Separation of Church and Hate

The Tea Party seems to have demonstrated time and time again that they lack both critical thinking skills as well as the ability to read.  Apparently they really don’t understand what their Christian faith is about and they have no clue about what our forefathers were really trying to accomplish when they founded this country.

Last night I was watching “The Tillman Story” (and if you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend watching it).  They had radio interview from the lead investigator of the Tillman case, Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, who felt that the family couldn’t “let it go” referring to their wanting answers regarding the death of their son, brother and husband Pat Tillman.  This is what he said:

“…I don’t know... these people have a hard time letting it go.  That may be because of their religious beliefs.  I don’t know.  I don’t know how an atheist thinks. But I can only imagine that that’d be pretty tough… If you’re an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die what… what is there to go to?  Nothing, you’re warm dirt.  It’s pretty hard to get your head around that.” 

The Radio Host then asks, “So you suspect that’s probably the reason this thing is dragging on?”

Colonel Kauzlarich replies, “There’s not a whole lot of trust… in the system… or faith in the system.”

And therein lays the gist.  If you don’t believe in God then you can’t possibly trust the system.  Yet the Tillman’s had good reason to NOT trust the system.  The system had killed their son, lied about how he died, used that lie to propagandize an unjust and immoral war and then refused to punish those who had been responsible for all of it.  I don’t see how a belief in anything would change those facts.  I don’t see how faith in a god would somehow make all of that okay.

There seems to be this myth in this country that Jesus was a warlord of sorts.  That Jesus wanted a strong army and if you are a good Christian you must support any and all war efforts of our troops because they are doing God’s work.  What’s interesting about this attitude is that by substituting the words Allah and Mohammed for God and Jesus respectively, you end up with what Muslim extremist with bombs strapped to their chests believe. 

Now I want to make one thing perfectly clear.  I think the vast majority of our enlisted soldiers are heroes, even though I don’t think the wars they are fighting in are just.  They are doing what they truly believe is their duty to country.  One of the problems with the wars we are in is private military contractors, and not our enlisted personnel, are doing most of the fighting (and getting paid much, much more than our enlisted men and women are). 

In addition, this invocation of religion and war is just wrong, regardless of the religion.  It is the reason why I have rejected nearly all religions.  But nowhere is it more offensive that with Christianity.  Jesus was a man of peace, who preached a message of love and turn the other cheek.  He preached distribution of funds from the rich to the poor.  He preached about feeding the hungry and he healed the sick.  And even when he was humiliated, beaten, nailed up on a cross and left to die, he forgave those unenlightened people who did this to him.  I am an atheist, and yet, if you asked me if I accepted the message of that man, I would totally do it in a minute.  But that’s never what Christians ask me to accept.

Yet when our government tries to actually implement those programs that Jesus himself would have been advocating for, it is those who call themselves Christians who protest the loudest.  Our government doesn’t do it because Jesus told them to do it.  Our government does it because it’s the moral and just thing to do irrespective of religion.  In addition it makes economic sense.  The same goes for putting in a national healthcare program. 
Either these right wing “Christians” don’t know how to read or are too stupid to think for themselves.  Regardless, they certainly are some of the most unChristlike people I’ve ever heard of.

I think it’s important to remember that when our country was founded, it was done by people who had come to the colonies trying to escape religious persecution.  Freedom of religion was a core fundamental tenant of their writings and belief system.  Regardless of what their personal faith was, they wanted a place that people of all faiths, including those of no faith, could come and seek refuge.  That was made particularly clear in the Treaty of Tripoli where John Adams, then president, signed in 1796 saying:

“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of Americais not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself nocharacter of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act ofhostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that nopretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption ofthe harmony existing between the two countries.”

And as a result of this secularization of our government, religion proliferates.  There are more churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other houses of worship, per capita here in the United States than almost anywhere else on earth.  Because we have respected to totally personal nature of faith, faith prospers. 

Now there are those who would throw away all of that just so that they can keep their religion in the majority.  And as Colonel Kauzlarich’s statement above would indicate, the government can use that majority to manipulate families into going along with what the government wants, no matter how immoral.  That is PRECISELY the thing our forefathers wanted to avoid. 

When candidates like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry seem to be completely unable to separate their faith from their politics, it is precisely the people of faith who should run in the other direction from them.  It is the people who love their country who should be afraid of them.  They seek to destroy everything good with their misunderstanding of the relationship between God and Country.

Issa's Indecency

Last March it came to public attention that my congressional representative, Darrell Issa (R-CA 49), had earmarked almost $1 million in tax funds for road improvements to West Vista Way that would directly ease access to several properties he owns.  For me, this was a personal affront from a man who told me that such matters were not within his "jurisdiction as a Federal Legislature."

As it happens, I had written to Congressman Issa about the dangerous intersection directly in front of Monte Vista Elementary School, in which drivers were running the stop signs, while the crossing guards were out and children were in the crosswalks, had become a common occurrence.  On a personal level, my son and I had been in the crosswalk on one such occasion when a driver, most likely blinded by the glare of the sun on his/her windshield, impatiently drove through the intersection and had to slam on his/her brakes at the last minute, stopping literally 4 feet away from us.  My son had nightmares for weeks about it. 

After exhausting all avenues at the city level, I resorted to writing to Congressman Issa.  I still have the letter which explains that these matters are not within his "jurisdiction as a Federal Legislature."  And while I still maintain that anyone with a modicum of decency, upon hearing that children were involved in near miss traffic incidents while walking to and from school in his/her district would have picked up the phone to inquire as to why this was happening, but then no one has ever accused Mr. Issa of being too decent. At the very least Issa's assertion that such matters were not within his jurisdiction was a lie, as the earmarks he secured have proven. 

About the same time I received that letter from Issa, a friend of mine who worked at another elementary school told me about an incident in which a 10 year-old little boy became the victim of a hit and run while he was walking home from school.  Because the boy’s mother was undocumented, it went unnoticed and untold in the press, and swept under the carpet.  The boy ended up being in the hospital for 6 weeks. 

In light of the dire threat that our children are under as they walk to and from school it seems to me that the more pressing road improvements would be those that would save lives.  However, Congressman Issa doesn’t seem to feel that way.  His priorities appear to be about serving his own financial interest, even at the expense of lives of the school children in his district.  And to make matters worse, it is his judgment that is in charge of the House Oversight committee, deciding matters of decency and ethics in Washington.   Based upon his attitude and behavior on this issue, I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks there are other people in Washington better suited for this job. 

Update:  Sadly in October 2015, a father and his son were struck by a car in the same crosswalk that my son and I were nearly hit in.  It was the EXACT same situation.  The little boy was 6 years-old at the time and I do not know his current status.  Had Congressman Issa acted in this situation when I first brought it to his attention, this would not have happened.  

Traditional Values

 This was a blog I wrote on my personal blog a couple of years ago.  I thought with as many people as there are complaining about a return to traditional values, I would reprint it on the Liberal Diva blog.  Enjoy.

One of the things I hear my Conservative friends wax nostalgic about is the America of yesteryear and its traditional values that are all but lost to us now.  My Tea Bagger relatives will always cite "I Love Lucy" as the example of the America they want back.  A black and white version of dilemmas solved in a half hour and sealed with a heart and a bow.  These people don't need reality TV because for them, Lucy was it.
I must admit.  I too would love to live in the Ricardo's midtown apartment, married to the dashing Cuban band leader with my best friend living downstairs.  However, I'm not so sure I would want that dashing Cuban husband to tell me that I wasn't allowed to get a job.  Nor do I think I would want to have him give me an "allowance."  I know for sure that I wouldn't like it one bit when he took me over his knee and gave me a spanking.  Although, like Lucy, I too would insist on separate beds after that.
The irony of the Conservatives line of reasoning is that the reality of the time was much different than Lucy would have us believe.  Unlike the Ricardo's, the Arnaz's didn't live in Manhattan, but the San Fernando Valley.   Not only was Desi an alcoholic, but a philanderer as well.  Unfortunately, the beatings were all too real.   And in fact, the true "traditional value" that was practiced back then was the value to keep a secret.   When I question my "traditionalist" friends about these things that's when they play the "it wasn't reality" card. But  I won't deny that there were some really good things about that era.  Schools were outstanding- although, they could select which students attended just by virtue of the color of their skin.  Jobs were plentiful- if you were a white man.  And you rarely saw a homeless person on the streets in America- and most certainly they wouldn't have been veterans.  All the people who lament about how far America has fallen are the very same people who scream about taxes.  Yet the America that they all yearn for was bought and paid for by our parents and grandparents.  Under Eisenhower, the wealthiest 1% of the population were taxed at a rate of 90%.  That money went to pay for the outstanding schools and hospitals and treatment for the mentally ill.
In addition, a 90% tax rate for the uber-rich  helped stave off corporate greed.  If a CEO were in the position to fall into that category, instead of paying the money to the government, he was probably more likely to give his employees a raise or expand the company by creating more jobs.
I'm certainly not advocating a complete regression back to era of the sock hop, especially on a social level.  But for people who think that restoring America to the heyday of the 50s is a goal, they can start by getting the funding to bring back the good stuff.  The rest will come naturally.

Who's Entitled to Tax Cuts?

Nothing gets my Tea Party friends going quite like the perceived “Entitlement” programs.  They will go on ad nauseum about how they have to work their behinds off, but some “lazy” people sit on their butts collecting checks and getting rich off the system.  And believe me, as a hard working American myself, I do understand their ire.  But as usual their reaction is founded on the misunderstanding of what’s really going on.  For the sake of brevity and argument, let’s say we are only talking about people who are able to work, but don’t.  If you watch the Showtime show “Shameless,” this would be the character played by William H. Macy on the show.  The fact is that a comprehensive per person cost of welfare programs is very difficult to research and I was unable to get that information in time for this blog.  However, from what I was able to gather and glean from several state sources, I don’t think an average range of $8,000- $12,000 per person per year is an unreasonable estimate (that would include housing and food stamp programs).  Now if you don’t provide these services to people who refuse to work, then they will find a way to get what they need, and it most likely won’t be through work.  The alternative is that they can (and usually will) commit crimes to get money to survive on.  The cost of imprisoning that same person, who was content with being provided for at the $8,000 - $12,000 level, is $30,000/year.  So while the principle is still wrong, it is more cost effective to pay for welfare than it is to pay for prison (not to mention the emotional toll a crime ridden society takes on its citizens).   

The real entitlement program exists in the form of the current tax laws which greatly favor the ultra-rich.  Without even getting into the costs of this tax program, I need to point out that the United States offers opportunities that are not available anywhere else in the world.  The people who get rich in the U.S. do so through a combination of working hard, working smart and a certain amount of luck.  If those same people were living in any other country in the world, they would most likely not enjoy the same level of success that they have been afforded here in America.  So why do they think they are entitled to keep a larger share of their money without paying any back to the people and government which afforded them the luxuries they enjoy today?  Surely, a person with common decency and true patriotism would gladly be willing to give back to the government and people who have been so instrumental in their success. 

Today all the programs that gave the rich their opportunities to rise are in disrepair.  Programs like our education system, our SBA programs and our libraries are quickly becoming phased out.  The opportunities that allowed our forefathers to immigrate here and start small businesses so that we may have a better life are going away.  While a tax increase won’t fix all the problems, it will fix most of them  and should be the easiest to implement.   Proponents of the trickledown economics theory have completely missed the part where all the jobs trickled all the way down to the Philippines and India and all the money trickled down to China.  Perhaps they need to change the name to trickle outsourced economics.  What we need now is a way to make those jobs trickle back up to America.  And the millionaires and billionaires who have outsourced all these jobs so that they can cut costs and increase their profits, also have the tax cuts which allow them to keep a larger share of those profits with no incentive to bring any of those jobs back into America.  There is no incentive to provide others the same opportunities that they were afforded. 

The Tea Party wants to cut entitlement programs, meaning programs that you and I have paid into our entire lives with the promise of receiving a benefit in our old age.  And those are in deed entitlement programs but I can’t understand why they’d want to cut them.  After all, weren't we promised those benefits when our taxes were taken out?  What they should be looking to cut are the false entitlement programs like these tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.  I’m all for cutting those.

The Morality of Sex (Part 2)

By putting sex into the category of a biological need it neutralizes the morality of it.  When combined with modern technological advances like birth and disease control, there then becomes a need to clarify where issues such as celibacy, promiscuity and teen sex come into play. 

Celibacy

By this new categorization, prolonged celibacy then would be the abnormal state.  And I do think that people that have deviate sexual appetites (meaning any form of rape, be it pedophilia, bestiality or any sex act in which one of the partners is either unable to consent or is actively protesting the act) are going to be attracted to a lifestyle that would mandate celibacy.  Now I want to be very clear here.  In no way am I insinuating that everyone who lives a celibate life is a rapist, but rather, people who are rapists are going to be attracted to this lifestyle.  People choose to live celibate for all sorts of reasons, including biological ones where there just is no sex drive.  And as long as the person is psychologically fit and healthy there is nothing wrong with living celibate, but likewise, there’s no virtue in it either.  In addition, often when a biological need is ignored, many people begin to fixate on it.  This, again, can give rise to deviate and harmful behavior.  At this point it would seem that celibacy would become immoral.  Staying celibate for some greater purpose, while harming others as a result is definitely wore than engaging in sex with a willing adult partner.

Promiscuity

So does this mean that all the single people can just go out there and start screwing anybody they like?  The answer is a little complicated.  From my own personal perspective, I think sex, being the creation of another human life, should be treated with a certain amount of reverence, and is best when confined to committed relationships.  Likewise, I also think that people who live their entire lives having sex with strangers are probably not very psychologically healthy, and missing a key element of happiness.    But from a purely moral standpoint, I cannot come up with an argument as to why this would be wrong (provided the criteria of consenting adults and prevention of pregnancy and disease transmission were met). 

Teen Sex and Abstinence

Once upon a time 13 year-olds in our society went out, got jobs, got married and raised families.  Then they usually died by the time they were 35 years-old.  Of course back then quality parenting consisted of keeping the kid alive long enough to work out in the fields.  Psychological well-being and happiness were not even fathomed with regard to parenting.  We now have longer lifespans and appreciate the well-being and happiness of our children.  Parenting has become more complex and therefore, we have been able to afford our children longer childhoods.   In short, this means that most 13 year-olds would not make good parents.  However, their bodies are those of a fully grown human being.  Remember that we humans are supposed to be able to procreate at a young age.  The teen years are when most people experience some of their strongest sex drives.  So to tell these people that they are supposed to just ignore those biological impulses and fight against such drives is completely unrealistic.  We are talking about the psychological equivalent of children and sex does have an emotional component to it, especially for girls.  Not to mention the responsibility of prevention.  In the hands of children sex needs to be treated very carefully. 

In fact, I would venture to say that we adults have a moral responsibility to the younger people in our society to arm them with everything they need to make decisions that do the least harm.  It’s been prove time and time again that abstinence only programs in our schools don’t work.  We can’t just ignore a biological need like sex by telling kids not to do it.  Kids have been doing this since the dawn of humanity.  Nevertheless, I would never say that 13 year-olds having sex in our society is a good thing.  But it’s going to happen.   Society has made it a moral mandate for eons and we’ve always had teen pregnancies.  That is why being realistic about this issue is the only moral way to deal with it.  Kids are going to have sex.  What we need to accomplish is to get them to understand all the responsibilities that come along with a sexual relationship, so that they are sure when they enter into that phase of their lives, they are ready for it.  We need to give them the honest dialogue about it and the tools to use to prevent tragedy should they choose to engage in it sooner rather than later.  What we need to stop doing is making abstinence seem like it’s a normal thing, as if there is something wrong with kids who have these desires.   These drives and desires are completely normal and natural.  Acting on them, is not a bad thing in and of itself.  Not taking the proper precautions is a bad thing.  However, who has committed the wrong when we as a society do not give our teenagers the necessary tools to prevent the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy or STD?  We condemn the pregnant teen mother with all sorts of names and insults when all she did was act on her instincts—her very strong instincts.  The pregnant teen mother needs to be treated with sympathy and solutions.  Her friends need education and birth control.  We as a society have a moral obligation to provide those elements for every teenager. 

The Morality of Sex

This is my two part blog on the Morality of Sex.  I was interviewed on Colin Lively’s radio program several months ago and talked about this.  I think it’s important to open the discussion of this issue because it seems to be so important in our society.  Politically, we legislate on it and judge our politicians and leaders by it, but are we doing it fairly?

The mention of sex will always elicit a reaction from people.  The gamut runs from snickers and giggles to outright rage from others.   In certain parts of the world people are executed because of sex.  Be it engaging in premarital sex, extramarital sex or sex with a person of the same gender, in many places, people take their lives into their own hands when they engage in sex. 
Most of these laws are based upon an archaic understanding of the world, as well as the realities of the harshness of existence on a planet which is in constant flux.  However, as we’ve been able to understand the world and control certain aspects of our existence, through modern science, many of the laws and principles driving our ideas need to be reevaluated. 
The existing premise about sex in the United States is that it is somehow bad, unless you do it with one unspecified, yet specific person and you make a formal and legal commitment to only have sex (and procreate) with that one person.  There are people who think the entire breakdown of society is because of sex.  Even if society were breaking down, I’m not so sure I would blame sex.  After all, sex has always been there and people have always engaged in it, so if it’s taken all these thousands of years until now for society to break down, I hardly think sex is the reason. 

Small History Lesson
While I’m not an anthropologist, it would seem to me that the issue of sex being a moral issue began in a time when life spans were about 30-40 years.  If a woman had a baby without a partner to help her raise it, the chances that she would die before the child reached the age to fend for him/herself was pretty great.  A child who perishes because s/he is not able to survive on his/her own is a great tragedy.  And even if someone takes the child in and provides for it, the child can still be viewed as a burden on society so the tragedy is not avoided, but merely minimized. 
However, because of the short lifespans, the impetus to procreate at a young age became greater.  This means that the drive to have sex became even stronger during the younger years.  And in fact, those instincts are so strong that I feel sex is a biological imperative.  Because of this, sex itself is NOT a moral issue.  There certainly are moral issues surrounding sex, just as there are with all other biological imperatives, but the act itself, from a moral standpoint, is completely ambiguous.
A lot of people (mostly very religious conservative people) don’t want to hear this.  It upsets their entire world view.  But then so did Galileo once upon a time and the result was advancements in science and technology that have improved life for nearly every human on this planet (at least for the time being).   I say to those people, the world is in flux.  Get used to it.

Where does that leave morality? 
Sex is not an “option” but rather a need.  So where exactly does that leave morality and sex?  They still share a close relationship, but just some of the nuances have changed.  For example, if a person makes a commitment to only have sex with one person, s/he still has a moral obligation to honor that commitment.  If a two consenting adults, with no prior obligations take every precaution (and re-read that clause again because the requirements there are adults, consent and no other commitments) to prevent the transmission of an STD or cause an unwanted pregnancy then no moral wrong has been committed if they have sex with each other.  Notice that there is no mandate for the people to be of different genders?  That’s because homosexuality is not morally wrong.  It is just the fulfillment of a biological need.  And because pregnancy is not possible between the same gender, there never has been a rational argument for the prohibition (other than religious arguments which are not very good arguments because of the logical inconsistencies that are contained within such texts). 

This blog will be continued on Friday where I will touch directly on the morality of Celibacy, promiscuity, Teenagers and Sex, and Religion and Sex.

How Rick Perry is making a mockery of Pro-lifers

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who claim to be pro-life have a genuine respect for the sanctity of life.  I do believe that the average Joe, on the streets and in churches praying for an end to abortions are sincere about their desire to protect human life.  I also believe that no other group is more misinformed and short sighted about this issue.  No other group is completely close minded to the actual facts about abortion and the real solutions. 
So here are the only facts I need to point out about this issue for the purpose of this blog.  First, abortions were illegal and women still got them.  So outlawing them won’t stop women from getting them if they feel they need them.  Second, there are programs out there which have proven to prevent women from getting abortions but nearly every Republican legislator out there opposes funding them (programs like education, birth control and healthcare).  Lastly, Rick Perry has been adamant about the abortion issue being a 10^th Amendment issue (the 10^th Amendment limits the rights of the Federal Government to those specifically outlined in the Constitution and is very rarely used in Supreme Court decisions because it is rather redundant).

It is this last issue I would like to emphasize.  Mainly because the 10th Amendment, when it has been asserted by states in court cases, traditionally has been used to protest federal regulations of labor and/or environmental controls.  For those of us who have been paying attention, Republicans like Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA 49) have been waging an all out war on the regulatory commissions like the EPA and the FDA.  It appears to be their goal to eradicate these commissions completely given the pro-corporation bent of these legislators.  And Since corporations don’t get poisoned or cancer, the need for these governing bodies would appear to be completely unnecessary to them. 

So back to Mr. Perry and his “pro-life” stance (which I think should be better called a pro-corporate life stance).   Perry told ABC News,

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston.  “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, 'We’d rather not have states decide that.'”

I think that statement shows the nature of Perry’s true intent.  He’s garnering support from the anti-abortion crowd by using the emotionally charged issue of abortion and the archaic notion that if we outlaw it, we’ll save the lives of the unborn.  But as I pointed out above, that solution has already been proven to fail.  Yet why would a fiscal conservative want to spend so much money enacting and enforcing a law that wouldn’t do anything to save lives?  Why would the 10^th Amendment be so important to him? 

Because the corporate interests that fund him want those regulatory bodies to go away.  Banning abortion under the 10^th Amendment sets a precedent that corporations can then use to begin challenging labor laws, environmental laws, tariff laws, etc.  It would give carte blanche to the business world to exploit resources and people for their own financial gains.  As much as I believe in the sincerity of the average person on this issue, I truly believe in Rick Perry’s insincerity on it. 

Rick Perry is usurping the genuine desire the average person has for a better world and manipulating it so that those who already do live in a better world keep fewer and fewer people from enjoying it.  He is for protecting the life of the unborn, but when that unborn child does get born he opposes nearly all social funding for it and when that fetus grows up and commits a crime, he will allow it to be executed swiftly.  I’m still waiting to see Perry show respect for the sanctity of human life.  I do not know of one policy he has enacted that truly supports this intent. 

George Carlin used say “Republicans want live babies to be born to grow up to be dead soldiers.”  Rick Perry, it would seem, wants live babies to grow up just to be dead. 

The Evolution of a Liberal

I know I alluded to a blog about Rick Perry, and that's coming.  However, a dear friend of mine at the reunion this weekend suggested I blog about this, so consider this personal reflection a little something extra.

This past weekend, I attended my class reunion.  We were invited to bring our memorabilia to the event to share with everyone.  Tucked away in my sophomore yearbook were several old football programs and a basketball program that I thought would be fun to share with everyone.  Since it had been at least a decade since I had really looked at them, I eagerly glanced at them in order to remind myself about those days.  I began to giggle as I saw the stars I had put next to the football players I thought were so cute back then.  But my giggles turned to a huge gasp and utter shock when I saw that I had written “fag” next to the picture of one of the coaches.  Did I write that?  I don’t even remember that man.  I don’t think I ever talked to that man—EVER! 
Waves of shame washed over me as I quickly looked through all the programs, to exclude any that might have those references.  My first reaction was that I would bury the evidence hide the hideousness that had spewed forth from my hand.  Who was that girl who had written those things?  The woman reading them back certainly would have disliked her intensely had they come face to face. 

But then I remembered the insecure teenager who would do anything to get accepted and loved.  Those weren’t my words.  I have a vague recollection of liking someone who was on the football team and he called the coach that name.  Since I wanted to be liked and accepted, and group hatred is cheap and easy way to accomplish that goal (or so it would seem) I think I wrote the word so he (that is the guy I liked and admired so much that I defaced my football program, and yet haven’t the vaguest recollection of whom it might be) would like me.  It didn’t work.  Hatred never does. 

And yet, I can’t help feeling that the worst part of this story is not the word itself (although I do not condone its use in anyway), but that it wasn’t my word.  It was the word of someone else which I regurgitated like a pea brained parrot, trying to get a treat.  The mind that was churning and the heart that was yearning to step up and say “this is wrong,” were igniting, but insecurity was dousing them at the slightest hint of a flame.  I wasn’t ready.  I didn’t know that picking up the cause of something that is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not because I get a direct benefit from it, is the truest and surest way to empowerment.  I didn’t know the strength that this one small girl had inside of her, if only she’d try.  And because I didn’t know, I must offer that truly dislikable girl an olive branch.  She can’t be faulted for what she didn’t know then, because she did learn from it.   And that girl and all of her mistakes would give birth to the woman I am today. 

So I gathered up those programs and took them with me to the reunion.  And really, no one cared what I wrote on them.  The fact is, my classmates were too thrilled by the memorabilia to be offended by the offhand comment of a 15 year-old school girl.  My goal was to bring joy to my fellow alumni, and I accomplished that.  I offered an apology for any offensive remarks, but I don’t think I even needed to do that.  The word “fag” didn’t brandish me as a hypocrite, because even as the seasoned woman I am today, I still have much to learn.  And today’s lesson is a review of the chapter “it’s not always about me.”

See You Next Week

I'm taking a break from blogging this weekend, so that I can attend my class reunion. But I will be back with a vengeance next week. I have a ton of things to say about Rick Perry officially declaring his run for president. All I'm going to say right now is that if it's appointed by a Bush, Govern's like a Bush and gets funding from the same backers as a Bush-- It MUST BE A BUSH!!!!!

To Wisconsin and Beyond

Last November, the Tea Party claimed all sorts of victory when they took "back America."  Cries that the American people had spoken filled the air, and people like Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor, smugly pontificated about how the American system was broken and they were going to fix it.  But they never said exactly HOW.

Shortly after taking office in Wisconsin, the elected representatives of the Tea Party began implementing a plan that no one signed on for.  They systematically began an assault on one of the cornerstones of our American society: our worker's rights.  Rights that many of our grandparents fought for.  Rights that ensure that we in America have a standard of living which has been the envy of everyone else in the world.  Rights that many countries we used to look down our noses upon, have copied and implemented for their people.

Today, less than a year after the Tea Party "(Took) Back America," as our entire economy seems to be imploding, Wisconsin will be holding an election that may very well be our only hope for solvency.  They have the ability to erase much of the wrongs which happened last November and if they do, it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the country follows suit. 

I personally think that all the recalls will go through and that the entire state of Wisconsin will go blue.  However, I am also sheltered by my liberal friends and my emotional need at this time to keep hope alive by listening to people who, like me, think that the Tea Party didn't "Take Back America" as much as they "Kidnapped America, Beat it to a Pulp, Held it for Ransom and Will Probably Kill it Anyway."  Okay, so maybe it isn't the catchiest campaign slogan but it seems to be true. 

I am truly optimistic that tomorrow's election in Wisconsin will be the shot heard round the world.  Tomorrow's election will be the beginning of America fighting back.  Tomorrow's election will prove to the rest of the world that we the people are paying attention.  We the people do know exactly which  people are responsible for the economic mess we are in.

What I'm not so sure about is how long this message will last.  While I do believe it's true that the Tea Party is responsible for the actual policies and stall techniques that have brought us to this point, even more responsible are the people who don't vote.  The people who, up until now, haven't been paying attention.  People who spend nearly all their downtime watching sports or reality television because politics is "boring." 

To them I say this:  you know what's even more boring than politics?  Unemployment.  But you know what's not boring?  Poverty.  Get off your fat ass, turn off the television, wake up and look around!!! You have no one to blame but yourself if you didn't vote.  Today is your opportunity to make a difference.  Tea lies.  Tea is incompetent.  Tea doesn't really care about you half as much as it cares about the boss that fired you so there are all the facts you need.  Tea isn't about making your life better as much as it is about making sure they win at all costs. 

If you live in Wisconsin, you need to get out and vote today.  You need to recall all the jerks that were elected last November and you need to put the right people into place.  The right people who are true and patriotic Americans that love this country more than they love their party.  The rest of America is depending on you to fire back with a vengeance.  The rest of America is counting on you to reclaim our country.  The rest of America wants you to Flush the Tea.