Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Two Conversations

There are two conversations that took place in our house today that need recording.

First, this morning.
Reid: Hey Daddy, do you know what store I got this shirt from?
Ben: Goodwill
Reid: No daddy. Guess again.
Ben: Goodwill
Reid: No! Guess which store it is from.
Ben: Goodwill
Reid: No, it's not from goodwill.
Ben: Well then where is it from?
Reid: Nike! *pause* Can you cut off this tag?
Ben cuts off tag that clearly states: Goodwill.
I suppose it's a good thing Reid can't read yet.


Just now (yes, like ten minutes ago -- cause apparently I'm now blogging about US breaking news).
I'm alone in the bathroom (yes, on the toilet), reading an NPR article that's just five minutes new.
Me: WOW!!!
Nell enters and asks me how I got hurt (ha! She thinks I screamed "ow)
Me: I'm not hurt. I'm just reading the news.
Then I lean in so our foreheads are touching and I change my voice like I'm sharing a murderous secret
Me: President Trump is CRAZY! *pause*
Me: *whisper* And I secretly hope he ends up in jail. *closes with a giddy smile*
She must think I'm nuts after this exchange. But she just left the room and went back to watching Numberjacks on Youtube.

Seriously, I haven't been following these Russia stories all that closely. But now ... now I'm convinced this is another Watergate. He's hiding something. He cannot possibly last four years. And in four years, I'll check back here and see if I'm right. And Reid will understand what Goodwill is (and that it's the only way he'll get high-brand clothing). 

Friday, January 27, 2017

Refusing Labels: Reflections on Abortion as Both a Political and Moral Issue



I am not pro-life, and I am not pro-choice. I am not anti-abortion, and I am not pro-abortion.

This stance may seem contradictory, but it makes perfect sense in my head. I cannot comfortably align myself with either of the political movements or any simple black and white positions on abortion. If you would like to understand why that is, read on. I do not share my thoughts in attempt to persuade or convince anyone. I share them as a means of expression, with the goal of creating greater understanding. I feel it is important to admit I do not perfectly understand everything (or anything), so I welcome others to share their thoughts and experiences with the hope that they might add to my own understanding.

I'm going to work backwards, starting with the last of my four opening statements. I am not pro-abortion. I respect the sanctity of life. I believe in God's command to multiply and replenish the Earth. I have four beautiful children of my own, and I respect the process by which they were given life. It is both grueling and immensely rewarding. Because of these deep seated personal and religious beliefs, I oppose elective abortions for personal or social convenience.

However, I am not anti-abortion. I acknowledge that under rare circumstances there is moral justification for an elective abortion. A woman who is raped should have unfettered access to a safe and legal abortion. When a competent physician tells an expectant mother that either she or the child will not survive the birthing process, she should have immediate access to a safe and legal abortion. I am grateful for the medical advancements in both chemical and surgical abortion procedures that provide these women choices. These procedures have saved lives, both during the rare exceptions that should be made for elective abortions and also after the harrowing experiences of miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion) and ectopic pregnancies. There are times these chemical and surgical abortions are vital to preserving a woman's reproductive organs, and thus pave the way for future successful pregnancies.

I do believe women should be given these choices, and I believe these choices are deeply personal. These choices are only between the woman, her physician, her partner, and her personal faith. I do not want legislators regulating this process. Yet, I don't identify as pro-choice. To many, the pro-choice movement is equivalent to pro-abortion, and as stated above I am not pro-abortion. I cannot get behind the rallying cry of "my body, my choice", because I acknowledge there is a second body in formation. That second body, even in it's earliest stages, is part of a natural and beautiful life-forming process. That process should be respected and honored.

Yet, I cannot align myself with the pro-life movement, because I have yet to see legislation that compassionately acknowledges the necessity of exceptions as mentioned above. In addition, most of the recent legislation we are seeing goes beyond just regulating elective abortions for personal or social convenience and extends the arm of the government into the heartbreaking experience of miscarriage. I can in no way support a political agenda that includes regulation of the most personal and intimate moments of a grieving woman's life. I cannot endorse legislation that creates the potential for women who miscarry to be interrogated during their grief. I will not stand for that.

So where does that leave me? Am I a passionate and informed citizen with no path forward?

Absolutely not. While I may not neatly align with either established political movement, I am free to act. I will teach those under my influence about the sanctity of life and its creative power. I will support legislation that seeks to prevent the number one cause of abortion: unwanted pregnancy. I will fight for comprehensive and science based sexual education courses. I will fight for a woman's right to pay the same in health care premiums as a man (her reproductive organs should not be a financial burden -- for what would man be without them?). I will fight for her right to access affordable birth control. I will fight for her right to healthcare that is not predicated on employment or familial status. I will donate to clinics that take frightened teens and college aged women under their arm and provide them with prenatal care and adoption information and guidance. I do not have to align myself with a defined political movement in order to make a difference. 

Pregnancy must be viewed as the beautiful, naturally occurring process that gives us all life. Women should not be discriminated against because they are in the midst of this process. I will fight against that discrimination. Women must be given adequate time and space to heal after delivery. Women need a network of support in order to successfully nurture a child in infancy. Until we create family friendly healthcare and leave policies, women will continue to experience pressure towards having abortions for personal and professional convenience. Until we end the stigma that is attached to being an unmarried mother, women will continue to seek abortions for personal and social convenience. This is a struggle our greatest feminist heroines understood. Even when abortion was completely prohibited, these women spoke of the need to protect the unborn child. They knew that women experienced abortions, regardless of their legality, because of the stigma attached to being an unmarried mother and/or the demands required to care for and properly nurture a child into adulthood. If we as a society still have not taken steps to end that stigma and support both the mother and child, we certainly can not expect to end abortions. Elizabeth Stanton, Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B Anthony -- they understood the complexity of this topic and its relation to female empowerment.

Abortion exists because women are not equal to men (does the man have to wear the scarlet letter?). Abortions have been and are performed regardless of legal status. Prohibition is unable to end the demand for abortions; treating women with compassion, respect, and honor might. If, like me, you find yourself stuck somewhere in the crossfire -- not wholly aligning with either the pro-life or pro-choice movement -- please, please, please take action. Donate to a women's clinic or shelter. Inform yourself, and vote for legislators that prioritize the prevention of unwanted pregnancies over displays of partisan piety. Show compassion toward women who face(d) the tough choice to abort or keep their pregnancy. Refrain from judgement. Use your voice to help others see that a meaningful solution to this problem will only be found when we work together and honestly seek a better understanding of opposing views.

Friday, November 11, 2016

The Irony of Political Correctness

For a long time now many people have been complaining about our overly politically correct society. I usually hold my breath and try to keep my eyes in place. Most of us see politically correct speech as simple common decency, good manners, and respect for others' feelings.

During this election, there was certainly an underlining pushback against political correctness. "Donald Trump tells it how it is," said so many people who were relieved to finally not worry about their language.

So how is it?

Turns out, telling it how it is means calling Latinos rapists and drug dealers. Telling it how it is means assuming anyone who practices Islam is terrorist threat. Telling it how it is means encouraging people to punch those who disagree with your opinion. Throw political opponents in jail. Screw political correctness (common decency and the law) time to tell it how it is.

So now, we find ourselves in a place where the very people who wanted political correctness thrown out the window are being lumped together and labeled bigots, misogynists, racists. Those are hard labels to swallow for sure. But the irony is if you've ever complained about political correctness, you wanted people to have the privilege of saying whatever they felt, regardless of your feelings. You wanted the privilege of labeling people however you wanted, with complete disregard to how they wanted to label themselves.

Donald Trump's victory signaled a victory over political correctness. So don't act surprised that the people who's requests you ignored for more than a decade are now using terms to describe you in derogatory light.

Of course, as you see from my post yesterday, I refuse to be a part of that. I refuse to label all Trump supporters as misogynist or racist. But a long time ago I also stopped using words like retarded or gay when what I actually meant was stupid. I even finally found the courage to speak out against people who do use those words (or others that are much worse: fag, nigger, wetback, etc, and so forth).

I believe in political correctness. I believe in good manners. If you didn't want a world where everyone was aiming for political correctness, you have to live in a world where people call you names. If you didn't speak up and speak out against Donald Trump when he used derogatory language, it feels insincere that you are just now asking for the name calling to stop.  

Thursday, November 10, 2016

A Critique For My Political Party

First, and I know this may feel like salt in the wound, but do you see now why so many of us wanted Bernie? I live in Wisconsin, a state that made a big impact on Wednesday morning's decision. I firmly believe that had we elected Bernie we would have won Wisconsin. He appealed to the so called "working class white man" that you abandoned. In return, they abandoned you. Listen to the people in your heartland. 

From the get go, I probably agreed with Clinton on more policy issues than Sanders. But I always strive to understand the American people from both sides of the political spectrum (born rural, raised liberal). Going into this election I understood two things. People were overwhelmingly skeptical of Clinton. People were overwhelmingly ready for an outsider. Supporting Sanders was an acknowledgement of those two realities. I am proud of the campaign Clinton ran. I went with her, even after it felt like the party establishment robbed me of my voice. All I ask is that you stop appointing the next party candidate before you even hear from your base. Stop pulling strings to get your person in. Listen to us. 

And if you are now listening, I want to repeat: you abandoned the working class white men in your heartland. I hear a lot of talk about getting more minorities to vote -- which is a wonderful idea. Let's do that. But you will not survive if your focus is on minorities. You lost because your once strong base of white voters in the heartland feels like you stopped focusing on their economic future. For example, in my predominately white home county you won in 2012 by 4 points and lost this year by 7. That's an 11 point difference in the seventh most populous county in the state. The county to my north, sixth most populous, had a 12 point difference in the same direction. More votes from Milwaukee will not fix this problem. You needed more voters from the two urban communities and several rural communities that surround me. I know you realized this in the final hour; Tim Kaine came to Appleton last week and Chelsea Clinton to Oshkosh a few days later. Sadly, those efforts were too little, too late.

Now, on to other what ifs. What if the people who voted for Trump aren't actually bigots and misogynists? What if they really just want term limits, an end to NATO (scary, I know), and those trade jobs back (not happening, I know). What if they simply feel squeezed by heavy taxes and still abandoned by limited (and costly) health insurance? Their vote wasn't a personal attack on you. I know it feels like it was, so go ahead and grieve. But when you are done please see hope instead of fear. Please stop name calling. Go high. 

On the flip side of that. President Elect Trump did say many, many racially charged things. He gave rise to the alt-right and was endorsed by the KKK. During his many years in the public eye we have heard him make misogynistic and sexists comments. Over and over and over. 

Entertain me on a new thought trail here. It's relevant. I'm kind of weary of the current bully discussions going on in American classrooms. When Reid calls someone a bully I remind him that one mean comment does not a bully make. I refuse to let him label his sister's playtime rejections as bullying. I remind him that a bully creates a pattern. A bully intends to intimidate and degrade. I refuse to let him label bad behavior as bullying. 

Back on point. Donald Trump is a bully. 

He is a racist. He is a misogynist. If you voted for him and you don't acknowledge these truths you have fooled yourself. I want to reiterate my earlier point, this does not mean all his supporters are racist or sexist. But he is. 

My children woke up Wednesday morning and found out a bully is their President Elect. We had a long conversation about loving everyone, even bullies. In fact, I've taught them (before this election and again Wednesday morning) that sometimes the best thing to do is reach out and be the bully's friend. When we said our family prayers that morning we prayed that Donald Trump would learn to talk nice about other people. We will continue to pray he has a change of rhetoric. Oh how I pray he will stop degrading women and alienating minorities. Our country, my children, deserve better.

And to end on a light note, yesterday Nell told me she is going to teach Satan to be nice. And she followed that with confidence, "I"m going to teach Donald Trump to be nice too." Your party still has a bright future.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Friday Night Quick Takes

1. In my last post I mentioned that Reid gave his first talk in Primary last Sunday. I actually spoke in Sacrament meeting that same week. Rather than having a weekly sermon offered by a priest or preacher, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints take turns giving talks from the pulpit. A member of the Bishopric decides on a theme for the meeting and assigns three (or two or four) speakers a topic from the theme. We're usually given two to three weeks notice to prepare.

My topic was compassion for others and I really appreciated the opportunity to study examples of compassion in the scriptures. Ben invited one of his colleagues to come and she was sweet enough to hold Nell through out my entire speech. Reid raised his hand the moment I took the pulpit. It was sweet, watching his eager little face stare at me, just waiting for me to call on him. Ha! I was asked to prepare a 15 minute talk, but ended up only having about 7 minutes to give it. I was crossing out paragraphs and full pages right before I took to the stand. Here's a link to the original talk; eight pages I had to cut down to four right on the spot (the speaker just before me actually used the parable of the Good Samaritan (he spoke on empathy), so that was easy to cut).

2.  I snapped this photo after we got home from Church and the stress of giving a talk (and helping Reid with his) had disappeared. I actually took it so I could show my dad that Coraline got dressed at least once this week. We're not total bums Grandpa.

3. When I was a missionary in Malaysia I promised one sweet man I'd teach my kids to eat with "the original spoon." It was generally understood that missionaries who used their hands to eat had fully embraced Malaysian culture -- and trust me, I embraced it! I love Borneo Island! Anyway, Nell required no teaching. This girl is a natural!


4. She constantly cracks everyone up. Even complete strangers. I spent 14 minutes in a cardio class today at the gym, yes, just 14 minutes, and I was totally worn out. After picking up the girls from drop in child care we all took a seat in the lobby. Nell kept insisting we go watch Reid in his swimming lesson and I told her I needed a minute to relax because I was out of breath. She quickly responded "Here, you can have some of mine!" And then very sweetly leaned in to blow fresh air toward my mouth. The man sitting across from us got a chuckle out of that. And of course, when she announced "There, all better. Let's go see Reid," I had to get up and take them to the super stuffy swimming pool area. 

5. Reid hit Nell with a full fledged punch in the stomach today. It was awesome. Proud parenting moment. I didn't even know how to adequately respond. He was sent to his room and I later told him he should never punch anyone. He mentioned he could punch Satan, but I stuck with my rule. We don't punch anyone, ever. Not even if they punch first (disagree with me all you want on that one, but I'm the parent and that's my rule). First, I told him he'd probably never see Satan, and that if he did the only way to really get rid of him is to command him, in the name of Jesus Christ, to leave. So we practiced telling Satan to leave, which I'm sure will come in super handy some day. 

6. Ben and I watched the first two episodes of Fuller House tonight. We both laughed several times and I got a little teary eyed more than once. It's super cheesy and completely hammed up, but I think we could all use a little wholesome throwback to TGIF. Ben mentioned he'd be interested in a Family Matters reunion. So many good memories of family friendly Friday night TV. 

7. Last night I watched the Republican debate. It was not family friendly, and it was only funny in a scary sort of way. Seriously, Trump and Cruz are the people we want to teach our kids to emulate and respect? No thank you. It is the first one I've seen this election season. I was cheering on Marco Rubio as he took on Trump. He was so cool and collected about it. I was really impressed. I hope and pray that either one of the Democrat candidates or Rubio or Kasich (who doesn't have a prayer) make it to the White House. Heaven help us if it's Trump or Cruz! It'll be interesting to see if the GOP has a brokered convention.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

How Others Tell Their Story

I am not a fan of Beyonce. It's not her, it's that I just don't like R&B. In fact, I tuned in to the Superbowl at Halftime and said (out loud, to myself) "stop showing me those dancers, I want to see his fingers run up and down that piano!" (note: Coldplay is my favorite band, and I don't even know the name of their lead singer -- that's how much I care about famous people).

But yesterday I was cued in to what Beyonce is actually doing. Now, I am awestruck by the beauty of her art. I have watched her music video, Formation, more than a dozen times. Often, my children are hovered over my shoulders asking questions like "Does she drown? What happened to that city?" "What are those police officers doing in that line?" Why do they surrender to that little girl?"

I don't even know how to answer their questions. I start with simple corrections. "It's a boy." As the questions are repeated over and over I start to offer simple explanations of the metaphor, "The police put their hands up because they realize they aren't scared of that little boy."

Yesterday, I read nearly every bit of commentary I could find, trying to fully understand her metaphors and her message. That's the beauty of art, there is so much to learn it is nearly impossible to soak it all in after just one day, just one viewing. Of all the essays and interviews I read, White People: Shut Up About Beyonce is my favorite. I've read it at least a half dozen times.

The line of riot police surrendering to the power of a beautiful dancing child is not “anti-white” or “anti-police.” It is pro-hope, pro-life, pro-art, and pro-Black. If you don’t like the metaphor of the line of white police officers here, I suggest you spend some time thinking about why BeyoncĂ© chose it.

The Formation video and the Superbowl show are examples of a powerful Black woman at the top of her game brilliantly telling Black stories for Black people, brilliantly seizing the narrative and asserting the beauty, power, and truth of a people who have been stringently and deliberately silenced for centuries in this country.


I want to help prove this author's point. Here are two assignments for you. First, if you think Beyonce's new song is anti-police, please, please tell me how. I have not heard one argument explaining how anything Beyonce does is anti-police, just a lot of chitter chatter that it is. Here's the thing, I wouldn't let my 8th grade students make a claim without any supporting evidence to back it, so why should I let you do it? I'm waiting, explain to me what it is about Beyonce's message that is threatening to police or white people? 

I'll wait. 

Now, think of one story about a Black person that you have heard told from the perspective of a Black person? Who taught you about Martin Luther King? Who introduced you to Oprah? Who taught you about Mae Jemison, Robert Smalls, or Harriet E Wilson (look 'em up)? Tell me one famous Black person whose story is told from their own perspective? 

Ah, you've caught me. Fredrick Douglas. That famous slave narrative your 10th grade English teacher made you study. Ever wondered about other slave autobiographies? Why is Douglass' always the one we choose to study, is it because his makes white people the least uncomfortable? (I've read others and my answer is yes).

Sure, Black stories have been told for centuries. We've been sensitive to their history and their heroes. But we've only ever done so on our own terms. Beyonce is telling her story on her terms, from her perspective, with her beautiful voice. It's a shame so many of us are choosing to be offended. She doesn't tell her story to make you comfortable. She doesn't tell her story to make you the hero. She's telling her story because she's an artist. This is her truth, and you don't get to dictate how other's tell their stories. And since their stories aren't about you, you have no reason to be offended by them.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

To My Children: About War

I originally wrote this on December 13, 2015. I suppose I never finished it as intended. I tried to close the letter as I proofed it today, but I have decided to leave it unedited and unfinished. 

Dear Children,

Earlier this week various news outlets were covering Harvard's IOP poll. The poll covered a few different issues, but the one that grabbed headlines had to do with ground war. You see, people who took the poll (age 18 to 29) were in favor of sending ground troops to fight ISIS -- the current Middle East Extremist Islamic Terrorist group that has meddled in Western interests (it is important to note here, that Boko Haram is actually the most violent terrorist group in the world, but since Boko Haram terrorizes Africans instead of Westerners they hardly ever make it into the news -- think on that for a minute). However, an equal amount of individuals polled said they would not go fight that war themselves.

I hope you find this as shameful as your mother does. Dear Children, never, ever, ever expect someone to risk their life protecting your family if you yourself are not wiling to risk your life protecting your family. The word entitled is not nearly strong enough. Selfish. Egotistical. Really, there is no adequate word to describe how disgusted I am with this finding. This survey reveals the height of hypocrisy. How can anyone say they support a war they are not willing to fight?

I hope you will understand what Isaiah meant when he said nations will turn their swords into plowshares. And I hope you know how vital it is that you strive for this kind of peace on Earth. I hope you will understand that the endless wars between the Lamanites and Nephites led both groups away from God. And I hope you will admire the true conversion of the Anti-Lehi-Nephi's. I hope that in your understanding of the scriptures you will recognize that war is not of God. Yes, the scriptures may speak of wars and rumors of wars at the end times, but do not confuse yourself into thinking that means you can support the violence of the last days. The commandment we are given from the Master is to love our enemy, even pray for him. As Brigham Young taught, God never institutes war. He is not the author of confusion or of war. "Confusion and war necessarily come as the results of the foolish acts and policy of men; but they do not come because God desires they should come."

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

I am Conservative

Today, as I was hauling buckets of water across my yard, I contemplated just how conservative I am. The water was from our backyard pool (Reid filled it to the brim for hours of splashing fun), and I was transferring the water 70 yards, in a couple of buckets, to our fruit trees. It wasn't hard work, but it sure wasn't easy. It would have been much easier to dump all those gallons of water on to my nice, green lawn before turning the hose on my trees. But I am conservative. Note, I do not live in a region that experiences drought; we maintain our own well. Yet, my love of conserving precious resources had me lugging those buckets back and forth across my lawn (it took seven trips, two buckets at a time).

We have four fruit trees (the goal is to eventually have six). We have a 23x17 square foot vegetable garden. Our basement is full of food and non perishable overstock items -- preparing ourselves for any sort of personal financial emergency or natural disaster.

I support marriage between one man and one woman, and I believe, by law, they should vow to be fiercely loyal to one another. I believe sex should be reserved for such a marriage, thus eliminating almost any need for an abortion.

If ever in office, I would support abortion reforms. I would support a bill that would cut Federal spending by half. Half! I would support a balanced budget amendment.

I love religion. I love guns. I love my country.

I am conservative.

And yet, I don't identify at all with the Republican party.



I am a conservationist.

I believe the current fight for "traditional marriage" is one of the most blatant forms of hypocrisy our country has ever seen. I know the best way to reduce our abortion rate is not anti-abortion laws or protests. Abstinence only education does not work.

My balanced budget would cut all subsidies to any corporation or commodity that generates a profit. Almost all your tax deductions would be gone.

I want a country that takes care of it's poor. Better yet, a country that doesn't have any poor.

If our country stopped shedding blood and spreading arms across the globe, I believe we'd reap what we sow here on our own soil.

So yes, my life choices are just about as conservative as it gets -- but I don't identify at all with the Republican party. I know I'm just one lousy voter, but I think it is something they should consider. I abhor their policies, yet I'd make the perfect recruit.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Truth

For the first time in the history of this blog (coming up on 8 long years) I am going to tackle Gay Marriage. That's right, it is the only controversial topic I have NEVER discussed. Abortion, check; marijuana, check; universal health care, check; Glenn Beck being a horrible person, check (not my greatest moment, but it happened and quickly became very controversial).

Gay marriage, silence. Complete and utter silence, and today I break it (in case you are checking me on this, there was one post where I used the term, but it was to demonstrate a different point -- which is actually pretty relevant to this post, so feel free to read it first: Advice from the opinionated about opinions)

Even as I approach this subject, I don't really know what to say. So I'm sticking with truths I know.

First, it was within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on this matter. The court was set up for this very purpose and it fulfilled its duty by taking up the case and giving a firm yay or nay.

Second, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that could have justified a different outcome from the Supreme Court.

And finally, as individuals and a society we owe our children a loving mother and a loving father. I know the issue is much, much more complicated than that (thus the silence), but I cannot deny that truth. It is more than my faith, it is more than social science, it is truth.


Update:
Okay, so I found this old gem, in which I state my support for marriage between one man and one woman. And of course there was my "bake you a cake" post, followed by a "religious liberty" post. So maybe I have discussed this topic in round about ways before, and if you have excellent reading comprehension and memory you would know that I both a) support traditional marriage and b) think same sex marriage should be upheld by law. But tonight, I just felt the need to put those two thoughts together as one.  

Monday, April 13, 2015

We Demonize the Poor: A Book Review for "Three Little Words"

Once upon a time I had a reading blog. I also had a lofty goal to read all the English language's greatest pieces of literature.

Both those things are pretty much dead.

Oh how I miss books; not reading, I still read a ton. I miss turning pages in a hard bound book -- one without pictures, one without animal characters. I long for great literature and great books.

But I'm also a realist, and I don't have time (or brain capacity) for the novels I love, for the type of reading I love. But recently I realized I could read memoirs, duh! I roam around blogs for several minutes every day. I use the internet to piece together parts of strangers lives and I enjoy it. My "shoot, have to stop reading and go feed a baby, did I ever change that laundry ..." brain can follow first person narratives, compelling story telling, and simple writing. So lately I've dove right into a couple of wonderful memoirs.

There are some passages in "Three Little Words" A Memoir by Ashley Rhodes-Courter that I'd like to jot down for my own personal memory. In Ashley's writing I found powerful words that are part of my deepest beliefs -- the failings I see in our government. And by government, I want to be clear that I am not limiting the term to the bureaucracy, but to our collective society.

I was drawn to Ashley's memoir because I wanted to know what happened to her mother. Ashley spent nine years of her life in fourteen different foster homes. I wanted to know what horrible thing kept a mother from taking care of her baby and a preschooler she affectionately called "Sunshine."

Drugs. Her mom must have been strung out on drugs, I assumed. Here's Ashley's words as she recounts being taken from her mother and why the original arrest took place.

From Chapter One
I was sitting on the stoop dressed only in shorts when the police cars pulled up. "He's not here," my mother said when they asked for Dusty. One of the men kept coming toward her. My mother, who was holding Luke, screamed, "I didn't do anything!"

"Mama," I cried, reaching both hands up for her to lift me as well. A uniformed man pushed me away and snatched Luke out of her arms. I tried to rush toward my mother, who was already being put in the backseat of a police care. The door slammed so hard, it shook my legs. Through the closed window, I could hear my mother shouting "Ashley!" Someone held me back as the car pulled away. I struggled and kicked trying to chase after her. 

...

At the police station a man in uniform handed Luke to a woman in uniform. ... In the background I could hear my mother yelling for us, but I could not see her. Two women wearing regular clothes arrived. One lifted Luke; the other's rough hand pulled m in her direction. 

...

My mother came into view for a few seconds. "Ashley! I'll get you soon!" Then a door slammed and she was gone. I turned and Luke was no longer there. I was pushed outside and loaded in a car. 

"Mommy! Luke!" I cried. 

In Chapter Two
Now I know that -- in the beginning at least -- my mother never did anything seriously wrong. She never hurt us. She loved us and I adored her. Originally, the police had arrested my mother for writing a bad check; but Dusty admitted he had stolen the checks, and she was released six days later. When my mother returned home, she found our duplex padlocked. ... Although she submitted applications for food stamps and aid for dependent children, the welfare officials told her that she was ineligible because her children were no longer living with her. When she tried to get us back, the caseworker said she had to be able to provide food for us. 

... Our legal guardian was the executive branch of the Florida government, an entity that would rather pay strangers to care for us than offer any economic help to my mother to care for her own children." 

BOOM! There was my answer, right in chapter two, just 16 pages into the book. But I kept reading, and within 24 hours I turned the final page. Ashley's story is jarring. The abuse and neglect she experienced is horrifying and nowhere near the worst. It's obvious other children "in the system" with her had even more abuse and neglect.

In her note to the reader she says "I don't know which is worse; parents who don't care for their children, biological fathers who don't support their offspring, or professionals who violate their professional standards, as well as the public trust, by neglecting those under their care and control. "

Through out the story you see the failures of all three. Her mother struggles to find the motivation she needs to get her kids back, her biological father is unknown to her, and the caseworkers and courts that handle her case are beyond inept.

But even as I turned the last page on her mostly happy ending, I couldn't help but search those first pages for that horrible scene of an infant and a preschooler being ripped from their loving mother's care -- all because her boyfriend stole some checks.

We scoff at the biblical idea that one would lose their hand because of theft. We mock the backwards culture of nations who still use Old Testament methods of punishment, but are we really any better? Are we so hungry for justice that we, in the name of safety and protection, rip babies out of their mother's arms? Her mother's charges were dropped, but the sentence was served the moment the police pulled up to that duplex. Ashley's life was changed forever.

Rather than offering financial assistance to a young, impoverished mother in need, our government -- our shared society -- would rather spend twice the amount on bureaucracy.

I know I'm using one case to make a HUGE claim, but I see it in policy every where I look. Drug tests for welfare recipients, criminal prosecution of simple drug possession, lack of proper rehab facilities, and on and on. We blow money on petty justice and ruin children's lives in the process.

Spoiler alert: drug abuse would keep Ashley from reuniting with her mom. But the separation preceded the drug abuse, perhaps it even caused it. What if even half of the thousands of dollars that had been spent seeking justice had been spent rendering mercy?

I recommend reading "Three Little Words." I know foster care isn't so horrific for everyone, and unfortunately the happy ending isn't a guarantee either. But voices like Ashley's need to be heard. When we think about policies that affect women like her mother, we have to keep Ashley's childhood and voice in the back of our mind. Even as a well adjusted adult, she acknowledges the need to be connected to her extended biological family -- a family that fought for her, but eventually lost to a system that failed her.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Some political thoughts

Blogging everyday trained me to constantly think about topics I'd like to discuss -- however, blogging everyday often meant I didn't get to put as much time and thought into the writing of those topics. So many thoughts have just sat and sat at the back of my brain for months now. And I must set them free. So here you go.

1. I don't understand the support for the Keystone Pipeline. First, oil prices are down and countries who have built economies on oil are seriously struggling (Russia and Venezuela -- just to name a couple). It just doesn't seem like the best time to "invest" in oil. Invest sits in air quotes because what really stumbles me is the mix of public and private interest here. I understand eminent domain, and I just can't come up with any sensible way that it applies here (except that Conservatives wrote special legislation to make it so). The company wanting to build the pipeline is a private, for profit enterprise, so why don't they have to play by the same rules other private companies play by? They want land for a project, work with the individual land owners along the path to buy the land needed. Which would be simple if the land owners wanted tar sands running through their farms. But they don't. I just find way too much irony in the conservative support of the pipeline. What about the freedoms and land rights of the individuals along the path? I suppose those individuals aren't paying for campaigns. What a shame.

Video: Jon Stewart's brilliant take on the blatant hypocrisy

2. I'm not sure I can write about the CIA torture report without having my head explode. But I'll try. I can't promise I'll be nice in what follows ... okay, I can actually promise I'll be quite rude. So let's keep this simple. Only Godless jackasses think the constitution is reserved for American born citizens. The idea that all men are created equal, and that all men deserve due process, and that all men should be protected from cruel and unusual punishment does not end once you leave American soil. Everyone, no matter how horrid, is a child of God. Yes, this is the point I remind myself that those self righteous jackasses are also God's children, so I should show kindness toward them. But seriously, I don't get how anyone with half a brain can justify letting an innocent man freeze to death in the name of justice and counter-terrorism. That isn't counter anything, that IS terrorism.

Candidate for best political speech of the year: How a former prisoner of war responds to the CIA torture report

3. I've decided to embrace all the nasty names given to those of us who want socialized health care. Here's why. If you look at the list of countries who make sure all citizens have basic coverage, whether it comes through a mandate or a tax supported system, and then compare that list to countries that don't offer universal health care -- well, I'd way rather be on the first list. Call me a communist if you must, but at least I'm aligned with successful nations like Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, all of Scandinavia, and every other developed nation in the world. I'd rather keep company with them than China, North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmar, Somolia, Syria, Pakistan, and every other morally bankrupt (and actual communist) government(s) on the Earth. Just a thought. A really serious thought YOU should take into consideration.


From The Atlantic: What's astonishing is how cleanly the green and grey separate the developed nations from the developing, almost categorically. Nearly the entire developed world is colored, from Europe to the Asian powerhouses to South America's southern cone to the Anglophone states of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The only developed outliers are a few still-troubled Balkan states, the Soviet-style autocracy of Belarus, and the U.S. of A., the richest nation in the world. 

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Moving my sass to blogger

I originally posted this on facebook, but I always feel like I should keep my sass on my blog rather than airing it on facebook. 

***********
Alright, I've got my sass pants on, and we all know they are extra big to accommodate my 37 week pregnant belly. Special prize for first person to attribute both quotes correctly.
"(We) support an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
AND
"You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is. It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that."
***********

I want to be clear, I am not saying the Church supports Obama's recent Executive Action (PS, did you know there is a difference between an Executive Action and an Executive Order? I didn't, until this week), (PPS, did you know Obama has the lowest rate of Executive directives per year since like,
Chester Arthur? True fact. I love learning!). I do not draw radical conclusions from Church text or scripture to support my political views. I use both to form my views, but I don't use them to support them. It's just how I was raised. So I am in NO WAY saying the Church supports Obama's latest move. 

What I am saying is policy matters. You can't read Obama's speech and the official immigration policy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints and tell me the two aren't compatible. Well let's be fair, technically you can tell me the Church doesn't support the current bipartisan legislation that is stuck in the House which Obama has now taken up as an Executive Action, but you'd either be lying or failing to pass basic 8th grade informational text reading standards.

Personally, because I am always trying to align my will with God's (and always falling short), I am going to write to my House Representative and ask that he fight for a "yes" vote on Senate Bill 744, which our current House speaker won't even put up for a vote because of the Hastert rule (look it up, if you care at all about democracy the Hastert rule should infuriate you). 

Monday, November 10, 2014

A post in which I alienate the left and the right

A couple days ago I read some highlights from the 6th Circuit Court ruling affirming state bans on same sex marriage.

I can't even begin to explain all the complex thoughts this reading has brought to my mind the past few days. In an attempt to keep things concise, I may just end up writing four different posts. One on regulation of human behavior, another on government's need to balance justice and mercy, another on the failed logic of our modern conservative movement, and yet another on all the morals that are tied directly to the regulation of marriage (divorce, abortion, adoption, father's rights, etc -- because to me all those issues are related to the court's ruling). Maybe I'm just 8 months pregnant, but really the comments in the ruling have made my brain jump all over the place.

How about we start by highlighting part of what I read, and found so intriguing:
“One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.
Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them …  It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative."

This is, without question, the most reasonable argument for same-sex marriage I have ever come across. Just a month or two ago I thought of writing a post on the premise that there is no constitutional evidence for banning same-sex marriage (I still think that). The essence of my post was going to defend opposite sex marriage solely on an understanding of the after life (because that is the best way to defend it). However, the passage above does make a valid argument for government regulation of marriage: the regulation of sex. 

And it is a very conservative stance to take. 

You know, regulation. 

And Conservative. 

The two go together well, right? (please picture my snarky smile as I type that).

Here's the thing, I'm too conservative for liberals. I do believe the government has a responsibility to regulate human behavior. But somehow that very same belief makes me too liberal for conservatives. I don't limit my regulation of human behavior to sex, drugs, and violence. My ideal regulation of human behavior extends to the market -- where greed, dishonesty, and labor abuse are all thriving. My belief in market regulations certainly stretches into the insurance industry (and I can't ignore campaign finance).

My belief in a government that honors high moral living through regulations on sex, drugs, and violence (through the heavy hand of justice) also honors high moral living by offering affordable, quality education and health care to every citizen (the beautiful balance of mercy). 

I'll never understand how people fight for human regulations on sex, drugs and violence but ignore them in the market place. I'll never understand how people fight for a morally conscience government that upholds opposite sex marriage while depriving millions basic health care benefits. 

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Some Thoughts on Yesterday's Elections

I love November. It's my birth month, election month, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, and we can't forget Christmas decorations go up (earlier and earlier) each November -- there's a lot to love about the 11th month of the year. To most people, some election cycles are more exciting than others. Not me. I enjoy voting for local state representatives just as much as I do for President. So these midterm years are just as exciting as any other to me.

I know it's only a few hours after results were posted, but already I have a few thoughts I'd like to get out of my head. Read them if you'd like.

Mitch McConnell
Every now and then this man speaks words that are wonderful. He shows great potential for leadership. Last night was no exception. The parts of his speech I read were encouraging. However, I doubt his colleagues across the aisle quickly forget the hundreds of horrible comments that have come before it. I'm curious to see if all his "I'll do nothing to work with the other side" statements will be forgiven, or at least overlooked, now that he is in charge. I just don't get what goes through his mind sometimes. If he was really interested in getting the minority to work with him for meaningful change, shouldn't he have set that example himself when he was the minority? You know, a basic do unto others sort of thing. Either way, I'm hoping for the best.

House Bills
So, what kind of legislation will the House write now that there is potential for that legislation to become law? I'm willing to bet we will see no legislation attempting to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. We will see legislation improving the bill, but none that out right repeals it. And why the sudden change? Because the laws they write now have potential of actually becoming laws. The House will no longer be writing laws for show. Which makes me breathe a sigh of relief. Their "this is for show" stuff was truly ridiculous. But here's the thing, too few Americans pay enough attention to Congress to catch on to these side shows. Some will believe the new laws aimed at improving the ACA were not possible until now, which is blatantly false. The law has been changed and/or improved with Democratic support more than a dozen times in the past two years.

I'm also willing to bet we'll see immigration reform that is very similar to what bipartisan groups of the past have already offered. I'm willing to bet there will be no finance reform as drastic as Paul Ryan's previous plans -- now that the reforms actually have a chance of becoming law. Republicans weren't really serious about all the reforms they wrote up the past few years, and I look forward to seeing what they are serious about now. I think there will be some meaningful change.

The Governor Races
All along I've been more interested in state elections than federal ones. History told us the GOP would regain control of both branches of Congress in Obama's final term. That wasn't anything to wonder about for people who watch politics closely. For me, the Governor races were much more unpredictable, and they also have much more power to change the course of the nation.

I found the results at state levels very interesting. Basically, voters want marriage equality, legalized marijuana, and GOP leaders. Imagine my head scratch here. Although, I'm really not surprised by these results either. In the past few years many GOP leaders have been nearly silent on vlaues issues. I don't know what kind of secret meetings the two parties hold, but I'd imagine after the disappointing results of 2012, the GOP memo went something like this "don't bring up abortion, gay marriage or the drug war on your own, only address those issues if asked about them."

It seems to have worked. I hope values voters aren't disappointed. But I think they will be.

Take Scott Walker for example. Remember all his "crush the tax paid employee" business? Of course, that's what most people remember about Scott Walker. Few of them know that tax payer employee's have actually seen greater increases under his reign than his Democratic predecessor (married to one of those employee's, I'm not complaining). Oh how I wish people investigated what actually happens when they put people in office, rather than simply listening to what lies the people in office tell them.   

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Halloween Candy Buyout

Okay, this is my last Halloween post, promise. I've been trying to get Reid to move on for days, so I should too. But I've been struck by just how many parents buy their kid's Halloween candy off of them.

I think the movement started with Dentists, who buy candy to save teeth and then give the candy to troops over seas. Hats off to you Dentists! Your purpose is clear: less cavities, and your mission is philanthropic: giving to men and women whom we can never repay. I give the idea a thumbs up, two thumbs up if they have the kids package the candy themselves.

The movement of parents buying candy off their kids, well I was on the fence for a while. I didn't really know what to make of it. One parent (who I do not know personally) wrote about how her husband turned the whole thing into a big lesson on money management and capitalism and how her children spent two hours -- two hours! -- bargaining piece by piece with their dad. I'm a big supporter of money sense in youth, so it seemed clever enough.

But the more I've sat on the whole idea of parents buying candy off their kids the more I've realized this isn't a lesson in capitalism, it is a lesson in welfare. I give it two big thumbs down.

I'm usually one to support any parental philosophy or style. I have my opinions about things, but I reserve judgement because I know opinions vary. However, I'm here to confess I'm having a hard time reserving judgement on the issue of Halloween candy buy back. I think the biggest reason it is hard for me to reserve judgment is because many of the very people who I keep reading about buying their candy off their kids are die hard conservatives who despise government handouts. So I have to wonder, do these parents not realize the very valuable community handout lesson they are teaching their children come Halloween night?

I'm not going to go all Matt Walsh on you here and talk about how destructive this practice is, I'll still maintain my "to each his own" attitude. But I do think mindful parenting is important, and I think the parents who are buying candy off their kids probably just haven't taken the time to be really mindful about the whole process. I encourage all of us to think about what we are teaching our kids when we pay them for something they were given for free.

The lesson taught to these kids is clear. Go door to door as fast as you can and get as much candy as you can for simply saying "trick or treat," and then return home and make as much money as you can off your "hard work" (those are air quotes, please insert eye roll). Ask yourself, are they really making money off their hard work, or are they making money off their neighbor's kindness and generosity? Making money off hard work would require raking a neighbor's leaves, not trick or treating. 

Take for example the candy that was stolen off our porch, or Ben's secretary's porch, or our neighbor's porch. Now, I wouldn't put candy on my porch if I didn't know this was a possibility. There wasn't much and I wasn't bothered by the act. Until ... I thought of that child going home and making $5 off his/her mom and dad for all that candy he/she stole. This scenario actually makes more sense to me. I think most kids know a whole bowl of candy will make them sick, so why take it all? But if a whole bowl of candy makes them $5, then take it all!

I'm not trying to discourage limiting our children's Halloween candy, but there are so many other options that teach kids more valuable lessons. Make a cookie bar with your various loot as the add ins and deliver it to your local Church group or assisted living center. Package a few pieces with some toiletry items and pass them out to homeless people in your city. Package them with a few cans of soup and deliver them to your local shelter or food bank. Sale them to your dentist and know that they'll brighten some soldiers day. Learn self control and only eat one a day. You could even make a fun little Christmas countdown advent out of them. The options for using up all that candy wisely are endless.

Simply encouraging your children to run door to door asking for a free handout so that they can earn a little money from you is not one of the wise options. It's teaching your kids to make a profit off something they were given for free. If you still want to argue it's a valuable lesson in capitalism we can agree, but recognize the flip side and know that it is also a valuable lesson in welfare. 

Thursday, September 25, 2014

A Little White Lie

Back when the Michael Brown shooting took place, I kind of got sidetracked by other police-killing-unarmed-black man cases that happened that week, particularly John Crawford III.

Every week or so I google his name (and usually Dante Parker's as well) to see what the latest news is. Tonight I learned the police won't be accountable for Mr Crawford's death, even while I also learned the Wal-Mart surveillance videos prove he did not ignore police and he never pointed the toy gun at anything but the ground.

You're probably needing more background info at this point, but my point in mentioning the Crawford case is to look at how deeply a little white lie can destroy hundreds of people's lives. Here's the info you need to know in order to understand that claim.

1. Mr Crawford was the father to two small children.
2. He didn't know it, but a third is on the way.
3. He was a son to loving parents.
4. He was at Walmart buying supplies for a Saturday night BBQ when he took an unpackaged air rifle off the shelf and started examining it. He was also on the phone with his children's mother at the time.
5. Some 22-year-old white guy called 911 and told police there was a Black guy in the store waving a gun around, looked like he was loading it and pointing it at people "like children."
6. Video surveillance proves that claim a lie.
7. Said 22-year-old white witness retracted statement and now claims Crawford never pointed the gun at anyone or waved it around irresponsibly.
8. When police arrived they told Crawford to put down the gun or they'd shoot. Still on the phone, he turned his head toward them and they shot him twice, in his back and side. He died shortly after.
9. A middle-aged women was shopping with her two tween-aged children a couple aisles over and suffered a heart attack as she tried to rush her kids away from the scene. She died that evening.
10. The video doesn't make it clear if Crawford dropped the toy gun before or after the shooting.*

While the grand jury decision breaks my heart, I can't say I fully disagree with the verdict. If you put yourself in the police officers' shoes it's hard to say how you'd react. Considering the information they'd been given from the 911 call, this man was dangerous and already reeking havoc on other innocent shoppers. Also, the police had a training just two weeks prior on how to approach armed suspects and they were taught to be the aggressors. Clearly they didn't know Crawford was simply thinking about purchasing a toy air rifle from the store.

I'm certain that in hindsight the officer who shot those bullets feels horrible (he should). But he isn't really the one to blame. Good citizen, 911 caller is.

That individual is responsible for the deaths of two innocent parents. But how do we go about seeking justice? Can we really start charging people with murder when they call the cops with exaggerated claims?

When all the Mike Brown bru-ha-ha first started I remember thinking both sides of the story could be true. That officer may have felt threatened and endangered. Mike Brown may have had his hands in the air, saying "don't shoot." People misunderstand each other all the time.

Unfortunately for some, it is a matter of life and death.

When 22-year-old white guy called 911 he may have been scared. He probably thought the situation could escalate quickly so he needed it to sound more dire than it was. He stretched the truth in order to make sure the police took him seriously.

And three little kids will grow up never knowing their father because of it. Two others lost their mom right before their eyes. All for a little white lie.


*over the past two months I've gathered this info from various sources, but here's the article I read tonight.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

The line between illegal and criminal

I watched a few minutes of a PBS special on prohibition this evening. If I weren't so sleepy, I could have really gotten into it. I'd love to learn more about the history of prohibition. It is fascinating to me, and it reminds me of how common political cycles and processes really are. Lobbyists, monopolies, and sleazy but pricey campaign battles are all part of today's major political players and they were a big part of prohibition. And just like today, the country was deeply partisan about the issue.  Fear mongering was each side of the campaign's best friend. I love how history is always changing, yet always the same. Even immigration and welfare were a huge part of the debate and outcome.

I've expressed my thoughts on the legalization of marijuana before, and as proof that other people's opinions do impact my own thoughts and opinions, Tiff's comments have been on my mind all these years since (she sparked my interest in prohibition). Also, I thought Megan made a comment on that post about the importance of writing legislation that discourages bad behavior, but it must have been on another post (or in a private message). Either way, the opinions of those two friends have had an impact on my thoughts since.

Well regulated and discouraged but not criminal, is a simple summary of my final stance on things like marijuana, alcohol, and prostitution. Yes, I'm going to lump all those things together here. Like I said, it's a simple summary. I wish we could keep these behaviors illegal, but as long as illegal is tied directly to criminal I have a hard time jumping on board.

I'm all about tight regulations and super high taxes on these behaviors (did you know almost 70% of government revenue came from alcohol before prohibition, prohibition is actually what led us into income taxes -- that's crazy to me, but anyway). I just can not justify criminalizing any non-violent behavior. I recognize alcohol, marijuana, and prostitution as sin. I do. That might make me old fashioned and prudish, but God does not want us to have sex outside of marriage. He doesn't want us consuming mood altering substances that often lead to addiction. So I'm fine writing legislation that discourages those behaviors, but I don't think we do anyone in society any favors when we criminalize these behaviors.

Sins have natural consequences and, most importantly, they can be forgiven. Prison sentences should be reserved only for violent behaviors that harm others (that was actually part of Joseph Smith's Presidential campaign, but I felt this way before I knew that). And yes, I realize the behaviors I listed above can lead to violence against others, which is why I support legislation and regulation that discourages them, just not laws that criminalize them. Though I do support imprisoning those who are irresponsible and bring harm to others (drunk driving, date rape, domestic violence, etc) while participating in such sinful behaviors.

So in summary, I believe that if people choose reckless behaviors that merely harms themselves, the best thing society can do to counter those actions is to levy a heavy sin tax, hand out fines and fees, require expensive licenses, require safety courses and service hours; anything that doesn't increase our ridiculously high number of inmates.

But as a reminder of how gray I see the world (I may be linear, but I'm not black and white), I can't say this simple summary applies to all things I view as sin. I included prostitution in my list, but I can't include abortion, adultery, or romantic premarital sex. Though, as stated above, sex outside of marriage is a sin, I just don't know how congress could regulate that. And I don't really want Congress to try to. I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to Congress controlling people's behaviors. Also, I think Education and access to contraception are the best ways to counter our societies abortion problem (which exists as the natural result of our country's premarital sex problem).

I've made it pretty much impossible for either Conservative Christians or Liberals to agree with me on any of this (which I'm kind of proud of). I'm pretty much an island of isolation when it comes to my thoughts on sin and the legislation of them. But what do you think, dear reader, can you agree with me on any of this?  

Friday, August 29, 2014

A Call for Gun Sense

I like guns. I do. We have one stored safely in our basement. I grew up with guns. They were stored safely through out our house. One was even used as a decoration in our family room. My brother(s?) made beautiful gun cabinets in shop class.

Shooting a hundred holes into a milk carton was one of my favorite things to do with my little brother. Shooting paper squirrels was one of my favorite things to do with my older brothers. I say favorite because we never seemed to fight with each other when we were shooting guns (good thing, huh?). It was like family bike rides, peaceful and refreshing. Not overly common, but regular enough that a few of these enlivening moments are etched into my memory. The phrase "wholesome family recreational activities" comes to mind as I reminisce on my childhood gun handling.

I remember my two older brothers talking about how fun it would be to see me shoot my first shot gun. They figured the kick would land me right on my behind. Determined it wouldn't, I wanted to shoot that thing long before my parents (or brothers) would let me. At about age 14 they all finally conceded. We went out onto our front lawn and I let her fire (cause we were that hillbilly). I didn't fall, but my shoulder didn't feel great and I don't think I've shot a shot gun since.

My point is to demonstrate two things. One, I love guns and I am not a crazy second amendment hating liberal. Two, my family, with its rich history in gun loving, didn't let me shoot a gun with a large kick until I was 14. Fourteen!

So who on Earth let that poor nine-year-old girl shoot an Uzi? Ben heard about the story before I did, and he quickly told me the parents and gun instructor were at fault. After reading up on the incident, I fully agree. No nine-year-old needs to shoot a machine gun. Ever. Not in war, not at home, not on a gun range. It is never acceptable for a child that young to shoot such a powerful weapon.

It is rarely acceptable for an adult to shoot such a powerful weapon. No hunter on the planet needs a machine gun. The only thing anyone would want to kill with a machine gun is another human being. So why are we (Americans) so in love with them? And how has this infatuation affected our society? Our culture? Our children?

That poor girl has to live with that experience every day for the rest of her life. I pray it makes her stronger. I pray she turns into a beautiful voice for reasonable gun regulation. We need gun lovers to put safety and common sense over profit and flag waving pride.

I really could go on for hours, but it'll just make my blood boil. So I'll end here. 

Monday, August 18, 2014

Time for a Quiz

Since I just can't get my mind away from the ridiculous race relations this country has, I've made an informative little quiz. Whether your answer is right or wrong, each link is sure to enlighten or entertain.

1. Many people know aspects of slavery continued long after the Civil War was fought and won. But do we know how long slave practices really lasted? In her book The Warmth of Other Sons, Isabel Wilkerson details the story of Eddie Earvin, who was forced to begin work in the fields of Mississippi at age 5, threatened to work with a gun to his head at age 17, and finally fled Mississippi with his sister and her two kids at age 20. They carried only a shopping bag of belongings and told no one they were fleeing north. What year was it that Eddie finally ran away from this descriptive slave life?
a. 1865
b. 1923
c. 1946
d. 1963

2. True or False, a 2001 study found that at least 406 black land owners had a total of 24,000 acres of land stolen from them. (read paragraph six for the answer, but you really should read the whole article -- at the very least, read the first chapter)

3. Michael Brown was the ______________ unarmed Black man killed by police in a ten day period?
a. first
b. second
c. third
d. fourth

4. In 2012, one black man was killed at least every _______ hours by armed police, security guards or vigilantes?
a. 64
b. 52
c. 38
d. 28

5. Of the above, what percentage either had a gun, toy gun, or cutting device and how many were confirmed unarmed? (answer found on page 24 of document)
a. 27% had weapon or perceived weapon, 44% were confirmed unarmed
b. 42% had weapon or perceived weapon, 29% were confirmed unarmed
c. 67% had weapon or perceived weapon, 33% were confirmed unarmed
d. 50% had weapon or perceived weapon, 50% were confirmed unarmed

Bonus question: True or False, I think anyone in the US who doesn't believe Black people, especially Black men, are at a legal and cultural disadvantage in this country either have their head in the sand or are willfully ignoring reality.

Finally, let's test your ability to look at a young black man and judge them accurately, instead of harshly.
What are these two separate groups doing?
Embedded image permalink           
a) Looting the Ferguson, MO liquor and beauty supply stores
b) Peacefully stopping looters (a job militarized police not only failed to do, but actually told store owners they would not do).

Friday, August 15, 2014

7 Stories Worth a Read

Since Wednesday night I've been enthralled by the happenings in Ferguson, MO. I've gained so much info I don't even think I could compile coherent thoughts on the matter right now. So instead of my knowledge and opinions, I'll share the 7 most touching articles I've come across these last few days. On appearance they won't all appear to be related to Ferguson, but they are and they all matter.

1. Listen to this touching NPR Story Corps: After A Traffic Stop, Teen Was "Almost Another Dead Black Male"

2. Oh.my.gosh an LA cop honestly killed an unarmed black man who was getting into a vehicle with his own two children after their morning exercise and bible study routine. What kind of world do we live in?
When The Media Treats White Suspects and Killers Better Than Black Victims

3. I don't like hashtags, but I'm loving the #iftheygunnedmedown movement on twitter. Brilliant. Heartbreaking and brilliant.

4. This former (Black) Police officer is heroic. I love the honest way he talks about his experiences: What Policing Looks Like to a Former Officer

5. So grateful Rand Paul is following his father's footsteps and continuing to talk about the mistreatment of minorities in our justice system (even though I think that cost his Dad big time). Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize The Police

6. I can't find just one article or video to sum this up well, but we MUST talk about the attacks on the Press: Video and Full Statement from Al Jazeer, Video and Full Statement from Washington Post. Best part about the Wasthington Post arrest is this twitter conversation.

7. And this is an article I actually read long before I'd even heard of Ferguson, MO, but the findings mentioned in the study just keep coming to my mind: My Son Has Been Suspended 5 Times. He's 3
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...