Where To Begin?

Well...this last weekend has been pretty rough where I live.

You see, I live right in between Columbine High School and Century 21 Theatres in Aurora. Both are just a few miles from my house.

I have several friends who were at Columbine when the massacre occurred. All who were there still have emotional issues stemming from that day.

And now we have another mass shooting to deal with.

Our Governor, who I have a deep admiration for, said, "We will come together and be made stronger."

I am certain we will. But at what point will be asked to be so strong that we finally break? How many shootings and other calamities will be asked to be strong for? We have been on the front page of too many newspapers for too many horrible events.

Of course, when a shooting of this magnitude occurs, the inevitable debate of whether or not guns are good or bad occurs. I will get to that.

But first I'll mention something slightly less controversial. Regardless of what side of the gun issue you are on, there is another issue that also deserves some serious discussion. That is the issue of mental illness. We have a history in this country of ignoring mental illnesses. Some groups even preach that mental illness does not exist. Perhaps as a society we should stop cutting programs that affect the mentally ill and open more treatment centers. Perhaps as a society we should take care of those who are mentally ill, look for symptoms of those who are mentally ill, and stop pretending like it isn't a factor to many problems we face today. Perhaps that would help stop some of these senseless murders.

Now onto guns. You can't have 12 innocent people sitting in a movie theater and then randomly slaughtered without at least bringing it up.

My emotions are a little raw right now as I try to process what happened. My emotions are raw when I think of my three little girls who are growing up in an area where every few years a psychotic murderer goes on a rampage and shoots down anyone in sight.

There have been several arguments in favor of guns:

1. If somebody else had had a gun, they could have shot him and there would have been fewer innocent people killed

2. Taking guns away from all really only takes guns away from law abiding citizens

3. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

4. More guns will keep us safer.

Let me address each of these issues.

1. What if somebody else did have a gun? This was a dark theater with tear gas everywhere. It was complete chaos with people running around in every direction trying to escape. The murderer was dressed in heavy body armor. If somebody else had a gun, they most certainly would NOT have shot the murderer in a fatal way. They would have been much more likely to shoot an innocent victim.

A trained policeman will deliver a fatal blow 1 in 7 times to a moving target. What would an untrained civilian do in a dark theater with a hundred people running all around?

I am very grateful that nobody else had a gun that night.

2. This guy WAS, indeed, a law abiding citizen. Until he decided not to be. Everything he did was perfectly legal- until he decided to go and kill a room full of people.

When people are allowed to buy guns (even military grade assault rifles) they are also buying the choice to kill people. Even if they are "law abiding."

3. This argument just makes me sick. It is so absurd I don't even know where to begin. Let's say this man was armed with pencils. Let's say that's the only weapon he could get a hold of. Would he have murdered 12 people and injured 70? Of course not. I would much rather that he had gone into the theater with pencils instead of military grade artillery.

4. Colorado has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country. It is incredibly easy to get a gun here. And look what is has gotten us- 3 mass attacks where 33 innocent people have been murdered in the past 15 years (in addition to Columbine and Friday's attacks, there was an attack at a church where 7 people were killed in 2007).

I am ready to try a different approach. It is apparent that relaxed gun laws have not made us safer in this state. Why not try something different? Remember the definition of insanity? Well, how many people do we have to have die while attending innocent public events before we try something different? If you want to arm every person in your state with a gun, fine. But not in MY state. Not in Colorado. I am tired of guns in this state.

Will drug dispensaries in elementary schools stop drug abuse? Will open borders stop illegal immigration? Will having more abortion doctors stop abortions? If you answer "no" to these questions, then how can you possibly believe that more guns will stop violence?

I love the state of Colorado. It is beautiful and the people here are wonderful- except, of course, the psychotic ones.

But right now I want to leave. I want to go to a place that is safe. I want to go to a place where people don't think that more violence will solve the problem of violence. I want to go to a place where I don't have to worry about my children being shot while trying to have fun.

Canada is starting to look really good right now.

SERIOUSLY?!?

Is anybody else SICK of hearing about the stay-at-home-mom-non- issue brought on by one comment from a political analyst that was completely taken out of context and has somehow morphed into a made up war on moms?

I am. That's all anyone on Facebook wants to talk about, so I am having to remove friends from my updates left and right because I can not stand such contrived made-up fights.

Come on. It's not like Rosen said Ann Romney was a lazy bum who is a massive drain on society.

She said Romney never worked a day in her life. And when it comes to a paying job, that is absolutely, 100% true (as far as my research can tell). Does she work as a stay at home mom? Of course. I'm a stay at home mom and I work way harder than most people I know. But do you want to know what was even harder work than being a mom?

Cleaning toilets for 4 years to pay for college.

Or teaching 150 high school students and constantly being ridiculed by parents who didn't think I was doing "right" by their kids 100% of the time.

Or watching a dear friend who is now single raising 3 kids- 2 of them with autism- on her own- working a full time job AND being a mom.

Rosen was in NO WAY saying that being a mom in "unworthy." That's where this fake made-up ridiculous fight comes from that is SOOOO annoying.

What she was saying is that the privileged life that Ann Romney lives means that she can not relate to the average, common woman.

And that is TRUE! Nobody can dispute that.

Ann Romney comes from wealth. She was born into it. So was her husband. They do not understand what it is like for a mother (or father) to have to choose between taking their sick child to the doctor or feeding their other children for the rest of the week. They CAN NOT relate because they have simply never been there.

That does not make them bad people. I am sure they are very nice in real life. It just means that they do not understand the plight of the working class.

The Romney's have a disconnect problem. With Mr. Romney making comments like,

"Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs"

or

"I like being able to fire people"

or

"I'll bet you $10,000"

it is very hard to relate to him.

There's entire websites completely dedicated to the comments Romney has made that show he just doesn't get it.

Again, that's not being mean. It is simply stating a fact.

I have never in my life used illegal drugs. I would be a horrible drug counselor. The best drug counselors are those who have been there and have overcome. I'm not advocating doing drugs so you can be a drug counselor, I'm just saying that if you have never been there then you can never understand- and perhaps you should choose a profession of something you do understand.

If the Romney's want to connect to the working and middle class, they should focus on their personal issues that middle class people DO deal with. They should not discuss their nannies, their housekeepers, their private schools or personal chefs (geeze, if I was a SAHM and had all of that, then my job would be easy).

Ann Romney has MS. That is a horrible, debilitating disease but she has fought hard and found ways to help her pain. She should talk about that and use that as a platform. I'm sure she does use it to some extent, but THAT is what makes her approachable- not her Cadillacs.

Let's STOP talking about this ridiculous non-issue and start talking about things that actually matter.

Occupy Wall Street

I originally wasn't going to post about this, because well: Who on earth could be against Occupy Wall Street?

But then, much to my complete inability to understand, some people actually are against it.

I can not, for the life of me, understand how this can be. I mean, seriously, peaceful people gathering to protest greed.

Not corporations. Greed. There is a BIG difference, and I think that is why people are supposedly against it- because they don't understand it. (Or, they only watch FauxNews and for some reason believe what is said on that so-called station).

Liberals and democrats are all for businesses. We're all for hard work. What we are NOT for is CEO's getting a 27% pay increase while middle-class workers get a 2% pay raise. What we are NOT for is CEO's pocketing millions of dollars while they ship jobs overseas. What we are NOT for is CEO's taking billions of dollars of bail-out money, and holding on to it: refusing to lend so that thousands of small businesses go under.

What is to like about those CEO's?

Let me give you a personal example.

My mom lost every penny of her retirement- retirement she had dilligently saved for over 30 years of dedicated service at Washington Mutual. When it went under (in very shady circumstances if there ever was one), she lost EVERY. SINGLE. PENNY.

What did Washington Mutual's CEO get? He got paid 21 MILLION dollars for 17 DAYS of work.

Yup, TWENTY ONE MILLION for 17 DAYS.

What hard-working middle-class citizen thinks that is just great? Fair? Reasonable? Right? What true, hard-working American is not furious that we live in a society where that is not only OK, it's acceptable?

That's what Occupy Wall Street is about. It's about this top 1% who DID NOT work hard to get where they are. They simply screwed the most people.

And, I'm so incredibly SICK of people saying that the poor are lazy. I grew up so poor the stories I could tell you would make your head spin. But my dad was, and still is, the absolute hardest worker I know. He worked three jobs to make ends meet. Those bastards on Wall Street who stole my entire mom's retirement have no clue what hard work is- they have never done what my Dad did. They have never sacrificed and worked like I watched my dad.

The janitors, mechanics, and factory workers are the TRUE hard workers in America. Screw you Republicans who think if you have money it's because you "worked harder." Screw you Herman Cain for treating the poor like trash, saying they just need to work. Screw every person who honestly thinks that "working hard" automatically equates to making money.

I have, unfortunately, seen how the "real world" works. I saw my mom cry for weeks while some Wall Street hypocrite took everything from her.

So, yeah, I'm pretty pissed at Wall Street. Not businesses and corporations in general. At these selfish, greedy, despicable men (who I am absolutely certain will rot in Hell someday) who are stealing from the working class, and then blaming the working class for being in such a plight.

And if you're not angry, you don't get it. Start researching, and you'll be angry.

UPDATE: I will note, that I do NOT think the violence in Rome is OK. The protests in the USA have been incredibly peaceful. In Denver, the leaders of Occupy Denver actually went around the park and collected and got rid of anything that could be used as a weapon (large rocks, sticks, etc.) and held several meetings discouraging violence. Even though the police came, it was incredibly peaceful with no violence from either side. Peaceful protests should always be encouraged in a country that claims democracy.

For America's future, parties must find political common ground

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where compromise has become a dirty word.
--Michael Fitts

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- As Americans come together to celebrate Independence Day with parades, backyard barbeques, and fireworks, we should also look back on our history and reflect on what has made us the great republic we are today: political compromise.

Our need for compromise is as great as ever. But as the 2012 election cycle heats up the prospects for bipartisan action to address our country's most serious problems decrease with each passing day. The United States is engaged in two wars (at least) overseas, faces an ever-increasing deficit, high unemployment, and soaring health care costs -- all during a sustained economic crisis.

While the recent golf summit between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner was a rare show of bipartisanship, compromise on real issues remains elusive.

The White House and Congressional Republicans risk defaulting on the country's debt as they continue to squabble over raising the debt ceiling. Many in Congress question whether Obama is flouting the War Powers Resolution with continued American military "support" in Libya. And so far the current crop of Republican presidential contenders are speaking to just one side of the electorate when offering their prescriptions for what ails America.

The reality is that Americans elect leaders to solve problems. A basic truth many of our elected officials in Washington fail to grasp is that to confront major problems and reach some level of viable agreement, effective political leadership requires compromise.

When our leaders refuse or are unable to compromise, the results can be catastrophic. In an equally uncertain time immediately following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, saw hopes for lasting peace in the League of Nations, stating prophetically in 1919, "I can predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another world war if the nations of the world do not concert the method by which to prevent it." But he and Senate Republicans refused to compromise and as a result Wilson's dream for American involvement in helping lead a peace-preserving world body was shattered.

More recently, in 1993, then-newly elected President Bill Clinton devised a plan to "to fix a health care system that is badly broken," and provide all Americans with basic health care. Several factors led to the plan's failure a year later, from closed-door White House task force proceedings to Republican intransigence. The net effect was that for the next 15 years, "health care reform" was the third rail of politics and debate was stifled.

Alternatively, compromise makes progress -- even incremental progress -- possible. Yet moving toward the middle has frequently proved hazardous to one's political reputation.

Business considered President Franklin Roosevelt a traitor to his class for enacting New Deal legislation, while his left-leaning supporters felt the legislation was too accommodating to business. President Ronald Reagan twice angered his conservative base: first by agreeing to payroll tax increases with then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill in order to save Social Security; second, by negotiating nuclear arms reduction agreements with the "evil empire," the Soviet Union.

Today, many debate what our Founding Fathers intended. The fact is, our founders intended our three co-equal branches of government to lead figures like Reagan and O'Neill to think through their differences and compromise with one another. Our Constitution was born in compromise after Benjamin Franklin helped break the deadlock in 1787 over the divisive issue of proportional representation. Then, the center of our young, fragile republic managed to hold because political adversaries looked to Congress and the courts as mediating institutions.

Early in the 20th century, the aptly named U.S. Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand observed, "The solution to any problem will almost always be compromise based on experience." He added, to underscore the point, that no court could save "a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone."

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where compromise has become a dirty word. The reasons are complicated. One is simply the social stratification in our country -- we tend to work, live, and vote with people who think as we do. Another is the splintering of our media outlets. Liberals have MSNBC and the Huffington Post. Conservatives have FOX News and the Weekly Standard.

Adding to the polarization of American politics is the absence of big tent political parties that are inclusive of moderates as well as staunch partisans -- and which as recently as 25 years ago mediated many of these divisions out of the spotlight. At the end of the day, this leaves decision-making to occur in the media glare with public leaders subject to charges of inconsistency and hypocrisy.

While unilateral disarmament by either Democrats or Republicans is not an option leading into 2012, I do see some ways forward. The first is simply for each of us to recognize the degree to which we are complicit in the bloodsport of politics. Too often we see disputes over hot-button issues as battles to the death between the forces of right and wrong.

Second, we should identify and support leaders who have a genuine record of promoting real solutions and forging thoughtful compromises. History is replete with examples. In the wake of World War II President Eisenhower, a Republican, left the New Deal intact. Fervent anti-communist Richard Nixon created the opening with China. Bill Clinton backed welfare reform.

Finally, we must make special efforts toward educating future leaders to bridge and heal our societal fissures. With the increasing segmentation in our society, our universities are one of the last bastions where people from diverse economic and political backgrounds come together on a sustained basis. They are, and must continue to be, institutions that instill an ethic of respect and teach people across the political spectrum how to engage with one another in the spirit of open and respectful dialogue.

In these days of overheated partisan rhetoric, a call for moderation is unlikely to rally the party faithful. But as Walter Isaacson wrote in his biography of Benjamin Franklin, "Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies." That should remain our common and ultimate objective.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/01/fitts.compromise/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

So Sad!

I have two thoughts about this break-up:

1. I am truly very, very sad about this. They have four kids, and they seemed like such a great couple. Different backgrounds, yes, but they both seemed grounded and real. When I heard the news, I almost started crying I was so upset- for them as well as their children. I guess it just goes to show that even seemingly great marriages still have problems.


And,
2. Republicans can get off their high horse about thinking they are so morally superior to Democrats- they have officially lost their self-righteous and self-given title of "moral gods and goddesses" of America. Granted, they lost it a  long time ago, but now they can really shut up about having higher standards than everybody else, because they don't.

Whew, felt good to get that off my chest!

The Irresistible Revolution

"When people begin moving beyond charity and toward justice and solidarity with the poor and oppressed, as Jesus did, they get in trouble. Once we are actually friends with folks who struggle, we start to ask WHY people are poor, which is never as popular as giving to chairty. One of my friends has a shirt marked with the words of late Caholic Bishop Dom Helder Camara:

'When I fed the hungry, they called me a saint.

When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a communist.'

Charity wins awards and applause, but joining the poor gets you killed. People do not get crucified for charity. People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order, that calls forth a new world.

People are not crucified for helping poor people.

People are crucified for joining them."

-From The Irresistible Revolution: Living As An Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborn

The Human Predicament Cycle

I am fascinated by what is going in Egypt right now. I can hardly take my eyes off the television. It is awesome to know that we are truly watching history being made. But, it begs the question: What's next?

The answer, of course, is anybody's guess.

But I am reminded of what I learned in college- in BYU's American Heritage class. The BYU professors came up with what they call, "The human predicament cycle." It is a cycle that centuries of civilizations have gone through that goes like this:

1. Tyrannical leader/dictator
2. Revolution to get rid of said leader
3. Leader is ousted, anarchy ensues
4. A new tyrannical leader is put into power to establish order

Wash, rinse, repeat.

The United States of America is the country that was able to break from this cycle. Watching Egypt, I am reminded once again of how great our founding fathers really were. After the Revolutionary War, the people wanted to crown George Washington King of America- but he refused, knowing they had just fought a war to be rid of a king. Instead, he worked with other great men to form our Constitution and establish the United States of America. We are certainly blessed to be a part of that legacy!

Now, we wait and see what Egypt will do. Will they fall victim to the Human Predicament Cycle and have anarchy that will lead to yet another dictator? Or, will they break free and establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Only time will tell, and I am anxious to see how this all plays out!

Restoring Sanity/Keeping Fear Alive

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-After reading in the newspaper there was a satellite rally in downtown Denver where the Restoring Sanity/Keeping Fear Alive rallies would be broadcast live, my husband and I decided to head downtown and check it out. I am so glad we did!
-

Truly, this was not a political rally. But it was definitely something we need to hear.

-

There was comedy, musical numbers, and a good time for all I am sure.

-

But there was also a serious message.

-

And the message I got was simple:

We need to work together to get things done.

-

In promoting his rally, John Stewart used rallying cries such as:

I may disagree with you, but I am pretty sure you are not Hitler.

-

With that, I knew the rally would be good. And it was.

-

He slammed cable news networks that use name-calling and fear to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. He called out all the networks and asked us as consumers to change the channel when the anchors started using name-calling and hate as a way to convey their message.

-

He had several great quotes:

"This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith. Or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies."

-

And one of my personal favorites,

"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."

-

He talked about the need for us to work together- not resort to name calling. He wants us to end toxic political rhetoric and instead remember that we are all Americans- we are ALL on the same team.

-

He talked about how the news wants us to believe that all we do is fight and hate each other and that we should fear anybody who is different than us, but that in reality every day people of different political backgrounds, different religions, different races are working together to solve problems.

-

I liked what he had to say. I am glad he has asked us to stop fighting and instead to come together and all be AMERICANS.

-

I wish that was in a political ad.

I Love This Man

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - No Problemo
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

If You Want To Cut The Abortion Rate, Vote YES For Health Care Reform!

As the health care debate continues, there is one group of people who should be jumping on-board FOR health care: Pro-Lifers.

Industrialized countries WITH universal health care have remarkably LOWER abortion rates.

The reasons are not so shocking. When a woman is able to provide health care coverage for she and her baby, she is more likely to keep the baby. Also, with free health care coverage, women are more likely to go to the doctor to get a diaphram or another form of birth control so she won't have an unwanted pregnancy.

In interviewing a Cardinal and others in Britain in an attempt to explain the lower abortion phenomenon that so many other countries have already figured out, T.R. Reid said in his article:

"The cardinal said that there were several reasons (for reduced abortion rates) but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. "If you're [sexually] active," she said, "the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that's easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free."

For various reasons, then, expanding health-care coverage reduces the rate of abortion. All the other industrialized democracies figured that out years ago. The failure to recognize this plain statistical truth may explain why American churches have played such a small role in our national debate on health care. Searching for ways to limit abortions, our faith leaders have managed to overlook a proven approach that's on offer now: expanding health-care coverage."

For the entire article, go here.

One solution to ending abortion in America is clear: Vote YES for a universal health care system!

You GO Girl!

So yesterday I saw this headline:

John Edwards to finally admit baby is his

And I had two immediate thoughts:

1. You are a scumbag, John Edwards

and

2. Was ANYBODY surprised by this announcement? Anybody? Anybody?

We won't get into how stupid politicians (and Tiger Woods) are by thinking that they won't get caught. News flash: YOU WILL GET CAUGHT. But, we talked about that earlier.

Instead, I want to focus on this headline:

Elizabeth Edwards finally leaves cheating husband, John

Way to go, Elizabeth! You deserve better than a husband who cheats on you while you are going through cancer treatments! Good for you for standing up and refusing to take this crap any longer!* The same kudos go out to Jenny Sanford for leaving her husband!

Maybe if more women stand up to these rediculous politicians who think their wives won't leave them because of their status, more men will THINK before they start sleeping around!

I think we can safely say John Edward's political career is over.**

*Some couples can work through an affair and come out stronger. When that is the case, that is obivously the best case scenario for a horrible situation- especially for the kids, who are the real losers in all of this. But, in these political situations it seems to be too public to really be worked out, and the wife seems to stay just for political reasons, which to me is sad. Unless they can work it out. But often they can't.

**Hillary stayed with Bill and maybe that allowed for them both to continue with their political lives. I think that while they have mutual respect for each other, the only reason they are still together is for political reasons and somehow that works for them. By these women leaving, they probably are ruining their husbands political ambitions, and some may aruge they should therefore stay with their husbands. To which I would respond: if he was so worried about his political career, he SHOULD NOT HAVE CHEATED IN THE FIRST PLACE! It is his fault she left, not hers!

Oh, CRAP! The World Is Beginning To Like Us Again...

When my sister served a mission (2002) in Taiwan, church leaders told her to lie and say she was from Canada and not from America so that she would not be assaulted.

When I toured Europe (2004) signs everywhere in every country I visited said things like, "Yankees out!", "Amis go home!", etc.

It seems there was a period of time where the world truly hated us. We were seen by other countries as bullies and believed we could do anything and everything we wanted with no thought of the consequences. My friends from foreign countries have affirmed these last statements to be true. I won't go so far as to say it was all George Bush, though the Iraq War certainly did not help this image. Our country has done many unforgivable things to obtain these feelings from others- just look at we did in the Congo, it was horrible. But it was during Bush's reign that the loathing from other countries seemed, to me, to escalate.

Now we have a president that other countries like. He is a likeable guy- a great smile, good looks- a JFK persona, if you will. And, well, his wife is also mesmerizing. Obama is willing to talk to other countries and show them respect- not immediately start calling French Fries Freedom Fries just because the French disagree with him. The feeling of other countries toward America has changed- drastically. And yet, for some reason, some people believe that is a bad thing.

We lost the 2016 bid for Chicago to host the olympics. I feel as though I am the only one surprised that we lost, but look at it from an IOC voter. If you could choose anywhere in the world, would you rather:

A. Have the olympics at one of the most beautiful beaches in the world with throngs of supermodels walking along the coastline, or

B. Have the olympics where you could see fat people eating at restaurants

To me, it was a no brainer, and I am incredibly happy at where the Olympics will be held. When I think of Chicago, I think of wind and cold- NOT summer and outside activities. The obvious choice, in my mind, won. I do not think for one second it has any bearing on Obama- there are WAY too many other factors involved to blame it on one person.

Now Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize- and, of course, people are lined up to say why he doesn't deserve it.

I, however, am proud that our nation is once again being seen in a positive light by others. I am excited that missionaries no longer have to lie about where they come from for fear of being beaten. I am thrilled that our president is respected by other national leaders, instead of laughed at. In other words, I like having a president who is liked and respected- and am very confused as to why others don't.

What Is Going On?

Our very conservative newspaper in our very ultra-conservative area posted this editorial:

"Why can’t we work together?

First, I want to say that I'm a 32-year Republican, 21-year military veteran, and "straight" — being married for 29 years, to the same woman even — with two sons, one of which has already followed mom and dad into the Air Force. So you can't say I'm not a patriot or don't love my country.

However, for all that time I thought the Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility, small government and minimal intervention in our lives. Well the Bush administration proved me wrong. First they spent trillions on a war against a country that was no threat to us, spending us literally into the poor house.Then they spent untold millions of dollars on trying to tell people what they can and can not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with their "defense of marriage" and other interventions based upon religious edicts. I thought we had separation of church and state.

And now, when the government wants to spend money on improving the lives of our own residents, they get "angry" about wasteful government spending. Where were they when we first went on this spending spree?

I've been "angry" ever since shortly after I voted for Bush the first time and we invaded Iraq. We could afford a better health care program if we weren't in the poor house from the Bush Republican's wasteful government spending. I agree we need to watch the budget, but people give it a break. Can't we work together on this? Together we should be able to come up with a better way to provide health care for our residents, but many Republicans are ready to do anything to "break Obama." That is not the country I fought for starting in Vietnam through the first Gulf war.Please tell the Republicans in Congress that for the first time I'm ashamed of how we are behaving like spoiled children.

Jeff Hartig"

I was so glad this was posted! FINALLY a voice of reason from the Republican side! This is somebody I could sit down and have a decent conversation with. There are so many things frustrating me right now with politics:

1. The philosophy that my side is ALWAYS right, and your side is ALWAYS wrong- regardless of the issue

2. Rather then trying to have a decent conversation to come to a consensus- or at least a better understanding- name-calling and yelling ensue (I still don't understand why yelling and screaming at a town hall meeting is somehow better then coming prepared with decent, legitimate questions)

3. Every problem America has is Obama's fault- period. If it is mentioned that a large part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is because of a certain other president, we are told to stop blaming him for anything- because it is all Obama's fault (even though he has only been president for 9 months and that other guy was president for 8 years).

4. It seemed in the past some people were willing to cross the aisle to work with the other side- now I don't see that happening at all. Nobody is willing to bend an inch, to be seen as "weak" by their constituents.

These are a few of my observations- if anybody else has other observations, please let me know. But based on these observations, I have decided the following:

1. If you*** start name calling- throwing the term Nazi, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, etc. around- I will immediately cease listening to what you are saying and ignore you. At least have the decency to hold an intelligent conversation about issues, not labels.

2. You should at least be willing to admit that mistakes have been made on both sides, and that one party is never going to be right ALL of the time or I will view you as a crazy partisan lunatic who I don't want to talk to.

3. Pick your battles. There is a battle raging over health care and people chose to get in a huge huffy over the president telling kids to stay in school (I am embarrassed by e-mails I got from people claiming to be Christian in regards to this issue) and even pulled their kids out of school. What is that teaching your children?

4. Respect the other side- even if you disagree with them. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere in our discussion.

5. Listen to the other side- otherwise, I won't listen to you.

If people on both sides would be willing to sit down and follow these rules, I actually think health care reform and other issues would move forward in a positive way. But, I won't hold my breath.

***YOU is being referred to as a very general term- because I engage with everybody on this blog, I don't think any of you break these new "rules" of mine. I am referring to a general atmosphere in the whole of America right now that is very disheartening and, I believe, bringing our country down.

Just another rant from a poor, uneducated and uninformed Democrat

If health care isn't a civil right, then what is it I ask? A privilege then? How so exactly? If you develop or are even born with a pre-existing condition, and are either denied insurance coverage altogether or are asked to pay thousands a month in premiums and have a morbidly high deductible, is that just your fault somehow? Are you being punished by God? Are only the "privileged" ones "deserving" of insurance? Is that what you conservatives think? These people deserve what they get? That they want handouts? I just don't get it.

Would you prefer the insurance industry control your lives and make piles, upon piles, upon piles of money on you or the government?

50% of all bankruptcies are medical bill related. Premiums have doubled in the last 10 years alone. Imagine what they will be in 50 years. They project something like more that half the population will not be able to afford insurance by then. And once again it's not the poor or rich - it's the middle class who is going bankrupt. If the middle class fails - the country fails. Let's look to the future. Is it that hard to look ahead a few years? Really?

Competition is one of many answers. We have a President who's willing to give it a go. At least he's trying to come up with a solution. The opposition offers none such that I've heard. They only complain, bring guns to Presidential rallies and shout "Nazi" and "Communist."

I remember the good old days when being a Democrat was just plain liberal. Now it's Socialist, Marxist, Nazi, and Communist. Wow, that's a lot of meanings for so little a word. Oh, and I forgot if your a Dem you're poor, uneducated and lazy (code word for a minority).

Just like this guy. Just a regular hobo Democrat.

And now according to some of you I need to worry about this guy -

The Health Reform Robot who wants to control our very lives!

Watch out people! He means to make sure we all have access to some health coverage of some sort! Even you sick people! He means to help cut costs and keep 1 in every 700 medical dollars being spent in this country from going to the CEO's of giant mammoth insurance companies!

Perish the thought!!

Hide your children from this world ending monster!

And once again I'll end with my all time favorite line:

Good friggin' grief.

(That's code for I think you're nuts.)

Oh, and one more tiny point..

Promote - move up to a higher rank or position; help forward; begin the process of forming or making.

Provide - make preparation; supply or equip, get in what will be required.

Those two definitions sound pretty ambiguous to me.

So in other words -

It's no longer the 1700's! Times and circumstances change.

It's called life.

Perhaps I am Naive

I have been thinking today about the suicides of two 11-year-old boys who were bullied at school. Obviously, this is incredibly tragic and my heart goes out to their families.

Bullying has now become a hot topic issue. Certainly bullying is not new, and I would think virtually everybody at some point in their lives goes through some type of bullying in one degree or another. So why is it now such a hot topic? Have no other teenagers ever committed suicide or had psychological problems related to this problem? Perhaps it is because they are so young- 11 is a shocking age to consider suicide! Perhaps it is because rather then bullying for race, people are bullying because of one's sexual orientation- perhaps that is seen as a worse reason to bully. I don't know, but I was thinking three things in regards to this issue.

1. I don't have school age children, so I don't even know how this would work. But, if your child is being bullied by another child, can one get a restraining order against that child? That might cause more problems, I don't know. But, it should at least keep that bully away from your child. That would certainly inconvenience the bully's parents, because that child might have to switch schools to stay away from the one who got the restraining order (I may be wrong, but I believe the one who has the restraining order against them is the one who has to make the changes to stay away from the one seeking the order- but, I could be wrong on that).

2. I in NO way want to say that these boys parents are to blame- certainly the bully's parents are MUCH more to blame, but I am wondering why this bullying would lead to suicide. Like I said before, bullying has been going on since Cain and Abel. But is there something we, as parents, can do if our children are on the receiving end of being bullied to help them have the strength and courage and self esteem to overcome the bullying? I don't know what that would be, but it seems that if parents were more involved in their children's lives and taught them that their worth is not based on a few mean kids at school, maybe it would lead to less tragic results. Again, I am NOT blaming these parents, I am just wondering if there are things we can do with our children that would be stronger then the words and possible attacks of the bullies.

3. A lot of blame has been put on the schools. I can understand that, because that is where much bullying begins and/or occurs. I do think there should be some policies specifically related to bullying- including expelling students who bully. I believe most schools do have some policies, but certainly these policies should be strengthened. But, how much can the schools do? They can not provide body guards to every student. They can not walk home with students to make sure they aren't beat up. They can't duct tape kids' mouths shut on the playground. My first year of teaching we had a huge problem with gays being beat up (that seems to be the group to bully right now- at least in our suburbs here). When I say beat up, I mean beat up- to the point where one of them almost died. I think there were 3 having these problems. Many of the beatings occurred on school grounds, but after school hours- after dances, basketball games, or whatever-when adults had left. All 3 of the boys ended up transferring schools and we, as teachers, had to teach gay tolerance programs in our classes. I had no problem teaching these classes- the problem I had was the comments the students made! It was unbelievable the hatred that came out of their mouths. How can I, as a teacher, change that? They are learning this hatred at home and it is being fed by their peers at school. I can't compete with parents in teaching tolerance! That leads me back to my original thought- how much can we really expect the schools to take responsibility for what occurs?

I have zero answers. These are just some things I have been thinking about in regards to this issue.