At no point since it's passage, has the Affordable Care Act ever been approved of by a majority of the American people. When it was passed, a majority of the American people didn't want it. And while the numbers have fluctuated somewhat, it's always been majority against.
The House of Representatives recently passed a Continuing Resolution to fund every aspect of government but the Affordable Care Act. The Senate added an amendment restoring funding. When sent back to the House, they compromised. They delayed the implementation of the individual mandate for a year. The Senate is saying they will table the bill, and the White House is saying if it passes the Senate it will be vetoed.
Who would be responsible for shutting down the government?
By all measures of sanity and logic, it would appear that it is the Senate and the White House, not the House, that is perfectly happy to let the government shut down all over a health care bill that a majority of the American people have never wanted. And all those horror stories? They appear to be true.
People said the employer mandate would cost jobs. The Administration said that was hogwash. But as the date for that mandate to kick in drew closer, companies across America started dropping full time employees to part time employees. Other companies froze hiring to stay below the 50 employee threshold. So the President, in a move that was nothing but political to anyone with half a brain, delayed the employer mandate for year. To right after the mid term elections.
We were told if we liked our doctor and insurance we could keep them. However, over the last few weeks, pictures cropped up all over the internet. Pictures of letters, sent to people by their insurance companies, telling them that their plan is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act. They will have to purchase a new plan, and that new plan, which includes a lot of extra stuff, will cost them more money. For some it's more than twice what they were paying for a plan that did what they needed it to do, but might not cover birth control and in vitro fertilization.
Howard Dean recently admitted that Sarah Palin was right about those death panels. Death panels was a term coined to describe the Independent Payment Advisory Board, who would decide whether your life was really worth that life saving treatment. Or did everyone forget the President himself mentioning that controlling health care costs might mean giving granny the red pill instead of the blue pill, that was more expensive, but that she really needed to you know...live.
You might be interested to know how much control of our healthcare resides in the hands of one person. The Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bill has this to say about the powers of this one person: 700 references to the "Secretary shall", 200 reference to the "Secretary may" and 139 references to the "Secretary determines". So, in a 2,000 page bill that no one read before they passed it (Nancy Pelosi: We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it), 1,039 times it is determined that one person, not elected, and with no Constitutional check on their powers, can determine the outcome of YOUR healthcare.
The truth is the bill was never really written, and for it to work in any manner, whether good or bad, it will need to be amended hundreds of times over. It was 2,000 pages of open ended government control over your very life, and by life I mean, the breathing, heart beating, brainwave thing.
And it is this law, this one little law, this one train wreck of a law (according to Max Baucaus), that is going to be the reason the Democrats shut down the government. They are so tied to a law they passed (and which they then exempted themselves from, big surprise there), that they will allow every other government service shut down. Oh, except their pay. In 1992, when they were still in charge of the legislative body of the government, they suckered us into passing an amendment which doesn't allow them to give themselves pay raises, but it also ensures they still get a paycheck in the event the government shuts downs. Congress needs their pay more, than say granny needs her social security.
So who is responsible for shutting down the government?
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 9, 2013
To Those Who Never Got Involved.
I posted Steve Taylor lyrics to facebook last night, from his song "Whatever Happened to Sin". At the time, I was thinking about the church today, and how so many churches are preaching a feel good, social justice gospel in order to make themselves more acceptable to the masses.
Today I realized how appropriate those lyrics truly were, not just to the church, but to our political scene today.
I remember after the election, seeing posts on facebook where people were talking about how they didn't really speak out during the election, but now there were things going on they just couldn't keep silent about. Those posts made me angry. Most of the things that were so upsetting after the election were going on well before the election and during the election. Suddenly deciding to speak up now, when the damage is already done, seemed to me to be a case of "too little, too late".
You see, I believe we have a duty to at least TRY to make a difference when it comes to the things we believe in. Putting your head in the sand and not speaking out, for whatever reason, is a cowardly move. This will make people angry. I get it. We don't want to upset our friends or family. We want to keep the peace. I truly do understand that. Those things, however, do not let us off the hook. It just doesn't.
I can go back to that old saying from Germany during World War 2, about how someone didn't speak up, and when they came to take him, there was no one left to speak up for him. But we've heard that one before.
It's quite simple. If you don't speak out when it counts, when you could make a difference, when you could challenge the status quo, or all the news that fits the narrative, then really, how much right do you have to complain now?
In case you are still sitting there saying "But, people will delete me off facebook, or stop talking to me, or get angry, or..."
I have had 2 family members delete me and block me on facebook. Not because I said something hateful to them. Not because I was mean or horrid. Simply because I had the nerve to post an opinion different than theirs. I challenged their assumptions, and this made me persona non grata. They were constantly posting things that challenged my assumptions. They made me look deeper into what I thought. In many cases, they didn't change my opinion, but I became much more capable of defending my own position, because I was forced to see the other side. I welcome this. I guess they didn't. And while occasionally it still stings, I refuse to stop speaking out.
I have been called a bigot, a racist, homophobic. I have been told I am more concerned with other women's sex lives and that's why I"m pro-life. I have been told I am annoying and useless. And yet I still speak out.
The ability to speak out, to challenge, to verbalize our opinions is one of the foundations of society. If it wasn't for people speaking out, there would have never been a Revolutionary War, the Abolitionists Movement, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. All of those things challenged in a deep, profound, life-changing way, the status quo. People, individual people, made a difference.
So I will continue speaking out, and I'm challenging you to do the same.
I'll leave you with this little tidbit, from Steve Taylor's song:
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
Today I realized how appropriate those lyrics truly were, not just to the church, but to our political scene today.
I remember after the election, seeing posts on facebook where people were talking about how they didn't really speak out during the election, but now there were things going on they just couldn't keep silent about. Those posts made me angry. Most of the things that were so upsetting after the election were going on well before the election and during the election. Suddenly deciding to speak up now, when the damage is already done, seemed to me to be a case of "too little, too late".
You see, I believe we have a duty to at least TRY to make a difference when it comes to the things we believe in. Putting your head in the sand and not speaking out, for whatever reason, is a cowardly move. This will make people angry. I get it. We don't want to upset our friends or family. We want to keep the peace. I truly do understand that. Those things, however, do not let us off the hook. It just doesn't.
I can go back to that old saying from Germany during World War 2, about how someone didn't speak up, and when they came to take him, there was no one left to speak up for him. But we've heard that one before.
It's quite simple. If you don't speak out when it counts, when you could make a difference, when you could challenge the status quo, or all the news that fits the narrative, then really, how much right do you have to complain now?
In case you are still sitting there saying "But, people will delete me off facebook, or stop talking to me, or get angry, or..."
I have had 2 family members delete me and block me on facebook. Not because I said something hateful to them. Not because I was mean or horrid. Simply because I had the nerve to post an opinion different than theirs. I challenged their assumptions, and this made me persona non grata. They were constantly posting things that challenged my assumptions. They made me look deeper into what I thought. In many cases, they didn't change my opinion, but I became much more capable of defending my own position, because I was forced to see the other side. I welcome this. I guess they didn't. And while occasionally it still stings, I refuse to stop speaking out.
I have been called a bigot, a racist, homophobic. I have been told I am more concerned with other women's sex lives and that's why I"m pro-life. I have been told I am annoying and useless. And yet I still speak out.
The ability to speak out, to challenge, to verbalize our opinions is one of the foundations of society. If it wasn't for people speaking out, there would have never been a Revolutionary War, the Abolitionists Movement, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. All of those things challenged in a deep, profound, life-changing way, the status quo. People, individual people, made a difference.
So I will continue speaking out, and I'm challenging you to do the same.
I'll leave you with this little tidbit, from Steve Taylor's song:
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Liberal Logic 101
I am sorry if the name of this post offends my liberal friends. Wait. Nevermind. No I'm not sorry. The story I am about to share with you is a classic example of liberal logic at it's best.
If You Send Your Kid To Private School, You Are A Bad Person.
Yes, that really is the title of an article written and posted on Slate this morning. The title itself is a joke, but surely the article can't be as bad as it's title makes it sound. Right? Wrong.
If you feel up to reading it, please do so. If not, I'm here to point out some of the more asinine statements made by Ms. Benedikt.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murdererbad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
Let's start with the opening sentence. You aren't as bad as the Ft. Hood Shooter, or even George Zimmerman, but you are really bad. Why? Because the fact that you want the best for your own flesh and blood is selfish I tell you! Your personal decision about your child's education means public education will be ruined!
I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.
Yes Ms. Benedikt, you are being judgmental. You just told a good portion of your fellow citizens that they are bad people, because they pay their own hard earned money to not send their kids to a failing school. Think about that. Let's move on. "It could take generations...". Ok, so we sacrifice our children now, for something that may or may not happen somewhere down the road. Unless she's become psychic, she has no true idea if this plan will work. I wonder if she has kids, and has ever tried to change things within a system that is run by teacher's unions and politicians. Where teachers sit in school board meetings of school districts they don't even live in, and just demand that the district's citizens pay more in taxes so we can keep full day kindergarten, and we don't have to cut any staff. (In a school district where a good amount of classrooms have more than one teacher.) It's all for the common good. You sacrifice your kid, so maybe one day your great great great great grandchild can attend a better public school system.
She goes on to say that unless your kid is in the school, you aren't truly invested in how it works. That's true. I have often thought that people who send their kids to private school, or even homeschool, are taking care of their own without addressing the larger issue. Taking your kid out of public school doesn't solve the public school's problems. It just solves your own. However, a parent's highest calling is not to every other child in the country. It's to their own children. Dumping them in a failing school and then trying to change it, is not in the best interest of THEIR child. Ultimately, the author is saying you are a bad person if you don't sacrifice your own child to benefit future generations. (A benefit that we don't really know for a fact will happen. This is just one person's opinion.)
There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate. But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot. None of these are compelling reasons. Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt-in, not out
So, your child getting the best education you can provide for them is NOT a compelling reason to send them to a private school? Or better yet, send your kid to a substandard school because you want them to have the best education possible. Understanding of course, that your child won't get that education. Some future child might.
I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.
Wow. Okay. So now you have determined what my child and everyone else's child needs. It's not the best education, they don't need that. Nope. They'll be just fine in a school that teaches them that getting the answer right doesn't really matter. Where the teacher doesn't teach but just tells them to read the book and answer questions. None of that matters because they have supportive parents. (Who may or may not be able to teach them the correct way to solve for both x and y.)
After going on to say she got a terrible education in a school with no AP classes, and she even had a terrible college education (which she paid for, by the way), she turned out just fine. Your child will turn out fine too.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.
And there is your liberal logic. GIve up your child's good education now so that everyone will have a good education in 25 years. Not that it will really happen, but it might. And just the idea that this could work is reason enough.
There is more, go ahead and take a stab at reading it. Her colleagues that send their kids to private school are morally bankrupt. Her worldview was changed by getting drunk with the trailer park kids before basketball games. I'm sure these are all values you want instilled into your children. Reading Walt Whitman? Whatever. Getting drunk? RIght On!
Now comes my morally bankrupt, spent most of my life in private school, have sent my kids to both public and private school opinion.
Most of the children in America go to public schools. Quite a few of them have parents who care and who get involved. Not all parents have the same outlook on what's best, and their goals are not the same.
I sat in on a school board meeting last year where the discussion was on how to deal with our budget shortfall of 3 million dollars. (About what it cost to put in our state of the art turf football field a few years ago. The field used for a team that gets introduced with "they didn't count their victories in wins and losses". Mostly because the football team doesn't win games.) There were teachers and parents arguing that we keep full day kindergarten and just shorten the high school day (which would save the same amount of moeny). As a matter of fact, the general consensus of those people was that we should cut high school and middle school, while leaving elementary school intact. My guess is those people didn't have high school and middle school students. I heard a few before the meeting discussing the cost of childcare if they could only keep their kids in kindergarten for half a day. (Much much better for the school to shaft the high school so you don't have to pay for daycare, right?)
My point is, parents, depending on their children's ages, goals and what activities they participate in will fight for their OWN child. Not the collective good. A parent with a child in elementary school would much rather have their child's class sizes stay at 15-20, and keep all their teachers, than make class sizes 25 so the high school can keep an AP class. The elementary parent isn't considering high school yet. They have time for that. But me? My daughter is a senior, and she doesn't have time. This is her last year. I wanted her to be able to get her AP classes, still have a music program and get the best education she can get. So this idea that if parents who cared enough to put their kids in private school would just put their kids in public school. we could make the system better? Not likely. You'd have a variety of parents, with a variety of opinions on what is good and what isn't.
And this of course doesn't count in the teacher's unions. Who want higher pay, better benefits, less working days, less working hours, a whole class period every day so they can plan (because coming in early or staying late just isn't an option). This doesn't include the fact that firing a bad teacher is really hard because of union contracts.
It's not as simple as Ms. Benedikt makes it sound. Maybe because she's never had to deal with it. She's an idealist who has blindly ignored the reality of why our public school system is a failing, and has just decided that those parents who choose to not participate in that failing system are bad people. All we caring parents have to do is sacrifice our own child's education, and this will solve the problems that come from parents who don't care, don't get involved, etc..
Liberal Logic 101: Let's take away from one set of people and give to other people. This will solve all our problems. Except it doesn't. It doesn't count in human attributes at all. It doesn't account for individual ways of thinking. It doesn't make our kids smarter.
Wanting the best for your child and sacrificing to obtain that does not make you a bad person. And for Ms. Benedikt to say so, makes her woefully ignorant of what being a parent is all about. Maybe if she'd spend less time drinking and more time reading Walt Whitman....
If You Send Your Kid To Private School, You Are A Bad Person.
Yes, that really is the title of an article written and posted on Slate this morning. The title itself is a joke, but surely the article can't be as bad as it's title makes it sound. Right? Wrong.
If you feel up to reading it, please do so. If not, I'm here to point out some of the more asinine statements made by Ms. Benedikt.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murdererbad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
Let's start with the opening sentence. You aren't as bad as the Ft. Hood Shooter, or even George Zimmerman, but you are really bad. Why? Because the fact that you want the best for your own flesh and blood is selfish I tell you! Your personal decision about your child's education means public education will be ruined!
I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.
Yes Ms. Benedikt, you are being judgmental. You just told a good portion of your fellow citizens that they are bad people, because they pay their own hard earned money to not send their kids to a failing school. Think about that. Let's move on. "It could take generations...". Ok, so we sacrifice our children now, for something that may or may not happen somewhere down the road. Unless she's become psychic, she has no true idea if this plan will work. I wonder if she has kids, and has ever tried to change things within a system that is run by teacher's unions and politicians. Where teachers sit in school board meetings of school districts they don't even live in, and just demand that the district's citizens pay more in taxes so we can keep full day kindergarten, and we don't have to cut any staff. (In a school district where a good amount of classrooms have more than one teacher.) It's all for the common good. You sacrifice your kid, so maybe one day your great great great great grandchild can attend a better public school system.
She goes on to say that unless your kid is in the school, you aren't truly invested in how it works. That's true. I have often thought that people who send their kids to private school, or even homeschool, are taking care of their own without addressing the larger issue. Taking your kid out of public school doesn't solve the public school's problems. It just solves your own. However, a parent's highest calling is not to every other child in the country. It's to their own children. Dumping them in a failing school and then trying to change it, is not in the best interest of THEIR child. Ultimately, the author is saying you are a bad person if you don't sacrifice your own child to benefit future generations. (A benefit that we don't really know for a fact will happen. This is just one person's opinion.)
There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate. But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot. None of these are compelling reasons. Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt-in, not out
So, your child getting the best education you can provide for them is NOT a compelling reason to send them to a private school? Or better yet, send your kid to a substandard school because you want them to have the best education possible. Understanding of course, that your child won't get that education. Some future child might.
I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.
Wow. Okay. So now you have determined what my child and everyone else's child needs. It's not the best education, they don't need that. Nope. They'll be just fine in a school that teaches them that getting the answer right doesn't really matter. Where the teacher doesn't teach but just tells them to read the book and answer questions. None of that matters because they have supportive parents. (Who may or may not be able to teach them the correct way to solve for both x and y.)
After going on to say she got a terrible education in a school with no AP classes, and she even had a terrible college education (which she paid for, by the way), she turned out just fine. Your child will turn out fine too.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.
And there is your liberal logic. GIve up your child's good education now so that everyone will have a good education in 25 years. Not that it will really happen, but it might. And just the idea that this could work is reason enough.
There is more, go ahead and take a stab at reading it. Her colleagues that send their kids to private school are morally bankrupt. Her worldview was changed by getting drunk with the trailer park kids before basketball games. I'm sure these are all values you want instilled into your children. Reading Walt Whitman? Whatever. Getting drunk? RIght On!
Now comes my morally bankrupt, spent most of my life in private school, have sent my kids to both public and private school opinion.
Most of the children in America go to public schools. Quite a few of them have parents who care and who get involved. Not all parents have the same outlook on what's best, and their goals are not the same.
I sat in on a school board meeting last year where the discussion was on how to deal with our budget shortfall of 3 million dollars. (About what it cost to put in our state of the art turf football field a few years ago. The field used for a team that gets introduced with "they didn't count their victories in wins and losses". Mostly because the football team doesn't win games.) There were teachers and parents arguing that we keep full day kindergarten and just shorten the high school day (which would save the same amount of moeny). As a matter of fact, the general consensus of those people was that we should cut high school and middle school, while leaving elementary school intact. My guess is those people didn't have high school and middle school students. I heard a few before the meeting discussing the cost of childcare if they could only keep their kids in kindergarten for half a day. (Much much better for the school to shaft the high school so you don't have to pay for daycare, right?)
My point is, parents, depending on their children's ages, goals and what activities they participate in will fight for their OWN child. Not the collective good. A parent with a child in elementary school would much rather have their child's class sizes stay at 15-20, and keep all their teachers, than make class sizes 25 so the high school can keep an AP class. The elementary parent isn't considering high school yet. They have time for that. But me? My daughter is a senior, and she doesn't have time. This is her last year. I wanted her to be able to get her AP classes, still have a music program and get the best education she can get. So this idea that if parents who cared enough to put their kids in private school would just put their kids in public school. we could make the system better? Not likely. You'd have a variety of parents, with a variety of opinions on what is good and what isn't.
And this of course doesn't count in the teacher's unions. Who want higher pay, better benefits, less working days, less working hours, a whole class period every day so they can plan (because coming in early or staying late just isn't an option). This doesn't include the fact that firing a bad teacher is really hard because of union contracts.
It's not as simple as Ms. Benedikt makes it sound. Maybe because she's never had to deal with it. She's an idealist who has blindly ignored the reality of why our public school system is a failing, and has just decided that those parents who choose to not participate in that failing system are bad people. All we caring parents have to do is sacrifice our own child's education, and this will solve the problems that come from parents who don't care, don't get involved, etc..
Liberal Logic 101: Let's take away from one set of people and give to other people. This will solve all our problems. Except it doesn't. It doesn't count in human attributes at all. It doesn't account for individual ways of thinking. It doesn't make our kids smarter.
Wanting the best for your child and sacrificing to obtain that does not make you a bad person. And for Ms. Benedikt to say so, makes her woefully ignorant of what being a parent is all about. Maybe if she'd spend less time drinking and more time reading Walt Whitman....
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
That Which Divides Us.
My daughter was looking through posts on facebook the other night when she came across a term she didn't know: Cisgendered. I didn't have a clue either, so we looked it up.
Cisgender and cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describe related types of gender identity where an individual's self-perception of their gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth.
So we need a term to describe people who are okay with either having male sex organs or female sex organs.
I look around our country and watch politicians and regular people alike assign everyone they know to a group. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Male, Female, and now we have....Cisgender.
There used to be a time when we encouraged our children not to label people based on the circumstances of their birth. We told our kids not to judge a book by it's cover. Now, all we do is separate our society into groups based on skin color, religion, and it appears, sexual orientation. Now according to all those people fighting for transgender rights, I am obligated to qualify myself as cisgender?
Take a look at all those groups above. Instead of seeing what's different about them, try finding what's the same. Let me help you.
We all have a mother and a father. (Whether or not they were good parents, or even parents who were around, it's a basic biological fact that you need both to exist. Crappy parents is a post for another time.)
We all have a beating heart and a brain.
If you cut us, we all bleed.
We all have fears, hopes, goals and dreams.
We've all smiled, and we've all cried.
We all have unique personalities.
And yet, we divide ourselves, every day, based on one characteristic. Whether it's skin color or religion, political party or sexual orientation, we separate ourselves into groups.
I am not cisgendered. I'm a person. Just because I am a girl, who is perfectly okay with being a girl, doesn't mean I need to be separated into some group, just so that some other group has a name for me.
I am a white female, stay at home mother, of both Christian and Libertarian values. But beyond every single one of those individual things you will look at to label me, I AM A PERSON. Same as you. Same as my neighbors. Same as people who live on the other side of the world.
And as far as this country we live in? We have one more thing in common. We are all Americans.
You want to end divisiveness and hate and bigotry?
Stop.Labeling.People.
Period.
The End.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
On Outrage, Justice and What Comes Next.
For two days now, I've debated on whether or not to write this blog. There is way too much animosity and emotion in the subject I am about to discuss.
On July 11th, the body of Darryl Green, 17 year old black male, was found rotting face down on the floor in Chicago. Cause of death? Gunshot wound. His family says Darryl disappeared after refusing to join a gang.
On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, black male, age 17, was shot and killed at close range after an altercation with neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. This happened in a gated community in Sanford, FL.
Both of these deaths are tragedies. Both are young men snuffed out before their life ever really began. Only one made national news, occupied the airwaves for months, and has resulted in the most vile language and threats.
Why? Because one of them involved a Hispanic male, the other was most likely black on black violence in a city where kids dying has become normal. One is obviously seen as less of a tragedy, because President Obama has yet to stand up and say "If I had a son, he'd look like Darryl Green."
I'm so tired of the outrage and calls for justice in the death of Trayvon Martin, even after justice has clearly been served. A jury of 6 females acquitted George Zimmerman of both the charges of second degree murder and manslaughter. Plain and simple, the state of Florida did not have evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman acted in anything other than self defense. Him being a different skin color than Martin is not proof, because as the death of hundreds in Chicago has proven over and over again the last two years, black men are more than willing to shoot other black men.
And yet, as more and more young black men fall victim in the President's home town, there is so very little outrage, so few people demanding justice, so few people wondering what the heck is going on.
That was all reserved for the town of Sanford, FL, and one death, that by all evidence was a tragic shooting in self defense.
Trayvon Martin had 4 minutes from the time George Zimmerman placed his call to police dispatch, and the time that call ended, to walk the 80 yards to the house he was staying at. Get home, lock the doors, call 911. And yet, we are painfully aware of the fact that he chose not to do that. Before George Zimmerman ever left his truck, Martin took off running, not to his home, but to some other destination that would eventually lead to the confrontation that ended up being the last thing to happen in his life. I urge everyone to listen to that full four minute phone call. At one point in the call, George Zimmerman says he has no idea "where the kid is". We will never know what happened in the time between that phone call ending, and the gunshot, but we do know why Trayvon Martin didn't call the police, didn't go to the house 80 yards away, and ended up on top of George Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. The only injuries, outside of the gunshot wound, to Trayvon Martin, were knuckle injuries consistent with the testimony of George Zimmerman. We know the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with Martin being on top. The gun was fired at close range from a downward angle. And despite all efforts, even the FBI has stated that race was not a factor in the shooting.
It was a tragic death, and one we should maybe be using as a teachable moment. Instead, actors, sports figures, and musicians took to twitter and pontificated on racist America, told jury members they should commit suicide, and threatened the life of George Zimmerman. Not to mention the thousands of young people who offered to kill Zimmerman themselves. Seems we've learned nothing from this. Violence killed a 17 year old boy. And the response is more violence.
And in Chicago, the family of Darryl Green mourns in private. Most of this country doesn't even know he exists. His only crime was refusing to become part of the circle of violence decimating Chicago's young black male population.
Where is the outrage for all those other dead boys? Is this country so obsessed with race, that we only care if someone who is not black kills a black child? In Chicago, killing young black men is an industry, but because the shooters are other young black men, no one even pays attention.
In Chicago this year, more black children have died, then all the white children killed in Sandy Hook. In the past 40 years, we have killed more unborn black children, than black people have been killed since before the civil war. Where is the outrage over ANY of this?
There is none. There in only outrage reserved for this one death, this one tragic death.
What should come next is a serious discussion about why our young people think violence is the answer. Why bragging about fighting and beating people up is the cool thing to do. Why Trayvon Martin thought confrontation would be a better outcome than just going home.
A few years ago, a couple of drama enabled teenage girls showed up on my property trying to get my girls to come out and fight. My girls figured fighting wouldn't solve the problem, not to mention what their parents might have done when we found out. These girls were on our property, making threats, and yet, my girls locked the doors, stayed inside and alerted my husband and I. We walked out on the porch and had two teenage girls at 10 pm at night, screaming profanity at us, ON OUR PROPERTY. Once my husband stepped off the porch they ran like the girls they are, and then told all their friends they beat up my kids.
Maybe the problem isn't about race or George Zimmerman's gun, maybe it's that kids have no respect, think they are invincible and think violence solves problems. Maybe we should use this moment in time to start teaching our kids differently.
On July 11th, the body of Darryl Green, 17 year old black male, was found rotting face down on the floor in Chicago. Cause of death? Gunshot wound. His family says Darryl disappeared after refusing to join a gang.
On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, black male, age 17, was shot and killed at close range after an altercation with neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. This happened in a gated community in Sanford, FL.
Both of these deaths are tragedies. Both are young men snuffed out before their life ever really began. Only one made national news, occupied the airwaves for months, and has resulted in the most vile language and threats.
Why? Because one of them involved a Hispanic male, the other was most likely black on black violence in a city where kids dying has become normal. One is obviously seen as less of a tragedy, because President Obama has yet to stand up and say "If I had a son, he'd look like Darryl Green."
I'm so tired of the outrage and calls for justice in the death of Trayvon Martin, even after justice has clearly been served. A jury of 6 females acquitted George Zimmerman of both the charges of second degree murder and manslaughter. Plain and simple, the state of Florida did not have evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman acted in anything other than self defense. Him being a different skin color than Martin is not proof, because as the death of hundreds in Chicago has proven over and over again the last two years, black men are more than willing to shoot other black men.
And yet, as more and more young black men fall victim in the President's home town, there is so very little outrage, so few people demanding justice, so few people wondering what the heck is going on.
That was all reserved for the town of Sanford, FL, and one death, that by all evidence was a tragic shooting in self defense.
Trayvon Martin had 4 minutes from the time George Zimmerman placed his call to police dispatch, and the time that call ended, to walk the 80 yards to the house he was staying at. Get home, lock the doors, call 911. And yet, we are painfully aware of the fact that he chose not to do that. Before George Zimmerman ever left his truck, Martin took off running, not to his home, but to some other destination that would eventually lead to the confrontation that ended up being the last thing to happen in his life. I urge everyone to listen to that full four minute phone call. At one point in the call, George Zimmerman says he has no idea "where the kid is". We will never know what happened in the time between that phone call ending, and the gunshot, but we do know why Trayvon Martin didn't call the police, didn't go to the house 80 yards away, and ended up on top of George Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. The only injuries, outside of the gunshot wound, to Trayvon Martin, were knuckle injuries consistent with the testimony of George Zimmerman. We know the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with Martin being on top. The gun was fired at close range from a downward angle. And despite all efforts, even the FBI has stated that race was not a factor in the shooting.
It was a tragic death, and one we should maybe be using as a teachable moment. Instead, actors, sports figures, and musicians took to twitter and pontificated on racist America, told jury members they should commit suicide, and threatened the life of George Zimmerman. Not to mention the thousands of young people who offered to kill Zimmerman themselves. Seems we've learned nothing from this. Violence killed a 17 year old boy. And the response is more violence.
And in Chicago, the family of Darryl Green mourns in private. Most of this country doesn't even know he exists. His only crime was refusing to become part of the circle of violence decimating Chicago's young black male population.
Where is the outrage for all those other dead boys? Is this country so obsessed with race, that we only care if someone who is not black kills a black child? In Chicago, killing young black men is an industry, but because the shooters are other young black men, no one even pays attention.
In Chicago this year, more black children have died, then all the white children killed in Sandy Hook. In the past 40 years, we have killed more unborn black children, than black people have been killed since before the civil war. Where is the outrage over ANY of this?
There is none. There in only outrage reserved for this one death, this one tragic death.
What should come next is a serious discussion about why our young people think violence is the answer. Why bragging about fighting and beating people up is the cool thing to do. Why Trayvon Martin thought confrontation would be a better outcome than just going home.
A few years ago, a couple of drama enabled teenage girls showed up on my property trying to get my girls to come out and fight. My girls figured fighting wouldn't solve the problem, not to mention what their parents might have done when we found out. These girls were on our property, making threats, and yet, my girls locked the doors, stayed inside and alerted my husband and I. We walked out on the porch and had two teenage girls at 10 pm at night, screaming profanity at us, ON OUR PROPERTY. Once my husband stepped off the porch they ran like the girls they are, and then told all their friends they beat up my kids.
Maybe the problem isn't about race or George Zimmerman's gun, maybe it's that kids have no respect, think they are invincible and think violence solves problems. Maybe we should use this moment in time to start teaching our kids differently.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Confessions of an Independent Turned Libertarian
How many people reading this truly remember September 11, 2001? Do you remember exactly how you felt, or has the passage of time muted those feelings?
My daughter said this past year, on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, that really, her class was the last one that truly remembers anything about that day. She may be right, but even then, I think most of us have forgotten so much. Especially those of us who weren't in New York City, Shanksville, or Washington D.C.
We were scared, in a way I don't think the American public has been scared since Pearl Harbor or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Pearl Harbor was our entry to World War II. The Cuban Missile Crisis gave stronger legs to the Cold War and also to our involvement in Vietnam. 9/11 gave us the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.
If you look at the numbers, at the time, for the approval of the Patriot Act, they were high. People wanted to be safe. While there were lone detractors, most Americans were willing to sacrifice a little in the name of safety. Of course, in all honesty, the Patriot Act, as it exists now, is far worse than it was in the first days of its passage, but that's the way government works. We were scared, and we consented to a reduction in freedom for safety.
Today, we are bowing under the burden of multiple government scandals, the biggest one being the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA), is monitoring the phone records of Verizon customers, and monitoring the internet actions of members of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and even Facebook. It seems the places we spend the most time, the government has decided concerns of our National Security. Who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are calling them from, how long we talk to them, what we share on facebook, what we search for on the internet via search engines. It's crazy, right?
There were voices crying in the wilderness that this would happen, way back when the Patriot Act was first passed, but most people brushed those voices aside.
I was one of those people who brushed aside the warnings, and I'm here to confess. I was wrong. Whether or not the this monstrous intrusiveness was initiated under the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, I was wrong. Even if the original intent of the Patriot Act was only to track the activities of those suspected of terrorism, I was wrong. With the exponential growth of the Government, year after year, Administration after Administration, it was foolish for anyone to believe that we wouldn't eventually come to this point. Power corrupts, you know. I was scared, and I wasn't thinking long term or down the road. I was thinking only that my world had changed dramatically, in just a few hours, and my children would be forced to grow up in this new world, which was far more frightening than the old world. I was wrong.
What puzzles me, is that the voices that were so clear, those voices in the wilderness back in the aftermath of 9/11, many of those voices are notoriously silent. Some are even defending this policy, now, when under a different President, they were screaming bloody murder. I've started to think many of those voices were simply partisan voices, trying to undermine one administration. Especially those voices going on during the election of 2004. Where are they now?
I was wrong. The overreaching power grab by the Bush Administration, backed by a bipartisan majority of the Congress and Senate was wrong. And if it was so wrong back then, it's even more wrong today. Anyone who decried that action nine years ago, but is silent today, is the worst kind of hypocrite. The actions didn't get better, they got worse, as is almost always the case when the government seizes control of something new. If it was bad then, if it was a civil liberties violation then, it is even more so now.
I realized a few months ago, that I never quite understood Patrick Henry's speech on the floor of Congress. I never quite understood what he meant. If I had, I would have been less supportive of the Patriot Act, and more supportive of the voices in the wilderness, now gone silent. "Give me liberty or give me death."
I'd rather face the barrel of a gun, than face the erosion of my freedom. That's what Mr. Henry meant, and that's what, in our fear, in our life altering moment, that's what we forgot.
Do you remember how you felt on September 11? I do, and it doesn't change that I was wrong.
My daughter said this past year, on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, that really, her class was the last one that truly remembers anything about that day. She may be right, but even then, I think most of us have forgotten so much. Especially those of us who weren't in New York City, Shanksville, or Washington D.C.
We were scared, in a way I don't think the American public has been scared since Pearl Harbor or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Pearl Harbor was our entry to World War II. The Cuban Missile Crisis gave stronger legs to the Cold War and also to our involvement in Vietnam. 9/11 gave us the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.
If you look at the numbers, at the time, for the approval of the Patriot Act, they were high. People wanted to be safe. While there were lone detractors, most Americans were willing to sacrifice a little in the name of safety. Of course, in all honesty, the Patriot Act, as it exists now, is far worse than it was in the first days of its passage, but that's the way government works. We were scared, and we consented to a reduction in freedom for safety.
Today, we are bowing under the burden of multiple government scandals, the biggest one being the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA), is monitoring the phone records of Verizon customers, and monitoring the internet actions of members of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and even Facebook. It seems the places we spend the most time, the government has decided concerns of our National Security. Who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are calling them from, how long we talk to them, what we share on facebook, what we search for on the internet via search engines. It's crazy, right?
There were voices crying in the wilderness that this would happen, way back when the Patriot Act was first passed, but most people brushed those voices aside.
I was one of those people who brushed aside the warnings, and I'm here to confess. I was wrong. Whether or not the this monstrous intrusiveness was initiated under the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, I was wrong. Even if the original intent of the Patriot Act was only to track the activities of those suspected of terrorism, I was wrong. With the exponential growth of the Government, year after year, Administration after Administration, it was foolish for anyone to believe that we wouldn't eventually come to this point. Power corrupts, you know. I was scared, and I wasn't thinking long term or down the road. I was thinking only that my world had changed dramatically, in just a few hours, and my children would be forced to grow up in this new world, which was far more frightening than the old world. I was wrong.
What puzzles me, is that the voices that were so clear, those voices in the wilderness back in the aftermath of 9/11, many of those voices are notoriously silent. Some are even defending this policy, now, when under a different President, they were screaming bloody murder. I've started to think many of those voices were simply partisan voices, trying to undermine one administration. Especially those voices going on during the election of 2004. Where are they now?
I was wrong. The overreaching power grab by the Bush Administration, backed by a bipartisan majority of the Congress and Senate was wrong. And if it was so wrong back then, it's even more wrong today. Anyone who decried that action nine years ago, but is silent today, is the worst kind of hypocrite. The actions didn't get better, they got worse, as is almost always the case when the government seizes control of something new. If it was bad then, if it was a civil liberties violation then, it is even more so now.
I realized a few months ago, that I never quite understood Patrick Henry's speech on the floor of Congress. I never quite understood what he meant. If I had, I would have been less supportive of the Patriot Act, and more supportive of the voices in the wilderness, now gone silent. "Give me liberty or give me death."
I'd rather face the barrel of a gun, than face the erosion of my freedom. That's what Mr. Henry meant, and that's what, in our fear, in our life altering moment, that's what we forgot.
Do you remember how you felt on September 11? I do, and it doesn't change that I was wrong.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
What Do We Know About Benghazi
I'm sure a lot of my more conservative friends will take issue with what I'm about to write, but I've always been more interested in truth than in appeasing someone.
I watched portions of the most recent Benghazi hearings. Several news organizations revealed the trail of emails that led to the final talking points released on the Benghazi hearings. I think we can safely assume at this point, that the President isn't the one who ordered the talking points changed. Whether or not he knew about it, whether or not he deliberately lied, are questions left for another day. The orchestration of the lie, however, can be laid directly at the feet of the State Department. Simply put, emails reveal that the State Dept. had issues with the the talking points, because they feared what Congress may say or do if it became known that we were well aware there was terrorist activity, and it was prevalent, in Benghazi. One of the emails came right out and said it. So, for political protection and coverage, whole swaths of the talking points were removed, and the first ambassador's death in 30 years was attributed to a non-existent protest related to an obscure video. We know this now, along with knowing the repeated requests for additional security were denied. We also know that the Benghazi Consulate was kept open, because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt that it would show goodwill to the Libyans.
The fault for the coverup lies directly at the feet of a State Department, who realized that the ugly truth about terrorism in Libya was about to come to light. It wouldn't do for the narrative of the administration, that Osama bin Laden was dead and Al-Qaeda was on the run, to be blown to bits by an obvious terrorist attack. Nor would it do for the American Public to realize that the threat from terrorists was well known, and had caused other foreign entities and charitable organizations to pull out and go home.
it appears that Susan Rice was never briefed on the truth, turning her into a scapegoat for a false narrative. We don't have any idea what the President knew and when he knew it, since he isn't saying, and frankly, it appears he gets his information from the news just like the rest of us. Possibly, had he decided to preside over the ongoing tragedy in Benghazi on 9/11, instead of going to bed, he might have known more. He is responsible for shirking his duty in favor of sleep. He is responsible for not keeping a reign on the people who work for him (see..IRS, DOJ and HHS). But in the end, the responsibility for the outrageous lie told to the American people lies at the feet of the State Department, in a sweeping implementation of CYA.
My question now is...who's getting the axe for it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)