data is that young men and young women who are raised by their own biological or adoptive parents in an intact family work more hours as young adults aged 28 to 30...our analyses suggest that part of the reason is that these young adults have more education and fewer children born out of wedlock in their personal histories.” Five: Young men raised in intact families make more money. “Today, young men and women who are raised by their own biological or adoptive parents in an intact family make more money. Specifically, 28- to 30-year-old men make more than $6,500 more than peers who come from single-parent families but otherwise hail from largely similar backgrounds; their family income is also about $16,000 greater, on average.” Six: Young women raised in intact families make more money. "Likewise, young women who grow up in an intact family also make more money for themselves and enjoy more family income, compared with their peers who grew up in single-parent families but who were otherwise comparable to them in most respects. They make at least $4,700 more personally, and enjoy family incomes that are at least $12,000 greater, compared with their female peers from single-parent families. Note here that one reason that these young women and men enjoy higher family incomes is that they are more likely to be married compared with their peers from non-intact families." The bottom line: “Both young men and young women who grow up in an intact, two-parent family have a leg up in today’s competitive economy. By contrast, young adults from single-parent families are much more likely to be floundering in this economy. It’s for that reason, in part, that Americans of all stripes — be they conservative or liberal — concerned about the health of the American Dream should be concerned about the health of the American family.”

You are a good man Gator, even if your a Gator fan :)

Gator, I coudent agree more in terms of being sensitive to the family. But what makes it controversial? The media and those invested in racial division. The fact of the matter is, no one knows for sure what happened. We owe it to the officer, who has already been convicted in the court of public opinion to have his side of the story heard. Are you aware that there are black witnesses who want their identity conceled because they fear for their life. This resembles something from the early 1900's, not 2014. The reason this matters Gator is that justice is the glue that holds societies together, and for the UN to lend credence to this case, where none is deserved as of yet because its hasn't worked its way through the courts its an outrage. The UN and the Medias handling of this ought to deeply trouble you.

This issue is not about the lefts love of the UN. It just so happens that the left loves the UN. No?

It comes down to values. Consider the conflicts in our own country between those fighting for Religious Liberty and those on the left. A perfect example is the owners of the cake stores who refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They were found guilty in a court of law for discrimination, and was required to pay a fine. Keep in mind, we have a constitutional right protecting our religious liberty. In places like the U.K., where they do not, individuals who are practicing Christians are no longer allowed to adopt, or foster kids in the foster care system. if you want to learn more about this issue, just perform a simple google search and you will find all you need. Anyway, It will never happen because the two sides are completely at odds in terms of values, and outcomes. The more secular one becomes, the more controlling one is, in extreme cases like communist China/Russian/North Korea, you are not even allowed to have "the freedom silence" in your own mind.

The Associated Press reported last week that “the parents of Ferguson police shooting victim Michael Brown are headed to Switzerland next week to speak at a United Nations human rights conference.” Is anyone else scratching their head about this? Why on earth is the UN inviting the Brown’s to speak at such an important conference when there is ZERO evidence that any human rights have been violated? The AP continues; “Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden are scheduled to address the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva on Nov. 12 and 13. “The trip comes as a St. Louis County grand jury prepares to conclude its inquiry into the Aug. 9 shooting death of Brown by Ferguson officer Darren Wilson.” It can’t be overstated enough that as of today, no one has all the facts to make any certain conclusions about this case. For the UN to invite the Brown’s to speak at a conference dealing with such an important topic, only serves to diminish the true meaning of human rights violations and torture. I think it’s important to point out that I am not critical of the Brown family, but only to show how morally inept the UN has become. It’s bad enough that the UN has given credibility to the claim that Michael Brown’s human rights had been violated, even though no one knows for certain what happened. It’s even worse that they will allow it to be discussed at a conference where real human rights have actually been violated. I continue to be amazed at the lefts love of the United Nations. I think it’s because they love the idea of having a world United in peace, a world where no country is better than any other, in short, a world where equality exists. As a result of this mind set, they become incapable of making moral distinctions, as in the case of lumping together what they think happened in Ferguson Mo, and what is happening in the places like, North Korea, China, the Middle East and Africa.

I came across this video of a missionary in a dance off against a Michael Jackson impersonator. Its pretty funny!

Two missionarys knocked on my parents door in 1970 when they lived in peterborough NH. My father let them in because of how clean cut they were. Who knows how history would have gone, but i am a member of the church today because of how they looked.I am not advocating BYU students dress like missionarys. But the way you dress means something, al least it meant something to my father.

Is this the "Sure statement" that I made. "But one thing is for sure, true happiness comes when we forget ourselves and look for ways to bless the lives of others." Do you disagree that serving others leads to happiness?

Really, that most terrifying thing you have read, perhaps I should have included a trigger warning. As to making a sure statement, what was the sure statement that I made? By the way, my reference to "Utah Mormons" was tongue and check because members of the church out side of Utah, for what ever reason bash Utah Mormons. Being from the Boston area I have only had great experiences with "Utah Mormons." just FYI, The reference was meant to be in good fun. Perhaps we could clear this up. Did I, or did I not say this study should be taken with a grain of salt?

I take all studies with a grain of salt. I have learned that "studies" either confirm common sense or they are not true. I acknowledged up front that this study should be taken with a grain of salt, but the ones you referred to came with no such disclaimer. I agree with you that studies are very subjective, it would be nice if you applied that standard to yourself.