The DREAM act just passed the house but has little hope of passing the senate. The main reason is that Republicans see it as granting amnesty to criminals. The targets of the bill are not the people who crossed the border illegally, rather it is their children who would benefit. The DREAM act states that children who were brought into America before the age of 16 would get an identity card and a path to citizenship. This isn't just a free gift, the child would have to agree to go to at least a two year institution of higher learning or serve in the military.
Even after having this explained to them republicans still don't get it. So I will attempt to explain it.
When a parent commits a crime, their children are not charged with the same crime. That would be stupid right? Yet that is exactly what republicans are attempting to do. They are trying to convince us that children in the care of their parents should be held accountable for what their parents do. Imagine if the next time someone is caught selling drugs while his/her children are in the home gets arrested the cops take the kids to juvenile hall instead of to foster care. People would be outraged!
I want to know what a five year old, or even an eleven year old kid is supposed to do when his parents choose to cross the border. Are they supposed to say,"I'm sorry I can't go with you, this is against the law". Even if a kid said that what would happen to him?
It is not fair for us to hold foreign children to a higher standard then our own. They are just children, they are dependent on their parents just like your children are. it is immoral to cal these children criminals, they did nothing wrong.
This act is the right thing to do. republicans say they love this country, they say it is the greatest nation, it is time for them to do something great.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Bush tax cuts part II
The house just passed a resolution that would extend the Bush tax cuts to those making under $250,000, but would let the cuts expire for those making over that amount.When this goes to the senate it will fail because it has no republican support. Some of what I write here may sound familiar if you read my "Work" post from the other blog.
When George Bush implemented these tax cuts we were told that the money saved by the rich would be put back into the economy. That did not happen, what did happen was that jobs were sent overseas and the rich got richer while we slowly started to decline. What is so frustrating to me is that Republicans who complain about the deficit are shutting down a quick and fair way to put money back into the government. When the stock market tanked people were fired so that CEO's could keep their benefits. There are people who have been looking for work for two years, and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for those who put them in the unemployment line.
We have no way of knowing that extension of these tax cuts will do anything positive for the economy. We do however know for a fact that letting the tax cuts expire will provide the government much needed money.
It's simple psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We have seen this since Reagan was president, the rich get tax breaks that they are supposed to pass down to the rest of us, they never do, they keep that money as pure profit.
The only group of people who are making money in this rescission are those in the upper income. What this means is, that republicans want to reward those who got us here in the first place. John Boener whined about the injustice of making people pay their fair share. He said letting tax cuts for the rich return to normal levels was "chicken crap" . Really John? You know what I think is chicken crap, the fact that I lost my job so that one guy could make money in a recession.
You know what else is chicken crap Mr. Boener? The fact that employers refuse to make cheap or even free accommodations so that they can hire disabled employees.
but I digress
If you want to know what these people will do with the extra money look at what they are doing with it now. In my community there is a group of wealthy property owners who are buying up multi family units and renting them out. They have the money because of the cheap taxes they pay. They move from one town to the next getting these units ready to rent, in some cases they are building their own units. Usually building projects like this generate about jobs, but not in this case. In order to maximize profits this group is using the same 30 people for every job. They are also not doing maintenance on the properties they own so they are not contributing to the local economy by the purchase of goods and services. These are the people you want to reward? These parasites that drain us dry and walk away wealthy?
I say hell no! It is time they paid into the system like everyone else.
When George Bush implemented these tax cuts we were told that the money saved by the rich would be put back into the economy. That did not happen, what did happen was that jobs were sent overseas and the rich got richer while we slowly started to decline. What is so frustrating to me is that Republicans who complain about the deficit are shutting down a quick and fair way to put money back into the government. When the stock market tanked people were fired so that CEO's could keep their benefits. There are people who have been looking for work for two years, and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for those who put them in the unemployment line.
We have no way of knowing that extension of these tax cuts will do anything positive for the economy. We do however know for a fact that letting the tax cuts expire will provide the government much needed money.
It's simple psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We have seen this since Reagan was president, the rich get tax breaks that they are supposed to pass down to the rest of us, they never do, they keep that money as pure profit.
The only group of people who are making money in this rescission are those in the upper income. What this means is, that republicans want to reward those who got us here in the first place. John Boener whined about the injustice of making people pay their fair share. He said letting tax cuts for the rich return to normal levels was "chicken crap" . Really John? You know what I think is chicken crap, the fact that I lost my job so that one guy could make money in a recession.
You know what else is chicken crap Mr. Boener? The fact that employers refuse to make cheap or even free accommodations so that they can hire disabled employees.
but I digress
If you want to know what these people will do with the extra money look at what they are doing with it now. In my community there is a group of wealthy property owners who are buying up multi family units and renting them out. They have the money because of the cheap taxes they pay. They move from one town to the next getting these units ready to rent, in some cases they are building their own units. Usually building projects like this generate about jobs, but not in this case. In order to maximize profits this group is using the same 30 people for every job. They are also not doing maintenance on the properties they own so they are not contributing to the local economy by the purchase of goods and services. These are the people you want to reward? These parasites that drain us dry and walk away wealthy?
I say hell no! It is time they paid into the system like everyone else.
ending "DADT"
The Pentagon just released the results of a study about the effects of ending "Don't ask don't tell". I was not at all surprised to hear that there was no evidence to show that ending the practice would have long lasting or extremely negative affects. The study showed that there would be a short adjustment period, but that was all.
Also not a surprise to me was John McCain's reaction, in short he feels that the study is flawed. See that's what we have been taught to do in America, if we don't like the results of something we are supposed to say the whole thing is flawed.
What really bothers me is that McCain is a veteran, he was in Vietnam he saw people who were drafted. I cannot figure out how someone who knows how important serving his country was to him, could deny someone the same chance. What is more sad is that he would deny his own child the right to serve her country if she wanted to.
McCain and his supporters believe that the majority of combat troops would refuse to serve with someone who is gay. The survey that was a part of this study found that most military personnel did not think sexual orientation mattered. Why McCain is so upset is he thinks that combat troops should have been asked directly if they would serve with a gay person.
Gates and Mullen defend the study, saying that solders are not asked whether they "like" 15 month tours of duty. (Statesman, Pg. 2)
McCain firmly believes that the military would loose most of it's troops if it allowed gays to serve.
I have no doubt that there are homophobic people in all branches of the military, and some may find serving with gay people to much for them. Those people who actually leave active service, as opposed to those who bitch about it to friends and family, will probably be few and far between. A person joins the military because they have a belief that what they are doing is right, I do not believe that this conviction will be shattered by ending DADT. If the military does lose a few homophobic troops, they will be replaced by the 30,000 gay and lesbian civilians who want to serve in the military.
References
"Senator McCain flays military gay study" Utah Statesman Pg 2, December, 3 2010.
P.S. don't judge me on my incorrect referencing.
Also not a surprise to me was John McCain's reaction, in short he feels that the study is flawed. See that's what we have been taught to do in America, if we don't like the results of something we are supposed to say the whole thing is flawed.
What really bothers me is that McCain is a veteran, he was in Vietnam he saw people who were drafted. I cannot figure out how someone who knows how important serving his country was to him, could deny someone the same chance. What is more sad is that he would deny his own child the right to serve her country if she wanted to.
McCain and his supporters believe that the majority of combat troops would refuse to serve with someone who is gay. The survey that was a part of this study found that most military personnel did not think sexual orientation mattered. Why McCain is so upset is he thinks that combat troops should have been asked directly if they would serve with a gay person.
Gates and Mullen defend the study, saying that solders are not asked whether they "like" 15 month tours of duty. (Statesman, Pg. 2)
McCain firmly believes that the military would loose most of it's troops if it allowed gays to serve.
I have no doubt that there are homophobic people in all branches of the military, and some may find serving with gay people to much for them. Those people who actually leave active service, as opposed to those who bitch about it to friends and family, will probably be few and far between. A person joins the military because they have a belief that what they are doing is right, I do not believe that this conviction will be shattered by ending DADT. If the military does lose a few homophobic troops, they will be replaced by the 30,000 gay and lesbian civilians who want to serve in the military.
References
"Senator McCain flays military gay study" Utah Statesman Pg 2, December, 3 2010.
P.S. don't judge me on my incorrect referencing.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Healthcare part II
Hello everyone, I know I have talked about this before but it needs to be looked at again. With many Tea Party supporters now entering the house the GOP are all aflutter with the idea of repealing Health care reform. On the Today show this morning New Mexico's former mayor said that now is the time to cut spending by cutting social security medicare and medicaid. He said it was the responsible thing to do. Now I fully get that debt is bad, but why is it that these guys never suggest cuts to programs that help the rich? We did not cause this financial mess, but dammit we (the elderly, poor, disabled) we should clean it up. Now I have said this before so I wont go over it again, what I want to mention is his plan. He says that in the spirit of bi-partisanship the Republicans should repeal the prescription drug coverage that they helped pass in the 1990's. Isn't that a great idea? Lets get rid of a program that is working to keep people alive. The idea seems to be that we work toward getting rid of all social programs, it is sad that I have to explain this Preventative care is cheaper than after the fact care! Lets say his dream comes true. No Medicaid for any adult, sounds great, well in the short term it saves states money. But then people start to visit the emergency rooms for colds, food poisoning, body aches etc... Why are they going to the emergency room instead of to a family doctor, because they have no insurance. They make the same crap wage, their rent has gone up and food stamp benefits have been cut again. So the state starts loosing millions a year. That is the reality you cannot just cut spending without thinking.
TSA screening
I have to say something about this "controversy" that is heating up. First off I would like to point out that less than one year ago a man armed with an explosive device in his pants tried to take down a plane. Since then there have been other suspicious packages (no pun intended) intercepted by the TSA and other agencies.
So the screening has been stepped up, as a way of making people less uncomfortable they have full body scanners so that someone does not have to touch you if that makes you uncomfortable. A few well placed people complained about these machines, saying that the white body shaped blobs might be used as porn by pervs. So the media picked up on this story and people got all kinds of upset about it. So the TSA said that you could opt out of the scanner for a pat down, and what happened, a few well placed people threw fits. Sarah Palin has said that white people should not be subjected to scans or pat downs. Well okay, she said that TSA agents should "profile" people. I guess Sarah doesn't remember the uni bomber or Timothy McVeigh. She would have you believe that all terrorists are "dark skinned".
I have watched this unfold for the past few weeks,(no doubt Fox news has some theory on how it's Obama's secret plan to make us Muslim or something)
One thing that all of the complaining parties have in common is that they are all affluent, or have some kind of influence at work.
Now I hear on the Today show that people are verbally abusing TSA agents who are just doing a job. One I might add that could save lives.
Listen, getting a pat down is clinical touching nothing more. I would never accuse my doctor of rape after getting a pap smear.
Let's be reasonable, it is not okay to verbally berate anyone, least of all someone who is doing a job.
Enhanced security measures are a part of our lives now, deal with it, or don't fly.
So the screening has been stepped up, as a way of making people less uncomfortable they have full body scanners so that someone does not have to touch you if that makes you uncomfortable. A few well placed people complained about these machines, saying that the white body shaped blobs might be used as porn by pervs. So the media picked up on this story and people got all kinds of upset about it. So the TSA said that you could opt out of the scanner for a pat down, and what happened, a few well placed people threw fits. Sarah Palin has said that white people should not be subjected to scans or pat downs. Well okay, she said that TSA agents should "profile" people. I guess Sarah doesn't remember the uni bomber or Timothy McVeigh. She would have you believe that all terrorists are "dark skinned".
I have watched this unfold for the past few weeks,(no doubt Fox news has some theory on how it's Obama's secret plan to make us Muslim or something)
One thing that all of the complaining parties have in common is that they are all affluent, or have some kind of influence at work.
Now I hear on the Today show that people are verbally abusing TSA agents who are just doing a job. One I might add that could save lives.
Listen, getting a pat down is clinical touching nothing more. I would never accuse my doctor of rape after getting a pap smear.
Let's be reasonable, it is not okay to verbally berate anyone, least of all someone who is doing a job.
Enhanced security measures are a part of our lives now, deal with it, or don't fly.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Utah power plant
At a time when the West desert is fighting to keep Clarke county from taking their precious water supply, the state of Utah is planning to build a nuclear power plant. The site would be right on the Green river, and would (they say) give electricity to Salt Lake's growing edge cities. The big push for this now comes because many in Utah are out of work so the idea is to create jobs and energy for Utah. Well does anyone remember IPP? This was a project just outside of Delta Ut. that was supposed to do the exact same thing. I seem to recall that the IPP project was proposed during a bit of a recession as well. Well IPP ended up being a smaller plant, so less employees, and the best part, the electricity generated went to Nevada and California.
So what guarantee do we have that this power plant will create more than just temporary construction jobs? The answer is, none we have no way to prove that the jobs will stay or that the energy will stay with us.
So we are just supposed to hope for the best. There is a group fighting this plant, they are an environmental group who are worried about the corruption of the water supply.
So what guarantee do we have that this power plant will create more than just temporary construction jobs? The answer is, none we have no way to prove that the jobs will stay or that the energy will stay with us.
So we are just supposed to hope for the best. There is a group fighting this plant, they are an environmental group who are worried about the corruption of the water supply.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Money for schools
So the federal government authorized money to go to individual states to help keep classrooms solvent in this economic crisis. What does the state of Utah do? They first say that they don't need it. "Ah who needs well educated kids, we pay the least to help our students and that's just fine by us. "
This would have been the end of it, no money for our kids except that there is a catch. See if a state legislature refuses the money than it gets dispersed among that states schools anyway. Well our legislature couldn't let that happen so they begrudgingly took the money.
Some Republicans said that giving aid to our underfunded schools was taking away states rights, his reasoning was that the state of Utah should have had the option to refuse the money.
This to me is like a neglectful parent suing DCFS for taking their child out of the home and feeding him/her. "Hey that's my kid, and if I don't want to feed him that's my right"
Well, what about the rights of the children who are owed a decent education. With this money we could ensure that class sizes stay small, and that children with special needs get the education that they are entitled to under 504.
When the legislature slashed our budget last year they put us back in the black, good for them. But as far as I know they have no intention of raising funding for schools in the near future. To revisit my analogy, if the parents won't feed their children then someone has to make sure that they don't starve.
This would have been the end of it, no money for our kids except that there is a catch. See if a state legislature refuses the money than it gets dispersed among that states schools anyway. Well our legislature couldn't let that happen so they begrudgingly took the money.
Some Republicans said that giving aid to our underfunded schools was taking away states rights, his reasoning was that the state of Utah should have had the option to refuse the money.
This to me is like a neglectful parent suing DCFS for taking their child out of the home and feeding him/her. "Hey that's my kid, and if I don't want to feed him that's my right"
Well, what about the rights of the children who are owed a decent education. With this money we could ensure that class sizes stay small, and that children with special needs get the education that they are entitled to under 504.
When the legislature slashed our budget last year they put us back in the black, good for them. But as far as I know they have no intention of raising funding for schools in the near future. To revisit my analogy, if the parents won't feed their children then someone has to make sure that they don't starve.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Affirmative action
The state of Utah wants to get rid of affirmative action. Some legislators claim that it causes more problems between members of ethnic groups, and that it is discriminatory. There was a debate held at a Baptist church in Salt Lake yesterday. I would now like to explain what this is so that you can make an informed decision about the issue.
First of all affirmative action does not mean that an employer has to hired unqualified employees, it does mean that an employer has to hire qualified employees who are ethnically diverse. It should be noted that right now the group that benefits from affirmative action the most is women. Before affirmative action employers were rejecting resumes from women because they felt that women were not suited for certain kinds of work. We have seen that change a lot in the past few years.
Society as a whole benefits from affirmative action, studies have shown that young people do better in school if they have role models of their own ethnicity to look up to. Schools of higher learning benefit from a diverse class room. Of greatest importance is the benefit gained by the employees and students themselves' finally a smart member of a minority group can gain access to something that was beyond him/her.
We like to believe that we are a meritocratic society, we are not. As was pointed out in a recent Colorado study most jobs are filled by word of mouth not by resume and interview.
Perhaps one day we will judge potential employees or students on merit but we are not there yet. Until we get to that point we need affirmative action.
The last thing I want to say is this, in a time where people are worried about jobs why is our legislature arguing this issue.
Utah would be taking a huge step back in the civil rights movement and as human beings if they cheat others out of equality.
First of all affirmative action does not mean that an employer has to hired unqualified employees, it does mean that an employer has to hire qualified employees who are ethnically diverse. It should be noted that right now the group that benefits from affirmative action the most is women. Before affirmative action employers were rejecting resumes from women because they felt that women were not suited for certain kinds of work. We have seen that change a lot in the past few years.
Society as a whole benefits from affirmative action, studies have shown that young people do better in school if they have role models of their own ethnicity to look up to. Schools of higher learning benefit from a diverse class room. Of greatest importance is the benefit gained by the employees and students themselves' finally a smart member of a minority group can gain access to something that was beyond him/her.
We like to believe that we are a meritocratic society, we are not. As was pointed out in a recent Colorado study most jobs are filled by word of mouth not by resume and interview.
Perhaps one day we will judge potential employees or students on merit but we are not there yet. Until we get to that point we need affirmative action.
The last thing I want to say is this, in a time where people are worried about jobs why is our legislature arguing this issue.
Utah would be taking a huge step back in the civil rights movement and as human beings if they cheat others out of equality.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Brian David Mitchel
Like most people I was pleased to see that the man who held Elizabeth Smart captive for nine months was finally going to trial. The Smart family has waited almost nine years for the man who was found with their abducted daughter on a Sandy street corner to face a jury. I and many others saw her return home as a miracle, many believed her to be dead. The elation about Smith's return faded into the nightmare of prosecuting Mitchel He has disrupted every court hearing, his lawyers say that singing is a sign of insanity, and people have listened. I find it hard to believe that this trial is halted yet again because of singing in a court room. I have a theory about why this SOB has yet to face justice.
My theory is this, the state of Utah is reluctant to admit that monsters like this come out of polygamy. Since the Mormons used to practice polygamy they somehow feel defensive of those who still practice it. Mitchel knows this and so plays off of it, he sings LDS hymns even though he is not a Mormon. The Mormon church is so afraid of being associated with polygamy that they would rather pretend it does not exist rather than deal with the very real problems it causes. If an abductor was caught red handed with his victim he would be tried the same year, but not Mitchel. He has a "religion" that tells him rape is OK, so we must protect it. I am appalled that this case is still being stalled, he was found fit for trial so get on with it. The new argument is that he cannot get a fair trial in Utah. This case was a sensation if the idea is to get away from people who have heard of the case, that isn't going to happen. Someone should tell his lawyers that we have a new invention called the Internet now. What pisses me off the most about this case is that, this adult man is given all of this consideration and people are forgetting that a 14 year old girl was raped twice a day for nine months. I think that the courts of Utah want to drag this out until people forget that this case is not about religion, it is about rape and abduction. Give the Smart family a chance at justice.
My theory is this, the state of Utah is reluctant to admit that monsters like this come out of polygamy. Since the Mormons used to practice polygamy they somehow feel defensive of those who still practice it. Mitchel knows this and so plays off of it, he sings LDS hymns even though he is not a Mormon. The Mormon church is so afraid of being associated with polygamy that they would rather pretend it does not exist rather than deal with the very real problems it causes. If an abductor was caught red handed with his victim he would be tried the same year, but not Mitchel. He has a "religion" that tells him rape is OK, so we must protect it. I am appalled that this case is still being stalled, he was found fit for trial so get on with it. The new argument is that he cannot get a fair trial in Utah. This case was a sensation if the idea is to get away from people who have heard of the case, that isn't going to happen. Someone should tell his lawyers that we have a new invention called the Internet now. What pisses me off the most about this case is that, this adult man is given all of this consideration and people are forgetting that a 14 year old girl was raped twice a day for nine months. I think that the courts of Utah want to drag this out until people forget that this case is not about religion, it is about rape and abduction. Give the Smart family a chance at justice.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
County wide library system
Last night the results came in about whether we should have a county wide library system. The majority of voters said no. I was surprised at this because this is a largely Mormon county and things like education and taking care of our communities are supposed to be important here.
What shocked me to the core was the venom that came out against the idea. People didn't just disagree, they were cruel to those who thought it was a good idea. It just brings to mind an idea that I have had for a long time now, that is that the legacy of this Tea Party movement will be the break down of civil dialogue between citizens.
The county wide library system would raise property taxes by $85 a year, that is a hefty sum no question. The thing is, that just a few years ago the cost would have been the debated issue, not so now. Now the Tea Party are calling people who use libraries, Marxist, lazy, entitled, and worse. One man wrote to the "Utah statesmen" and said that we as citizens should wait for a wealthy family to "gift" us a library, he also said that we (those who don't own a library) should be deported to another country. Now clearly he was alluding here to the fact that he believed the library was to be built(or expanded) because of "illegal" immigrants.
My point is not that you should agree about the library, it is expensive, my point is what the hell happened to civil, logical discourse in America.
It breaks my heart knowing that this idea was rejected, not because of the cost, but because people have decided to label all forms of government as "bad".
But WTF do I know, after all I am just a Communist Marxist Socialist, who likes to read?
What shocked me to the core was the venom that came out against the idea. People didn't just disagree, they were cruel to those who thought it was a good idea. It just brings to mind an idea that I have had for a long time now, that is that the legacy of this Tea Party movement will be the break down of civil dialogue between citizens.
The county wide library system would raise property taxes by $85 a year, that is a hefty sum no question. The thing is, that just a few years ago the cost would have been the debated issue, not so now. Now the Tea Party are calling people who use libraries, Marxist, lazy, entitled, and worse. One man wrote to the "Utah statesmen" and said that we as citizens should wait for a wealthy family to "gift" us a library, he also said that we (those who don't own a library) should be deported to another country. Now clearly he was alluding here to the fact that he believed the library was to be built(or expanded) because of "illegal" immigrants.
My point is not that you should agree about the library, it is expensive, my point is what the hell happened to civil, logical discourse in America.
It breaks my heart knowing that this idea was rejected, not because of the cost, but because people have decided to label all forms of government as "bad".
But WTF do I know, after all I am just a Communist Marxist Socialist, who likes to read?
Religion panel at USU
Yesterday the center for women and gender hosted a religious panel to discuss same sex marriage. The panel had seven people representing seven different ideologies.
The first speaker was from the Episcopal church and she spoke very well, as did the doctor who spoke about Hinduism. Then came the LDS lawyer, who took his eight minutes and instead of talking about the Mormon stance on gay marriage he whined about his church being picked on. He spent his allotted time talking about how people were trying to keep Mormons from speaking about this issue, and how they are unfairly picked on by gay rights groups. I was shocked that the people who put this panel together would choose a lawyer instead of a bishop or someone more spiritual to come. This was a chance for everyone to hear each others beliefs, and this lawyer blew that opportunity. Instead he chose to skirt the issue and talk about the law and whether it was being followed.
On the up side, all of the other speakers were excellent and handled themselves with dignity and grace. I was impressed with the panel as a whole, I only wish that more people had asked questions.
I left feeling very impressed with everyone else, but the man that was supposed to represent the LDS view was very disappointing.
I was embarrassed for the LDS faithful who were so poorly represented.
The first speaker was from the Episcopal church and she spoke very well, as did the doctor who spoke about Hinduism. Then came the LDS lawyer, who took his eight minutes and instead of talking about the Mormon stance on gay marriage he whined about his church being picked on. He spent his allotted time talking about how people were trying to keep Mormons from speaking about this issue, and how they are unfairly picked on by gay rights groups. I was shocked that the people who put this panel together would choose a lawyer instead of a bishop or someone more spiritual to come. This was a chance for everyone to hear each others beliefs, and this lawyer blew that opportunity. Instead he chose to skirt the issue and talk about the law and whether it was being followed.
On the up side, all of the other speakers were excellent and handled themselves with dignity and grace. I was impressed with the panel as a whole, I only wish that more people had asked questions.
I left feeling very impressed with everyone else, but the man that was supposed to represent the LDS view was very disappointing.
I was embarrassed for the LDS faithful who were so poorly represented.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Reaction to "8 the Mormon proposition"
I was privileged to attend the USU showing of this documentary. I had heard a lot about it, most of it negative so I was expecting a very angry anti-Mormon film. That was not at tall the film I watched. This was a good piece of investigative journalism, with the heartbreaking story of same sex couples who saw their dreams of marriage torn away from them.
I am a convert to the LDS church, I was baptized in 2004 so for me this was a tough subject. I have always felt that discrimination against same sex couples was wrong, and two years after being welcomed into the church I was being encouraged to financially and emotionally support a campaign that felt wrong.
I was horrified to learn that while the LDS church was claiming financial hardship thousands of dollars was going to this "secret" project. I remember attending "Know your religion" this was a fantastic program that brought members of area seventies to speak at stake centers. I was lucky to attend two of these in Eureka CA. The church canceled this program, claiming that their was low attendance and it was to expensive to run. Less than two years later they would pour money into ending civil marriage rights for same sex couples.
That is what I walked away with after this film, the sick feeling that the church would end a program that taught about faith and spiritual growth so that they could get involved in a political matter that was none of their damn business.
I am glad that I watched the movie, it was very painful but the truth often is. I will not recommend it to others, that would be weird, like saying "Hey friend, go and feel sad and pissed off" I will say that if you are curious about it watch it. Don't let anyone tell you what it's like, view it and make up your own mind.
I am a convert to the LDS church, I was baptized in 2004 so for me this was a tough subject. I have always felt that discrimination against same sex couples was wrong, and two years after being welcomed into the church I was being encouraged to financially and emotionally support a campaign that felt wrong.
I was horrified to learn that while the LDS church was claiming financial hardship thousands of dollars was going to this "secret" project. I remember attending "Know your religion" this was a fantastic program that brought members of area seventies to speak at stake centers. I was lucky to attend two of these in Eureka CA. The church canceled this program, claiming that their was low attendance and it was to expensive to run. Less than two years later they would pour money into ending civil marriage rights for same sex couples.
That is what I walked away with after this film, the sick feeling that the church would end a program that taught about faith and spiritual growth so that they could get involved in a political matter that was none of their damn business.
I am glad that I watched the movie, it was very painful but the truth often is. I will not recommend it to others, that would be weird, like saying "Hey friend, go and feel sad and pissed off" I will say that if you are curious about it watch it. Don't let anyone tell you what it's like, view it and make up your own mind.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Immigration part II
A few weeks ago KSL ch,5 did a news story about deporting illegal immigrants. The story centered around a plane used by ICE to take these men (I saw no women) back to their "home" country. One of these men was working at the time he was rounded up and had only two misdemeanors on his record. He came to this country with his mother when he was five years old. This man, who is married and had a child of his own was chained along side hardcore criminals.
I realize that entering the country illegally is a problem, I have stated before that I do not dispute that. Here is the problem.
Right now there is a HUGE drug war raging just across the border, these men that ICE rounded up are flown to Texas with the clothes on there back and what money they can gather. They are told to walk across the border, into a country that most of them know little about. These people may be criminals, but do they deserve death?
Think about it, they are dropped in the middle of a drug war with nothing except money. There is a very real chance that they will be killed.
I found this so horrific i could barely keep from crying. If the state of Utah wants to deport people, take them to a real city in Mexico. You can't just leave people in the desert and walk away. When did we become so barbaric that we would leave another human being at the mercy of both the elements and drug cartels?
There is certainly a better way to deal with this problem than this.
I realize that entering the country illegally is a problem, I have stated before that I do not dispute that. Here is the problem.
Right now there is a HUGE drug war raging just across the border, these men that ICE rounded up are flown to Texas with the clothes on there back and what money they can gather. They are told to walk across the border, into a country that most of them know little about. These people may be criminals, but do they deserve death?
Think about it, they are dropped in the middle of a drug war with nothing except money. There is a very real chance that they will be killed.
I found this so horrific i could barely keep from crying. If the state of Utah wants to deport people, take them to a real city in Mexico. You can't just leave people in the desert and walk away. When did we become so barbaric that we would leave another human being at the mercy of both the elements and drug cartels?
There is certainly a better way to deal with this problem than this.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The "imoral" majority.
I was surprised that it took so long for the far right to respond to the prop 8 decision. They have finally broken their silence it seems.
I feel the need to comment about this. It seems to me that those who come out most aggressively against same sex couples are those of questionable moral character.
John Edwards said that letting gay couples marry would cheapen marriage; he had a 19 month affair with a woman on his staff then denied that he fathered her child.
Mike Huckabee came out strongly opposed to gay marriage, he also had an affair.
This is a very small sampling, but think of the larger implication. If asked to look closely at themselves how many "anti" gay people are holding their own marriages as sacred.
The people on the far right, and even some moderates, would have you believe that it is a moral issue. They will say that same sex couples somehow cheapen the sacred act of marriage. My response to that is in two parts; one who's moral code are we talking about. For me it is far more important that two people engaging in a relationship be loyal to each other. How is a gay couple who are devoted to each other less moral than a married couple who commit adultery. The second part of my response is this; heterosexual couples are doing a mighty fine job of making marriage less sacred all on their own. The idea that something is cheapened because more people have access to it is elitist. This way of thinking is in stark contrast to what Christ taught about love.
The last thing I would like you to think about is this.
We are a nation of laws, one of those laws is the separation of church and state.
Judges make decisions based on civil law not on gods law. There are those who would have you believe that a persons civil rights should be taken away because the lifestyle they lead is in contrast to a popular religious view. That is not the case at all, the Constitution protects all U.S citizens regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All men are created equal, and should have access to all the same rights.
I feel the need to comment about this. It seems to me that those who come out most aggressively against same sex couples are those of questionable moral character.
John Edwards said that letting gay couples marry would cheapen marriage; he had a 19 month affair with a woman on his staff then denied that he fathered her child.
Mike Huckabee came out strongly opposed to gay marriage, he also had an affair.
This is a very small sampling, but think of the larger implication. If asked to look closely at themselves how many "anti" gay people are holding their own marriages as sacred.
The people on the far right, and even some moderates, would have you believe that it is a moral issue. They will say that same sex couples somehow cheapen the sacred act of marriage. My response to that is in two parts; one who's moral code are we talking about. For me it is far more important that two people engaging in a relationship be loyal to each other. How is a gay couple who are devoted to each other less moral than a married couple who commit adultery. The second part of my response is this; heterosexual couples are doing a mighty fine job of making marriage less sacred all on their own. The idea that something is cheapened because more people have access to it is elitist. This way of thinking is in stark contrast to what Christ taught about love.
The last thing I would like you to think about is this.
We are a nation of laws, one of those laws is the separation of church and state.
Judges make decisions based on civil law not on gods law. There are those who would have you believe that a persons civil rights should be taken away because the lifestyle they lead is in contrast to a popular religious view. That is not the case at all, the Constitution protects all U.S citizens regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All men are created equal, and should have access to all the same rights.
21 year old with CP forced to live in nursing home.
On nightly news with Brian Williams he had a story about a young woman forced to live with the elderly in a nursing home.
Haily, a 21 year old born with cerebral palsy did not have family to take care of her. So she was put into a nursing home, because the state of Georgia had cut funding that would have allowed her to live in a group home. Haily has no other disability, she is smart and could with help live a full life. When the economy goes bad it is often those who did not cause the problem who go without.
Thirty years ago Haily's story would not be noteworthy at all, back then horrid hospital like institutions were the norm. Adults and children were neglected and abused while the state paid the doctors and nursing staff twice as much as they would have had to pay to leave these people in their own homes.
The problem is corruption within the Medicaid system. States will often deny benefits for children and adults who want to live at home. They do this because they can charge Medicaid twice as much to live in a nursing home because they are paying for a full time doctor. Most people with disabilities do not require a full time doctor, they are night dying. In Haily's case her story made the paper and she was taken in by a family who may have to pay for all of her expenses on their own. The state of Georgia is threatening to take away the only insurance she can qualify for. There is a group called ADAPT fighting for legislation that would let Medicaid funds follow the person. This would mean that families and individuals could chose for themselves where they want to live.
If the Tea Party and the Republicans repeal health care stories like Haily's will become more common. With the new reforms the family that adopted Haily can add her to their insurance and pay the co pays for her equipment and medical treatment.
The disabled have been fighting since the late 60's for the right to live the lives they chose, sadly states still have the right to take that away from them.
Haily, a 21 year old born with cerebral palsy did not have family to take care of her. So she was put into a nursing home, because the state of Georgia had cut funding that would have allowed her to live in a group home. Haily has no other disability, she is smart and could with help live a full life. When the economy goes bad it is often those who did not cause the problem who go without.
Thirty years ago Haily's story would not be noteworthy at all, back then horrid hospital like institutions were the norm. Adults and children were neglected and abused while the state paid the doctors and nursing staff twice as much as they would have had to pay to leave these people in their own homes.
The problem is corruption within the Medicaid system. States will often deny benefits for children and adults who want to live at home. They do this because they can charge Medicaid twice as much to live in a nursing home because they are paying for a full time doctor. Most people with disabilities do not require a full time doctor, they are night dying. In Haily's case her story made the paper and she was taken in by a family who may have to pay for all of her expenses on their own. The state of Georgia is threatening to take away the only insurance she can qualify for. There is a group called ADAPT fighting for legislation that would let Medicaid funds follow the person. This would mean that families and individuals could chose for themselves where they want to live.
If the Tea Party and the Republicans repeal health care stories like Haily's will become more common. With the new reforms the family that adopted Haily can add her to their insurance and pay the co pays for her equipment and medical treatment.
The disabled have been fighting since the late 60's for the right to live the lives they chose, sadly states still have the right to take that away from them.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Do second amendment rights take away first amendment rights?
Hey everyone,
This is a post not really related to anything.
There are a lot of things going on that really scare me. The political climate, specifically the Tea Party movement. Instead of spurring friendly debate this movement has spurred violence. Two security guards killed after the passage of the health care bill, all because Tea Party proponent Glenn Beck said "someone should kill Nancy Polocci."
People who wrote anything positive about health care was threatened with death.
Then the supreme court says that states cannot place restrictions on gun ownership. That may not seem like a big deal, but look at the effects. People now carry guns everywhere so you never know if by saying something you could wind up shot.
That is the reason for my question, if anyone can carry and brandish their weapon anywhere they want, where does that leave me?
Example, say I am at a store and someone cuts in front of me; I can no longer say "screw you man" because he could pull a weapon.
Think about public demonstrations, where does the peaceful protester go when everyone has a gun?
Then you have people like Sharon Angle asking for revolution. She has said that if you disagree with government you should use "second amendment solutions".
The first amendment is in danger of being lost because so many people feel the need to take guns everywhere with them.
Now before you think I am being paranoid think about this; in Utah you can wave your gun around if you "feel" in danger. The law also allows you to kill the other person if it is "self defense" If you kill the other guy there is nobody to speak against you. So in a way this law simply encourages people to become better marksman.
The truth is we as a nation need to stop listening to the hype and inflammatory language of those who get paid for shock and awe. We need to read, speak civilly and learn to see another point of view.
This is a post not really related to anything.
There are a lot of things going on that really scare me. The political climate, specifically the Tea Party movement. Instead of spurring friendly debate this movement has spurred violence. Two security guards killed after the passage of the health care bill, all because Tea Party proponent Glenn Beck said "someone should kill Nancy Polocci."
People who wrote anything positive about health care was threatened with death.
Then the supreme court says that states cannot place restrictions on gun ownership. That may not seem like a big deal, but look at the effects. People now carry guns everywhere so you never know if by saying something you could wind up shot.
That is the reason for my question, if anyone can carry and brandish their weapon anywhere they want, where does that leave me?
Example, say I am at a store and someone cuts in front of me; I can no longer say "screw you man" because he could pull a weapon.
Think about public demonstrations, where does the peaceful protester go when everyone has a gun?
Then you have people like Sharon Angle asking for revolution. She has said that if you disagree with government you should use "second amendment solutions".
The first amendment is in danger of being lost because so many people feel the need to take guns everywhere with them.
Now before you think I am being paranoid think about this; in Utah you can wave your gun around if you "feel" in danger. The law also allows you to kill the other person if it is "self defense" If you kill the other guy there is nobody to speak against you. So in a way this law simply encourages people to become better marksman.
The truth is we as a nation need to stop listening to the hype and inflammatory language of those who get paid for shock and awe. We need to read, speak civilly and learn to see another point of view.
The disaster that is Glenn Beck
When I started this blog, a few weeks ago, I had the intention of writing about public policy and Beck. Well, I watched GB for a few weeks and sometimes he was coherent enough to critique. Last night and this afternoon he was just nuts.
Wednesday August 4TH
He began the program comparing Obama to Satan, yeah. Then he moved on to ranting about the progressive movement and how we needed term limits in the senate. Term limits by the way an idea that came during the progressive era.
Then he called our president ignorant, racist, a terrorist, and said that we were all in danger. Okay, my favorite (and by that I mean the part that I actually cried in horror) He said that we needed "peace" Apparently Glenn Beck feels that using incendiary language is okay if he tells people not to use violence when fighting our "terrorist" government.
Look he spent the whole show in a sort of vaudevillian act, complete with funny voices and props. Then he got offended when someone called him an "entertainer".
Thursday August 5TH
Today he began where he left off yesterday, calling our government terrorists.
Today he was a little more rational, his screaming rants seem to have a point today. So because he made actual statements that I can talk about, I will.
He talked about the white house plan to save teaching jobs, he thinks it's bad. Then he ranted about cities who have cut teaching jobs due to the budget. According to Beck these teaching jobs are being lost because of the governments plan to save them. Also yesterday was a monumental day for civil rights activists, it was also a good day for the gulf of Mexico. Glenn Beck was just furious that the news media covered these stories. Why is that, well because Missouri had a vote about one of the provisions in the health care bill, that wont effect them until 2014. That is bigger news I guess.
He then chose six cities to use as examples of wasteful spending. The waste all things hat have to do with culture and education. He was critical of cities that have had to trim back their police forces, but still had money for other projects.
What Beck is not understanding is that in a city or state money is set aside for very specific uses, you can't just rob Peter to pay Paul. What he is also ignorant of is that most city beautification projects were funded years before they are finished.
Yesterday he said it was stupid for stimulus money to go to a museum, because we all know that knowledge is over rated.
I am not giving up on this project, I feel it is important but for the sake of my sanity I will not watch Glenn Beck anymore.
I challenge those who do watch him, count how many inflammatory statements he uses against the government and tell me if it makes you feel peaceful.
If Glenn Beck were able to speak in a coherent fashion I wouldn't be so frustrated.
I will still talk about him of course, I just will not lower my humanity to watch him any more.
Wednesday August 4TH
He began the program comparing Obama to Satan, yeah. Then he moved on to ranting about the progressive movement and how we needed term limits in the senate. Term limits by the way an idea that came during the progressive era.
Then he called our president ignorant, racist, a terrorist, and said that we were all in danger. Okay, my favorite (and by that I mean the part that I actually cried in horror) He said that we needed "peace" Apparently Glenn Beck feels that using incendiary language is okay if he tells people not to use violence when fighting our "terrorist" government.
Look he spent the whole show in a sort of vaudevillian act, complete with funny voices and props. Then he got offended when someone called him an "entertainer".
Thursday August 5TH
Today he began where he left off yesterday, calling our government terrorists.
Today he was a little more rational, his screaming rants seem to have a point today. So because he made actual statements that I can talk about, I will.
He talked about the white house plan to save teaching jobs, he thinks it's bad. Then he ranted about cities who have cut teaching jobs due to the budget. According to Beck these teaching jobs are being lost because of the governments plan to save them. Also yesterday was a monumental day for civil rights activists, it was also a good day for the gulf of Mexico. Glenn Beck was just furious that the news media covered these stories. Why is that, well because Missouri had a vote about one of the provisions in the health care bill, that wont effect them until 2014. That is bigger news I guess.
He then chose six cities to use as examples of wasteful spending. The waste all things hat have to do with culture and education. He was critical of cities that have had to trim back their police forces, but still had money for other projects.
What Beck is not understanding is that in a city or state money is set aside for very specific uses, you can't just rob Peter to pay Paul. What he is also ignorant of is that most city beautification projects were funded years before they are finished.
Yesterday he said it was stupid for stimulus money to go to a museum, because we all know that knowledge is over rated.
I am not giving up on this project, I feel it is important but for the sake of my sanity I will not watch Glenn Beck anymore.
I challenge those who do watch him, count how many inflammatory statements he uses against the government and tell me if it makes you feel peaceful.
If Glenn Beck were able to speak in a coherent fashion I wouldn't be so frustrated.
I will still talk about him of course, I just will not lower my humanity to watch him any more.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Victory agianst prop 8
In California in 2008 civil rights were put on the ballot. This should have never happened, you cannot let people decide who deserves civil rights and who does not. Today a federal judge said the same thing. When the lawyers who were supporting prop 8 were asked what harm same sex marriage would cause they could come up with no answer.
Orin Hatch said that today's decision was sad, that it was wrong to "make up " rights found in the constitution. I hate to break it to Sen. Hatch but the right to life liberty and happiness is granted to all of mankind.
I am very happy to see this offensive proposition struck down, I was saddened by the LDS churches involvement in passing a law that does nothing but spread intolerance.
Civil rights decisions need to be made inside government bodies, not left up to the people. If the Americans with disabilities act had been a ballot measure it never would have passed.
The fact is, even though the fight for gay rights is not yet over it soon will be. Conservatives fought against woman's rights and they fought against ending segregation. We will win this fight and leave those full of ignorance and hate in the dust.
Orin Hatch said that today's decision was sad, that it was wrong to "make up " rights found in the constitution. I hate to break it to Sen. Hatch but the right to life liberty and happiness is granted to all of mankind.
I am very happy to see this offensive proposition struck down, I was saddened by the LDS churches involvement in passing a law that does nothing but spread intolerance.
Civil rights decisions need to be made inside government bodies, not left up to the people. If the Americans with disabilities act had been a ballot measure it never would have passed.
The fact is, even though the fight for gay rights is not yet over it soon will be. Conservatives fought against woman's rights and they fought against ending segregation. We will win this fight and leave those full of ignorance and hate in the dust.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
So much for the constitution
A growing group of Republican senators, some with Tea Party ties, are abandoning their unflappable devotion to the founding fathers. See, the Tea party and some right wing Republicans talk a good game about getting back to the constitution. As if we have left it! Now however they are proposing to get rid of the 14Th amendment. For those who may not remember that's the one that grants citizenship to children born in the U,S.
These senators believe that doing this will stem the "tide" of illegal immigrants.
Okay, so the thinking is that the founding fathers were infallible, except for this one time. They talk a great game about venerating the founding fathers, to the point of deification at times. Yet they don't see any conflict in their belief system when talking about tearing out parts of the constitution when it doesn't suit their re-election campaign.
Now for the problem that repealing the 14TH amendment would cause. If a couple come legally to America and are working on getting citizenship and while waiting they have a child, what would become of that child? Would they have to file all the paperwork for that child to gain legal status?
One thing that I have learned about any public policy, it is that there are always financial costs. For example would that child no longer qualify for their parents insurance? This would cause huge expenses to be incurred by the states.
There are also unintended social affects. If we make it even more expensive to come here legally, what would be the incentive for doing so?
Without this amendment in place, every person who is here with a work or student visa would have to pay extra for their children s citizenship
Besides being morally offensive and lacking in the very concept of this country; this idea is fiscally and socially irresponsible. An amendment of this type would cost this country billions of dollars to try for. If it actually succeed it would cost us more money in the implementation. It would require a new government body that would have to deal with these children. This would mean more regulation and bigger government. That is something that Republicans and the Tea Party claim they are against.
I know immigration is a hot topic right now, but you as citizens need to think about the consequences of rash reactionary action.
Our country has a history of rash action, and it has never ended well. Remember the internment camps for the Japanese? Or the red scare culminating in the McCarthy hearings? Politics, and policy when done right is a deliberate proses, not a rash one.
These senators believe that doing this will stem the "tide" of illegal immigrants.
Okay, so the thinking is that the founding fathers were infallible, except for this one time. They talk a great game about venerating the founding fathers, to the point of deification at times. Yet they don't see any conflict in their belief system when talking about tearing out parts of the constitution when it doesn't suit their re-election campaign.
Now for the problem that repealing the 14TH amendment would cause. If a couple come legally to America and are working on getting citizenship and while waiting they have a child, what would become of that child? Would they have to file all the paperwork for that child to gain legal status?
One thing that I have learned about any public policy, it is that there are always financial costs. For example would that child no longer qualify for their parents insurance? This would cause huge expenses to be incurred by the states.
There are also unintended social affects. If we make it even more expensive to come here legally, what would be the incentive for doing so?
Without this amendment in place, every person who is here with a work or student visa would have to pay extra for their children s citizenship
Besides being morally offensive and lacking in the very concept of this country; this idea is fiscally and socially irresponsible. An amendment of this type would cost this country billions of dollars to try for. If it actually succeed it would cost us more money in the implementation. It would require a new government body that would have to deal with these children. This would mean more regulation and bigger government. That is something that Republicans and the Tea Party claim they are against.
I know immigration is a hot topic right now, but you as citizens need to think about the consequences of rash reactionary action.
Our country has a history of rash action, and it has never ended well. Remember the internment camps for the Japanese? Or the red scare culminating in the McCarthy hearings? Politics, and policy when done right is a deliberate proses, not a rash one.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Obama on "the view"
Okay, at first I thought it was a bit silly for the president to go on "the view". Then I started hearing the right wing criticism and just what a huge deal they were making out of it. First of all this is the information age, that is why we here more from our political leaders than we used to. If Obama refused to go on television he would be seen as out dated and lame.
So the right wing media are mad that he didn't go speak to boy scouts. Wait a minute, are not these the same people who criticized the president for speaking to kids last school year? Are not these the same people who think he is a : Marxist, capitalist, socialist terrorist? You would think that the people at Fox news would be grateful that this evil white man hating foreign demon isn't speaking to young children. After all he might try to turn them to his dark side of Marxist communist socialist race war government policy.
Give me a break, you can't have it both ways folks either he's the spawn of the devil, or a respected leader.
If he had spoken to the boy scouts these Fox news blowhards would have found fault with that as well.
So the right wing media are mad that he didn't go speak to boy scouts. Wait a minute, are not these the same people who criticized the president for speaking to kids last school year? Are not these the same people who think he is a : Marxist, capitalist, socialist terrorist? You would think that the people at Fox news would be grateful that this evil white man hating foreign demon isn't speaking to young children. After all he might try to turn them to his dark side of Marxist communist socialist race war government policy.
Give me a break, you can't have it both ways folks either he's the spawn of the devil, or a respected leader.
If he had spoken to the boy scouts these Fox news blowhards would have found fault with that as well.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Vacation Liberty school part II
I first posted about the Tea Party vacation liberty school a few days ago. If you haven't read that post do so now, and come back.
When I read about the curriculum that was being taught at these "schools" I was horrified at the nature of the lessons. It got me thinking, not only about propaganda but about the most famous user of it. I realize that this might be considered inflammatory, I just want to make you think.
I have found some striking parallels between the Tea party school and the Hitler youth.
The age of children being "taught" in the Tea party school is 8-15 The Hitler youth programs targeted children ages 10-17.
This is the prime age for teaching children a way of thinking. They are willing to please and very receptive, as they have not fully developed their own belief system yet.
The Tea party school is teaching kids that America was always right and is a perfect nation. The Hitler youth were taught the same thing. People who said anything negative about Germany were called "unpatriotic". This should sound familiar, Fox news does this a lot.
Hitler approved teachers were told to downplay German defeat and place the blame on someone else . This is what is being taught at the Liberty school. Kids are taken into a crowded room and told to navigate stacked chairs to get to the gym (America) where everything is fun and perfect. If you never have to share.
The more I look into this Liberty school the more frightened I become. The whole point of the Hitler youth was to create an army loyal to Hitler and his ideas. It is the same with this Liberty school. Sharing is not communism, it's nice. I am sure most parents take their kids to the park because there is plenty of swings for the kids to take turns on. These Tea party people are teaching kids that every kid needs his own personal swing set to be happy.
What oh God will happen to us as a nation if this type of indoctrination takes hold. What will these kids teach their children and so on.
People all throughout Glenn Beck's 9-12 project have one victories against teaching a comprehensive view of history.
America is not perfect, and it is not UN-American to say so. To vilify a president who had a policy you didn't like, is dangerous. It is also ignorant. Our founding fathers were not saints, and all democratic presidents are not demons.
Reference's
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis_Education.htm
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../vacation-liberty-school-t_n_647822.html
When I read about the curriculum that was being taught at these "schools" I was horrified at the nature of the lessons. It got me thinking, not only about propaganda but about the most famous user of it. I realize that this might be considered inflammatory, I just want to make you think.
I have found some striking parallels between the Tea party school and the Hitler youth.
The age of children being "taught" in the Tea party school is 8-15 The Hitler youth programs targeted children ages 10-17.
This is the prime age for teaching children a way of thinking. They are willing to please and very receptive, as they have not fully developed their own belief system yet.
The Tea party school is teaching kids that America was always right and is a perfect nation. The Hitler youth were taught the same thing. People who said anything negative about Germany were called "unpatriotic". This should sound familiar, Fox news does this a lot.
Hitler approved teachers were told to downplay German defeat and place the blame on someone else . This is what is being taught at the Liberty school. Kids are taken into a crowded room and told to navigate stacked chairs to get to the gym (America) where everything is fun and perfect. If you never have to share.
The more I look into this Liberty school the more frightened I become. The whole point of the Hitler youth was to create an army loyal to Hitler and his ideas. It is the same with this Liberty school. Sharing is not communism, it's nice. I am sure most parents take their kids to the park because there is plenty of swings for the kids to take turns on. These Tea party people are teaching kids that every kid needs his own personal swing set to be happy.
What oh God will happen to us as a nation if this type of indoctrination takes hold. What will these kids teach their children and so on.
People all throughout Glenn Beck's 9-12 project have one victories against teaching a comprehensive view of history.
America is not perfect, and it is not UN-American to say so. To vilify a president who had a policy you didn't like, is dangerous. It is also ignorant. Our founding fathers were not saints, and all democratic presidents are not demons.
Reference's
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis_Education.htm
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../vacation-liberty-school-t_n_647822.html
Weatherman project
I will not devote a lot of time to this, because it is so stupid it is beneath me to talk about. If you don't watch Glenn Beck, he has dug up some old manifesto written in 1969, and is trying to tell America that our current government is implementing the ideals laid out therein.
It is in part his involvement with this manifesto that led bill airs to be imprisoned. Well I really am not surprised, it is close to election time so GB and Fox news have to amp up the paranoia to get people to vote for the "do nothing" Republican party. Telling the American people that doing things like extending unemployment benefits,and giving people access to health care is part of some conspiracy to over throw the government, makes all their inaction look heroic. "We are not doing nothing, our inaction is saving you."
I would hope that people have more common sense than that, why would someone join the government only to put himself out of a job?
The fact is, Glenn Beck is angry at the sate of this nation, he doesn't like the fact that a government would feel responsible for it's people. So he is calling everyone radicals and fascists. It is easy to do this when you don't know what those words mean.
Adolf Hitler didn't take care of the poor, he didn't take care of anyone. Starting in 1936 he was starving the mentally disabled to save money. He killed those who needed help, is GB suggesting that we should do the same thing.
In a way he is. He is saying that social programs are wrong and should be repealed. When he talks about "personal responsibility" he is saying that if you cannot pay for everything yourself, you need to work harder or don't eat.
But I digress, GB is addicted to the word communist, everyone is a communist to him. By Beck's way of thinking Martin Luther King was a communist. After all he wanted people to be treated as equals.
Beck would have you believe that Obama's father was a communist. He was highly educated and wanted to improve his home nation, there is no evidence that I can find that proves he was a communist. By the time Obama Sr. went back to Kenya it was already a republic. Obama Sr. spoke out against socialism.
I would be careful what you believe from GB, after all early on he was telling the American people that our president was a Muslim, which turned out to be not true at all.
It is in part his involvement with this manifesto that led bill airs to be imprisoned. Well I really am not surprised, it is close to election time so GB and Fox news have to amp up the paranoia to get people to vote for the "do nothing" Republican party. Telling the American people that doing things like extending unemployment benefits,and giving people access to health care is part of some conspiracy to over throw the government, makes all their inaction look heroic. "We are not doing nothing, our inaction is saving you."
I would hope that people have more common sense than that, why would someone join the government only to put himself out of a job?
The fact is, Glenn Beck is angry at the sate of this nation, he doesn't like the fact that a government would feel responsible for it's people. So he is calling everyone radicals and fascists. It is easy to do this when you don't know what those words mean.
Adolf Hitler didn't take care of the poor, he didn't take care of anyone. Starting in 1936 he was starving the mentally disabled to save money. He killed those who needed help, is GB suggesting that we should do the same thing.
In a way he is. He is saying that social programs are wrong and should be repealed. When he talks about "personal responsibility" he is saying that if you cannot pay for everything yourself, you need to work harder or don't eat.
But I digress, GB is addicted to the word communist, everyone is a communist to him. By Beck's way of thinking Martin Luther King was a communist. After all he wanted people to be treated as equals.
Beck would have you believe that Obama's father was a communist. He was highly educated and wanted to improve his home nation, there is no evidence that I can find that proves he was a communist. By the time Obama Sr. went back to Kenya it was already a republic. Obama Sr. spoke out against socialism.
I would be careful what you believe from GB, after all early on he was telling the American people that our president was a Muslim, which turned out to be not true at all.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Bush tax cuts
Well this is the big topic right now, it is something that I am very happy to address.
First it is important to understand that in 2000 President Bush wanted to extend tax breaks to those in the top two percent of income earners in the U.S. He had a majority in the house and senate, but it wasn't a "super majority", so the bill was debated. It was not agreed on so had to go to reconciliation. Incidentally, when Obama used reconciliation it was ominously called the "nuke option". Anyway if a bill that will raise the deficit is passed this way, it must include what is called a sunset clause. This clause is just what it sounds like, a time when the bill will risk fading away. Anything that will increase the deficit and is not agreed on must "set" after ten years.
Well ten years have passed and the law is set to expire. The problem is that the Republican party does not want it to expire. That is fine, these things happen. The problem is that they are telling us that the President is going to raise taxes. That is simply not the case, some bills need to expire our government has done it before.
Well it is an election year, a very important one, so just make sure you understand the fact behind the talk.
First it is important to understand that in 2000 President Bush wanted to extend tax breaks to those in the top two percent of income earners in the U.S. He had a majority in the house and senate, but it wasn't a "super majority", so the bill was debated. It was not agreed on so had to go to reconciliation. Incidentally, when Obama used reconciliation it was ominously called the "nuke option". Anyway if a bill that will raise the deficit is passed this way, it must include what is called a sunset clause. This clause is just what it sounds like, a time when the bill will risk fading away. Anything that will increase the deficit and is not agreed on must "set" after ten years.
Well ten years have passed and the law is set to expire. The problem is that the Republican party does not want it to expire. That is fine, these things happen. The problem is that they are telling us that the President is going to raise taxes. That is simply not the case, some bills need to expire our government has done it before.
Well it is an election year, a very important one, so just make sure you understand the fact behind the talk.
All unempoyed people are drug addicts, so Orin Hatch says
As many of you know there are two bills sitting in limbo at the moment. One would free up money for small business expansion, the other would extend unemployment benefits.
Right now unemployed people get up to 99 weeks (that is a little over two years). I will admit that is a long time, but we are in an employment crisis right now. I guess there are VERY generous states out there. Most give benefits for six to nine months. It is important to note that the extension would go to those whose benefits are set to expire after only six months.
Whether you agree with extending benefits or not, you should never do what Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah did. Sen. Hatch made the claim that all persons needing unemployment benefits are drug addicts. In a short video Hatch said: "We can't give money to people who are just going to spend it on drugs". This comment was in response to the ongoing unemployment benefits debate.
Looking perhaps to protect his image Sen. Hatch is hiding comments like these in a bill that would require all welfare and unemployment recipients to be drug tested.
This might sound good, but think of the ramifications.
First the violation of privacy for millions of people. Guess what Hatch poor people are American too. You cannot suspend our rights to make yourself look better.
Second is cost, this measure would place a huge burden on the DWS.(Department of Workforce Services) Instead of helping families, families would be turned away so that these drug tests could be paid for. Lets say for the sake of argument that a drug screening costs $300, DWS is currently fielding one thousand applications for services a day. If each of these has to be drug screened that's $300,000 dollars. Plus testing for all of the people already receiving aid. If the goal of the Republican party is fiscal responsibility, Sen. Hatch should be ashamed of this proposal.
Here is a newsflash Republicans, poor people hate welfare fraud too. For every person that does not need assistance a family that does is denied. The problem is that usually those committing fraud, are doing so with the help of someone inside DWS. So when it comes time to balance the budget, these people are never audited, and the rest of us are.
I am so tired of being called a liar, a thief, a cheat, an addict. I am A hard worker who can't find work. I am a human being who deserves compassion. All poor people deserve to have access to the same constitutional protection as everyone else.
Don't just take my word for it read the article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007929-503544.html
Right now unemployed people get up to 99 weeks (that is a little over two years). I will admit that is a long time, but we are in an employment crisis right now. I guess there are VERY generous states out there. Most give benefits for six to nine months. It is important to note that the extension would go to those whose benefits are set to expire after only six months.
Whether you agree with extending benefits or not, you should never do what Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah did. Sen. Hatch made the claim that all persons needing unemployment benefits are drug addicts. In a short video Hatch said: "We can't give money to people who are just going to spend it on drugs". This comment was in response to the ongoing unemployment benefits debate.
Looking perhaps to protect his image Sen. Hatch is hiding comments like these in a bill that would require all welfare and unemployment recipients to be drug tested.
This might sound good, but think of the ramifications.
First the violation of privacy for millions of people. Guess what Hatch poor people are American too. You cannot suspend our rights to make yourself look better.
Second is cost, this measure would place a huge burden on the DWS.(Department of Workforce Services) Instead of helping families, families would be turned away so that these drug tests could be paid for. Lets say for the sake of argument that a drug screening costs $300, DWS is currently fielding one thousand applications for services a day. If each of these has to be drug screened that's $300,000 dollars. Plus testing for all of the people already receiving aid. If the goal of the Republican party is fiscal responsibility, Sen. Hatch should be ashamed of this proposal.
Here is a newsflash Republicans, poor people hate welfare fraud too. For every person that does not need assistance a family that does is denied. The problem is that usually those committing fraud, are doing so with the help of someone inside DWS. So when it comes time to balance the budget, these people are never audited, and the rest of us are.
I am so tired of being called a liar, a thief, a cheat, an addict. I am A hard worker who can't find work. I am a human being who deserves compassion. All poor people deserve to have access to the same constitutional protection as everyone else.
Don't just take my word for it read the article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007929-503544.html
Did I miss something?
Warren Jeffs, self proclaimed prophet of God, had his conviction over turned because of a supposed technical error. I have lived in Utah for the majority of my life, so I am familiar with polygamy. What I simply do not get is how okay with this sick practice people are. I am talking of coarse of men who marry children, if an adult woman wants to share her husband that is not as bad. As long as the "sister wives" are not committing welfare fraud.
What really bothers me about this is not only will this man get away with damaging the life of a young woman. He will come out looking like the victim. Part of the problem is that the LDS church has remained silent on this subject. Sure they ended the practice, but they have yet to come out against men like Jeffs, Green, and Kingston.
I find this further troubling in light of all the work they put into ending prop 8 in California. The church claimed that grown men and women wishing to be in a relationship was bad for the family; yet they remain silent about the horrible abuse going on right here in Utah.
Texas better get it's act together or the horrors doled out by this pedophile will never be punished.
What really bothers me about this is not only will this man get away with damaging the life of a young woman. He will come out looking like the victim. Part of the problem is that the LDS church has remained silent on this subject. Sure they ended the practice, but they have yet to come out against men like Jeffs, Green, and Kingston.
I find this further troubling in light of all the work they put into ending prop 8 in California. The church claimed that grown men and women wishing to be in a relationship was bad for the family; yet they remain silent about the horrible abuse going on right here in Utah.
Texas better get it's act together or the horrors doled out by this pedophile will never be punished.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Glenn Beck calls Obama terrorist (again)
Well watched GB today and his topic was William Airs. So Glenn points out that William Airs was an anti government activist in the 1970's and now works for the government. He said that there was no evidence that William Airs had changed, either in tactic or ideology. UM HELLO! A man who was anti government served time in prison for his crime, and is now working and has worked in the recent past to better his community. Gee Glenn I would like to say that I know a lot of domestic terrorists who help others, but I don't. How can you look at a man who has turned his life around and say there is no evidence of change. His whole life is evidence that he has changed.
The point Glenn was trying to make was that Obama ran for office so that he could bring the government down from the inside. The problem with this theory is that President Obama is not linked to any terrorist activity at all. He served one one committee with a man, who did bad things, served prison time and changed his life.
I said in my introduction that I would not insult the viewers of Glenn Beck, and I won't. But seriously! Are you really going to fall for the oldest trick in the book. Guilt by association.
If you are than here is something you might find interesting.
During the Vietnam war Jane Fonda became very friendly with the Vietcong she took pictures with them and gave them sensitive information. Jane Fonda was a member of the screen actors guild as was..........wait for it............Ronald Reagan. If I were to say that Reagan was anti American because he belonged to SAG along with Jane Fonda, I would be laughed at. Yet Glenn Beck is doing the same thing.
Glenn Beck may think that people who have ever done anything illegal should not be allowed to ever serve on committees, that is his right. What he should not do is mislead his viewers by twisting the truth to fit his agenda.
The point Glenn was trying to make was that Obama ran for office so that he could bring the government down from the inside. The problem with this theory is that President Obama is not linked to any terrorist activity at all. He served one one committee with a man, who did bad things, served prison time and changed his life.
I said in my introduction that I would not insult the viewers of Glenn Beck, and I won't. But seriously! Are you really going to fall for the oldest trick in the book. Guilt by association.
If you are than here is something you might find interesting.
During the Vietnam war Jane Fonda became very friendly with the Vietcong she took pictures with them and gave them sensitive information. Jane Fonda was a member of the screen actors guild as was..........wait for it............Ronald Reagan. If I were to say that Reagan was anti American because he belonged to SAG along with Jane Fonda, I would be laughed at. Yet Glenn Beck is doing the same thing.
Glenn Beck may think that people who have ever done anything illegal should not be allowed to ever serve on committees, that is his right. What he should not do is mislead his viewers by twisting the truth to fit his agenda.
Monday, July 26, 2010
20th aniversery of the ADA
On this date in 1990 when I was 11 the ADA was passed. Six years before I was born 504 was passed. 504 was the law that said that all disabled children were entitled to an education, it was the disabled communities separate but equal legislation. Thirty years later I would go to a school that did not abide by either law. The ADA has straightened 504 and opened up transportation and school opportunities for many disabled people. We still have a long way to go, unemployment for the disabled is still much higher than for other people. Some schools are still claiming that it is not worth making a school accessible to "a few students" . Even despite the fact that a lot of people still have outdated views on what the disabled are capable of, there is a change happening. I have seen the positive benefits of the ADA in the last 20 years, I have even had the chance to help make computer labs at my university more accessible to blind students. My life project is to give the ADA more "balls" to require all businesses to use universal design so that no member of society is left out.
In the mid 1970's 504 came under attack and there was a sit in in a San Francisco federal building. For one month disabled people protested until the law was allowed to remain. In 1990 disabled men women and children crawled up the steps of the capitol building to fight for equal rights and the passage of the ADA. I am proud to count myself as one of the disabled. God bless those who fought and continue to fight.
In the mid 1970's 504 came under attack and there was a sit in in a San Francisco federal building. For one month disabled people protested until the law was allowed to remain. In 1990 disabled men women and children crawled up the steps of the capitol building to fight for equal rights and the passage of the ADA. I am proud to count myself as one of the disabled. God bless those who fought and continue to fight.
vacation liberty school
If you thought indoctrinating youth was just for Nazi's think again.
As part of Glenn Beck's 9,12 project, which his website says is about bringing back the feeling of community we had after 9,11, there is something called the vacation liberty school.
The creator is a woman named Lisa Alber, and here in her own words is part of what they teach.
As part of Glenn Beck's 9,12 project, which his website says is about bringing back the feeling of community we had after 9,11, there is something called the vacation liberty school.
The creator is a woman named Lisa Alber, and here in her own words is part of what they teach.
ABLER: All right. Actually, it's bubbles. We have communal bubble container and everyone has a wand and they have a squirt gun. And they dip the wands in, if they can, the central bubble unit and that kind of symbolizes communism. They are — they can't shoot their own bubbles. They are supposed to shoot others. They keep track of how many bubbles they get to shoot and pop.
And then, we let them each have their own individual bubble container and blow bubbles and shoot their own bubbles and they realize, "This is better. I can shoot more bubbles this way." And so we — and then we — afterward
, we get them together and discuss, you know, what did you like better.
So a project that is supposed to make us feel connected to one another teaches children that sharing is bad.
This lesson makes me wonder what the faith part of the curriculum is, perhaps she teaches about the loaves and fishes and how Jesus should have let the people who didn't think to bring food go hungry because they were lazy and felt entitled to being taken care of.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Glenn Beck vs Mormon doctrine
I have watched with horror as Glenn Beck has talked to his viewers about God and what God wants. I have also heard him talk about the LDS church, he is a member. What he preaches on his show is not LDS doctrine in fact some of what he says in in complete opposition to what the church teaches. I will go topic by topic.
Social Justice.
Social justice is an idea that has two parts to it. One, the idea that all people should be judged according to their merits not any thing else. Two, the idea that a community should divide resources equally. Now it should be noted that the United states does not ascribe to this second idea at all. It should be noted that the LDS church does. When a person goes through the temple they vow to live the law of consecration. That when the church asks members will give all of their goods to the bishop so that he can give to the people based on need. The church knows that this law is much to difficult for men to live here on earth so we do not live it now. The promise we make is to strive to be the type of people who will live this law in the millennium. So for Glenn Beck to tell his viewers that if they are part of a church that preaches this that they should find a new church, he is being a hypocrite. As far as I know he has not left his faith.
The gift of prophesy.
Glenn Beck has said that on Aug. 28th of this year he will reveal the plan that god has given him for America. That is not possible, God has one representative of the church at any given time and that is the prophet Thomas S Monson. Glenn Beck would have people believe that God would bypass his chosen prophet and speak directly to him. Both the Book of Mormon, and the Bible would call that the claim of an Anti Christ. For those who are not familiar with the term, it is not some son of the devil or anything like that simply a person who claims to have access to revelation that he would not be privy to.
"Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves". Mathew 7:15
Welfare, and the poor.
While on his program Glenn Beck talks of people being poor because they are lazy and how giving to the poor makes them weak, he belongs to a church that reaches out to those in need every day. The LDS church has education programs to help people become self reliant, and welfare programs for those who for whatever reason cannot do so. For Glenn Beck to tell people who need assistance that they are weak and lazy, is to go against the teachings of the LDS church.
"ye must visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief" D&C 44:6
References
"True to the faith", The book of Mormon", "Gospel doctrine" The king James Bible"
Stay tuned for part II where I will discuss GB's gold and guns
Social Justice.
Social justice is an idea that has two parts to it. One, the idea that all people should be judged according to their merits not any thing else. Two, the idea that a community should divide resources equally. Now it should be noted that the United states does not ascribe to this second idea at all. It should be noted that the LDS church does. When a person goes through the temple they vow to live the law of consecration. That when the church asks members will give all of their goods to the bishop so that he can give to the people based on need. The church knows that this law is much to difficult for men to live here on earth so we do not live it now. The promise we make is to strive to be the type of people who will live this law in the millennium. So for Glenn Beck to tell his viewers that if they are part of a church that preaches this that they should find a new church, he is being a hypocrite. As far as I know he has not left his faith.
The gift of prophesy.
Glenn Beck has said that on Aug. 28th of this year he will reveal the plan that god has given him for America. That is not possible, God has one representative of the church at any given time and that is the prophet Thomas S Monson. Glenn Beck would have people believe that God would bypass his chosen prophet and speak directly to him. Both the Book of Mormon, and the Bible would call that the claim of an Anti Christ. For those who are not familiar with the term, it is not some son of the devil or anything like that simply a person who claims to have access to revelation that he would not be privy to.
"Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves". Mathew 7:15
Welfare, and the poor.
While on his program Glenn Beck talks of people being poor because they are lazy and how giving to the poor makes them weak, he belongs to a church that reaches out to those in need every day. The LDS church has education programs to help people become self reliant, and welfare programs for those who for whatever reason cannot do so. For Glenn Beck to tell people who need assistance that they are weak and lazy, is to go against the teachings of the LDS church.
"ye must visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief" D&C 44:6
References
"True to the faith", The book of Mormon", "Gospel doctrine" The king James Bible"
Stay tuned for part II where I will discuss GB's gold and guns
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The side of heathcare reform you haven't heard
Hello all,
If you read my intro you know that I am disabled. All ready some of you have jumped to the conclusion that I am lazy a "Tax taker" as Glenn Beck and his cronies call us. Well I will get into that a little later, right now I would like to present for your inspection an argument for the new health care bill.
To millions of Americans the end of exclusion from insurance due to preexisting conditions is an exciting prospect. To persons with disabilities it may mean a chance to finally put a hard fought for education to use.
When any person interviews for a job, he or she is judged on many factors before they are hired, one of these is whether they can pay into a company insurance pool.
By definition a disability is a preexisting condition, so a company who hires a disabled worker does not gain an employee who can help lower insurance costs. This is discouraging to both the employer and other employees, so for the most part disabled people are hired only part time (no benefits) or not at all.
There are thousands of well qualified workers who are out of work. The most recent statistics put it at 70%, that is seventy percent of all college educated disabled people are unemployed. In the state of Utah that stat is 90%. A potential employees insurance (or lack there of) is a very real part of this sad statistic.
I for one am very excited that I will have a better chance of finding work in 2014 when I can purchase insurance.
For most people the nature of their disability does not put them at a greater health risk than any other American. The flip side of that is that the medical and adaptive equipment that they need to lead full and active lives is in most cases as expensive as luxury items. For example a person who uses a wheelchair will go into debt to the tune of 21,000 dollars or more. Imagine, you are unemployed through no fault of your own and need over priced equipment just to live. It is about time that the disabled community is allowed to fully contribute to society.
If you read my intro you know that I am disabled. All ready some of you have jumped to the conclusion that I am lazy a "Tax taker" as Glenn Beck and his cronies call us. Well I will get into that a little later, right now I would like to present for your inspection an argument for the new health care bill.
To millions of Americans the end of exclusion from insurance due to preexisting conditions is an exciting prospect. To persons with disabilities it may mean a chance to finally put a hard fought for education to use.
When any person interviews for a job, he or she is judged on many factors before they are hired, one of these is whether they can pay into a company insurance pool.
By definition a disability is a preexisting condition, so a company who hires a disabled worker does not gain an employee who can help lower insurance costs. This is discouraging to both the employer and other employees, so for the most part disabled people are hired only part time (no benefits) or not at all.
There are thousands of well qualified workers who are out of work. The most recent statistics put it at 70%, that is seventy percent of all college educated disabled people are unemployed. In the state of Utah that stat is 90%. A potential employees insurance (or lack there of) is a very real part of this sad statistic.
I for one am very excited that I will have a better chance of finding work in 2014 when I can purchase insurance.
For most people the nature of their disability does not put them at a greater health risk than any other American. The flip side of that is that the medical and adaptive equipment that they need to lead full and active lives is in most cases as expensive as luxury items. For example a person who uses a wheelchair will go into debt to the tune of 21,000 dollars or more. Imagine, you are unemployed through no fault of your own and need over priced equipment just to live. It is about time that the disabled community is allowed to fully contribute to society.
Extending unemployment benifits
If you go to the Fox news website you will find an article entitled "addicted to unemployment". It is a part of their opinion series. The point they are making is that we cannot help people feed their families until the job market picks up because they will become lazy and won't ever want to work.
I actually understand this line of thought, flawed as it is. The idea that giving to someone will not help them grow is true, people need to be motivated. The flaw in this logic is that it doesn't take into account that the people collecting unemployment were full time (40hr per week) employees. These are motivated people, not a bunch of slackers, slackers don't qualify. The Republican party should have supported the extension of benefits, because they argue that extending the Bush tax cuts will result in more jobs. If they are correct (very doubtful) these unemployed people will be working soon right? So giving them an extra few months worth of benefits won't matter all that much. Look, both Bush and Obama have asked the citizens of this country to bail out rich SOB's who downsized their companies anyway; so don't they deserve the same help in their time of need?
I actually understand this line of thought, flawed as it is. The idea that giving to someone will not help them grow is true, people need to be motivated. The flaw in this logic is that it doesn't take into account that the people collecting unemployment were full time (40hr per week) employees. These are motivated people, not a bunch of slackers, slackers don't qualify. The Republican party should have supported the extension of benefits, because they argue that extending the Bush tax cuts will result in more jobs. If they are correct (very doubtful) these unemployed people will be working soon right? So giving them an extra few months worth of benefits won't matter all that much. Look, both Bush and Obama have asked the citizens of this country to bail out rich SOB's who downsized their companies anyway; so don't they deserve the same help in their time of need?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Jesse slaughter
I am a big fan of Night line. Tonight they had a story that I felt needed commenting on. It was about and eleven year old girl who made you tube videos ranting about "haters" and other bullies who were bothering her online.
Now you might ask why this is important on a public policy blog, well anti bullying legislation took off a few years ago and is starting to extend to the internet. I am sure that you have heard about the recent suicides of young girls bullied both online and through text message. Anyone who has ever been a kid knows that girls can be horrible and cruel to one another, well the Internet has added a whole new aspect to it.
Just read the comments left on you tube video's the anonymity afforded people by the Internet gives them a feeling of freedom. Things they would never say to a person's face come easy to the fingertips. I was kind of touched by her father "defending" her, but horrified as well. I think his heart was in the right place, but what he should have done is report the abuse without sinking to the same level as these bullies.
By now I think the adages of "sticks and stones" and "kids will be kids" have all but died, parents and teachers have taken forever to learn it but they now know that words hurt and can kill. The question now I feel is can we as a nation create a civil online world for our children to hang out in.
Now you might ask why this is important on a public policy blog, well anti bullying legislation took off a few years ago and is starting to extend to the internet. I am sure that you have heard about the recent suicides of young girls bullied both online and through text message. Anyone who has ever been a kid knows that girls can be horrible and cruel to one another, well the Internet has added a whole new aspect to it.
Just read the comments left on you tube video's the anonymity afforded people by the Internet gives them a feeling of freedom. Things they would never say to a person's face come easy to the fingertips. I was kind of touched by her father "defending" her, but horrified as well. I think his heart was in the right place, but what he should have done is report the abuse without sinking to the same level as these bullies.
By now I think the adages of "sticks and stones" and "kids will be kids" have all but died, parents and teachers have taken forever to learn it but they now know that words hurt and can kill. The question now I feel is can we as a nation create a civil online world for our children to hang out in.
A comment on KSL's "the dream divided"
I am really enjoying this series of news stories done here in Utah by KSL 5. Tonight was about the children of undocumented workers and how they are seen as criminals even though they were to young to have been culpable in the actions of their parents.
I was shocked and saddened that anyone would think of sending young children back to a country they know nothing about. The real tragedy about it is that these children grew up in America and are being punished for a crime committed by a parent or parents.
I would ask people to look at it another way. If a man were arrested for selling drugs and his kids were in the car with him, would we take his kids to jail? The answer of course is no.
It is paramount that we remember that these children are human beings who like all children are at the mercy of their parents.
When any legislation is created those who create it have to look at many factors.
1. is the legislation enforceable.
2. can we afford it.
3. what are the unforeseen consequences of this legislation.
I grow worried that the social and political atmosphere of today is so negative that we forget that we are talking about people. Whatever you feel about any social situation you should NEVER forget that every issue is complex and that there is no "one size fits all" fix.
I was shocked and saddened that anyone would think of sending young children back to a country they know nothing about. The real tragedy about it is that these children grew up in America and are being punished for a crime committed by a parent or parents.
I would ask people to look at it another way. If a man were arrested for selling drugs and his kids were in the car with him, would we take his kids to jail? The answer of course is no.
It is paramount that we remember that these children are human beings who like all children are at the mercy of their parents.
When any legislation is created those who create it have to look at many factors.
1. is the legislation enforceable.
2. can we afford it.
3. what are the unforeseen consequences of this legislation.
I grow worried that the social and political atmosphere of today is so negative that we forget that we are talking about people. Whatever you feel about any social situation you should NEVER forget that every issue is complex and that there is no "one size fits all" fix.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Utah's immigration list
Hello,
All right this issue is all over the news, and the Fox news message boards are all aflame with praise for the two state workers who created this list. Some are going as far as calling these women "heroes". What really upsets me about this whole story, is the news media has not told us how many of those named on the list are undocumented workers. This matters to me because if these women just picked out Hispanic names and threw them on a list we should know that.
To me this is not an immigration issue, it is a privacy one. I am one of those people who have information stored with workforce services, my privacy should be just as important and protected as anyone else s.
The misconception seems to be that those of us who take offense at this list believe that people should come and go as they please. This is not true, we simply want to see a country that stays true to it's foundation, we are all of us immigrants. The Native Americans didn't ask us to come here.
What we need is to make it easier to legally come to this country. We also need to help stabilize Mexico, they are our allies.
The people on that list are people who are doing the right thing they are using the proper channels to find work and help provide for their families. The women who created this list are not "heroes" they are people who took advantage of a position of trust given them by the jobs they held. They should be ashamed of themselves.
All right this issue is all over the news, and the Fox news message boards are all aflame with praise for the two state workers who created this list. Some are going as far as calling these women "heroes". What really upsets me about this whole story, is the news media has not told us how many of those named on the list are undocumented workers. This matters to me because if these women just picked out Hispanic names and threw them on a list we should know that.
To me this is not an immigration issue, it is a privacy one. I am one of those people who have information stored with workforce services, my privacy should be just as important and protected as anyone else s.
The misconception seems to be that those of us who take offense at this list believe that people should come and go as they please. This is not true, we simply want to see a country that stays true to it's foundation, we are all of us immigrants. The Native Americans didn't ask us to come here.
What we need is to make it easier to legally come to this country. We also need to help stabilize Mexico, they are our allies.
The people on that list are people who are doing the right thing they are using the proper channels to find work and help provide for their families. The women who created this list are not "heroes" they are people who took advantage of a position of trust given them by the jobs they held. They should be ashamed of themselves.
An introduction
Hello,
I am a public policy student, as well as a disabled American. I have grown sick of people like Glenn Beck re-writing history to fit his hate filled agenda. I created this blog so that those who are interested in how social programs really work can read from someone who is familiar with these programs. I hope this will be educational and eye opening. I am not here to insult the viewers of Glenn Beck. I just want to give them the facts behind all the rhetoric.
As this is my first blog, I may not be as polished as some, so forgive me that.
I am a public policy student, as well as a disabled American. I have grown sick of people like Glenn Beck re-writing history to fit his hate filled agenda. I created this blog so that those who are interested in how social programs really work can read from someone who is familiar with these programs. I hope this will be educational and eye opening. I am not here to insult the viewers of Glenn Beck. I just want to give them the facts behind all the rhetoric.
As this is my first blog, I may not be as polished as some, so forgive me that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)