oh the religiously driven government shit doesn't fucking stop, does it?

Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."

The House just passed a bill that removes from the Federal Court system the right for them to decide if the "Under God" phrase inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 is Unconstitutional on religious grounds.  They have attempted to remove from the court the right to decide if something is establishment of religion.

The fact that this vote in and of itself can be undone by a court action that considers it establishment appearantly escaped them, but there you go.  At any rate, its not likely to pass the Senate anytime soon, so there you go...

The fact that this GROSSLY violates separation of powers (supposedly something the Republican party used to stand for) obviously also escaped them as well.

If I ever vote for a Republican in my lifetime again, I will be extremely surprised.  This shit has got to stop!

Mr. Akin, the Constitution of the United States, that you are sworn to uphold, declares effectively that the rights of the people are inalieanable because they exist regardless of the existence of any God who may or may not have decided to grant them.  Enlightenment philosphers derived those rights as existing independent of any intervention or purpose of God, and in fact the rights most important are those the Bible, believe it or not, completely ignores or downright condemns.  And the 10 commandments (you'll probably work to protect that next) actually contains 7 that would be grossly in violation of the Bill of Rights.

on the other hand, one COULD say that this vote finally showed that this congress and republican party could do SOMETHING for "state's rights"...

its not the kids who don't want to go, its the parents?

Loosen the Apron Strings - New York Times:

But recently, reading in The Chicago Tribune how increasing numbers of struggling Midwestern sleep-away camps are selling out to real estate developers, I discovered something new: parents aren’t not sending their kids away to traditional camps just because they want them home drilling for the SAT. They’re not sending them away to camp because they want them home, period.

Many parents “don’t want their kids to be gone for long periods or at all,” is how The Tribune put it.

Parents today, apparently, don’t want their kids out in the wilds, where they might walk in the paths of potentially tick-bearing Bambis. They don’t want the kids out of reach, where they can’t take a mood reading at each and every at-risk moment of the day.

Jeff Solomon, executive director of the National Camp Association, told The Wall Street Journal a few months back that some parents even question whether those who send their children away for extended camps “really love their kids.” Seems the bonds of loving family life feel so fragile that, it’s feared, they might be broken by a protracted separation (during which the kids might actually have fun).

I have to admit that as much as faireraven is a proponent for our hopeful/eventual kid(s) to go to camps in the summer, I'm of mixed feelings.  Not least of which is that aside from the study factor (I've learned first aid skills that are still in my head as fresh as they were 20 years ago), I rarely had a "good time".  I was always way too much smaller than the others around me, though granted, this was Boy Scouts, and I was 12 compared to the 15-17 year olds that dominated the place and made me feel terribly insignificant - thus creating the image to others that was easily picked on and bullied, making the situation even worse.

In short, being among strangers was rarely productive for me, except for adults who recognized my intellect and my desire to learn.

High school band camp (for the one year I attended when it was off-campus and held at Bridgewater - the next year it was on campus and we all stayed at home because of the King's Dominion law) was much more interesting, but then again, I was already friends with at least some people there before it happened.

But "camp" just brings out really bad memories or more often shut doors of memories I don't want to recall, mostly involving public embarrasment I'd rather not relive.

Maybe our kid will have her social butterfly aspect, maybe (s)he'll be as introverted as I, and have my then-pathetic build.  I don't know.

But there's one factor the Times editorial didn't mention.  Yes, there are some parents who can't "cut the strings" to let the kids go on their own.

On the other hand, there are many parents for whom their 10 hour work days (counting commutes) means that during the school year they never see their own kids, so any chance to spend any time with them in the summer is something to be valued.  In the summer (80 and 83), mom and I bonded in our long trips together studying geography, history, and family history driving up the coastline with my grandmother.  Trips like that were FAR more important to me than any "camp" I ever went to.