Somewhere in there, there's gotta be a theme!!
So, the fiscal cliff: it's a speed bump. I love how the media dramatizes everything. Even supposing (shocking, I know) that McConnell et al refuse to bargain and everything goes flushing, those cuts are phased in over FIVE YEARS. Five years. That's 1,825 days.
You're not gonna wake up and magically have your taxes raised and the economy in the toilet. It's available out there, folks - just read.
Republican obstruction: Like that's news? McConnell and the bunch need to realize that mid-terms are coming up and the American people (those who voted in this landslide election, remember??) are fed up with the divisive nature of politics. They're sick of seeing everything stuck because someone's having a hissy fit. So Prez Obama won a second term. Yes, he did, and yes I voted for him.
Y'all need to get over yourselves.
Yoga: I got to sub and teach my first yoga class last week!! How fun it was - and how nerve-wracking. I've been practicing for at least 7 years or so. But getting up in front? That was a bit scary. Luckily, the students took it easy on me and I had a practice that was fairly benign. No backbends; no pretzel poses.
I'm looking forward to teacher training in 2013 and hoping that after it's all done I have a place to teach. Just part-time. But I want to do this. I think I have something to offer.
Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Thursday, September 06, 2012
So Now? Go Get Involved!
I stayed up way too late watching Bill Clinton's speech. He was his usual mesmeric self, but then I got to thinking.
Here's the YouTube of Bill's speech (click on his name - I've provided the link there) if you haven't seen it. Take a look. Forewarning - he went well over his 20 minutes (who set THAT time limit?), but it's 48 minutes worth of facts, outlining what successes President Obama has had, and dismantling the lies of the Republican Party's platform, as well as a reprimand on the "we don't need no stinkin' fact checkers" plank in the Republican platform -- it's not actually a plank, but it's apparently the nails holding that platform together.
I love the fact that it's "arithmetic." In my planet, 2 + 2 = 4. It always has, even after my advanced Finance courses, where you were given multiple reasons why 2 + 2 "doesn't necessarily" need to = 4, given certain circumstances. Which is why I hated those Finance classes!
Anyway, after outlining the case for President Obama and the need for a second term, including the statement that "no president, not me nor any of my predecessors, could clean up the mess President Obama was left with in 4 years," he went after and explained all the garbage the Conservatives tossed around in Tampa. And he also explained in a clear and cogent manner some policies which confused academics - people that study this stuff - not to say that it also would confuse the average voter. Big Bill brought it to a sensible, level field where the policy wonks got their groove on, and the average American who doesn't study white papers as a matter of course could understand this stuff without feeling belittled.
So now what? Yeah, Michelle Obama was stunning. Elizabeth Warren? I swear, if she doesn't get elected, Massachusetts needs its collective head examined! (And may I admit that I had to double-check that spelling...you'd think being from Illinois would mean that I'm ok with weird-looking names for states...)
But Bill ruled the night. And now WE need to do something. There was an overwhelming feeling that Clinton's speech "clinched" the election - even some Republicans admitted that. But his speech alone won't do it without us voting and participating.
Please don't sit on your laurels (or whatever you sit on) and think, "Ok, this is a no-brainer - he'll get in." Because he won't - without work. There are still states repressing the vote. There are disenchanted voters who need reminding of where we don't want to go. There are populations who need help getting to the polls.
Do something to help get the word out and Get the Vote Out.... Volunteer to be a poll watcher; go door-to-door or make phone calls. Write letters to the editor. Help register voters where you can. Remind people of early voting if it's available in your area. Just DO SOMETHING and don't sit on your rear end thinking "someone else..." We can't win if we don't vote. We can't win if people sit at home assuming "Someone else will be voting, volunteering, doing." That someone? It's YOU. Y-O-U.
Paraphrasing the Big Dawg, "it's a long, hard road." We all have to work hard to get where we need to be. As a nation, we didn't do it ourselves. We did it together. And we will still be the "greatest nation" if we continue to do it together.
Here's the YouTube of Bill's speech (click on his name - I've provided the link there) if you haven't seen it. Take a look. Forewarning - he went well over his 20 minutes (who set THAT time limit?), but it's 48 minutes worth of facts, outlining what successes President Obama has had, and dismantling the lies of the Republican Party's platform, as well as a reprimand on the "we don't need no stinkin' fact checkers" plank in the Republican platform -- it's not actually a plank, but it's apparently the nails holding that platform together.
I love the fact that it's "arithmetic." In my planet, 2 + 2 = 4. It always has, even after my advanced Finance courses, where you were given multiple reasons why 2 + 2 "doesn't necessarily" need to = 4, given certain circumstances. Which is why I hated those Finance classes!
Anyway, after outlining the case for President Obama and the need for a second term, including the statement that "no president, not me nor any of my predecessors, could clean up the mess President Obama was left with in 4 years," he went after and explained all the garbage the Conservatives tossed around in Tampa. And he also explained in a clear and cogent manner some policies which confused academics - people that study this stuff - not to say that it also would confuse the average voter. Big Bill brought it to a sensible, level field where the policy wonks got their groove on, and the average American who doesn't study white papers as a matter of course could understand this stuff without feeling belittled.
So now what? Yeah, Michelle Obama was stunning. Elizabeth Warren? I swear, if she doesn't get elected, Massachusetts needs its collective head examined! (And may I admit that I had to double-check that spelling...you'd think being from Illinois would mean that I'm ok with weird-looking names for states...)
But Bill ruled the night. And now WE need to do something. There was an overwhelming feeling that Clinton's speech "clinched" the election - even some Republicans admitted that. But his speech alone won't do it without us voting and participating.
Please don't sit on your laurels (or whatever you sit on) and think, "Ok, this is a no-brainer - he'll get in." Because he won't - without work. There are still states repressing the vote. There are disenchanted voters who need reminding of where we don't want to go. There are populations who need help getting to the polls.
Do something to help get the word out and Get the Vote Out.... Volunteer to be a poll watcher; go door-to-door or make phone calls. Write letters to the editor. Help register voters where you can. Remind people of early voting if it's available in your area. Just DO SOMETHING and don't sit on your rear end thinking "someone else..." We can't win if we don't vote. We can't win if people sit at home assuming "Someone else will be voting, volunteering, doing." That someone? It's YOU. Y-O-U.
Paraphrasing the Big Dawg, "it's a long, hard road." We all have to work hard to get where we need to be. As a nation, we didn't do it ourselves. We did it together. And we will still be the "greatest nation" if we continue to do it together.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Catching Up...
So it's been a few weeks. Let's catch up here.
1. The Bolero: Finished, not in time for Convocation, but all I have to do is sew up the seams. It's at home waiting for me after work this morning.
2. Kid #2's hat: Just putting the edging on it now. I was going to do a whack of I-cord and then sew it on, but I thought that I might want to do what the pattern says (boring?) just to see how it turns out - and I wasn't sure how the I-cord would work.
3. Is it bad when you're looking at the yarn that's left and thinking, "Wow, a really simple rolled brim hat!"??
4. Cardiac stuff: The guy at Northwestern said to hang tight with the meds for now. He said I'd have to come back twice with EITHER procedure, because "we don't want to nick your esophagus or the top of your lung." I don't want you to do that either! Those parts work, and I'd like to keep it that way.
5. My Website: For the editing stuff and the voice-over work - we just have to decide on which provider we want to use. Hubby did a FANTASTIC job on it, and when it's live, I'll post the link.
6. Weight-loss: Well, the "Metabolism Miracle" is helping. I'm about 20 lbs. down, and I really feel good. I told my yoga teacher that I almost "whooped" in class. We were doing child's pose and it was the first time in YEARS that when I was in the pose, my CHEST was on my thighs instead of my belly. She's happy with this program because she said it looks like I'm "glowing" and not drawn or saggy-looking (as if I was on a crash diet or eating the wrong things).
7. New Chiropractor: So, my plantar fasciitis never really healed up after the Avon Walk, and it's gotten to the point where my friend Lori the Podiatrist said she really couldn't do anything more from her end. So I sought acupuncture to at least relieve some of the pain, but the doc (also a chiropractor and medical massage therapist) says that he'd rather work on getting my foot "right" and then use acupuncture if necessary. I have never had a "medical massage" but I have been adjusted. He pointed out that now, even though I can touch my toes, I'm bending funny and my hips are out of line (which I could feel). After he got done working over both calves, I felt like cooked linguine, but oh my.... I have noticed a difference. I'm excited to get this all fixed, and equally excited that he's in my insurance plan!
8. Upcoming Election: PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE!! Go to the Google. Type in "register to vote" plus your state. Find out the deadlines, do your homework, and GET READY TO VOTE. I'm patently and obviously a liberal-progressive-tree-hugging-Democrat. And I really do want "our side" to win. But aside from that, it really irks me that people in some districts (You know who you are, Ohio) are screwing with everyone's right to vote. EVERYONE who is eligible should be able to vote easily and I can't believe we're going back to the Jim Crow era. Please make sure your registration is in order; help someone who's not sure of the process; offer to drive to the polls. Get involved. We have the right and we need to exercise it, regardless of HOW you vote. It's important that you DO vote.
9. Abortion Rights: Really? Hang on...let me check. Yep, it's 2012. Women have been part and parcel of society since Eve ate the apple. We have the right to vote. We work. We raise families. But a group of uber-religious men want to tell us that we don't have the right to make the choice. I'm also blatantly pro-choice - which does not mean I'm pro-abortion. It means that I am in favor of our God-given right to make up our own minds. What does the Bible say? (I figure since we're being thumped over the head with it, we may as well use it...) God gave us free will. It's not my job to be God. It's my job to be there for you, to ask questions, to help you make sure that your decision is right for YOU. Not right for ME or right for some Republican conservative who won't ever know the impact the decision will have on you, because he's not living your life. Abortion rights are needed. What's not needed is men shoving women backward. As women, we need to shove back. If you weren't born with a vagina, you really don't have a stake in this fight.
10. The Garden: Well, I'm not sure we'll be overrun with tomatoes; they're coming steadily but not in great numbers or great size. Carrots? Well, yeah, THOSE are coming along like crazy. And my friend Shaun brought me a bag of backyard peaches. We're making peach preserves today. I hate peach preserves, but I know people who love them, so what the heck, right? I'd rather use them than toss them. If I can find the fruit without having a heart attack, we may also do strawberry jam. And I think we still have sour cherries - that would make a lovely sauce over ice cream, don't you think?
1. The Bolero: Finished, not in time for Convocation, but all I have to do is sew up the seams. It's at home waiting for me after work this morning.
2. Kid #2's hat: Just putting the edging on it now. I was going to do a whack of I-cord and then sew it on, but I thought that I might want to do what the pattern says (boring?) just to see how it turns out - and I wasn't sure how the I-cord would work.
3. Is it bad when you're looking at the yarn that's left and thinking, "Wow, a really simple rolled brim hat!"??
4. Cardiac stuff: The guy at Northwestern said to hang tight with the meds for now. He said I'd have to come back twice with EITHER procedure, because "we don't want to nick your esophagus or the top of your lung." I don't want you to do that either! Those parts work, and I'd like to keep it that way.
5. My Website: For the editing stuff and the voice-over work - we just have to decide on which provider we want to use. Hubby did a FANTASTIC job on it, and when it's live, I'll post the link.
6. Weight-loss: Well, the "Metabolism Miracle" is helping. I'm about 20 lbs. down, and I really feel good. I told my yoga teacher that I almost "whooped" in class. We were doing child's pose and it was the first time in YEARS that when I was in the pose, my CHEST was on my thighs instead of my belly. She's happy with this program because she said it looks like I'm "glowing" and not drawn or saggy-looking (as if I was on a crash diet or eating the wrong things).
7. New Chiropractor: So, my plantar fasciitis never really healed up after the Avon Walk, and it's gotten to the point where my friend Lori the Podiatrist said she really couldn't do anything more from her end. So I sought acupuncture to at least relieve some of the pain, but the doc (also a chiropractor and medical massage therapist) says that he'd rather work on getting my foot "right" and then use acupuncture if necessary. I have never had a "medical massage" but I have been adjusted. He pointed out that now, even though I can touch my toes, I'm bending funny and my hips are out of line (which I could feel). After he got done working over both calves, I felt like cooked linguine, but oh my.... I have noticed a difference. I'm excited to get this all fixed, and equally excited that he's in my insurance plan!
8. Upcoming Election: PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE!! Go to the Google. Type in "register to vote" plus your state. Find out the deadlines, do your homework, and GET READY TO VOTE. I'm patently and obviously a liberal-progressive-tree-hugging-Democrat. And I really do want "our side" to win. But aside from that, it really irks me that people in some districts (You know who you are, Ohio) are screwing with everyone's right to vote. EVERYONE who is eligible should be able to vote easily and I can't believe we're going back to the Jim Crow era. Please make sure your registration is in order; help someone who's not sure of the process; offer to drive to the polls. Get involved. We have the right and we need to exercise it, regardless of HOW you vote. It's important that you DO vote.
9. Abortion Rights: Really? Hang on...let me check. Yep, it's 2012. Women have been part and parcel of society since Eve ate the apple. We have the right to vote. We work. We raise families. But a group of uber-religious men want to tell us that we don't have the right to make the choice. I'm also blatantly pro-choice - which does not mean I'm pro-abortion. It means that I am in favor of our God-given right to make up our own minds. What does the Bible say? (I figure since we're being thumped over the head with it, we may as well use it...) God gave us free will. It's not my job to be God. It's my job to be there for you, to ask questions, to help you make sure that your decision is right for YOU. Not right for ME or right for some Republican conservative who won't ever know the impact the decision will have on you, because he's not living your life. Abortion rights are needed. What's not needed is men shoving women backward. As women, we need to shove back. If you weren't born with a vagina, you really don't have a stake in this fight.
10. The Garden: Well, I'm not sure we'll be overrun with tomatoes; they're coming steadily but not in great numbers or great size. Carrots? Well, yeah, THOSE are coming along like crazy. And my friend Shaun brought me a bag of backyard peaches. We're making peach preserves today. I hate peach preserves, but I know people who love them, so what the heck, right? I'd rather use them than toss them. If I can find the fruit without having a heart attack, we may also do strawberry jam. And I think we still have sour cherries - that would make a lovely sauce over ice cream, don't you think?
Saturday, August 04, 2012
"Biblical Marriage" Concept...
Well, with the recent Chick-Fil-A crap going on, I figured I'd just mention something obvious, that I learned in church last week...
The conservatives ramble on and on and on about marriage being "sacred" and "between one man and one woman." We'll leave the majority of the biblical citations alone - those showing that a man can have more than one wife (simultaneously) and is entitled to lie with his concubines, his slaves, prisoners of war, etc. Those are just "piffle" compared to the conservatives' strong moral assertion that marriage is SACRED, BY GOD, AND WE ARE THE STANDARD-BEARERS.
This inspite of so many Republican politicians being "caught with their toes tapping in the bathroom" among other things. And they don't resign. They keep going - which amazes me, because it serves that old adage, I guess. "If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth." So conversely, if you ignore the willful disregard for the "sanctity" of their own marriages, then I suppose their constituents can as well. Remember, Newtie Patootie said he was compelled to have multiple affairs because of his "patriotism." And now as a converted Catholic, he and Calista (wife and former mistress while prior wife was dying of cancer) are paragons. I guess.
Anyway, on to church. We have recently been attending St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church and have truly enjoyed the switch from Catholic to Episcopal. It was a little strange at first, but we have rarely felt so welcomed and so embraced.
So we went last Sunday and the first lesson (First Reading in Catholic) was 2 Samuel 11:1-15... which I am telling you now that I absolutely do not remember in all my zillion years as a Catholic. At least not in this fashion.
This reading tells about David and Bathsheba. The following part caught my eye: "...he saw from the roof a woman bathing; the woman was very beautiful. David sent someone to inquire about the woman. It was reported, "This is Bathsheba daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite." So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she was purifying herself after her period.) Then she returned to her house..."
Wowza. Period and extramarital sex all in a few sentences. And then, farther along in the reading, David gets Uriah drunk so he and Bathsheba can play footsie together, Bathsheba becoming pregnant after the first round of sex. Then, David --- who, if you remember, is the David who slew Goliath, the poet, the writer of psalms.... David sends a letter, delivered to the battle commander by Uriah, who was apparently illiterate. The letter said "Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die."
Add "murderer" to that glowing description of David.
My point is this. Well, two points. First, I've never quite heard this version, though I've seen the Hollywood movie. Second, let's add this to the pantheon of verses that really rather bash traditional marriage. I'm pretty sure Uriah wasn't keen on just letting Bathsheba go. Cultural differences of which I may be ignorant may play in here --- David was the Big Cheese. Perhaps whatever (or whoever) he wanted, he got and Uriah didn't have a choice.
But let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Bathsheba and Uriah were for the most part, contentedly married. Then, some Big Cheese summons her out of her purifying bath (sorry, the period thing still kind of blows my mind) and has sex with her. She's married. He knows that. And he goes ahead with his own selfish wants and desires.
This hardly sounds like a good biblical argument for 'traditional marriage.' It sounds like those folks were pretty randy and surely not as straight-laced and conservative as today's conservatives would like to portray them - or themselves, for that matter.
Either way, the Bible is open to interpretation. And without doing too much scholarly thinking, I'm thinking David didn't exactly respect the "traditional" marriage. He didn't have any qualms about seeking out a woman he wanted. And getting her. And then killing off her husband, if not by his own hand, by his own command.
This section alone kind of blows the conservatives' argument out of the water. And it's not the only one.
Gay marriage will happen in some form or another. There's so much science out there proving that it's not a "lifestyle" but a biological trait. It seems that with our economy in a snail's-pace recovery, a huge budget battle looming, wars on 2 fronts... with all that going on, Congress and the conservatives have this stuff to argue about?
How about, just for fun, you folks get the jobs done that we need you to get done? Oh, maybe they really ARE, since Mitch McConnell said that his job was to make President Obama a one-term president. But I think that with the "do-nothing congress" we're now seeing, Mitch may be sweeping out some of his buddies with that same broom. People are fed up with the wrangling and lack of action.
I think - and I hope - that we're past looking at the shiny objects distracting us, and we're paying attention to what matters: getting our country going again. Moving forward instead of staying in limbo arguing about stuff that in the end won't change anything.
The conservatives ramble on and on and on about marriage being "sacred" and "between one man and one woman." We'll leave the majority of the biblical citations alone - those showing that a man can have more than one wife (simultaneously) and is entitled to lie with his concubines, his slaves, prisoners of war, etc. Those are just "piffle" compared to the conservatives' strong moral assertion that marriage is SACRED, BY GOD, AND WE ARE THE STANDARD-BEARERS.
This inspite of so many Republican politicians being "caught with their toes tapping in the bathroom" among other things. And they don't resign. They keep going - which amazes me, because it serves that old adage, I guess. "If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth." So conversely, if you ignore the willful disregard for the "sanctity" of their own marriages, then I suppose their constituents can as well. Remember, Newtie Patootie said he was compelled to have multiple affairs because of his "patriotism." And now as a converted Catholic, he and Calista (wife and former mistress while prior wife was dying of cancer) are paragons. I guess.
Anyway, on to church. We have recently been attending St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church and have truly enjoyed the switch from Catholic to Episcopal. It was a little strange at first, but we have rarely felt so welcomed and so embraced.
So we went last Sunday and the first lesson (First Reading in Catholic) was 2 Samuel 11:1-15... which I am telling you now that I absolutely do not remember in all my zillion years as a Catholic. At least not in this fashion.
This reading tells about David and Bathsheba. The following part caught my eye: "...he saw from the roof a woman bathing; the woman was very beautiful. David sent someone to inquire about the woman. It was reported, "This is Bathsheba daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite." So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she was purifying herself after her period.) Then she returned to her house..."
Wowza. Period and extramarital sex all in a few sentences. And then, farther along in the reading, David gets Uriah drunk so he and Bathsheba can play footsie together, Bathsheba becoming pregnant after the first round of sex. Then, David --- who, if you remember, is the David who slew Goliath, the poet, the writer of psalms.... David sends a letter, delivered to the battle commander by Uriah, who was apparently illiterate. The letter said "Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die."
Add "murderer" to that glowing description of David.
My point is this. Well, two points. First, I've never quite heard this version, though I've seen the Hollywood movie. Second, let's add this to the pantheon of verses that really rather bash traditional marriage. I'm pretty sure Uriah wasn't keen on just letting Bathsheba go. Cultural differences of which I may be ignorant may play in here --- David was the Big Cheese. Perhaps whatever (or whoever) he wanted, he got and Uriah didn't have a choice.
But let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Bathsheba and Uriah were for the most part, contentedly married. Then, some Big Cheese summons her out of her purifying bath (sorry, the period thing still kind of blows my mind) and has sex with her. She's married. He knows that. And he goes ahead with his own selfish wants and desires.
This hardly sounds like a good biblical argument for 'traditional marriage.' It sounds like those folks were pretty randy and surely not as straight-laced and conservative as today's conservatives would like to portray them - or themselves, for that matter.
Either way, the Bible is open to interpretation. And without doing too much scholarly thinking, I'm thinking David didn't exactly respect the "traditional" marriage. He didn't have any qualms about seeking out a woman he wanted. And getting her. And then killing off her husband, if not by his own hand, by his own command.
This section alone kind of blows the conservatives' argument out of the water. And it's not the only one.
Gay marriage will happen in some form or another. There's so much science out there proving that it's not a "lifestyle" but a biological trait. It seems that with our economy in a snail's-pace recovery, a huge budget battle looming, wars on 2 fronts... with all that going on, Congress and the conservatives have this stuff to argue about?
How about, just for fun, you folks get the jobs done that we need you to get done? Oh, maybe they really ARE, since Mitch McConnell said that his job was to make President Obama a one-term president. But I think that with the "do-nothing congress" we're now seeing, Mitch may be sweeping out some of his buddies with that same broom. People are fed up with the wrangling and lack of action.
I think - and I hope - that we're past looking at the shiny objects distracting us, and we're paying attention to what matters: getting our country going again. Moving forward instead of staying in limbo arguing about stuff that in the end won't change anything.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Gun Control Discussion...
Politicians are busy this season avoiding any hard discussions about the reality for the need of gun control. Nobody wants to "anger the base." However, it's a discussion that is literally the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. It needs to be had, hang the "base."
Just as an aside, the alternate definition of "base" is "lowly" -- as in "lowest common denominator." So politicans appealing "to the base" are appealing to those voters who usually are one-issue voters, vote without educating themselves, and are usually also the "vocal minority." Squeaky wheel, and all that.
There is no God-given right to own a gun. If you can cite a source in the bible that says you can own an AK-47 (or an AR-15) with an extended clip, I'd like to see that. The Second Amendment, vaunted as the 'be-all and end-all' of the gun discussion, also doesn't mention any right to own a gun conferred by God.
Actually, the Second Amendment (as ratified by the States and authenticated by then-Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson) reads as follows: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since so many people insist on "strict interpretation" rather than realizing that our Constitution is a living document meant to be deliberately vague for the growth of this nation, we'll go that route.
So... No "God" in that Amendment at all. There goes that argument. Then there's the phrase "well regulated militia" -- a militia, in the strict definition, is "a reserve military force that is on call for service only in an emergency." (Webster's II, third ed.) So, let's look at the last part of that definition: on call for service only in an emergency. Is your argument that you are part of a "reserve military force" so you are required to own a gun? Is your argument that there's always an emergency? That's a little paranoid. An individual is not a part of a reserve military force in 2012. In the late 1700s? Well, yeah. There were no organized police forces; the military was just being put together. People lived in agrarian areas far from their nearest neighbor, unless they lived in a town - which was usually remote from the next one. I can drive to the next town over. Heck, I can walk down the block and across one street and be in the next town. In 1787, for example, I had to get on a horse or in a wagon to go to the next town. A militia in this case was necessary because I couldn't exactly dial up the cops when someone was robbing me or breaking into my house. A gun was necessary when it was me or the wolves. A gun was necessary for me to get my dinner, since we didn't have the local Jewel 2 miles from my house.
And let's look at the next phrase "necessary to the security of a free state." Well, there's the hole in your argument. We have a police force. We have a military, and a National Guard. The "free state" is usually relatively protected. All of us go about our business unscathed, and we don't have to be worried about Indians coming around the corner to ambush our settlements. We have modern communications: if we need official protection, we call 911 and people who are actually trained in protection will come to our aid.
The phrase "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is also worth some discussion. Again, no God. But if you look at this without the "crazy-eyed" notion that someone is going to take your guns away, you can see that the Founders didn't want us to stockpile our own arsenals. You may have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but do you really, really need an automatic weapon with an extended clip?
And to those who say, "Oh, if the folks on Colorado were armed, they'd have stopped the shooter"... I have 2 words for you: FORT HOOD.
If you recall, in Ft. Hood, a crazy gunman shot people on an ARMY BASE. Where they routinely CARRY weapons. And they're trained to deal with them properly: they know how and when to shoot. And still, 13 people were killed by one guy. Who had access to "the most technologically advanced weapon on the market and the one with the highest magazine capacity." He told the gun store owner, who asked a logical question ("How do you intend to use this weapon?") that he "simply wanted the most advanced handgun with the largest magazine capacity." He also was able to return to the store on a weekly basis (red flag much??) to purchase extra magazines and hundreds of rounds of ... ammunition. (Wikipedia, accessed 7/26/12) When he was finally apprehended, he had in his pockets 177 rounds of unfired ammunition in both 20- and 30-round magazines.
In a logical world, you don't need that kind of capacity. Unless you're in uniform and deployed to war, or a cop. And I'd even question the cops having that amount of firepower on a "normal" basis.
I have a crazy right-wing uncle. Otherwise intelligent, a gun collector, hunter and absolutely rabid in his assertion that this president can 'take away the Second Amendment.' Procedurally, that's not correct. A president can't unilaterally make any changes to the Constitution. Period. That's how the Founders wanted it. Amazingly, they knew they didn't want to give that much power to one person. You won't find that factoid in any talking points, though, because it's much more effective to promote the agenda that "the black guy in the White House will be taking your guns away."
The only thing I agree with about this uncle is that he's equally as rabid about gun safety. His guns are stored in a locked safe. His ammunition is stored in a totally different safe. He hunts, but usually with a bow and arrow, because "it doesn't give me an unfair advantage against the animal." When asked about semi-automatic weapons and hunting, his comment is, "Why would you want to ruin the meat?" He hunts for food, not for trophies.
I'll give him that. But otherwise, he's kind of a crazy-gun-guy and is determined to have an arsenal. Some of his weapons are historical in nature, but quite a few of them are modern weapons. Be that as it may, every year, he requalifies through a gun safety course. And he makes sure that his hunting buddies, and his family, also do that before he'll go anywhere near them with a weapon (like to the shooting range or to hunt).
We need to address the very basic gorilla (maybe a chimp?) -- you don't have to "restrict" the ability to own a gun. But you do have to regulate it. People with mental problems do not need guns. People with criminal records do not need guns. People who amass arsenals need to have a chat with authorities. These are common-sense regulations. They will help keep people safe.
In the movie theatre, one politican said that "if everyone was armed, it would've been over." OK: picture this. Darkened movie theatre. Assailant in full body armor. He tosses tear gas. Crowded and closely-packed area. People pull out guns, they're blinded by tear gas, and they randomly shoot. C'mon, use logic. How much collateral damage would've occured? And how could an amateur actually shoot a guy in full body armor?
I owned a gun. A .357 magnum 6-shot. I sold it, because it became more gun than I would ever need. I was a decent shot. But I truly believe that only my crazy uncle or perhaps my brother (who taught me to shoot) might --- just might have been able to make that shot.
When I was studying criminal justice, one of our instructors, a former police officer, gave us "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training. Even those of the students in the law enforcement track were unable to reliably complete the training. Our instructor said something that's stuck with me to this day: "Even well-trained cops can screw this up. Shooting someone is forever. What you do with a gun will haunt you all of your days."
I don't want that responsibility. I don't really want my neighbor to have it either, because I'm convinced that most of us civilians not only "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" but we're not psychologically ready to make that grave decision to pull the trigger with the realization that what we're doing is forever. Not that all my neighbors are nuts. They're just civilians. They're untrained. They haven't been in the position to have to shoot in self-defense. And I don't think they understand the permanent nature of firing a weapon at another human being.
That doesn't even count the people who really do have psychological issues. If you're on medication for a psychiatric disorder or ailment, you don't need a weapon that could kill you, permanently maim you, or hurt someone else. You just can't deal with it. Period. Cold hard fact.
If you're a criminal, even if it was a "non-violent" crime, you've abrogated your right to have a gun. You broke the law. You're done. Period. Cold hard fact.
If you do decide you need a gun, you really do need to get training - and not from some clerk wanting to make a sale. You need to have real training in what you're getting yourself into. Buy only the gun you need. And normally, honestly? That's a rifle to hunt with and a handgun if you feel like you need the protection. And neither of those needs to be an automatic with a large magazine.
If you want to go the "carry" route, then let's do away with "concealed" carry. Wear it proud, folks. Why have a criminal "think" that you "may" be carrying. Own it. But be prepared that statistics show that a person wearing a weapon has a better-than-even chance of having his or her weapon used against them. Do you really want to be shot by your own gun?
The politicans have to grow a spine and address the 800-lb. gorilla. It needs to be done because we're already almost "out of the news cycle" where we'll forget what has happened in Colorado. Tell me honestly, did Ft. Hood even cross your mind till I wrote those words? Nope. Because we're easily distracted by shiny objects. Our politicians and news media have made us that way. We don't bother to do our own independent thinking and we rely on "authorities" to tell us what to think and what to say.
The Founders, I'm sure, wanted a thinking nation. A nation unafraid to deal with the tough issues. And a people brave enough to know when to say "Enough" -- and make a brave change to ensure the fundamental safety of all of us.
Just as an aside, the alternate definition of "base" is "lowly" -- as in "lowest common denominator." So politicans appealing "to the base" are appealing to those voters who usually are one-issue voters, vote without educating themselves, and are usually also the "vocal minority." Squeaky wheel, and all that.
There is no God-given right to own a gun. If you can cite a source in the bible that says you can own an AK-47 (or an AR-15) with an extended clip, I'd like to see that. The Second Amendment, vaunted as the 'be-all and end-all' of the gun discussion, also doesn't mention any right to own a gun conferred by God.
Actually, the Second Amendment (as ratified by the States and authenticated by then-Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson) reads as follows: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since so many people insist on "strict interpretation" rather than realizing that our Constitution is a living document meant to be deliberately vague for the growth of this nation, we'll go that route.
So... No "God" in that Amendment at all. There goes that argument. Then there's the phrase "well regulated militia" -- a militia, in the strict definition, is "a reserve military force that is on call for service only in an emergency." (Webster's II, third ed.) So, let's look at the last part of that definition: on call for service only in an emergency. Is your argument that you are part of a "reserve military force" so you are required to own a gun? Is your argument that there's always an emergency? That's a little paranoid. An individual is not a part of a reserve military force in 2012. In the late 1700s? Well, yeah. There were no organized police forces; the military was just being put together. People lived in agrarian areas far from their nearest neighbor, unless they lived in a town - which was usually remote from the next one. I can drive to the next town over. Heck, I can walk down the block and across one street and be in the next town. In 1787, for example, I had to get on a horse or in a wagon to go to the next town. A militia in this case was necessary because I couldn't exactly dial up the cops when someone was robbing me or breaking into my house. A gun was necessary when it was me or the wolves. A gun was necessary for me to get my dinner, since we didn't have the local Jewel 2 miles from my house.
And let's look at the next phrase "necessary to the security of a free state." Well, there's the hole in your argument. We have a police force. We have a military, and a National Guard. The "free state" is usually relatively protected. All of us go about our business unscathed, and we don't have to be worried about Indians coming around the corner to ambush our settlements. We have modern communications: if we need official protection, we call 911 and people who are actually trained in protection will come to our aid.
The phrase "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is also worth some discussion. Again, no God. But if you look at this without the "crazy-eyed" notion that someone is going to take your guns away, you can see that the Founders didn't want us to stockpile our own arsenals. You may have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but do you really, really need an automatic weapon with an extended clip?
And to those who say, "Oh, if the folks on Colorado were armed, they'd have stopped the shooter"... I have 2 words for you: FORT HOOD.
If you recall, in Ft. Hood, a crazy gunman shot people on an ARMY BASE. Where they routinely CARRY weapons. And they're trained to deal with them properly: they know how and when to shoot. And still, 13 people were killed by one guy. Who had access to "the most technologically advanced weapon on the market and the one with the highest magazine capacity." He told the gun store owner, who asked a logical question ("How do you intend to use this weapon?") that he "simply wanted the most advanced handgun with the largest magazine capacity." He also was able to return to the store on a weekly basis (red flag much??) to purchase extra magazines and hundreds of rounds of ... ammunition. (Wikipedia, accessed 7/26/12) When he was finally apprehended, he had in his pockets 177 rounds of unfired ammunition in both 20- and 30-round magazines.
In a logical world, you don't need that kind of capacity. Unless you're in uniform and deployed to war, or a cop. And I'd even question the cops having that amount of firepower on a "normal" basis.
I have a crazy right-wing uncle. Otherwise intelligent, a gun collector, hunter and absolutely rabid in his assertion that this president can 'take away the Second Amendment.' Procedurally, that's not correct. A president can't unilaterally make any changes to the Constitution. Period. That's how the Founders wanted it. Amazingly, they knew they didn't want to give that much power to one person. You won't find that factoid in any talking points, though, because it's much more effective to promote the agenda that "the black guy in the White House will be taking your guns away."
The only thing I agree with about this uncle is that he's equally as rabid about gun safety. His guns are stored in a locked safe. His ammunition is stored in a totally different safe. He hunts, but usually with a bow and arrow, because "it doesn't give me an unfair advantage against the animal." When asked about semi-automatic weapons and hunting, his comment is, "Why would you want to ruin the meat?" He hunts for food, not for trophies.
I'll give him that. But otherwise, he's kind of a crazy-gun-guy and is determined to have an arsenal. Some of his weapons are historical in nature, but quite a few of them are modern weapons. Be that as it may, every year, he requalifies through a gun safety course. And he makes sure that his hunting buddies, and his family, also do that before he'll go anywhere near them with a weapon (like to the shooting range or to hunt).
We need to address the very basic gorilla (maybe a chimp?) -- you don't have to "restrict" the ability to own a gun. But you do have to regulate it. People with mental problems do not need guns. People with criminal records do not need guns. People who amass arsenals need to have a chat with authorities. These are common-sense regulations. They will help keep people safe.
In the movie theatre, one politican said that "if everyone was armed, it would've been over." OK: picture this. Darkened movie theatre. Assailant in full body armor. He tosses tear gas. Crowded and closely-packed area. People pull out guns, they're blinded by tear gas, and they randomly shoot. C'mon, use logic. How much collateral damage would've occured? And how could an amateur actually shoot a guy in full body armor?
I owned a gun. A .357 magnum 6-shot. I sold it, because it became more gun than I would ever need. I was a decent shot. But I truly believe that only my crazy uncle or perhaps my brother (who taught me to shoot) might --- just might have been able to make that shot.
When I was studying criminal justice, one of our instructors, a former police officer, gave us "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training. Even those of the students in the law enforcement track were unable to reliably complete the training. Our instructor said something that's stuck with me to this day: "Even well-trained cops can screw this up. Shooting someone is forever. What you do with a gun will haunt you all of your days."
I don't want that responsibility. I don't really want my neighbor to have it either, because I'm convinced that most of us civilians not only "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" but we're not psychologically ready to make that grave decision to pull the trigger with the realization that what we're doing is forever. Not that all my neighbors are nuts. They're just civilians. They're untrained. They haven't been in the position to have to shoot in self-defense. And I don't think they understand the permanent nature of firing a weapon at another human being.
That doesn't even count the people who really do have psychological issues. If you're on medication for a psychiatric disorder or ailment, you don't need a weapon that could kill you, permanently maim you, or hurt someone else. You just can't deal with it. Period. Cold hard fact.
If you're a criminal, even if it was a "non-violent" crime, you've abrogated your right to have a gun. You broke the law. You're done. Period. Cold hard fact.
If you do decide you need a gun, you really do need to get training - and not from some clerk wanting to make a sale. You need to have real training in what you're getting yourself into. Buy only the gun you need. And normally, honestly? That's a rifle to hunt with and a handgun if you feel like you need the protection. And neither of those needs to be an automatic with a large magazine.
If you want to go the "carry" route, then let's do away with "concealed" carry. Wear it proud, folks. Why have a criminal "think" that you "may" be carrying. Own it. But be prepared that statistics show that a person wearing a weapon has a better-than-even chance of having his or her weapon used against them. Do you really want to be shot by your own gun?
The politicans have to grow a spine and address the 800-lb. gorilla. It needs to be done because we're already almost "out of the news cycle" where we'll forget what has happened in Colorado. Tell me honestly, did Ft. Hood even cross your mind till I wrote those words? Nope. Because we're easily distracted by shiny objects. Our politicians and news media have made us that way. We don't bother to do our own independent thinking and we rely on "authorities" to tell us what to think and what to say.
The Founders, I'm sure, wanted a thinking nation. A nation unafraid to deal with the tough issues. And a people brave enough to know when to say "Enough" -- and make a brave change to ensure the fundamental safety of all of us.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Meandering Monday...
OK, so I know I should ("should") be blogging more often, because I know I have wanted to say stuff, but I'm just pffffffth lately. So here goes with a really random list of things I've wanted to say.
1. Penn State: Sorry, not enough. The NCAA should've invoked the "death penalty" on them. The students/coaches at SMU did something rotten to earn theirs, but not NEAR as rotten as allowing a pedophile virtually unlimited access to children. Sure, invoke the fines, pull back scholarships and delete their presence from bowl games -- and YES, move the statue of "St. JoPa" - but more importantly, a "death penalty" will give people pause and give them lots to think about.
2. Health issues: I'm feeling pfffffffffth because (a) it's hotter than a convection oven today and has been for a while -- and I'm not "lizard" like my mom. Not liking the heat. And (b) the medications I'm taking so far lower my heart rate, keep my blood pressure down, and thin my blood. And I'm still having the "joy of Mother Nature's visits" so I'm probably somewhat anemic. Tired much? I swear I have the stamina of a newborn and it's really annoying me.
3. Health update: I have an appointment in August with a specialist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital about the ablation procedure. They're doing a "cryo-balloon ablation" as opposed to a "radio-frequency" procedure. One is hot (RF) and one is cold (cryo). One is 6 hours on a table (RF) and one is about 2 hours (cryo). While I know there are risks on every procedure, to me - the fact that you spend less time "under and out" makes the cryo more appealing, but I've got lots of questions to ask. The ultimate goal, of course, is to fix my heart while it's still in good shape and get me off the meds that make me feel "pffffffffth."
4. Knitting update: I absolutely HATE the sweater!!! It's wrong. The gauge is wrong. The measurements are wrong. It looks like a sweater that would fit a 1o-year-old. And I knitted it according to the "XL" size on the pattern. I'm sure (ahem) that there's some knitter-issue there, but I've heard from some of the other KAL knitters that the yarn was a stinker to work with. I have one skein left, and I'll probably trade it for another color (pink or salmon) and make Kid #1's girlfriend a headband. She's a blonde, so the ivory yarn would just melt into her head.
5. Politics: Does it strike anyone else that Mitt's going to LONDON to hold fundraisers? Yes, they'll be soliciting "American donations" but those folks work for Barclay's Bank. Conflict much? The Citizens United decision is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And for SCOTUS to have the gall to claim that there would be "no inherent conflict or corruption" means that those folks need to get out more.
6. Knitting 2: I've started a bolero out of Knit One Crochet Two cotton. It's pretty. And yeah, I've already frogged and started over. Knitting = relaxation, right??? Auggggggggh!!! But it's coming along and I hope to have it done before Convocation, which is our big "start the fall semester" celebration at work. It'll be cute. If it's not 100* in the shade!! It's cropped AND short sleeved, so I'm hoping I can wear it.
7. Tippi's Therapy Work: Well, the Tipster is working out quite nicely at Child Advocacy Center. We have a gig tomorrow that's THREE appointments! I believe she'll do well, as long as we get a break mid-way through for her to eat and decompress a bit. And we start the work at the main campus for "Tuesdays with Tippi" in September. She'll be a busy girl! We'll have that TDIX certification in no time! Not bad for a rescue dog.
8. Knitting 3: Yeah, lots of knitting today. I'm trying to get organized and do a NO MORE SHOPPING approach till I get some projects done. Please, stop laughing!! I'm serious!! I've decided to bag up my projects (those not started and the WIPs*) and pull one out a month. Work on that project for a month (socks don't count if I can get them done quickly) and get some of this whittled down. *WIP is "manufacturing speak" for Work-In-Progress. The other common term is UFO (Un-Finished-Object).
9. Knitting 4: So the boys found "ear-flap" hats they want for Xmas. Blowing a slight hole in my "empty the stash" project... Yes, the yarn is purchased. Yes, they're bagged up. Will start THEM after the bolero.
10. The Garden: So it looks like Hubby's persistent watering has done some good. We have our first batch of tomatoes, and the herbs are weathering the drought. We have a nesting pair of Ruby Throated Hummingbirds, and they visit the feeders regularly (as do the wasps, but we have traps out...). The shallots are done and need to be pulled up, and the carrots are coming along swimmingly. I do, however, have a severe problem with a soil-bound fungus which is totally screwing up my roses. Unfortunately, the only cure is to pull them up, pour on neem oil and then never plant roses in that area again. Bummer. But I think we'll shift over next year to a butterfly-and-hummingbird-friendly garden. I also have a Memorial Garden set up for our dogs who're passed on with solar gazing balls and little monuments. It's a rock garden, and we have St. Francis there. And my Cubs gnome.
11. Ron Santo: Sorry, I was only going to do 10... But Ron Santo was finally (FINALLY) inducted into the Hall of Fame. Could you all have waited any freakin' longer??? The man is dead. He LIVED for Cubs baseball. And he had a pre-steroids record, including him being a diabetic, that should make most younger players hang their heads in shame. I'm so glad he's finally there, but jeeze....You're talking about inducting Sammy Sosa and the other 'roid-heads that are already there, and you leave Santo out in the cold till after his death? Heartless morons. His wife and family were very gracious. And actually, I'm thrilled. Just annoyed at the way it all came down.
1. Penn State: Sorry, not enough. The NCAA should've invoked the "death penalty" on them. The students/coaches at SMU did something rotten to earn theirs, but not NEAR as rotten as allowing a pedophile virtually unlimited access to children. Sure, invoke the fines, pull back scholarships and delete their presence from bowl games -- and YES, move the statue of "St. JoPa" - but more importantly, a "death penalty" will give people pause and give them lots to think about.
2. Health issues: I'm feeling pfffffffffth because (a) it's hotter than a convection oven today and has been for a while -- and I'm not "lizard" like my mom. Not liking the heat. And (b) the medications I'm taking so far lower my heart rate, keep my blood pressure down, and thin my blood. And I'm still having the "joy of Mother Nature's visits" so I'm probably somewhat anemic. Tired much? I swear I have the stamina of a newborn and it's really annoying me.
3. Health update: I have an appointment in August with a specialist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital about the ablation procedure. They're doing a "cryo-balloon ablation" as opposed to a "radio-frequency" procedure. One is hot (RF) and one is cold (cryo). One is 6 hours on a table (RF) and one is about 2 hours (cryo). While I know there are risks on every procedure, to me - the fact that you spend less time "under and out" makes the cryo more appealing, but I've got lots of questions to ask. The ultimate goal, of course, is to fix my heart while it's still in good shape and get me off the meds that make me feel "pffffffffth."
4. Knitting update: I absolutely HATE the sweater!!! It's wrong. The gauge is wrong. The measurements are wrong. It looks like a sweater that would fit a 1o-year-old. And I knitted it according to the "XL" size on the pattern. I'm sure (ahem) that there's some knitter-issue there, but I've heard from some of the other KAL knitters that the yarn was a stinker to work with. I have one skein left, and I'll probably trade it for another color (pink or salmon) and make Kid #1's girlfriend a headband. She's a blonde, so the ivory yarn would just melt into her head.
5. Politics: Does it strike anyone else that Mitt's going to LONDON to hold fundraisers? Yes, they'll be soliciting "American donations" but those folks work for Barclay's Bank. Conflict much? The Citizens United decision is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And for SCOTUS to have the gall to claim that there would be "no inherent conflict or corruption" means that those folks need to get out more.
6. Knitting 2: I've started a bolero out of Knit One Crochet Two cotton. It's pretty. And yeah, I've already frogged and started over. Knitting = relaxation, right??? Auggggggggh!!! But it's coming along and I hope to have it done before Convocation, which is our big "start the fall semester" celebration at work. It'll be cute. If it's not 100* in the shade!! It's cropped AND short sleeved, so I'm hoping I can wear it.
7. Tippi's Therapy Work: Well, the Tipster is working out quite nicely at Child Advocacy Center. We have a gig tomorrow that's THREE appointments! I believe she'll do well, as long as we get a break mid-way through for her to eat and decompress a bit. And we start the work at the main campus for "Tuesdays with Tippi" in September. She'll be a busy girl! We'll have that TDIX certification in no time! Not bad for a rescue dog.
8. Knitting 3: Yeah, lots of knitting today. I'm trying to get organized and do a NO MORE SHOPPING approach till I get some projects done. Please, stop laughing!! I'm serious!! I've decided to bag up my projects (those not started and the WIPs*) and pull one out a month. Work on that project for a month (socks don't count if I can get them done quickly) and get some of this whittled down. *WIP is "manufacturing speak" for Work-In-Progress. The other common term is UFO (Un-Finished-Object).
9. Knitting 4: So the boys found "ear-flap" hats they want for Xmas. Blowing a slight hole in my "empty the stash" project... Yes, the yarn is purchased. Yes, they're bagged up. Will start THEM after the bolero.
10. The Garden: So it looks like Hubby's persistent watering has done some good. We have our first batch of tomatoes, and the herbs are weathering the drought. We have a nesting pair of Ruby Throated Hummingbirds, and they visit the feeders regularly (as do the wasps, but we have traps out...). The shallots are done and need to be pulled up, and the carrots are coming along swimmingly. I do, however, have a severe problem with a soil-bound fungus which is totally screwing up my roses. Unfortunately, the only cure is to pull them up, pour on neem oil and then never plant roses in that area again. Bummer. But I think we'll shift over next year to a butterfly-and-hummingbird-friendly garden. I also have a Memorial Garden set up for our dogs who're passed on with solar gazing balls and little monuments. It's a rock garden, and we have St. Francis there. And my Cubs gnome.
11. Ron Santo: Sorry, I was only going to do 10... But Ron Santo was finally (FINALLY) inducted into the Hall of Fame. Could you all have waited any freakin' longer??? The man is dead. He LIVED for Cubs baseball. And he had a pre-steroids record, including him being a diabetic, that should make most younger players hang their heads in shame. I'm so glad he's finally there, but jeeze....You're talking about inducting Sammy Sosa and the other 'roid-heads that are already there, and you leave Santo out in the cold till after his death? Heartless morons. His wife and family were very gracious. And actually, I'm thrilled. Just annoyed at the way it all came down.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
You DIDN'T Vote? Well...
...then don't gag over your morning coffee to see that our city's tax referendum (increasing sales tax by 1%) passed.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't sigh over your morning newspaper when you read that some politician with ethics charges pending against her actually won in her district.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't scream at your TV at another round of endless presidential candidate bloviation via commercial since there's still no nominee for the opposing party.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't complain to me about the local Park Board (and by the way: REALLY? Are those LIFE appointments???) because "your guy" didn't get in.
Because YOU didn't vote.
We had a primary day yesterday. I was up before the chickens because I chose to be an Election Judge; a job I take very seriously. It's exhausting work because you are stuck at the polling place from 5 a.m. till 7:30 p.m. (polls close at 7 p.m., but it takes about 1/2 hour for you to tear down and properly shut down the voting machines) and then I got to drive the supplies and the voter box back to the Clerk's Office. I got home about 8:30 p.m.
For this, in a few months, I'll get about $100. That's about $6.25 per hour. I certainly don't do this for the money, since I do have a full-time job. I do it because that's my way of getting involved.
And I can tell you, on a local level, involvement means getting in the voting booth.
Involvement STARTS well before that, however. Involvement means educating yourself about the issues. I can't number the people (mostly women - YIKES!) who glanced over at their husband's ballot application form to see what HE was doing before SHE checked off the box.
Let me explain that, lest you think they were voting in the same booth. In my county, you have a pre-signed "ballot application form" that we have at the polling place. That's that little alphabetical book we pull your "ticket" from. You filled out an application to get your voter's card.
In a primary in my state, you have 3 options: You can declare a party (Dem/Repub) or you can declare "non-partisan" but ONLY if there is a referendum issue on the ballot. So there are 3 check boxes: Democratic, Republican, Nonpartisan. If there is no referendum, you MUST declare a party, since Illinois doesn't have (nor will it likely have) an open primary.
So. If there is a referendum issue, educate yourself. Get to know the issue. Think about what you want to have happen. Then go vote.
Women, please use your own brain. If your husband wants to pick one type of ballot, you really do not need to go along with him. So if your vote cancels his out? Well, that's sometimes the way it works. That's the greatness of the process. Sometimes we run neck-and-neck because people are passionate about issues, and will vote on them. And there are winners and losers. So if you want to just vote for the referendum and Hubby wants to vote for political candidates, that's perfectly ok. If he wants to be a Republican this time, you can be a Democrat. The skies won't rain down frogs and locusts upon either of you.
The turnout in Illinois was abysmal. In the toilet. The lowest in years. People, there are other countries in which the population votes, but they are "told" how to vote. Oh, sure, Chavez gets a mandate...at the point of threats! WE get to vote for who and what we want. We get to determine, to a certain extent, what gets on the ballot by participating in your town's council or the like. At my polling place, we had 19% turnout. Sad. But if you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. It's your own darned fault. You have the right to vote; it's up to you to exercise it.
At any rate, involvement starts by educating yourself. Then it continues when you get your butt to the polls and cast your vote. If you want to get more involved, there are a number of local politicians and issues that would welcome your help. Find an issue about which you are passionate, and get involved.
And go vote.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't sigh over your morning newspaper when you read that some politician with ethics charges pending against her actually won in her district.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't scream at your TV at another round of endless presidential candidate bloviation via commercial since there's still no nominee for the opposing party.
Because YOU didn't vote.
...then don't complain to me about the local Park Board (and by the way: REALLY? Are those LIFE appointments???) because "your guy" didn't get in.
Because YOU didn't vote.
We had a primary day yesterday. I was up before the chickens because I chose to be an Election Judge; a job I take very seriously. It's exhausting work because you are stuck at the polling place from 5 a.m. till 7:30 p.m. (polls close at 7 p.m., but it takes about 1/2 hour for you to tear down and properly shut down the voting machines) and then I got to drive the supplies and the voter box back to the Clerk's Office. I got home about 8:30 p.m.
For this, in a few months, I'll get about $100. That's about $6.25 per hour. I certainly don't do this for the money, since I do have a full-time job. I do it because that's my way of getting involved.
And I can tell you, on a local level, involvement means getting in the voting booth.
Involvement STARTS well before that, however. Involvement means educating yourself about the issues. I can't number the people (mostly women - YIKES!) who glanced over at their husband's ballot application form to see what HE was doing before SHE checked off the box.
Let me explain that, lest you think they were voting in the same booth. In my county, you have a pre-signed "ballot application form" that we have at the polling place. That's that little alphabetical book we pull your "ticket" from. You filled out an application to get your voter's card.
In a primary in my state, you have 3 options: You can declare a party (Dem/Repub) or you can declare "non-partisan" but ONLY if there is a referendum issue on the ballot. So there are 3 check boxes: Democratic, Republican, Nonpartisan. If there is no referendum, you MUST declare a party, since Illinois doesn't have (nor will it likely have) an open primary.
So. If there is a referendum issue, educate yourself. Get to know the issue. Think about what you want to have happen. Then go vote.
Women, please use your own brain. If your husband wants to pick one type of ballot, you really do not need to go along with him. So if your vote cancels his out? Well, that's sometimes the way it works. That's the greatness of the process. Sometimes we run neck-and-neck because people are passionate about issues, and will vote on them. And there are winners and losers. So if you want to just vote for the referendum and Hubby wants to vote for political candidates, that's perfectly ok. If he wants to be a Republican this time, you can be a Democrat. The skies won't rain down frogs and locusts upon either of you.
The turnout in Illinois was abysmal. In the toilet. The lowest in years. People, there are other countries in which the population votes, but they are "told" how to vote. Oh, sure, Chavez gets a mandate...at the point of threats! WE get to vote for who and what we want. We get to determine, to a certain extent, what gets on the ballot by participating in your town's council or the like. At my polling place, we had 19% turnout. Sad. But if you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. It's your own darned fault. You have the right to vote; it's up to you to exercise it.
At any rate, involvement starts by educating yourself. Then it continues when you get your butt to the polls and cast your vote. If you want to get more involved, there are a number of local politicians and issues that would welcome your help. Find an issue about which you are passionate, and get involved.
And go vote.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Facts Sometimes Hurt...
So at the revival meeting for St. Ronald of Reagan the other night (otherwise known as one of the first Republican candidate debates), the various Republican candidates were trying to "make like Ronnie" and prove who could out-Gipper the Gipper.
Let's see -- most of the chatter actually seemed to be at cross purposes because you can't channel the Gipper AND claim loyalty to the tea party, which is actually a very small percentage of the Republican party. And "real" Republicans are now - or should be - trying to pour oil on the tea to calm the zealots down. If they ever want to win something, it won't be on the attributes of the screaming wing-nuts. Just because they're noisy doesn't mean they're great in numbers. Luckily, most people are more moderate - we hope!
The Chicago Tribune, never a liberal bastion of journalism (at least in my memory) had an interesting article on September 7, entitled Revisionism at odds with reality. Go figure, the Repubs are re-writing the Gospel of St. Ron...
Here are the facts in the actual Gospel, all of which have been overlooked as the various candidates jockey for position and attempt to re-write history to fit their own purposes:
1. Reagan approved several tax increases to deal with a huge budget deficit. Haven't we been told repeatedly that tax increases don't "create jobs"? And that the only way to balance the budget is to CUT taxes? Hmmmmmm. Math, anyone?
2. Reagan repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit which is quite the 'no-no' for this current crop of legislators.
3. Reagan signed an amnesty law aiding millions (yes, MILLIONS) of illegal immigrants and you know how Republicans feel about "illegals." Particularly the brown ones.
4. Reagan oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government which is also "against the rules" because any good Republican knows that "big government is bad." Which makes you wonder why Rick Perry is asking for FEDERAL aid for the Texas wildfires. I thought that the poor and unfortunate were supposed to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" when they had troubles, and not look to the big government to help 'em out. How's that workin' for ya, Rick??
5. Reagan, as governor of California, enacted the largest (at the time) state tax increase in American history. Almost makes Pat Quinn in Illinois look like a piker.
6. Reagan signed into law one of the most permissive abortion laws of any state. And we all know that to Republicans, a fetus is important. A child? Not so much. But God Save the Fetus!!
The article goes on to state, "Reagan's willingness to compromise also has fallen badly out of favor in a Republican Party fired by its give-no-quarter ranks of tea party loyalists."
I would like to think that, since in his favor he was rather a pragmatist, he wouldn't have fallen prey to the tea party blathering. The final quote in the article says it all:
"I don't think...you should cherry-pick history."
Kinda sums up the entire Republican strategy, doesn't it?
Let's see -- most of the chatter actually seemed to be at cross purposes because you can't channel the Gipper AND claim loyalty to the tea party, which is actually a very small percentage of the Republican party. And "real" Republicans are now - or should be - trying to pour oil on the tea to calm the zealots down. If they ever want to win something, it won't be on the attributes of the screaming wing-nuts. Just because they're noisy doesn't mean they're great in numbers. Luckily, most people are more moderate - we hope!
The Chicago Tribune, never a liberal bastion of journalism (at least in my memory) had an interesting article on September 7, entitled Revisionism at odds with reality. Go figure, the Repubs are re-writing the Gospel of St. Ron...
Here are the facts in the actual Gospel, all of which have been overlooked as the various candidates jockey for position and attempt to re-write history to fit their own purposes:
1. Reagan approved several tax increases to deal with a huge budget deficit. Haven't we been told repeatedly that tax increases don't "create jobs"? And that the only way to balance the budget is to CUT taxes? Hmmmmmm. Math, anyone?
2. Reagan repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit which is quite the 'no-no' for this current crop of legislators.
3. Reagan signed an amnesty law aiding millions (yes, MILLIONS) of illegal immigrants and you know how Republicans feel about "illegals." Particularly the brown ones.
4. Reagan oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government which is also "against the rules" because any good Republican knows that "big government is bad." Which makes you wonder why Rick Perry is asking for FEDERAL aid for the Texas wildfires. I thought that the poor and unfortunate were supposed to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" when they had troubles, and not look to the big government to help 'em out. How's that workin' for ya, Rick??
5. Reagan, as governor of California, enacted the largest (at the time) state tax increase in American history. Almost makes Pat Quinn in Illinois look like a piker.
6. Reagan signed into law one of the most permissive abortion laws of any state. And we all know that to Republicans, a fetus is important. A child? Not so much. But God Save the Fetus!!
The article goes on to state, "Reagan's willingness to compromise also has fallen badly out of favor in a Republican Party fired by its give-no-quarter ranks of tea party loyalists."
I would like to think that, since in his favor he was rather a pragmatist, he wouldn't have fallen prey to the tea party blathering. The final quote in the article says it all:
"I don't think...you should cherry-pick history."
Kinda sums up the entire Republican strategy, doesn't it?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
As Wisconsin Goes???
I've been following the Wisconsin story these past few days, and I am just amazed. Scott Walker seems intent upon stripping unions of any power. The Democrats, known as "The Wisconsin 14," have fled the state to prevent a final vote on this, and Walker is sending out state troopers to see if he can fish at least one of 'em back.
I think that he's not getting it. He's telling a faux-Koch -- the radio prankster who managed to get him to admit that he pretty much will not negotiate and that he's going to bust the unions - that his plan all along has been to cripple the unions. He actually said he "thought about" bringing in outside agitators. He also said that he'd talked with other lawmakers about this. Sorry, but this is union busting, a textbook plan to bust a union. He's not willing to negotiate. It's his way or the highway. They elected him (and I'm not sure why) as GOVERNOR, and not God. From the faux-Koch interview, it clearly seems like Walker has a plan - nay, a plot. It's much more subversive than a "plan" because he's wanting to rip out the bedrock of Wisconsin and the entire Rust Belt. I hope to heaven that someone acts on that phone call.
And he also said, which I find incomprehensible given the recent coverage, that "[all the protestors] were from out of state and the people of Wisconsin were getting tired of all the disruption." Really? He thinks they're all on his side? The teachers protesting; the state employees protesting; the average WI citizens protesting? They don't look like they like his idea much at all.
The talking heads on Fox are calling for violence. But if you've seen the coverage so far, the demonstrations are bringing out the best in people; they've been peaceful. Loud, yes. But that's the point, seeing as the governor can't quite hear what they're saying since he's decided that the decision is his alone. The talking heads, if they have you in their snare, turned a Gallup poll on its head. The recent poll said that 63% of Americans were behind the Wisconsin union members. But blatantly in Fox News' reports, they say, "A full 63% of Americans do not support the unions in Wisconsin." Really? I know how to read a pie chart. And it didn't look like that to me. I've got lots of education and I can tell when there's a majority opinion about something. And Gallup isn't exactly new at this. But there you have it. Spin this enough and up is down. The sky is sideways. Inside is outside.
Use your brains, people! Unions brought you regulations that have made your lives easier: the 5-day work week; vacations; basic workplace standards that keep workers safe. And you know what else they did? Unions brought you worker standards. Yes, worker standards are those things that tell you that when you hire a plumber, he or she has knowledge of the trade; he or she has been trained as an apprentice; he or she has put time into learning the trade. And he or she won't screw up your plumbing! What's that worth to you? It's worth plenty to me, since one son is in the trades, and I'd kind of like to see him in a safe environment when he's working. And I'd like him to make a living wage and be able to not work in a sweatshop.
In full disclosure, my dad and grandpa were in the union. My father-in-law was a union man as well. My youngest son is thisclose to being a teacher (will graduate in May) and I have friends who are teachers who are also in a union. My mother was part of the union when she worked, and her very tiny pension comes from that membership.
So I think that Walker isn't getting the message. He's not seeing the Democrat walk-out for what it is. They're making the point that the government, which is supposedly for the people, is not listening - at least in Wisconsin AND in Indiana now - to what the people want. And someone ought to remind Walker that he's not supposed to use the State Troopers to fish back the Democrats. The State Troopers can't be used in "labor disputes" nor in "political issues." This is so clearly a political issue - it's all Kabuki theatre in Wisconsin, and he is, in my opinion, violating the trust of the citizens of Wisconsin. He's sending Troopers out to get the Dems, but there are people who need the resources of the Troopers - to solve crimes and help them. Don't you think? Let them do their jobs, and keep them out of your farcical political games.
The thing is this: teachers do not make $100,000+ a year. When you see this figure, you just see lots of zeros. What you don't see is that the basic salary of a teacher is about $50,ooo and the benefits are tacked on. Just like my salary: I make about $44,000 a year, but since I work at a university, I do get a tuition benefit. On paper, if you just look at the bottom line, I make about $68,000. But if you take out that tuition benefit, my actual salary is much less.
At that, that $50,000 is not a lot of money when you think of what a teacher does. As my kids were growing up, we often found that teachers supplemented their salaries by coaching teams, and they often had to provide basic classroom supplies out of their own pockets. My son has 2 interviews scheduled. His base salary will be in the range of $30,000 per year. That's less than the 2009 median income, according to the US Census. Check out the data at the following site: http://www.census.gov/ and see for yourself. The 2009 median income for a male wage-earner is $47,127.
The more education he gets, the better that salary will be. I paid for his BA. He's on his own for his MA and beyond. And let me tell you, the cost per credit hour for a Master's degree can be $700+ and each class is 3 credit hours. So let's just estimate: you're looking at $2,100 per class. There are 39 hours required for a basic Master's program. So, $2,100 x 39 = $81,900. For a degree. He's not going to get that for free. He's got to pay for that.
And while paying for that, he's got to work. Teaching kids.
I'm listening to a radio program, and one of the Wisconsin Democrats is speaking. He's saying that the protestors are mothers and fathers, teachers, social workers, working people. Those Democrats who've walked out - they're paying for their expenses out of their own pockets. And Walker says that he's going to hold their paychecks.
If Walker succeeds in busting the union here, it'll flow outward through the entire Rust Belt. It's not always about balancing the budget. He's not willing to discuss any of this with the Democrats. No negotiations. If he balances the budget, it doesn't mean that he must bust the union. It's just that busting the unions is a Republican agenda item. Unions traditionally support Democrats.
So how best to turn the 2012 elections? Cut off the best source of funding to the Democrats: the union folks.
The thing is, I think (and I'm praying) that this will fly back into Walker's face like bacon grease out of a hot pan. Unions built this country. Yes, there are corrupt unions. Like there aren't corrupt businesses funding the Republicans?? Please. The unions haven't asked for bail-outs, and as a matter of fact, the teachers in WI had already given back pay concessions and other concessions in the form of some of their benefits.
But Walker won't budge. It's his way: bust it up. No other way.
This should scare the rest of us in the Rust Belt. And it should make us mad. We can't contribute to the expenses of the Wisconsin 14. But we can participate in local solidarity events. We can donate to the campaign funds of the Wisconsin 14. We can write letters and make our own voices heard. I'm not in a union. But my father's union benefits provided medical, vision and dental care for 4 kids. My father's union benefits provided us decent wages for him, because at the time I was growing up, my mother worked as a school secretary for $1.75 per hour. Yeah, a buck-seventy-five. And no benefits. The union membership in her case didn't come till later, when she went to work for a community college and some administrative positions were covered under the teachers' union.
But you know what we really need? Someone in DC to come out and call this what it is. Obama or Biden must speak up, quickly. I absolutely realize that the right wing nut jobs on Fox or other stations will have a field day with that. But good grief: the man is President (or Vice President as the case may be) and Biden especially - he has campaigned on the fact that he was a "Regular Joe." So, Joe. Come on out to the Midwest. You've been a New England resident; our winter's not over, but it's not something that should freak you out.
I'm issuing an invitation: come out and support the people who got you elected. Before it's too late. I'm tellin' ya: 2012 is right around the corner. Come out now, while you're needed.
I think that he's not getting it. He's telling a faux-Koch -- the radio prankster who managed to get him to admit that he pretty much will not negotiate and that he's going to bust the unions - that his plan all along has been to cripple the unions. He actually said he "thought about" bringing in outside agitators. He also said that he'd talked with other lawmakers about this. Sorry, but this is union busting, a textbook plan to bust a union. He's not willing to negotiate. It's his way or the highway. They elected him (and I'm not sure why) as GOVERNOR, and not God. From the faux-Koch interview, it clearly seems like Walker has a plan - nay, a plot. It's much more subversive than a "plan" because he's wanting to rip out the bedrock of Wisconsin and the entire Rust Belt. I hope to heaven that someone acts on that phone call.
And he also said, which I find incomprehensible given the recent coverage, that "[all the protestors] were from out of state and the people of Wisconsin were getting tired of all the disruption." Really? He thinks they're all on his side? The teachers protesting; the state employees protesting; the average WI citizens protesting? They don't look like they like his idea much at all.
The talking heads on Fox are calling for violence. But if you've seen the coverage so far, the demonstrations are bringing out the best in people; they've been peaceful. Loud, yes. But that's the point, seeing as the governor can't quite hear what they're saying since he's decided that the decision is his alone. The talking heads, if they have you in their snare, turned a Gallup poll on its head. The recent poll said that 63% of Americans were behind the Wisconsin union members. But blatantly in Fox News' reports, they say, "A full 63% of Americans do not support the unions in Wisconsin." Really? I know how to read a pie chart. And it didn't look like that to me. I've got lots of education and I can tell when there's a majority opinion about something. And Gallup isn't exactly new at this. But there you have it. Spin this enough and up is down. The sky is sideways. Inside is outside.
Use your brains, people! Unions brought you regulations that have made your lives easier: the 5-day work week; vacations; basic workplace standards that keep workers safe. And you know what else they did? Unions brought you worker standards. Yes, worker standards are those things that tell you that when you hire a plumber, he or she has knowledge of the trade; he or she has been trained as an apprentice; he or she has put time into learning the trade. And he or she won't screw up your plumbing! What's that worth to you? It's worth plenty to me, since one son is in the trades, and I'd kind of like to see him in a safe environment when he's working. And I'd like him to make a living wage and be able to not work in a sweatshop.
In full disclosure, my dad and grandpa were in the union. My father-in-law was a union man as well. My youngest son is thisclose to being a teacher (will graduate in May) and I have friends who are teachers who are also in a union. My mother was part of the union when she worked, and her very tiny pension comes from that membership.
So I think that Walker isn't getting the message. He's not seeing the Democrat walk-out for what it is. They're making the point that the government, which is supposedly for the people, is not listening - at least in Wisconsin AND in Indiana now - to what the people want. And someone ought to remind Walker that he's not supposed to use the State Troopers to fish back the Democrats. The State Troopers can't be used in "labor disputes" nor in "political issues." This is so clearly a political issue - it's all Kabuki theatre in Wisconsin, and he is, in my opinion, violating the trust of the citizens of Wisconsin. He's sending Troopers out to get the Dems, but there are people who need the resources of the Troopers - to solve crimes and help them. Don't you think? Let them do their jobs, and keep them out of your farcical political games.
The thing is this: teachers do not make $100,000+ a year. When you see this figure, you just see lots of zeros. What you don't see is that the basic salary of a teacher is about $50,ooo and the benefits are tacked on. Just like my salary: I make about $44,000 a year, but since I work at a university, I do get a tuition benefit. On paper, if you just look at the bottom line, I make about $68,000. But if you take out that tuition benefit, my actual salary is much less.
At that, that $50,000 is not a lot of money when you think of what a teacher does. As my kids were growing up, we often found that teachers supplemented their salaries by coaching teams, and they often had to provide basic classroom supplies out of their own pockets. My son has 2 interviews scheduled. His base salary will be in the range of $30,000 per year. That's less than the 2009 median income, according to the US Census. Check out the data at the following site: http://www.census.gov/ and see for yourself. The 2009 median income for a male wage-earner is $47,127.
The more education he gets, the better that salary will be. I paid for his BA. He's on his own for his MA and beyond. And let me tell you, the cost per credit hour for a Master's degree can be $700+ and each class is 3 credit hours. So let's just estimate: you're looking at $2,100 per class. There are 39 hours required for a basic Master's program. So, $2,100 x 39 = $81,900. For a degree. He's not going to get that for free. He's got to pay for that.
And while paying for that, he's got to work. Teaching kids.
I'm listening to a radio program, and one of the Wisconsin Democrats is speaking. He's saying that the protestors are mothers and fathers, teachers, social workers, working people. Those Democrats who've walked out - they're paying for their expenses out of their own pockets. And Walker says that he's going to hold their paychecks.
If Walker succeeds in busting the union here, it'll flow outward through the entire Rust Belt. It's not always about balancing the budget. He's not willing to discuss any of this with the Democrats. No negotiations. If he balances the budget, it doesn't mean that he must bust the union. It's just that busting the unions is a Republican agenda item. Unions traditionally support Democrats.
So how best to turn the 2012 elections? Cut off the best source of funding to the Democrats: the union folks.
The thing is, I think (and I'm praying) that this will fly back into Walker's face like bacon grease out of a hot pan. Unions built this country. Yes, there are corrupt unions. Like there aren't corrupt businesses funding the Republicans?? Please. The unions haven't asked for bail-outs, and as a matter of fact, the teachers in WI had already given back pay concessions and other concessions in the form of some of their benefits.
But Walker won't budge. It's his way: bust it up. No other way.
This should scare the rest of us in the Rust Belt. And it should make us mad. We can't contribute to the expenses of the Wisconsin 14. But we can participate in local solidarity events. We can donate to the campaign funds of the Wisconsin 14. We can write letters and make our own voices heard. I'm not in a union. But my father's union benefits provided medical, vision and dental care for 4 kids. My father's union benefits provided us decent wages for him, because at the time I was growing up, my mother worked as a school secretary for $1.75 per hour. Yeah, a buck-seventy-five. And no benefits. The union membership in her case didn't come till later, when she went to work for a community college and some administrative positions were covered under the teachers' union.
But you know what we really need? Someone in DC to come out and call this what it is. Obama or Biden must speak up, quickly. I absolutely realize that the right wing nut jobs on Fox or other stations will have a field day with that. But good grief: the man is President (or Vice President as the case may be) and Biden especially - he has campaigned on the fact that he was a "Regular Joe." So, Joe. Come on out to the Midwest. You've been a New England resident; our winter's not over, but it's not something that should freak you out.
I'm issuing an invitation: come out and support the people who got you elected. Before it's too late. I'm tellin' ya: 2012 is right around the corner. Come out now, while you're needed.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Strict Constructionalism Until It's Not Convenient...
So a recent report from Fox News shows that Republicans involved in the upcoming Iowa Caucus do have some pressing things on their mind for the 2012 election.
Let's see. We're at war. In two places. Our economy is growing slowly, but our undergraduates are still having trouble finding jobs. Real estate markets are moving - not sure in which direction - at a snail's pace, with more homeowners "under water" than there really should be, given the fact that the government bailed out those financial institutions. Who are holding on to the bail-out funds to give their own execs a bonus, or increase their bottom lines for the benefit of their stockholders.
That's a good start, right?
Nope. They're worried because President Barack Obama is "hiding the truth" that he's really not a Christian, in spite of more assertions than there would be if the guy was white...Let's call it what it is, folks. And that -- oh my.... He's MUSLIM. Except for the fact that he's not.
So, most of those folks consider themselves "strict constructionalists" of the US Constitution. Therefore, using logic (and it won't hurt, I promise), they should be pretty clear about Article Six and its obvious meaning.
Article VI of the United States Constitution: (only the 3rd paragraph is relevant here, so I'll skip all that extra typing)
The Senators and Representatives, before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Can you read that, or shall I break it down? Oh, heck. I'll break it down. It's more fun.
Senators, legislators and any public elected official, including the judiciary, must take an oath to support the Constituiton. They do that, albeit they don't have a standard oath, as that was deemed a "test" and thus a violation. So, Congress may include "so help me God," but an individual may choose not to say the words. If you were to require the person to say them, that's a religious test.
The current oath is: I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreigh and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
Kennedy had to deal with the whole "religious test" thing because people were worried that "Rome would be running the country." John Kerry actually put this issue to rest in his own campaign, by saying (I'm paraphrasing) basicially, "I was elected by many people of many beliefs. My own beliefs are my own. I was elected to do the will of the people, and that doesn't mean just the Catholic people. It means all the people in my district."
The religious test issue was brought up again in the 110th United States Congress, when Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress (Minnesota's 5th Congressional District) said he was going to use a Qu'ran for his swearing in. Funny thing - he used the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Remember him??
The US Congress does not officially swear anyone in using any holy book. It's an en mass swearing in, and any other ceremonies using a holy book are strictly private.
So. We're back at President Obama. The guy has affirmed - multiple times - that he's a Christian. He's proven that he was born here. Don't go there, he was born here. Ask the Governor of Hawaii - he was there. And if you remember, he was sworn in using Abraham Lincoln's bible. Remember him? The greatest Republican president ever, some say.
There is no religious test. Obama doesn't have to prove, to anyone, any further, that he's a Christian. Because according to our own Constitution, he can be a Druid, a Wiccan or an atheist.
Our country was not founded as a Christian nation.
Behaving "as a Christian" is seen as behaving with good will toward all. Those folks in Iowa are somehow not focusing on the greater good. They're not focusing on the millions in our own country who go to bed hungry, or have no home, or have no job. They're not focusing on the 47 million + who are uninsured. They're not focusing on the country's incredibly enormous debt, and how that'll affect our children's children's children.
They're focusing on a non-issue fanned into flame by a non-news station.
I guess they've got nothing better to look at in Iowa. The 2012 election cycle is going to be interesting. The strict constructionalists are only "strict" when it serves them; otherwise, it seems they're perfectly content to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unaware that the baby they're tossing out, our Constitution, is the one that belongs to all of us. Not just to them.
Let's see. We're at war. In two places. Our economy is growing slowly, but our undergraduates are still having trouble finding jobs. Real estate markets are moving - not sure in which direction - at a snail's pace, with more homeowners "under water" than there really should be, given the fact that the government bailed out those financial institutions. Who are holding on to the bail-out funds to give their own execs a bonus, or increase their bottom lines for the benefit of their stockholders.
That's a good start, right?
Nope. They're worried because President Barack Obama is "hiding the truth" that he's really not a Christian, in spite of more assertions than there would be if the guy was white...Let's call it what it is, folks. And that -- oh my.... He's MUSLIM. Except for the fact that he's not.
So, most of those folks consider themselves "strict constructionalists" of the US Constitution. Therefore, using logic (and it won't hurt, I promise), they should be pretty clear about Article Six and its obvious meaning.
Article VI of the United States Constitution: (only the 3rd paragraph is relevant here, so I'll skip all that extra typing)
The Senators and Representatives, before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Can you read that, or shall I break it down? Oh, heck. I'll break it down. It's more fun.
Senators, legislators and any public elected official, including the judiciary, must take an oath to support the Constituiton. They do that, albeit they don't have a standard oath, as that was deemed a "test" and thus a violation. So, Congress may include "so help me God," but an individual may choose not to say the words. If you were to require the person to say them, that's a religious test.
The current oath is: I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreigh and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
Kennedy had to deal with the whole "religious test" thing because people were worried that "Rome would be running the country." John Kerry actually put this issue to rest in his own campaign, by saying (I'm paraphrasing) basicially, "I was elected by many people of many beliefs. My own beliefs are my own. I was elected to do the will of the people, and that doesn't mean just the Catholic people. It means all the people in my district."
The religious test issue was brought up again in the 110th United States Congress, when Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress (Minnesota's 5th Congressional District) said he was going to use a Qu'ran for his swearing in. Funny thing - he used the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Remember him??
The US Congress does not officially swear anyone in using any holy book. It's an en mass swearing in, and any other ceremonies using a holy book are strictly private.
So. We're back at President Obama. The guy has affirmed - multiple times - that he's a Christian. He's proven that he was born here. Don't go there, he was born here. Ask the Governor of Hawaii - he was there. And if you remember, he was sworn in using Abraham Lincoln's bible. Remember him? The greatest Republican president ever, some say.
There is no religious test. Obama doesn't have to prove, to anyone, any further, that he's a Christian. Because according to our own Constitution, he can be a Druid, a Wiccan or an atheist.
Our country was not founded as a Christian nation.
Behaving "as a Christian" is seen as behaving with good will toward all. Those folks in Iowa are somehow not focusing on the greater good. They're not focusing on the millions in our own country who go to bed hungry, or have no home, or have no job. They're not focusing on the 47 million + who are uninsured. They're not focusing on the country's incredibly enormous debt, and how that'll affect our children's children's children.
They're focusing on a non-issue fanned into flame by a non-news station.
I guess they've got nothing better to look at in Iowa. The 2012 election cycle is going to be interesting. The strict constructionalists are only "strict" when it serves them; otherwise, it seems they're perfectly content to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unaware that the baby they're tossing out, our Constitution, is the one that belongs to all of us. Not just to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)