The title of this blog has nothing to do with the actual blog itself. My friend Tammi made that comment in reference to the drama that went down DUE to this blog.

I wrote the following blog on another blogring I'm a part of. The comments got SO HEATED that the blog had to be removed.

But...here is my controversial post. (I highly doubt many of you will find it all THAT controversial.)

***
The idea of homeschooling is nowhere near as controversial as it use to be. When my mom started homeschooling me in 1989, it was a BIG deal and my parents received a lot of negative remarks about it and were met with a lot of skeptism. As more and more research came out and more parents began to educate their children at home, homeschooling gained more respect.

Unfortunately a lot of lawmakers and politicians do not see it this way and in many countries, it is illegal to homeschool. The Home School Legal Defense Association does a LOT of work on behalf of families but as it sits right now, the choice to educate your children at home is still legal in the United States, although aspects of the current healthcare reform bill have the ability to endanger that right. As long as it is legal (and depending on circumstances if it is illegal), my husband and I plan on homeschooling our children.

Everytime I read a post on Xanga about the education system, something that happened to a child while they were at school, teacher-parent clashes...my first thought is "That is one reason why I'm choosing to homeschool my kids!!"

Ultimately, it boils down to one main reasons for our family (then a bunch of other reasons).

Main Reason: I do not feel comfortable with someone else having control over my child for eight-ten hours a day. This is by far our biggest concern. I don't even leave Andrew with a sitter (other than grandparents) for short periods of time. It is my responsibility as a parent to raise my child and that does not belong to someone else.

I should say I do not think teachers are bad people or can't do their job. I have a lot of respect for teachers! My degree is in education and I understand that it is a very challenging profession. But it is not a teacher's job to raise their students, and a lot of times, that's what it turns into.

Other reasons (these aren't listed in any particular order):

-I dislike the idea of "Zero Tolerance" policies. I understand why they were put in place but, it takes the common sense out of the situation the majority of the time. I've read too many stories of children being expelled from school for bringing a tiny little lego gun to school or defending themselves. I will never encourage my child to fight, but I do expect him to learn how to stand up for himself...and sometimes that means fighting back.

-I'm uncomfortable with someone else talking about sex to my child. It's my job and his father's job to educate him in this area. That job does not belong to a school.

-Children learn in different ways and at different speeds. A classroom of 20-21 children with one teacher and maybe one aide is not the best situation for this.

-Outside influences. There will come a point in my child's life where he will make his own decisions about friends, who he hangs around, what he does....etc. But at a young age, I CAN protect him and it's my JOB as a parent to protect him from things he is not ready to handle.

-I don't want to get up at 6am Haha....this is true though. Schools here start at 7:45am. To beat traffic, you need to leave by seven at the latest. Or...I can keep my kids at home and we can enjoy leisurely mornings and not rush around to beat traffic or get somewhere! (That was one of my favorite parts of being homeschooled when I was younger.)

-I look forward to the flexibilty that homeschooling offers. My brother and I always had short school days, there was no set length of time that we had to do each subject. Some days my mom would give us a break and we'd go to the park or hiking. On days we did school, we were always done early and had plenty of time to spend with friends, or working a job, or relaxing. We never had a set amount of days for school so if we wanted to travel one week, we always were able to. If we were out at night, there was never a hurry to get home and get to bed because the next day was a school day, we could take it easy the next morning if needed.

I don't think it's possible to write a post about homeschooling without addressing the socialization aspect. Anyone who is familiar with homeschooling knows that the idea that homeschooled kids are social rejects is a huge myth. In my entire life of being homeschooled, I have never had issues socializing, neither has my brother. I have only ever met TWO families who's children had socialization issues. I am really inclinded to believe that socialization is more of a personality trait. If you think about kids in public and private schools...there are those with social issues in both places. It's not limited to homeschool students nor is it more common. Studies done on this have been numerous and there are too many to link here.

It's also important to point out that homeschooling does not hinder college applications. I was accepted into every school I applied to. The fact that I had been homeschooled was never even questioned.

Homeschooling does not work for every family....and even families that choose to homeschool do it in different ways. Some are more scheduled than others, some use a set curriculum, some use online programs...etc. There are so many options.

I am looking forward to being a homeschool mom. :) I'm looking forward to teaching my child(ren) and helping them learn in an environment they are comfortable in and in a style that suits them best.
***



If you are wondering what was so offensive...someone took issue with the fact that I said I didn't want to get up at six am. They called me lazy and selfish and attacked my parenting style. Then they proceeded to call all homeschoolers mindless and accused me of wanting to create little mindless clones exactly like myself. This entire comment was made by someone who could not spell and then later admitted to "lurking" and "internet stalking" so...yeah, didn't do much to help their arguement. Oh the blogging world.....

Well....my son is growing up too fast. He has started pulling up on everything and "cruising". He is VERY slow and not very stable but, he can pull up on one end of the couch and make it to the other end in about 30 minutes. Yesterday he gave me a huge scare. I was in the kitchen and I put him on the floor in the living room where I could see him. I was unloading the dishwasher and he was happily playing with an awesome toy from Ikea and dragging it around the living room. He then went after a big empty coffee can (yes, we give our child weird toys) because it rolls around. I walked over to him and kicked the can lightly so it rolled back onto the carpet. I finished with the dishwasher (about two minutes later) and Andrew wasn't in the living room. I freaked out. He wasn't behind the couch, by the front door, I even checked the stairs. I was starting to get scared when I heard him and turned to see him STANDING under the table and trying to climb up into a chair. He is so busy!!!

His other new talent is that he can climb stairs. This is also a very slow going process but to be honest with you, I'm trying to teach him how to climb them. And how to get down. I'd rather deal with this now than later. He's much better at climbing up than climbing down.

Being a momma is such an adventure.

***

Philip and I saw Avatar yesterday in 3-D. It was an amazing movie...I was surprised I liked it so much! :) But...it was so good! I want to see it again. While we were at the movies, Andrew got to spend some time with his grandparents. :) My dad discovered we have a pecan tree in our backyard...and it is, or was, full of pecans. I have a huge bag sitting on the kitchen table now...I'm excited. I need to find a good pecan pie recipe. :D

***

Not much else to report. I'm going to go eat lunch. :D

*Kym*

This is written as the second part in the series Against The Grain of American Parenting. It wasn't really meant to BE a series but it got such good responses from the first one that I've decided to write about each individual thing we do that doesn't fall in the "norm" with how most people in America raise their kids.

As with the other article, this one is not meant to point fingers, cause guilt or attack anyone's specific style of parenting.

***
I awake most mornings around five am. My son is usually nuzzling into my chest, trying to find his breakfast. My husband is completely oblivious to everything going on and is sleeping soundly. To me, though I'm usually tired, this is the best part of the day. The sun is barely rising and peeking through the curtains and it's quiet and peaceful. After my son finishes nursing, he rolls back over to daddy and sleeps soundly for another 2-3 hours. I lay my head down on my pillow and go back to sleep, thankful for our family bed. Yep, you heard me correctly. My seven month old son still sleeps with us. Yes, still. With the exception to a few occasions, he has always slept with his mommy and daddy.

The practice of putting an infant in his own room, in his own crib, is a relatively new practice. It is estimated to be between 150-200 years old. It is also considered to be a very "Western" practice, most commonly found in America. Anthropologists believe that the practice comes from the Western ideal of "personal independence". Much like with weaning a child early, we expect our children to be independent from birth. We leave them in a crib and hope to "train" them to sleep. (Which, considering this method of sleeping training is pretty new, I suppose no one knew how to sleep prior to the 18th century.)

While the practice has been around since the beginning of time, it was not done due to lack of room or out of ignorance, as other studies have suggested. According to Dr. James McKenna, in his article Breastfeeding & Bedsharing Still Useful (and Important) after All These Years which appeared in Mothering magazine in 2002, "Anthropological research has indicated that cosleeping is not, as previously thought, practiced worldwide through ignorance or necessity. Rather than sharing beds because of a lack of space or resources, cosleeping mothers have overwhelmingly demonstrated a commitment to cosleeping which is tied in with larger parenting philosophies." He goes on to discuss how mothers in other cultures view the idea of solitary sleep for an infant and how normal it is in other cultures.

Other research confirms the normalcy of sharing a bed with a child.

In reviews of literature on cosleeping societies Thevenin (1987) and Lozoff and Brittenham (1979) noted classic studies which included nearly 200 cultures, all of which practiced mother-infant cosleeping even if in some cultures the sleeping location of the father was separate. Examples of cultures included in the studies were the Japanese, the Korean, the Phillipino, the Eskimo Indian, the !Kung San of Africa, and the natives of Okinowa (Lozoff & Brittenham, 1979; Thevenin, 1987). The description of the Okinowan Indian culture included observations both of parent-child cosleeping until the age of six and unrestricted breastfeeding, as well as of characteristics of adult behavior that are very consistent with secure attachment histories (Thevenin, 1987). Cosleeping is the cultural norm for approximately 90% of the world's population. (Young, 1998) (LINK)


90% of the world's population participates in this "dangerous sleep situation" as some naysayers of co-sleeping have called it. In fact, popular parenting books such as Becoming Babywise adamantly preach against putting your baby in bed with his parents, citing that co-sleeping leads to a clingy and dependent, manipulative child. (Sidenote - in 1998 the American Academy of Pediatrics linked methods suggested in Becoming Babywise with failure to thrive in infants, poor milk supply and dehydration - LINK) Other opponents of co-sleeping believe it is linked to SIDS and smothering cases in young infants. Research however shows otherwise.

-Worldwide research shows that the SIDS rate is lowest (and even unheard of) in countries where co-sleeping is the norm, rather than the exception. Babies who sleep either in or next to their parents’ bed have a fourfold decrease in the chance of SIDS. Co-sleeping babies actually spend more time sleeping on their back or side which decreases the risk of SIDS. Further research shows that the carbon dioxide exhaled by a parent actually works to stimulate baby’s breathing.

-The Consumer Product Safety Commission published data that described infant fatalities in adult beds. These same data, however, showed more than 3 times as many crib related infant fatalities compared to adult bed accidents. Another recent large study concluded that bed sharing did NOT increase the risk of SIDS, unless the mom was a smoker or abused alcohol.

-Studies show that infants who sleep near to parents have more stable temperatures, regular heart rhythms, and fewer long pauses in breathing compared to babies who sleep alone. This means baby sleeps physiologically safer.

-Co-sleeping babies grow up with a higher self-esteem, less anxiety, become independent sooner, are better behaved in school, and are more comfortable with affection. They also have less psychiatric problems.
(Dr. William Sears HANDOUT-Scientific Benefits of Co-sleeping) -- Link includes study references.


In a study of early childhood cosleeping by Hayes, Roberts, and Stowe (1996) it was found that infants and children who were solitary sleepers had a much stronger attachment to a security object and were more likely to be disturbed by that object's absence than cosleepers. In a 1992 study of soft object and pacifier attachments in children (Lehman, Denham, Moser, & Reeves) 40% of children with dual soft object and pacifier attachments, and 80% of children with attachments to pacifiers alone were rated as having an insecure attachment relationship with their mothers by 19 months. Attachment benefits of cosleeping are not limited to mother and child; fathers also report enjoying additional time to bond with the baby as a direct result of sharing a sleeping area (Davies, 1995; Seabrook, 1999; Thevenin, 1987). Fathers who share the family bed are likely to experience less disturbed sleep, because babies do not have to awake fully and cry to get their needs met. (LINK)

For even more benefits of co-sleeping, all one has to do is Google it. Expect to get a little over 700,000 results. But the most common thing I hear from families who practice co-sleeping, "I love being so close to my child!"

Of course, there are a few rules to keep in mind when sharing a bed with your child, especially and infant. The author of the book The No Cry Sleep solution offers the following suggestions for safe co-sleeping here.

I feel it is also important to point out that the term "co-sleeping" does not always mean sharing a bed. Dr. Sears defines co-sleeping as being within arms reach of your baby --- maybe a bassinet next to your bed, maybe a Moses basket near the bed, maybe a pack-n-play in the same room. It is also interesting the different forms co-sleeping takes on. For our family, I put Andrew in his own crib around 8:30-9pm after he falls asleep while nursing. Philip and I stay up till around 10:30-11pm, spending some time together. Andrew comes to bed with us when he first wakes up, usually around 12-1am. Other families all go to sleep at the same time (I feel that is ideal with a newborn), while others may still do something different. The beauty of co-sleeping is that the benefits are still present, even in its many different forms.

For me, the biggest perk of co-sleeping is the ease of night time feedings. We are still nursing several times a night and having my child near me makes this much easier. Breastfeeding advocacy group La Leche League strongly supports a family bed and encourages it for helping with building a strong nursing relationship.

Yes, we have rough nights now and again (more often than not). But I sleep soundly knowing my child's needs are immediately being tended to and he is not alone.

***Disclaimer --- This entry is NOT meant to cause guilt in ANY WAY. I orginally wrote this entry on facebook as a reply to all of those who told me to stop nursing because Andrew was three months old. The decision to breastfeed and continue to breastfeed into toddlerhood is an extremely personal and no mother should be made to feel guilt when making that decision.***

I'm a strong advocate for breastfeeding. Before Andrew was conceived (before I even got married actually), I knew that one day I'd have children and I would breastfeed them. I had heard stories of women breastfeeding babies for 3, 4 and 5 years and honestly, it never struck me as odd. But what I didn't understand is why were the women who choose to do so ostracized and attacked. I knew that breastfeeding was way better than formula....they can't even be compared. It wasn't until I became pregnant with Andrew that I started doing my research and realized how beneficial it really was, and not just for the first six weeks, three months, six months...but it continued to be beneficial as long as breastfeeding was continued.

The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that "Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child.." (AAP) The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF recommend that babies be breastfed for at least two years. According to the WHO, the average age for a child to wean, worldwide, is 4 years and 8 months. (WHO - Breastfeeding, UNICEF-Breastfeeding)

That is definitely NOT in line with how we do things in America. From the time our children are born, we want them independent and growing up. Most children are separated from their mothers soon after birth because they are put in a nursery at the hospital. Upon coming home, babies are put on a strict schedule, only eating every three hours. Breastfeeding is something for babies and in order for our children to be independent, they are usually weaned soon after birth for several reasons: so mom can return to work and not have to concentrate on pumping to keep her supply up, to go ahead and let our baby learn to not be comforted by food, etc. I could put in a jab at "BabyWise" here but I'll refrain. But is this line of thought and this trend hurting our society?

In countries where babies sleep with their parents, breastfeed for several years and spend their baby, toddler and early childhood years with their parents, babies are found to cry less, sleep better and gain weight better, as well as having LESS weight problems when they are older. They also have less behavior problems, issues such as ADD is uncommon and in general, children are MORE independent and self-suffient. Diseases such as breast and ovarian cancers aren't common among mothers. For more information about this, check out the book "Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent" by Meredith Small. (You can go to the La Leche League website for a review of the book.)

This research is starting to be more understood in America as well: The American Cancer Society has now begun to encourage women to breastfeed longer than the average 3-6 months to decrease their risk of breast cancer. Every year of breastfeeding reduces your risk by several percentage points. Studies also indicate that breastfeeding can aid in reducing the risk of ovarian cancer as well. (American Cancer Society article).

But what about the benefits of breastmilk for children? We know that for babies, breastmilk is, by all definitons, perfect nutrition. Breastmilk provides immunities, as well as valuable vitamins and fats. Studies done in the 1970's and 1980's show that breastmilk CONTINUES to be the perfect addition to a healthy diet.

"Research has shown that second-year milk is very similar to the first-year milk nutritionally (Victora, 1984). Even after two years or more it continues to be a valuable source of protein, fat, calcium, and vitamins (Jelliffe and Jelliffe, 1978).

The immunities in breast milk have been shown to increase in concentration as the baby gets older and nurses less, so older babies still receive lots of immune factors (Goldman et al, 1983). A study from Bangladesh provides a dramatic demonstration of the effect these immunities can have. In this deprived environment, it was found that weaning children eighteen to thirty-six months old doubled their risk of death (Briend et al, 1988). This effect was attributed mostly to breast milk's immune factors, although nutrition was probably important as well. Of course in developed countries weaning is not a matter or life and death, but continued breastfeeding may mean fewer trips to the doctor's office." (Nursing Beyond One Year)

Research also indicates that humans were created to NEED breastmilk for several years to thrive.

"Our past has produced an organism that relies on breastfeeding to provide the context for physical, cognitive, and emotional development. The human primate data suggest that human children are designed to receive all of the benefits of breast milk and breastfeeding for an absolute minimum of two and a half years, and an apparent upper limit of around 7 years. Natural selection has favored those infants with a strong, genetically coded blueprint that programs them to expect nursing to continue for a number of years after birth and results in the urge to suckle remaining strong for this entire period. Many societies today are able to meet a child's nutritional needs with modified adult foods after the age of three or four years. Western, industrialized societies can compensate for some (but not all) of the immunological benefits of breastfeeding with antibiotics, vaccines and improved sanitation. But the physical, cognitive, and emotional needs of the young child persist. Health care professionals, parents, and the general public should be made aware that somewhere between three and seven years may be a reasonable and appropriate age of weaning for humans, however uncommon it may be in the United States to nurse an infant through toddlerhood and beyond. (A Time To Wean)

(Of course, while these are mostly health benefits, there are many more! Emotional, mental and personal benefits, articles discussing these can be found on the websites listed at the bottom.)

The thing to realize is that the nursing relationship is a very personal relationship between mother and child. As long as the child continues to benefit from nursing, so shall the mother and breastfeeding should be allowed to be continued. Unfortunately in our Western culture, breastfeeding is seen as immodest, weird/gross and something for "babies". There have to be laws in place to protect a mother's right to breastfeed. That is truly a sad statement about our culture. Human milk truly is the best thing you can feed your child. The nutritional values do not disappear because the child turns one.

I have planned on nursing Andrew until he decides to stop nursing. I really could care less about an "appropriate" age to stop nursing a child that falls in line with the "American" way of parenting. The fact of the matter is, breastfeeding remains beneficial to both the baby AND mother as long as the nursing relationship continues. It's the way God designed us!

Other resources:
La Leche League International
Kellymom
Dr. Jack Newman
ProMom

This article is amazing. It is long but if you have the time, please read it!

I'll update later. :)

****
Found at www.killology.com

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)


"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.
The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"
- William J. Bennett
In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy
November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

The gift of aggression
"What goes on around you... compares little with what goes on inside you."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.

One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind training sessions:

"I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my [citizens], even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn’t put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side."

Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy” the British soldier:

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory acts of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage.

One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T-shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read his book, though he kept a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed.

As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them. “You got a problem, man?” one of the IQ-challenged punks asked. “You think you’re tough, or somethin’?” the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them.

“As a matter of fact, I am tough,” the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze.

The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers--athletes, business people and parents--from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

“Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

"Here is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."
- Edmund Burke
Reflections on the Revolution in France

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to slaughter you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”

The warrior must cleanse denial from his thinking. Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice “when/then” thinking, not “if/when.” Instead of saying,“If it happens then I will take action,” the warrior says, “When it happens then I will be ready.”

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.

Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot and first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, says that he knew he could die. There was no denial for him. He did not allow himself the luxury of denial. This acceptance of reality can cause fear, but it is a healthy, controlled fear that will keep you alive:
"I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit."
- Brigadier General Chuck Yeager
Yeager, An Autobiography

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation:
"..denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level."

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.