Your Grrrs: March 13, 2007

Here are some of your responses to Mike's last column:

Janice S. writes: Mike, your rant against divorce was way off base. The problem is not that divorce is too easy; it's that marriage is too easy. There needs to be at least a one-year waiting period between getting a license and getting married. That way, it would force people to actually think about what they were doing instead of just jumping into it. No one under 21 should get married, ever. These rules should be the law of the land, with NO exceptions! This would be a far better solution than forcing people to stay together that can't stand each other anymore. No child benefits from seeing their parents screaming and fighting; this is EXTREMELY damaging! Probably more so than divorce. Think about it! Your marriage may be great, but a lot of people's aren't.

Scott F. writes: Mike, could not agree more with your Anna Nicole Grrr! I think everything you say is correct and let me add one observation: Parents pay no attention to their kids even if they are still married. They both have jobs, they drag their kids to day care all year. They play parent by signing each child up for as many sports, dance and other mundane classes and then complain about having to drive them to all of these activities and to top it off when they are driving they talk on the cell phone (to who knows whom) and put a DVD in the on-board player so the kids don’t bother them. When my kids were not driving age the most important talks we had were driving someplace. Just the two of us and no cell phone or whatever interrupted that.

Scott G. writes: You're an awesome writer! You have a way of telling it exactly as it needs to be said. If we had more media just like you, we wouldn't be living in such a screwed-up country, run by Hollywood. Thanks!

Stella M. writes: I understand your point about some of the comments you made. But as far as a divorce law? I was abused for years. I had to get out for my child's sake as well as my own. I was punished enough. I didn't receive child support for years, and walked away, or rather ran, with nothing but the clothes on our backs. I was scared to leave, and I certainly didn't need a law to make it harder. Also, in cases that don't involve abuse, I'm still fairly certain unhappy, fighting parents are not better than peaceful, separate parents whose focus becomes the children after the marriage is dissolved.

And don't forget ... this is a free country. If you choose to leave your spouse, you may. People make mistakes. People change. Our government is not suppose to be a dictatorship. Sometimes that means that people will make bad decisions. But they are free to do so. I for one, would like to keep it that way. Another beautiful part of being an American ... we both have freedom of speech. And I can appreciate your point of view. It's nice to hear people who aren't afraid to speak their minds. And I'd like to thank you for being one of those people.

Jim Z. writes: Mike, I totally agree with the premise of teaching our kids to defend themselves [against bullies] rather than passing legislation. However, the liberals in the school systems have tied kids' hands who would prefer to stand up for themselves. In our school system, anyone who "fights" is automatically suspended even when defending themselves against these little bastards.

Susan M. writes: Wow — Mike, what a concept — teach our kids to stand up for themselves? You are a radical!!! My son was being targeted by a bully (he is only 6!!!) and my husband and I told him that if the bullying continued after our talks with the teacher and principal, that he had our permission to defend himself. We specifically said he had the right to hit the bully. Our son was shocked — he said “but then I’ll have to go to the principal’s office." Our response? “Yes, you will be sent to the office. But you have a right to defend yourself and we’ll be there to support you.” You see, in addition to teaching children it is important to stand up for themselves, we also need to teach them that there may still be repercussions but if they acted in an appropriate manner, things should work themselves out. And in regards to your comment about avoiding divorce — marriage is a tough job and having kids compounds the challenges. It’s easy to give up but working through issues and learning how to be better together than apart is an invaluable lesson for kids to learn.

Stacey C. writes: What an AWESOME and I mean AWESOME article!!! You rock! I am in total agreement with you. I am one of those married (first marriage ... only marriage) people who is raising responsible kids that have to learn how to stick up for themselves ... bullies my _____!! The fact that the moral fiber of our nation is totally melting away is the scariest thing ever!

We have a coach in our high school up for charges of having sex with one of his female basketball players from the time she was 15 until present!! This man is a teacher, coach and member of the military, still married, has four children (one of whom is older than the girl he has been sexually using for the last four years!!) and he also happens to be my neighbor! You talk about GRRRR!!! The local media, as well as everyone else seems to be trying to sweep this one under the carpet, and I think the man should be locked up!

Thanks for letting me vent, and thanks for proving to me that I am not crazy and there are like-minded individuals out there! (Especially loved the part about fathers getting off the video games!! Haha ... I happen to have a brother-in-law that is WAY too into them, thus not parenting!)

Chris D. writes: Mike, if you think anti-bully laws are ridiculous, in Connecticut, it's illegal for a high school football team to win by 50 points or more. The guilty coach can be served with a suspension. How obscure is that?! One game in particular netted a coach a one-week suspension even though his team kneed the ball for seven total minutes! Unreal. There is a fine line where kids should be able to understand losing by 50 points and high school is definitely it. Imagine having a high school football player coddled by this rule and then going to college and getting beat even worse! If that were my kid, I would tell my kids the following: you have my full support, you win some you lose some, you got defeated by a far better team, the only way to prevent that from happening again is to practice harder. I don't know what's worse, losing by 50 points or being labeled as "that team" that got protected by the mercy rule.

Stephen writes: Hey Mike, I caught your interview with Dana White and thought it was very informative. I’m glad someone in the media knows what’s going on and supports that sport for what it is. I also read your comments about bullies and sending them to UFC training camp. You know, if children were taught from young age how to defend themselves, I’m sure there wouldn’t be as many bullies. My view about training martial arts and mixed martial arts is that we have insurance for everything like the car, the house, health, dental and so forth. All insurance does is provide financial support AFTER a disaster has occurred. Ask somebody what they are doing to ensure they are not physically harmed by some drugged out wacko and see what they say. People do absolutely nothing to ensure the protection of the thing money can not replace — human life! “Violence is wrong, blah, blah, blah." People don’t have that attitude after getting assaulted I’m sure. An eye for an eye, heh? Anyways, thanks for supporting MMA and being a martial artist. We need more people that know the truth.

Karen B. writes: Mike, I am a huge fan of FOX News, especially your Grrr! column. You are almost always right on the mark with your opinions and it's wonderful to receive affirmation through your column and your readers' comments that I'm not the only anti-obliviot conservative on the planet.

I say that you are "almost always right on the mark" because you stumble sometimes (don't we all) and your comments about divorce in this week's column were way off the mark. There are some situations where divorce is used as an answer to "bad times" that couples should have spent more time trying to work through, but I don't think that's true in the majority of cases. As a matter of fact, in the majority of cases, I think that kids are better off after a divorce. They have been removed from a home situation that is dysfunctional and unhealthy. One or both of the parents are happier now.

Cheri F. writes: In regards to Anna Nicole, my lord, this woman was the most contradictory, outside influenced, train-wreck of a mother and soul I have ever seen. One question I have to ask, is if her mother was so heinous, why did she allow her to care for Daniel almost to his pre-teen years? I’m not a Virgie fan. Her actions are the ultimate last-ditch effort to try and do one last thing for her child as a mother, but in reality, she hardly tried to establish that relationship while Anna was alive. Why now? I know because there is coin in the mix. The true victim is indeed Dannielynn and I hope her resolution is forthcoming despite that her closure options are no more acceptable than what they are. Of course, this circus life was in her future from birth had Mom lived or not. Poor child. Keep up the good work.

Ed M. writes: Mike, you are really full of it. Incredible, your columns are the most irritating thing I can think of ... can't figure out why I keep clicking on them.

Jimmy J. writes: Mike, this is one of the best articles that I have read in the last few years. I wish more people thought and believed in what you wrote because it is the truth. Hats off to you for writing something that is actually newsworthy.

Respond to Mike | Get The GRRR! Book | Mike's Page | The GRRR! Archives