So the NRA promised the American public that they would come up with meaningful solutions, and contributions to the discussion on gun control. These new ideas were well thought out, so much so, that the organization needed a week to put them together. So naturally some people thought that the NRA might, just might, add something of real substance to public discourse. Well as it turns out we should not have worried the NRA's message was the same old tired thing.
since I was a child I have heard the call from conservative groups, the NRA included about putting more guns in schools. Some schools even tried it, Columbine is a famous example, so even as most people gasped at this idea it isn't a new one. It would seem that for all their screaming about tyranny, the NRA is the group advocating far reaching government intrusion into our lives. You see to them, having armed guards in schools is preferable to responsible gun ownership. why prevent guns from falling into the hands of mentally ill people, just flood the country with more guns. Why address issues that lead people to commit acts of violence when you can attempt to address an armed gunman instead.
Oh but it doesn't end there, oh no. It seems that while guns don't kill people, movies and video games do. This argument is almost as old as I am. You see when you are an organization that represents gun makers, you can't even think about limiting what they can make or sell, so you vilify someone else. That's right, those of us who play video games and watch T.V. and movies, we are the problem.
This isn't even what pisses me off about this statement though, you see the NRA is supposed to say stupid shit like this. What pisses me off is that the news media is listening. Where the media had been talking about mental illness and it's intersection with gun laws in feeding mass shootings, now they have changed the dialogue to the topic of violence in video games and movies.
Come on people! The answer is not to become a third world nation, a state that sensors what it's citizens can watch, while surrounding them with armed men.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
These colors don't run
Today in the House of Representatives a truly remarkable thing happened. The speaker John Boehnner brought a debt deal bill to the floor to be voted on, or at least that was what he planned to do. The bill called for a tax increase on income over a million dollars, and steep cuts to food stamps, meals on wheels, and other social spending. These types of spending cuts are what Republicans salivate over, but because of the tax increase, an increase on a tiny part of the population, Republicans in the house said they would not vote for it. So Boehnner took his bill and literally went home. There are some Washington insiders who are saying that House Republicans were going to vote against the bill because it would never pass the Senate. I don't buy this for an instant, House Republicans have voted on a number of bills that were similarly "symbolic." They have voted over 20 times to defund planned parenthood, and almost as many times to overturn the Affordable Care Act, so the idea that House Republicans are somehow wary of symbolic votes is not borne out by evidence.
What it comes down to is this, Republicans don't want to see a single dime in new tax revenue until all social programs are severely cut. They want this so bad that even making a tiny concession is seen as un-patriotic and weak.
This brings me to the title of my post. As I watched this fiasco unfold today, I was reminded of a scene in one of my favorite movies. In Talladega Nights Will Ferrel's character Ricky Bobby has a confrontation with a new driver. The new driver has Ricky pinned down and threatens to break his arm if he will not say that he loves crepes. Ricky it should be noted does in fact love crepes, but refuses on principle to say so. Even after the new driver tells Ricky that he can say "I love really thin pancakes", and after his friend Cal tells him that concession is a good deal, Ricky refuses and his arm is broken.
That is where the Republicans stand right now, even after getting a good compromise, they refuse to do anything, stubbornly standing on a principle that in light of what will happen if no deal is reached, is no principle at all.
What it comes down to is this, Republicans don't want to see a single dime in new tax revenue until all social programs are severely cut. They want this so bad that even making a tiny concession is seen as un-patriotic and weak.
This brings me to the title of my post. As I watched this fiasco unfold today, I was reminded of a scene in one of my favorite movies. In Talladega Nights Will Ferrel's character Ricky Bobby has a confrontation with a new driver. The new driver has Ricky pinned down and threatens to break his arm if he will not say that he loves crepes. Ricky it should be noted does in fact love crepes, but refuses on principle to say so. Even after the new driver tells Ricky that he can say "I love really thin pancakes", and after his friend Cal tells him that concession is a good deal, Ricky refuses and his arm is broken.
That is where the Republicans stand right now, even after getting a good compromise, they refuse to do anything, stubbornly standing on a principle that in light of what will happen if no deal is reached, is no principle at all.
Monday, December 17, 2012
More than one cause
The last thing a neglectful blog owner wants to come back writing about is a horrific school shooting. Like many of you I was stunned at what was reported The idea that a person would target children is so shocking it took me until now to even attempt to talk about it.
I am not sure if what I have to say will be worded just right, or even if it will make any sense, I just know that I have to say something.
I have been open about my feelings on gun control in the past, and do not wish to repeat them here. The truth is, the easy legal access to large capacity weapons is only one of many issues that need to be talked about. One of these other issues that is getting more recognized in recent years is mental illness. Less than 1/3 of people who have a mental illness are receiving any treatment. Mental illness is protected under the American's with Disabilities Act, but these people are the most likely to be under served by programs that could help them. Many programs that help children do not help them once they turn 18. Most of the reason for this is that mental illness, and those who live with one, is still seen as a weakness of character. The negative stigma keeps people from seeking help for themselves or their children. Spending on treatment programs is not even close to keeping up with the need for them.
I am under qualified to discuss this issue, so I will leave it to more informed minds. What I want to talk about is something that is simple in concept, and costs nothing to implement.
I want to talk about compassion. One thing that has been said about all of the shooters this year, is that they were "quiet", "loners", and people "left them alone".
Too often today people are kept at a distance, if they are different. This is what a propose, that we reach out to each other, that we realize that we are all part of the same human family. At a time when family relationships are lost because of political or social views, it might seem impossible to think that we can reach out to people we don't know. This is exactly what we need to do. We need to tell people that it is okay to ask for help, and we need to be there to give all the help that we can. As American's we often reach out in huge and impact full ways AFTER a tragedy, I propose that we reach out to each other BEFORE a tragedy.
I am not naive and I second the view of the president, no law or set of laws can prevent all tragedy, but changing how we treat each other is bound to have a major impact.
We can do better, we can pass better laws, and more importantly we can change how we treat each other.
I am not sure if what I have to say will be worded just right, or even if it will make any sense, I just know that I have to say something.
I have been open about my feelings on gun control in the past, and do not wish to repeat them here. The truth is, the easy legal access to large capacity weapons is only one of many issues that need to be talked about. One of these other issues that is getting more recognized in recent years is mental illness. Less than 1/3 of people who have a mental illness are receiving any treatment. Mental illness is protected under the American's with Disabilities Act, but these people are the most likely to be under served by programs that could help them. Many programs that help children do not help them once they turn 18. Most of the reason for this is that mental illness, and those who live with one, is still seen as a weakness of character. The negative stigma keeps people from seeking help for themselves or their children. Spending on treatment programs is not even close to keeping up with the need for them.
I am under qualified to discuss this issue, so I will leave it to more informed minds. What I want to talk about is something that is simple in concept, and costs nothing to implement.
I want to talk about compassion. One thing that has been said about all of the shooters this year, is that they were "quiet", "loners", and people "left them alone".
Too often today people are kept at a distance, if they are different. This is what a propose, that we reach out to each other, that we realize that we are all part of the same human family. At a time when family relationships are lost because of political or social views, it might seem impossible to think that we can reach out to people we don't know. This is exactly what we need to do. We need to tell people that it is okay to ask for help, and we need to be there to give all the help that we can. As American's we often reach out in huge and impact full ways AFTER a tragedy, I propose that we reach out to each other BEFORE a tragedy.
I am not naive and I second the view of the president, no law or set of laws can prevent all tragedy, but changing how we treat each other is bound to have a major impact.
We can do better, we can pass better laws, and more importantly we can change how we treat each other.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Drug testing welfare applicants
When people post those catchy graphics around face book that call for the drug testing of people who receive welfare it is often paired with a comment about how they, the poster, worked to earn that money for the person on welfare and so has a right to require that the jobless bum pee in a cup. No doubt these folks think that they are being clever, but after seeing this particular Internet meme at least forty times, I can assure them that they are not as clever as they think they are.
The first thing that needs to be done in relation to this issue is this: it is time to dispel some myths about how welfare works.
1. people on welfare don't work.
This was always a myth, though no doubt some people on welfare choose not to work, the vast majority of them do. In 1996 then president Bill Clinton signed into law portions of what Newt Gingrich called the "contract for America." This document offered many suggestions on how government could work more efficiently and save money. President Clinton turned the welfare reforms written in this document into law.
This is how it works:
Any adult seeking welfare has to be working full time. If they are not working, they must spend 40 hrs a week looking for work, or in job training. There are a few, very specific, exceptions to this rule.
1. If the person seeking assistance has a disability that prevents them from working, they do not need to work.
2. If the person seeking assistance has a disability, or other type of condition that keeps them from working full time, they can work part time.
3. If the person seeking assistance is a single parent, they can work part time.
4. If that single parent has a child that is too young for day care, they do not have to work until the child/ren are old enough for day care.
One thing to remember is that if someone is earning only minimum wage they do not earn enough to provide for their families without some kind of assistance.
2. People on welfare are more likely to do drugs.
When Florida passed their drug testing of welfare applicants law, many in that state believed this to be the case. What they found was the opposite. After testing thousands of people, the state found that less than 4% of those tested tested positive. The national average for drug use is 9%
3. Drug testing will save the state money.
This is also untrue. Again using Florida as an example: the state spent thousands of dollars on drug tests that came back negative, and of course ended up paying for the applicants welfare needs.
I am not blind to the fact that many readers want to remain ignorant about the nature of welfare and those who apply for it. It is my humble hope however, that if I talk about this enough that something will get through. To that end I want to point out some demographic facts, and then move on to questions of morality.
The majority of welfare recipients are children.
The majority of veterans are on some form of welfare program.
Welfare programs allow disabled and elderly people to live interdependent lives.
If you consider yourself religious, or family oriented, your opposition to these programs is confusing.
No doubt some of you are thinking, "I just want to make sure I know where my tax dollars are being spent."
Fair enough, have you posted any Internet memes about seeking drug tests for members of Congress lately?
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Why Paul Ryan is good for Obama
So, let's look at why Romney's choice of running mate is good for the Obama campaign.
Ryan gives the Democrats some real red meat to chew on. No more of this attach on Romney's taxes, now he has made a stand, now there is something that we can call him on. Before his VP pick supporters of Obama had to go into strange and , frankly, useless territory. They had to do that because Romney had made no attempt at taking a stand on any of the issues. He talked a good game about the economy, but has never come out with a plan for what, specifically, he would do. So now all of that super pac money, as well as new money that will be raised as a result of this particular VP pick, will go into ads that bring up real issues of substance.
Ryan is great for exciting conservatives, but he is just as good at exciting liberals who do not want to see the poor and middle class thrown away for the sake of the rich.
This choice of VP should help Obama with fundraising, as well as help him cement his agenda.
Ryan gives the Democrats some real red meat to chew on. No more of this attach on Romney's taxes, now he has made a stand, now there is something that we can call him on. Before his VP pick supporters of Obama had to go into strange and , frankly, useless territory. They had to do that because Romney had made no attempt at taking a stand on any of the issues. He talked a good game about the economy, but has never come out with a plan for what, specifically, he would do. So now all of that super pac money, as well as new money that will be raised as a result of this particular VP pick, will go into ads that bring up real issues of substance.
Ryan is great for exciting conservatives, but he is just as good at exciting liberals who do not want to see the poor and middle class thrown away for the sake of the rich.
This choice of VP should help Obama with fundraising, as well as help him cement his agenda.
Why Paul Ryan is a good choice for Romney.
I am sure that I was not the only person surprised by Romney's VP pick. Everything led to a softer, safer choice. So the news that Paul Ryan was the running mate was a little shocking. Many bloggers and TV pundits will be examining why Romney chose someone who will outshine him, but I will just give a quick thought on that and then move on to how Ryan is good for Romney.
Romney is reluctant to come out strong on any issue, this is damaging to his bid for the white house, so he needed someone who had a strong stance.
Ryan's place on the house budget committee, coupled with his budget, will tie Tea Party supporters even more tightly to the Romney ticket. Those Tea Party members who would have decided to not vote rather than vote Romney, will now come out and vote for Ryan. This election is now, not Romney v Obama, for many people it is now Obama v Ryan. Like GW Bush, Romney now has a strong running mate that gives his candidacy life and personality.
Ryan will bring vigor and life to this campaign. He is extremely popular among young Republicans, he even excites those college students who find themselves drawn to selfishness and blind ambition. Those who see college, not as a chance to challenge the vies of their parents and find their own way to think, but as a stepping stone to the life of self propelled success.
Ryan is popular with a large number of independent voters as well. He will bring voters to the polls in November. What the Republicans might lose in older voters, they will more than make up for in younger voters. This election could be won the same way that the '08 election was, by energized young voters who will vote for an ideal larger than themselves.
That ideal is a drastic departure from that held by Obama supporters, but it is being embraced all the same.
Romney is reluctant to come out strong on any issue, this is damaging to his bid for the white house, so he needed someone who had a strong stance.
Ryan's place on the house budget committee, coupled with his budget, will tie Tea Party supporters even more tightly to the Romney ticket. Those Tea Party members who would have decided to not vote rather than vote Romney, will now come out and vote for Ryan. This election is now, not Romney v Obama, for many people it is now Obama v Ryan. Like GW Bush, Romney now has a strong running mate that gives his candidacy life and personality.
Ryan will bring vigor and life to this campaign. He is extremely popular among young Republicans, he even excites those college students who find themselves drawn to selfishness and blind ambition. Those who see college, not as a chance to challenge the vies of their parents and find their own way to think, but as a stepping stone to the life of self propelled success.
Ryan is popular with a large number of independent voters as well. He will bring voters to the polls in November. What the Republicans might lose in older voters, they will more than make up for in younger voters. This election could be won the same way that the '08 election was, by energized young voters who will vote for an ideal larger than themselves.
That ideal is a drastic departure from that held by Obama supporters, but it is being embraced all the same.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Fair wages for persons with disabilities
A few months ago I wrote my house rep about a bill that is going to be voted on. The bill would insure that disabled employees would get paid the Federal minimum wage for work that they do. Mr. Bishop wrote me back to say that he could not support the bill because it would limit a company's ability to train disabled employees. So what he is saying is that in order to train disabled people so that they can one day earn minimum wage, companies must first benefit from their slave labor. He claimed that businesses would not be able to "help" the disabled if they had to pay them a fair wage. He claims that this 'unintended" consequence is the reason he cannot support raising wages for a fifth of the population. What he doesn't seem to understand is that ending this so called flexibility that companies have is the entire intent of the bill.
For Rob Bishop to defend the rights of a company to pay people a sub standard wage rather than defend the rights of one in five persons to get paid the minimum wage is upsetting to say the least.
I urge all who read this to contact your house rep in support of workers rights. The bill is HB 3086 As long as companies are allowed to use the disabled as slave labor more of us will never find a way out of poverty.
For Rob Bishop to defend the rights of a company to pay people a sub standard wage rather than defend the rights of one in five persons to get paid the minimum wage is upsetting to say the least.
I urge all who read this to contact your house rep in support of workers rights. The bill is HB 3086 As long as companies are allowed to use the disabled as slave labor more of us will never find a way out of poverty.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Gun control avoidance
Like almost everyone I was horror stricken when I heard about the mass shooting in Colorado. When something like this happens the media asks a lot of questions, but one that they didn't ask right away was this; why does any person who is sane and reasonable need an assault riffle? I want someone to tell me when a gun that can spray hundreds of bullets before needing to be reloaded would be needed by anyone in a private home. I want someone to tell me why any person would defend the right to own such guns.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The affordable care act upheld
Like all other supporters of health care reform I was more than just pleased when the PPACA was upheld. There is a lot of talk about the impact of this law on business growth, and this talk is important. In France companies stay small so that they will not have to abide by that nations many regulations, the thought is that companies in the U.S will do the same.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
The next gen Republican
Tonight the Utah Fox news affiliate profiled the man who is hoping to replace Orin Hatch in the U.S. Senate. Dan Liljenquist, served in the Utah legislature and was the leader in the successful weakening of Medicaid coverage, he pushed for the cap on Medicaid spending. He believes that giving affordable health insurance to people is against the constitution. I really don't need to go on, it's the same tired story re told here in Utah. What I want to do is ask a few questions of this new Republican party. I am very confused by the mixed messages they send out.
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
Deportation reform
For those of us who support Obama it has been a tough couple of years. We have watched him act the gentleman in the face of Republican childish obstinacy. We have felt frustration at Obama's reluctance to use the power granted him to combat stalemates in Congress. Well the wait is over, earlier this week Obama got his balls back.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Romney's education promise.
Today Mitt Romney spoke to a group of Latino small business owners. Among the topics he discussed with them was education. Romney said that some U.S. students receive a third world education, and that minority students were the most likely to be under educated.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
City creek project. the union of church and commerce.
For the past three years Utah news stations have devoted hours of air time to the city creek shopping center/ high end condo project. In a strange twist of fate, this downtown project opens on my husbands birthday. This got me thinking about this project more deeply.
The city creek center is a combination of apartments high rise condo's that over look the SLC temple, and expensive shops, the likes of which Salt Lake has never seen before. In theory it sounds like a good idea, a group of investors get together and start a great money making venture, right? Wrong. In the case of City Creek, the largest investor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In a news story about the project a reporter talked to the Bishop in charge of the project, yes I said Bishop. A church that enjoys tax exempt status is putting all of that tax free money behind Tiffany's and a Porsche store.
That Bishop made the comment that this project was the most important thing that Gordon B Hinkley (head of the church at the start of the project) wanted done. As I look around at the number of people without a home, at the number of hungry children in this state. I have to ask, is this really the most important thing that a church as large as this one can do? Imagine the great impact disabled housing would have had on a community with a large disabled population. Or what amazing things could have been accomplished with a community center, theater, or.......... I mean the list of things that would have been more Christ like is endless.
Instead, tomorrow, on a birthday that my husband would not have lived to see if it were not for tax funded programs, programs prominent Mormon leaders wanted, and still want to end, a church will open a shopping center that caters to the rich and influential.
A church that teaches others to put God at the center of their lives, has chosen to put profit at the center of it's function. So buy an expensive condo, and look down on the house of God.
The city creek center is a combination of apartments high rise condo's that over look the SLC temple, and expensive shops, the likes of which Salt Lake has never seen before. In theory it sounds like a good idea, a group of investors get together and start a great money making venture, right? Wrong. In the case of City Creek, the largest investor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In a news story about the project a reporter talked to the Bishop in charge of the project, yes I said Bishop. A church that enjoys tax exempt status is putting all of that tax free money behind Tiffany's and a Porsche store.
That Bishop made the comment that this project was the most important thing that Gordon B Hinkley (head of the church at the start of the project) wanted done. As I look around at the number of people without a home, at the number of hungry children in this state. I have to ask, is this really the most important thing that a church as large as this one can do? Imagine the great impact disabled housing would have had on a community with a large disabled population. Or what amazing things could have been accomplished with a community center, theater, or.......... I mean the list of things that would have been more Christ like is endless.
Instead, tomorrow, on a birthday that my husband would not have lived to see if it were not for tax funded programs, programs prominent Mormon leaders wanted, and still want to end, a church will open a shopping center that caters to the rich and influential.
A church that teaches others to put God at the center of their lives, has chosen to put profit at the center of it's function. So buy an expensive condo, and look down on the house of God.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
What it means to be poor in America
I have been involved in several conversations recently involving our welfare system. The common theme seems to be that more people abuse it than need it. I thought that I would take a moment and debunk one of the peaces of so called evidence used by opponents of the system.
1. "I see people who use welfare driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes, clearly they are not poor."
This is an interesting idea, the idea that all people who have nice things must have a nice sized bank account. The problem here is two fold, one, it shows a lack of understanding about credit. Most middle class people understand that the car in a persons driveway is not always bought and paid for, but when it comes to welfare users they tend to forget that. We live in an auto centric society, some communities would be very difficult to navigate without a car. As to why the car has to be nice, being poor sucks. When a poor person goes home to their crummy apartment they are constantly aware of their poverty. Some have such a hunger to escape that poverty, even if it's just for a little while. They figure there is no reason why the people at the mall, or at work need to know how poor they are, so they pay for a car and clothes that they cannot afford.
For as long as anyone can remember, being poor has been a source of shame. Throughout human history other things were thought of as shameful; having a disability, being cheated on, being gay, but society has advanced to a point where with a few exceptions these things are not seen as shameful any longer. A woman who is cheated on today, can talk about it, because it is no longer seen as her fault.
Poverty has failed to undergo such a change. It is as if people think that if it is no longer seen as shameful, it will have to be seen as something to be proud of. This is not the case at all. Being poor should be seen as just one way of being. It should not define the whole substance of the person in that condition.
Until our society advances beyond this limited view of poverty, poor people will still by nice cars and expensive clothes. As a result, they will be more likely to remain in poverty, wasting money trying to hide something that they should never be made to feel ashamed of.
1. "I see people who use welfare driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes, clearly they are not poor."
This is an interesting idea, the idea that all people who have nice things must have a nice sized bank account. The problem here is two fold, one, it shows a lack of understanding about credit. Most middle class people understand that the car in a persons driveway is not always bought and paid for, but when it comes to welfare users they tend to forget that. We live in an auto centric society, some communities would be very difficult to navigate without a car. As to why the car has to be nice, being poor sucks. When a poor person goes home to their crummy apartment they are constantly aware of their poverty. Some have such a hunger to escape that poverty, even if it's just for a little while. They figure there is no reason why the people at the mall, or at work need to know how poor they are, so they pay for a car and clothes that they cannot afford.
For as long as anyone can remember, being poor has been a source of shame. Throughout human history other things were thought of as shameful; having a disability, being cheated on, being gay, but society has advanced to a point where with a few exceptions these things are not seen as shameful any longer. A woman who is cheated on today, can talk about it, because it is no longer seen as her fault.
Poverty has failed to undergo such a change. It is as if people think that if it is no longer seen as shameful, it will have to be seen as something to be proud of. This is not the case at all. Being poor should be seen as just one way of being. It should not define the whole substance of the person in that condition.
Until our society advances beyond this limited view of poverty, poor people will still by nice cars and expensive clothes. As a result, they will be more likely to remain in poverty, wasting money trying to hide something that they should never be made to feel ashamed of.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Mitt Romney= united states CEO.
I know that I am not the only low income American out there. I also know that I am not the "representative" of such, but I would like to respond to the allegations of class warfare, and the idea that those of us who have very little are jealous of Mitt Romney.
First of all asking that all people pay a fair tax is not class warfare, it is simply a request that those who make money contribute to the country that they live in. If you look at Mitt as compared to me, he has not worked in ten years and stores large sums of money overseas. I spend all of my money in this country. Mitt has been known to insinuate that the poor are lazy parasites who do nothing for our economy, this is not true: people who receive assistance from social programs, don't have tax shelters, they spend all of their money in the sate where they live, they pay taxes toward Social Security also, which is more than we can say for Mitt.
So, no Mitt we don't give a flying fuck how much money you make, it's how little you contribute to the nation you profess to love that matters to us.
Mitt Romney made over 20 million dollars, and yes he paid a small amount in taxes, but he did not work for that money, it was interest from investments. He hid that money away in foreign bank accounts, and lived and thrived in a country that he does not contribute his fair share to.
This country is not a business, do we really want a man who will treat parts of this country as if they were failing companies. A lot of what is involved in running a country does not make profit, most of what we do is investing in the future of the American people. You can't just shut down schools and hospitals because they are not making congressmen wealthy. Mitt keeps claiming that we don't know how the economy works, well he does not know how a government works, and because of this he is the biggest threat to this nation.
First of all asking that all people pay a fair tax is not class warfare, it is simply a request that those who make money contribute to the country that they live in. If you look at Mitt as compared to me, he has not worked in ten years and stores large sums of money overseas. I spend all of my money in this country. Mitt has been known to insinuate that the poor are lazy parasites who do nothing for our economy, this is not true: people who receive assistance from social programs, don't have tax shelters, they spend all of their money in the sate where they live, they pay taxes toward Social Security also, which is more than we can say for Mitt.
So, no Mitt we don't give a flying fuck how much money you make, it's how little you contribute to the nation you profess to love that matters to us.
Mitt Romney made over 20 million dollars, and yes he paid a small amount in taxes, but he did not work for that money, it was interest from investments. He hid that money away in foreign bank accounts, and lived and thrived in a country that he does not contribute his fair share to.
This country is not a business, do we really want a man who will treat parts of this country as if they were failing companies. A lot of what is involved in running a country does not make profit, most of what we do is investing in the future of the American people. You can't just shut down schools and hospitals because they are not making congressmen wealthy. Mitt keeps claiming that we don't know how the economy works, well he does not know how a government works, and because of this he is the biggest threat to this nation.
State of the union.
This years state of the union served as both an address on how the country is doing, and a chance for president Obama to outline his plan for the future, and as a very public set up for his presidential campaign As a result of a very dysfunctional congress, it felt like some of what was said was the same as last year. There were a lot of things I liked about it though.
The president talked about lowering the tax rate for corporations. I am not in agreement with this idea, as I feel that corporations who gain from our labor should have to contribute to this country. I did like what Obama said about taking tax breaks away from companies that outsource their jobs.
I appreciated his comments about enforcing the reforms that would prevent poor bank practices, although I think this came a little too late.
I was impressed with what he had to say about education. The idea that businesses will help community colleges train people for jobs that they will be able to move right in to is a great idea. I agree with the notion that education is essential to the success to this nation, so I was pleased to see the president demand more from congress in the form of school funding.
The president suggested that states change their policies for letting high school students drop out. He challenged them to only allow students to drop out after they turned 18. This is a really good idea, because more and more jobs are not happy with applicants who have a GED rather than an actual diploma. Dropping out of school is a big decision that can have negative effects for that student's future life. It is for similar reasons that we make students wait until they are 18 to join the military, we want those who join to be at an age to understand more fully what they are doing, we should do the same for those who are thinking about dropping out of high school.
He entered more fully into campaign mode when in what seemed a total disconnected thought he mentions equal pay for women.
I was impressed with how he shut down many of the attacks against him, and stood by his decisions. He came across as optimistic while the Republican who gave the rebuttal sounded pessimistic and antagonistic.
The president talked about lowering the tax rate for corporations. I am not in agreement with this idea, as I feel that corporations who gain from our labor should have to contribute to this country. I did like what Obama said about taking tax breaks away from companies that outsource their jobs.
I appreciated his comments about enforcing the reforms that would prevent poor bank practices, although I think this came a little too late.
I was impressed with what he had to say about education. The idea that businesses will help community colleges train people for jobs that they will be able to move right in to is a great idea. I agree with the notion that education is essential to the success to this nation, so I was pleased to see the president demand more from congress in the form of school funding.
The president suggested that states change their policies for letting high school students drop out. He challenged them to only allow students to drop out after they turned 18. This is a really good idea, because more and more jobs are not happy with applicants who have a GED rather than an actual diploma. Dropping out of school is a big decision that can have negative effects for that student's future life. It is for similar reasons that we make students wait until they are 18 to join the military, we want those who join to be at an age to understand more fully what they are doing, we should do the same for those who are thinking about dropping out of high school.
He entered more fully into campaign mode when in what seemed a total disconnected thought he mentions equal pay for women.
I was impressed with how he shut down many of the attacks against him, and stood by his decisions. He came across as optimistic while the Republican who gave the rebuttal sounded pessimistic and antagonistic.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The Meet the press, facebook debate.
Having watched the debate on Saturday, I was curious to see what another debate so soon afterword would bring. What it brought was candidates challenging Mitt Romney. This made me very happy. It is good to see the other candidates stand up for themselves, rather than let the richer man beat up on them. Since I waited so long to write about it, I cannot pretend that the events of Monday morning have not in some small part effected how I am reacting. Mitt is sliding in the polls, just a little bit. This is due to a great comment made by John Huntsman. Early in the debate Huntsman had a very strong moment when he said that he would put his country first. He then mentioned the fact that he has two sons in the Navy, who serve their country and do not care whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat.
I found that even though Romney dodged (poorly I might add) tough questions, the candidates did give answers that had some substance in them.
So what did they say? To those who have been following the candidates there are no real surprises.
HUNTSMAN: Still endorses the Paul Ryan budget.
SANTORUM: Wants means tested Social Security, this means that wealthy seniors would get less benefits. Believes that food stamps and Medicaid should be given to the states as a block grant. This means that no federal guidelines would be given to the states. Right now states are required to cover all health and dental benefits to children who qualify for the program. Some states do more for adults, some states do less. States like Utah could very well decide that the program will not cover all health needs for children. He also wants to put a limit on how long a person can receive benefits. This breaks his own rule of letting states decide, and also opens up the very real possibility that families who are out of work for long periods would go without.
GINGRICH: Believes that major cuts to social programs can be avoided if the government would enforce welfare fraud laws.
The candidates were asked whether it was un-American to ask for government assistance, none of them said that it was not. Rick Perry came close when he said that people want jobs they don't "clamor" for benefits.
Santorum sounded a bit hypocritical when he talked about Iran being a theocracy that we could not tolerate that kind of government, when days before he had said that the U.S needs a "Jesus candidate".
Romney looked like an out of touch elitist when he said that it made him happy that Ted Kennedy had to mortgage his house in order to beat him. He followed this up by saying that he "liked" firing people who worked for him.
Well, the real race begins soon, so we will have to wait and see if another candidate can unseat Romney.
I found that even though Romney dodged (poorly I might add) tough questions, the candidates did give answers that had some substance in them.
So what did they say? To those who have been following the candidates there are no real surprises.
HUNTSMAN: Still endorses the Paul Ryan budget.
SANTORUM: Wants means tested Social Security, this means that wealthy seniors would get less benefits. Believes that food stamps and Medicaid should be given to the states as a block grant. This means that no federal guidelines would be given to the states. Right now states are required to cover all health and dental benefits to children who qualify for the program. Some states do more for adults, some states do less. States like Utah could very well decide that the program will not cover all health needs for children. He also wants to put a limit on how long a person can receive benefits. This breaks his own rule of letting states decide, and also opens up the very real possibility that families who are out of work for long periods would go without.
GINGRICH: Believes that major cuts to social programs can be avoided if the government would enforce welfare fraud laws.
The candidates were asked whether it was un-American to ask for government assistance, none of them said that it was not. Rick Perry came close when he said that people want jobs they don't "clamor" for benefits.
Santorum sounded a bit hypocritical when he talked about Iran being a theocracy that we could not tolerate that kind of government, when days before he had said that the U.S needs a "Jesus candidate".
Romney looked like an out of touch elitist when he said that it made him happy that Ted Kennedy had to mortgage his house in order to beat him. He followed this up by saying that he "liked" firing people who worked for him.
Well, the real race begins soon, so we will have to wait and see if another candidate can unseat Romney.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
NH Republican debate.
The republican candidates debate two times this weekend before they participate in the primary on Tuesday. I have watched tonight's debate, and have some reaction to how it went.
My overall impressions are these: 1) It seems that the other candidates are not that committed to beating Mitt Romney. They were given ample opportunistic to draw him out and contest his record, but they did not. Santorum and Gingrich made a few weak swipes, but no real effort. I am not asking that they be nasty, I am just asking that they ask the questions of him that their supporters want asked. 2) Can Mitt just answer a question? I know, it's normal for a politician to dodge questions, but Mitt seems to have his dodge question setting on "high". 3) There have been no recent mentions of Tea Party events yet they still look to impress this group. This should concern moderate Republicans.
Now to the candidates themselves.
Santorum again advocates cutting all social programs.
Huntsman In favor of term limits in congress. I like this idea as well.
He is the only candidate that has experiences outside of the United States.
Romney Says that Obama made one mistake after another when it came to foreign policy. I find this interesting considering that Obama aided the people of Libya, used the information gathered to find Osama Bin Laden.
Says that Obama cut defense spending. This is not true, though he as advocated doing so he has signed a new bill that allocates over sixty billion dollars in new spending. He said that America needs to be able to fight two wars at once. His only solution to create jobs is cutting regulations that protect workers. He does not believe that Americans have a right to privacy implied in the constitution. This will be a problem among some Republicans and moderates and independent voters.
Perry We need to use natural resources that are found on federal lands.
Romney came off as at least somewhat sympathetic to gay couples. All candidates still stand by the ridiculous idea that marriage as one man one woman is three thousand years old. This is simply not true, perhaps these men aught to read the bible instead of just waving it around. This would have been a great time to bring up that marriage for Romney and Huntsman included polygamy until a few hundred years ago.
Paul This was my favorite moment of the night, so I will quote it as directly as I can. "A person who has not gone to war has no business sending men and women to war.: Ron Paul
This was said to Newt who did not go to war. This was a lovely moment.
Well that's pretty much it.
My overall impressions are these: 1) It seems that the other candidates are not that committed to beating Mitt Romney. They were given ample opportunistic to draw him out and contest his record, but they did not. Santorum and Gingrich made a few weak swipes, but no real effort. I am not asking that they be nasty, I am just asking that they ask the questions of him that their supporters want asked. 2) Can Mitt just answer a question? I know, it's normal for a politician to dodge questions, but Mitt seems to have his dodge question setting on "high". 3) There have been no recent mentions of Tea Party events yet they still look to impress this group. This should concern moderate Republicans.
Now to the candidates themselves.
Santorum again advocates cutting all social programs.
Huntsman In favor of term limits in congress. I like this idea as well.
He is the only candidate that has experiences outside of the United States.
Romney Says that Obama made one mistake after another when it came to foreign policy. I find this interesting considering that Obama aided the people of Libya, used the information gathered to find Osama Bin Laden.
Says that Obama cut defense spending. This is not true, though he as advocated doing so he has signed a new bill that allocates over sixty billion dollars in new spending. He said that America needs to be able to fight two wars at once. His only solution to create jobs is cutting regulations that protect workers. He does not believe that Americans have a right to privacy implied in the constitution. This will be a problem among some Republicans and moderates and independent voters.
Perry We need to use natural resources that are found on federal lands.
Romney came off as at least somewhat sympathetic to gay couples. All candidates still stand by the ridiculous idea that marriage as one man one woman is three thousand years old. This is simply not true, perhaps these men aught to read the bible instead of just waving it around. This would have been a great time to bring up that marriage for Romney and Huntsman included polygamy until a few hundred years ago.
Paul This was my favorite moment of the night, so I will quote it as directly as I can. "A person who has not gone to war has no business sending men and women to war.: Ron Paul
This was said to Newt who did not go to war. This was a lovely moment.
Well that's pretty much it.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Romney speech.
Mitt Romney always sounds so false. He is always "on", he has no ability to speak from the heart and speak with passion. His speech was essentially the same one he gave a few days ago. He is not going to win the nomination because he may be free of major moral gaffs, but he is boring and comes across as:a) a robot b) an ass hole or c)an ass hole robot.
Rick Santorum speech.
Santorum came out of the back of the pack to all but win the Iowa votes. He gave a speech at the end of the voting, that I would like to respond to. First it is important to note that Rick is a better speaker than his close competitor Romney. He comes across as very sincere and passionate. He is smart in the way he speaks to an audience. He speaks to the crowd he is addressing. His quoting of C.S Lewis was well played. He is also very smart about how he phrases really poor ideas. This is demonstrated by his ideas about regulations. He is brilliant in the way he states "facts'. His assertions that we are losing jobs in America because of regulations. He is smart to keep it vague, rather than discuss safety standards or child labor laws he uses the blanket term regulations. The reality about what he is talking about is the possibility, and only the possibility of low paying unsafe jobs being brought back to this country. He is brilliant in his ability to leave out facts and make it seem like we are not missing anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)