Limbaugh Leaves Socialized Medicine for.......Socialized Medicine?

I find it interesting that Rush Limbaugh declared that if the United States passes health care reform then he will leave the U.S. and move to Costa Rica. Has anyone told him that Costa Rica has socialized medicine? Personally, I am all for him leaving the country. In fact, I'm all for anyone who doesn't like the way we do things to find the first flight, boat, train on out of here.

It just seems that if Limbaugh is leaving in protest of what he thinks will be a socialized health care system, he would head to a country that doesn't have socialized health care itself. Am I missing something?

The Death of Objective Reporting

I have been wondering for a while now what happened to straight forward journalistic reporting? I can remember a time in the not too distant past when I would open a newspaper or magazine, read an article and then formulate my opinion based on the facts presented in the article. Now you can't read an article or turn on the TV without being told HOW to feel about the “facts” presented. I hate that. It's most prevalent in politics or politically charged issues, but it is even seeping just into general news stories. I know the “liberal media” has been accused of doing this for years and many of them are guilty of biased reporting, yet the right does it just as much. Which leads me back to the question of what happened to actual journalists? It seems like all we have now are self-serving pundits trying to fan the fires of half-truths, omission, and just outright lies.

I skip through channels late at night and catch news from CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. The other night Fox led with something to the effect of “Stay tuned to learn how Obama is continuing to ruin this country.” In all fairness there's the opposite end of the spectrum on MSNBC. Why can't they just report factually the decisions Obama (or anyone for that matter) has made and let us, as the viewers, decide whether we think he is ruining America or not? Obama is just a singular example. The same bias can be applied to almost any partisan person and issue. Apparently, all media thinks the general public is much too stupid to actually formulate any decisions on our own. We must certainly need them to tell us how to think and how to feel.
Lest we think this is just a national problem or a television problem, it's not. I read an article in a local right-winged journal based out of Brooklyn that was reporting on a situation that was happening in one of our many school districts here in Tucson. She repeatedly, throughout the article, referred to the school district as Tucson's School District as if Tucson only had one. Completely erroneous. Further she was outraged at the fact that the school district in question had come up with a disciplinary plan that was specifically for minorities and that this plan had to address why minorities were disciplined at a higher rate and how to address this. The way the entire article was framed would elicit outrage out of even the most liberal of readers, which was obviously the point, as it not only implied but pretty much said that if you were white you could expect to be stuffed into classrooms with Mexicans and Blacks who were hoodlums that should be suspended but whom the district now would not suspend, lest they seem racist.

What this author failed to point out was WHY this discipline plan was submitted. It seems like the sin of omission is commonplace in reporting now. They tell just enough to get everyone fired up without giving any of the background, history, or reasons that led to the “outrageous moment.” It would be like saying, “Man clubs neighborhood dog to death with a baseball bat” leading everyone to think he has a screw loose and failing to mention he did so because the dog was attacking his baby daughter. In this case, this school district is trying to get out of a 20+ year old desegregation order and in order to be in compliance the judge ORDERED the district to submit this plan. What this author also failed to mention was that the discipline plans are IDENTICAL but one is labeled “Minority.” Had they not submitted this plan the proceedings to break free from this desegregation order would not continue. Anyone not from Tucson would have no idea and appropriately would be outraged. Even many in and from Tucson aren't necessarily aware of the legalities and after seeing this article propagated as fact and wholly accurate the author or those dispersing the article are successful in eliciting the emotional response they desire while ignoring the facts.

I like to be aware of current events. I like to be given the specifics, the facts, void of any emotion or personal feelings attached. I trust myself to be able to decide how I feel about certain topics be it politics, religion, education, or even just local events that only affect a few. I was told recently, during a discussion, that I looked at things “too logically, too rationally” and maybe that is why I have such a difficult time stomaching what passes as “news” or “journalism” these days. I also would venture to bet though that there are a lot more people like me out there who would prefer their news to be a bit more logical and rational and not illogical, irrational, emotional, and biased.

So, what do you think of journalism these days? What concerns you most?

The Single Parent Problems?

I read an article the other day that placed the blame for all that ails society, from crime to violence to discipline problems in school, on single parent families and the disintegration of the traditional family. While I find myself agreeing with some of the claims to a point a lot of what was said did not sit right with me. While I agree that parents are the single biggest influence on their children's lives, or at least should be and that ideally we would all live happily with a mommy, daddy, 2.5 kids, and a dog in a perfect world, the realist in me knows that this ideal is far more fiction than fact. That doesn't mean, to me, we shouldn't desire that ideal or stop trying to achieve that ideal, but what happens when that is not the reality?

I taught in public schools for years. I know that many kids who come from broken homes statistically have higher rates of discipline problems, but from personal experience, something the author of this article doesn't have, I also know that kids who come from stable, two parent homes also have discipline problems and some kids from one or no parent homes are the epitome of model behavior. I had students whose single mothers worked their butts off to provide for their children, cooked them dinner every night, taught them right from wrong, set high standards for behavior, and were great parents. So, basically, I don't put a lot of value in statistics, especially those that can be manipulated for their own agenda, be it personal, political, etc.

Part of the article suggested that if we really want to see a difference in crime, violence, and discipline problems then we will start addressing the real cause--single parent homes. How exactly this is supposed to be done was conveniently not outlined or specified in the article. It made me wonder, though, what about homes that become single family homes as a result of a death. Are these families suddenly doomed and to blame because they are now one short as a result of something out of their control? What about those who gave their lives as the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom? They are now technically single family homes. Are they now suddenly responsible for the demise of our society as we know it?

There are just too many variables to simply say single parent homes are the cause of violence, crime and discipline problems. Sure, absent fathers, jailed mothers, drug addicted parents of either sex, non-present parents, are all contributing factors that have led to some of these problems. To lump them into the same category as families who lost a spouse and parent to something unavoidable seems outlandish and grossly misleading to me.

So, what are your thoughts? Are single parent homes partly or solely to blame for these issues? Do you see a difference in the TYPES of single parents homes? If so, should these be accounted for when making such sweeping statements?

A House Divided

My husband and I have pretty similar political beliefs. At least that is what most would gather when talking with us. While there are subtle differences as a whole we pretty much see eye to eye. In fact, if I had to say who was more conservative I would have said him as would probably most others who know us would. (Although, as we've gotten a bit older he seems to have gotten a bit more liberal in my opinion and I think I've gotten a little bit more conservative).

Anyway, I was sent three political quizzes today and out of curiosity took them. I would describe myself as a moderate. I'm pretty much in the middle. I agree with a more conservative stance on a handful of issues (fiscal, etc) and a more liberal stance (social, etc.) on a handful of other issues. Each quiz I took pretty much confirmed this. I scored just left of center and more toward a libertarian side than an authoritarian one. No surprises there.

What was surprising was my husband. He scored considerably more liberal that I would have ever guessed. Looking over his shoulder on a couple of the questions (ones we obviously don't heavily discuss) I was shocked by his answers. Not shocked in an "Oh my gosh I can't believe you think that" way, but a "I had no idea you felt that way" way. It was interesting and surprising. Some of the differences can be attributed to a different interpretation of intentionally vague questions, but still the fact that we interpret them the way we did says something about how we view certain issues.

The thing is, my husband is the son of a Mennonite minister (think more contemporary Amish). His parents are ultra-conservative and he was raised as such. Because he married outside his religion, we have been pretty much shunned. When I met him he was a registered Whig (a fact my family got a lot of mileage out of in the early years before others' political beliefs surpassed his in the humor department), but usually voted Democrat. His parents thought I was this raging ultra liberal anti-Christ who was corrupting their son because yes, my attending parochial school for grades K-8 and attending church regularly since my birth screams "Anti-Christ." The truth of the matter was that I was probably a bit more conservative than he.

The point in telling you about his background is that it cracks me up to think of him being the product of his parents. How did this happen? They would probably be appalled and start prayer circles for his soul if they found out he voted Democrat more often than not. To me, it was news that between the two of us I am "more" conservative (if you can count being smack in the middle "more" of anything).

Just curious. Do you and your spouse hold the same political beliefs or are you a house divided?

Find a New Scapegoat

I know I am a few days behind all the hoopla, but the outrage expressed over PRESIDENT Obama giving a speech to school children about the importance of an education is frankly ridiculous. The nerve of OUR President addressing children and about the importance of working hard....how dare he. Maybe I am missing something, but to me I still respect the office of the President, even if/when I don't respect the man in it. I have very few kind things to say about George W. Bush, however if he were to have given a speech and I had school age children I would have certainly had them listen to it, both out of respect for the position he holds in our country and because if there were aspects we as a family disagreed with I think it is a perfect way to think critically about what our leaders say and then discuss later WHY we disagree. What specifically is at issue? Why do we disagree with what is being said? It's not good enough to say “Oh, he's evil” “Oh, he's a socialist spreading his propaganda, trying to indoctrinate school children.” What specifically is he doing, what has he done? I would encourage this type of critique of all leaders.

If we want to talk about indoctrination or spreading propaganda how about those that refuse to let their children listen to anything other than what their parents tell them, never teaching them how to critically think or refute views that oppose their own. I WANT my kids to be exposed to ideas and ideology different from my own. Only through that exposure will they be able to verbalize clearly, effectively, and coherently why we believe the way we do. It's those that never see the other side that are incapable of clearly expressing the reasons for their own views beyond saying it is “what they believe.” What a cop-out.

In Arizona our school superintendent made some pretty controversial statements pertaining to Obama's speech and how he felt the White House was encouraging a worshipful approach to the President. These comments got the fringe element frenzied and the next thing you have the arm-chair pundits claiming the educational system is trying to push a liberal agenda, how teachers waste time spreading propaganda, how public school teachers are at fault for all that ails us morally as a society. As someone who spent six years teaching in a public school I find that offensive and wholly inaccurate. We barely have enough time in a year to get through an ambitious curriculum, let alone attempt to indoctrinate our students to apparently the “evil teacher way” of thinking. In six years I taught my students to write, read and think critically, edit, identify parts of speech, define and identify literary terms and showed how these concepts have real world application. And this is just a very small fraction of what I taught.

My students never knew if I was a Republican or Democrat or somewhere in between. They never knew who I voted for, even when they would ask...and some repeatedly. They knew I treated all of them the same and held them all to the same standard regardless of their political or religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, in six years I taught, spanning two different high schools, there were only a handful of teachers who tried to spread their “propaganda”.....and these were those from the right. Not those evil, liberal lefties who have overtaken all the classrooms. Hmm.

The irony isn't lost on most that those that deride the public education system the most and the loudest are 1) those that have the least first hand knowledge of or experience with an actual education system; they base their philosophy mostly on what Fox News and their right wing journals tell them and b) they are the ones that have benefited the most from an education. It seems funny that those who devalue an educational experience are oftentimes those who have the jobs they have because of that education. They are able to have the family lives they want because of the opportunities gained from a diploma and then a college degree.

For years, people have placed blame with the educational system on the teachers. There are certainly some bad teachers out there. I even had a few. But more often than not I had wonderful teachers who provided me with a terrific education. Those I worked with over the course of six years were wonderful people and terrific teachers who had their students' best interest in mind. These were people who worked hours lesson planning and grading despite not being paid. These are people who spend much of their own money purchasing supplies for their classroom because very little of the money actually sees its way into actual supplies for the students. These are people who served the purpose of multiple roles: parent, supporter, encourager, instructor, etc. because some students had no one else in their lives to step in and fill those roles.

There may be aspects of our educational system that are broken or need to be changed. Working in education I would certainly agree that there are quite a few changes that could be made that would be beneficial. However, the teachers that are there day in and day out, doing the best they can with what they have, deserve more respect than they are given. To lump every teacher into the category of “spreader of propaganda crap” is offensive, baseless, and completely ignorant. Sadly, with many in our society today I wouldn't expect any differently. These are the people that could maybe benefit from a little more education.

Reflections on What is Wrong with Our Culture

I wrote a bit about my feelings on politicians and their affairs a few weeks ago. Yet again, we have the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford embroiled in controversy as he was caught amid lies and then forced to admit to an affair. The part that really irks me about him is two fold (and this is in addition to the fact that he was having an affair period): in his public apology he apologizes first for the pain he has caused his mistress. His friends, wife, and sons all follow. That says something. Along with that is the portion where he states he was crying his eyes out in Argentina the past five days. Why? Because he was heart broken over having to leave his mistress to actually honor the commitment he made to his wife? That really rubs me the wrong way. The second part of my frustration is that he and his wife were supposedly separated with the intent of strengthening their marriage. I'm not really sure how visiting your mistress for a week will result in a strengthening of your marriage commitment to the wife you have been cheating on.

Like I mentioned before, cheating by anyone is wrong, equally wrong regardless of what political party you belong to. However, it especially seems to irritate me when the Republican party, and this man in particular, makes a concerted effort to be America's moral police, constantly telling the rest of us what we ought to be doing, all the while doing exactly what they are railing against and condemning. These affairs just highlight the larger problem in America, or the world for that matter, which is a general degradation of morals and values.

People go around acting as if they are accountable to no one, as if vows they took and promises they made are meaningless, as if they are somehow above the other slime that lies, cheats, and steals, and as if an apology somehow makes it all better. This isn't simply limited to politicians. We hear more about politicians because they are in the public eye and possibly held to a higher standard, but everyday men and women engage in this same shameful behavior. It is nothing more than hubris that allows them to believe they will really get away with it.

Integrity is the measure of a person and if you cannot be trusted then there isn't much left.

**********************************************************************************
It has become increasingly apparent with the recent DC Metro accident and Air France crash that people have developed a cavalier attitude towards safety. It is concerning that in both instances recommendations were made that would have ensured greater safety and both recommendations were either ignored or had not yet been implemented. It seems like there should be a way for travellers to check to see if the particular plane, train, or automobile that they are travelling in or on has had recommendations made and whether or not those were actually followed and implemented. It never ceases to amaze me when officials know that recommendations were made, choose not to prioritize them, and then act shocked when a catastrophic, life-taking event occurs. It makes me mad that the powers that be take these recommendations so cavalierly, as if life is inconsequential. Companies are worried about cost, time involved, and the work required. I understand that. However, it would sure be nice if that same level of concern was given to the lives of those who were on these ill-fated vessels of transportation. Maybe they wouldn't be dead now.

**********************************************************************************
Until the past few weeks I have watched exactly one episode of Jon and Kate Plus Eight. The one I watched was so disturbing to me that I never tuned in again. I hated the way Kate barked at her husband, I hated witnessing how weak her husband either is or was portrayed, and it pained me to know that those eight kids now had a childhood tainted by "reality." However, this week I watched three episodes, including the one where the big divorce announcement was made. It made me cringe. It seems self-serving that they have chosen to take something private and painful and turn it into a public spectacle. Shame on them. Those children will now have footage for an eternity documenting the demise of their parents' marriage and the end of their family.

Honestly, as Jon and Kate began noticing things going south in their marriage they should have called it quits right then and there, got the cameras out of their house, and made a legitimate attempt to fix their marriage, or at least agree to end things in private and not with America watching. This should not be something that plays out in front of a camera. This isn't reality and it shouldn't be entertainment. There are children involved who will one day see this train wreck in all its glory. As a parent I would protect my children at all cost and I think in this situation the show should most certainly not go on chronicling the demise of a family.

**********************************************************************************
So, what about society is bugging you right now? How do you feel about some of the above issues?

Promise Breakers

I find it a bit disturbing the number of politicians who end up embroiled in scandal because of an affair. I have a bit of mixed feelings about the role ones morals play in his politics. On the one hand I tend to think that ones morals or lack thereof isn't necessarily reflective of his/her ability to represent or lead a people. On the other hand it certainly calls into questions one's credibility. If someone is willing to lie to his family, supposedly the most important people in his life, then what is to prevent that person from lying to the rest of us, those that can't hold him personally accountable?

When President Clinton admitted to his affair with Monica Lewinsky I thought less of him as a person but I never really felt that undermined any decisions he had made as President. I realize there are many who feel differently. Likewise, there have been other good politicians who have made poor choices and I am reticent to condemn them in their profession even though I may condemn their immorality (John Edwards comes to mind).

Where I feel a bit more strongly is with those politicians who make it part of their political agenda to regulate morality and then they themselves end up having an affair. It's almost as if there are some politicians you know are less moral and in some ways you expect it from them. Not that it makes it any less wrong, but there's not the stench of hypocrisy with it. Then you have guys like Ensign, part of the Religious Right, very outspoken in his criticism of Clinton and Larry Craig, calling for their heads, a member of Promise Keepers and various other "moral code" groups, who admits to and apologizes for an affair and expects to just move on. Why? Others have given similar statements and this man was not quick to forgive and move on. He made it a mission to connect these moral decisions to their ability or inability to perform the functions of their jobs. So, why should he be any different? Shouldn't he be held to the same standard that he used to judge others? There would probably be a lot less judgement if everyone agreed to be judged by the same measure they judged others.

I think cheating in any form is wrong and an affair definitely makes me think twice about the quality of the individual. I also think it is incredibly stupid for one who lives in the public eye to think he/she can get away with something of this nature. Someone knows something and eventually it comes out. But for me it is almost worse when you have someone portraying himself as morally above reproach, making morals a part of his political agenda, dictating what aspects of morality should be legislated, and has cast judgement and demanded penance for others who have strayed, and then this person is caught in the same type of personal shortcoming. It's enough to make me want to shout, "If you are immoral enough to cheat, go cheat, but then don't be preaching morality to the rest of us.....who aren't cheating."

SCOTUS

I find all the hoopla surrounding Supreme Court nominations to be, to some degree, humorous. I would agree that they are important decisions and I would also agree that you want people on the court who have an obvious understanding of the law and the experience to support that. The part that I find interesting is the vigor and vehemence with which the "other" side objects to the nominee.

Right now we are seeing the Republicans have a conniption fit with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. If you watch the news or read the paper, no doubt you have heard about how Obama picked a "liberal" or a "judicial activist" and other terms meant to emphasize their perception of her "liberalness". Common sense would dictate that of course Obama would nominate a liberal. He is a liberal President. It stands to reason that he is going to nominate someone who shares his world view and position on controversial issues.

We saw this same type of reaction when George W. Bush had two nominations and used them on Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Democrats were outraged that he would put people who were so far right on the bench. Considering he is probably the most conservative President in our history it makes perfect sense. Like Obama, Bush wanted people on the SCOTUS who were similar in ideology to himself.

While I can understand each side's disappointment in the other's choice, the outright indignation each side displays is what is funny. Are any of these nominations truly a surprise? Did anyone honestly expect Obama to nominate a conservative anymore than anyone would have honestly expected Bush to nominate a liberal or even a moderate? Each side can go ahead and be upset with the other side's choice but to feign this righteous indignation is simply asinine.

I found this article interesting.

Here's why. According to a recent Gallup poll 51 percent of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, yet only 23 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, tempered by 22 percent who think it should be legal in all circumstances. There are then 53 percent of Americans, some of whom obviously consider themselves to be pro life, who believe abortion should be legal in some instances. So, my question is, if you are willing to make allowances for special circumstances aren't you technically, by definition, pro choice?

When Politics Trump Family

So, tonight I have some questions for you. Do you and your family (extended) share similar religious and/or political beliefs? If not, how do you handle those differences? Do you silently agree to disagree? Do you have knock down, drag out disagreements? Do you have mutually respecful conversations about those differences? Do you refuse to discuss religion or politics with them at all? Are the differences divisive?

I guess the lesson I have come to learn the hard and frustrating way is that religion and politics don't mix well in a family where people have drastically different views. In the past few months I have bowed out of discussions that involve politics or religion with certain members of my extended family (I will say that 80 percent of us share the same views on both politics and religion, so it's a small minority). It's just not worth it to me to cause hurt feelings or attack someone for believing differently and I really don't like feeling attacked for my beliefs.

I guess the bigger question is how you would handle it if you were constantly barraged with political criticism after repeatedly asking to be left out of political discussions. I am at a loss and for the sake of harmony am trying my hardest to not just walk away from it all. There are other people who would be hurt by that decision, my children mostly, and I am not selfish enough to allow my children to suffer the consequences of adults behaving badly.

The Death of Critical Thinking

Each year one of the units I taught in my Junior and Senior English classes was a Speech and Debate unit. I would have students draw teams, draw topics, and draw sides to those topics. Inevitably, there would be some students "stuck" on the side of an issue with which they personally disagreed. Abortion, Immigration Reform, and Parental Consent for Birth Control were always the topics that elicited the strongest reactions.

I always began by explaining the research process. I would walk them through the importance of finding statistics and facts to support their position and also to start anticipating what the opposing side would use for support and then finding evidence or information to refute that. Without fail I would have a handful of students that would say, "But I don't believe that. I can't argue that. That is not what I really think." I would explain that part of being an effective communicator is being able to "see" the other side and whether you agree with it or not at least be able to acknowledge that there is another side and try to understand what the reasoning for that belief is. With that I would require them to find information that "the other side" might use to help support their cause or beliefs.

Some of the best persuasive arguments were done by students who were able to separate their personal feelings or biases toward a subject and focus solely on the facts of the issue at hand. Or by those who were able to channel the passion they personally felt into truly trying to understand the other side and doggedly trying to find information that someone on that side might use to explain his/her beliefs. It would always amaze me how passionate pro-life students could argue effortlessly and convincingly for pro-choice legislation. It stunned me when a Hispanic student, one whom I knew was not in our country legally, argued solidly for the deportation of all illegal aliens. While arguing for the other side rarely changed their personal views it at least made them realize that people who had views different from their own weren't these evil, ignorant people that they were made out to be by many of their like-minded peers. They were people just like them who took information, much of it the same information, but simply interpreted it differently, maybe saw shades of grey where they only saw black or white, and felt just as passionately that they were right.

I loved teaching this unit because it encouraged critical thinking skills. It forced them to be able to find information that defended the position they were charged with supporting. It made them think about what the "other side" would use for support and in so doing made them think two steps ahead and find information to refute those claims. Talk about seeing and having to understand an issue from all sides. Beyond that, the sheer research and organization of information and then being able to articulate all that information in a concise, coherent manner requires critical thinking skills that many simply do not have because they have never been forced to use them.

Of course there was an elaborate Rubric that I used to grade them. The one "rule" I always had, year after year, issue after issue was that there were to be no personal attacks. Never. A violation of this rule would result in a serious loss of points, enough to potentially lower their score two to three letter grades. I wanted the focus to be solely on the issue, never the person. They were to attack flaws or misrepresentations in the other side's facts and statistics. They were to point out examples of faulty reasoning. They were to attack holes in the information the other side presented, but under no circumstance was there to be name calling. There was to be no condemnation of those on the other side. I reiterated constantly that we debate the issues, not the people. Only once in six years did someone break that rule and get docked because of it. Once. These are high school kids I am talking about. By definition they are kids which means they are impulsive and sometimes lack judgment. Yet, year after year they sat in my classroom and argued issues without attacking or name calling.

At the end of this unit I always came away so impressed with the level of commitment they displayed and the seriousness with which they took this task. Kids were pushed out of their comfort zones, forced to think outside the box, and each year most of them exceeded all expectations. When I think about teaching this is one of the things I truly miss.

You may be asking at this point what this story has to do with anything. For starters, the fact that a lot of the general population lacks crucial critical thinking skills. In the absence of knowledge, ignorance breeds. Those who can't rationally and logically defend themselves result to name-calling and personal attacks and this leads to a further breakdown of critical thinking skills. In my personal life I like to surround myself with a variety of people who think differently, believe differently, act differently, and in general are just different than myself. Sure, I have many like-minded friends and family members whose company and discussions I cherish and enjoy. In the same vein I don't feel that my way of life is being threatened if others believe differently than I do. I acknowledge that they can be just as passionate about their ideas and beliefs as I am mine without it being an assault on my morals, values, and ideals.

I mentioned before my frustration with the constant political debates that we are bombarded with. My problem with them is that very few of them focus on the issues. Almost all of them attack the people holding these beliefs. Sadly, many are incapable of differentiating between the person and the idea. They assume that because they believe one way and that one way is different from the way someone else believes then the person who has that different belief is bad, evil, wrong, a threat, and the list goes on and on and on. If discussions on politics remained about the actual issues at hand, much like I demanded in my classroom, instead of resorting to name calling and accusations it would be a different story. But to call someone you disagree with “evil” or “stupid” or “unwise” or the host of other insults heaped upon those who think or feel or believe differently is immature and quite frankly says more about them and their character than it does about the person they are attacking, not to mention that it does nothing to defend or support the issue they are trying to fight for.

Sadly, where most of this name calling is coming from is the religious-right. I am a Christian and so I say this cautiously, but I think Christianity would be much better served if it took the rule from my classroom and applied it to its daily dealings with those who differ politically and/or religiously from them. The relentless criticism and condemnation flies directly in the face of Christian principles and that bothers me immensely. While Christians used to be lumped into one category, "Christians" we now have the "religious right", Liberal Christians, Christian Democrats, yada yada and a hierarchy of holiness is being handed out by the "heads" of this religious right contingency and their minions.

I just wonder when the issues stopped being about the issues. It seemed sudden, like the flip of a light switch. I just wonder who deemed "The Right" the moral authority. I was recently told that I was an “unwise Christian” for voting for Obama. I was told this by someone who claims to be a Christian. I am proud to be a Christian and I take my faith very seriously. Part of how I interpret my faith is a general respect for all other faiths even ones that aren't my own. While I may not share your beliefs I respect your right to your beliefs. I don't take my vote lightly. I weigh ALL issues and unfortunately sometimes have to vote for a candidate that doesn't share ALL of my same beliefs but shares MORE of them than the other candidate. I would venture to say that this is true for most voters. I refuse to be a one or two issue voter. While my faith and beliefs help guide my decision about who to vote for I don't vote for who the majority of those in my religion believe I should vote for simply because I am a member of that religion.

So, while I am proud of my faith, when Christians attack other Christians and attempt to minimize or discredit their faith based on a belief that their ideas are wrong because they are not the exact same as theirs it embarrasses me. If this is the witness that non-believers see, if this is the glimpse of Christianity they are exposed to, why would anyone want to be a Christian? If all people see is the religious-right railing against those who care about the environment, railing against those who think a 14 year old girl who is raped should be able to abort that baby, railing against those who think our government shouldn't torture, and railing against those who want the education in this country funded appropriately, then what picture of Christianity are they getting? I doubt it's an image that is going to be sending them scurrying to the nearest church anytime soon. If I were not already a Christian, I have serious doubts that I would want to be one, based on what I have seen from the self-appointed “Moral Voice” in this country.

Feeling compelled to say any of this is upsetting to me and what really disturbs me is that the people who cry the loudest about Christianity being ruined or eliminated in this country are the ones who are doing the most to contribute to is extinction. It worries me that Christians are doing themselves a great disservice by making every issue a personal attack on one's character and one's Christianity. Mark Twain once said, “If Christ were here, there is one thing he would certainly not be – a Christian." I think there is a lot of truth to that statement. The Christ I know is a loving one, a forgiving one, and yes, when necessary a vengeful one. He has His rules and there are distinct consequences for breaking those rules, but anyone, Christian or not, who has read the Bible knows that he ate with tax-collectors (lowly and dishonest in Biblical times) and hung out with sinners, he washed his disciple's feet in an act of humility, he took care of the poor and needy, he be-friended and forgave prostitutes. So, why are his supposed present-day followers so quick to condemn the modern-day versions of those Biblical "sinners?"

For me, I can only hope that we as a nation and we as Christians or members of any religion can return to a healthy debate of the issues void of any personal attacks, name calling or character assassinations. I hope that Christianity isn't associated all over the world as a right-winged extremist religion that hates those who are different from them. We are raising our children Christian, to stand true to their convictions, to take a stand when things are wrong. However, we are also raising our kids to be kind, and compassionate, to understand that people are different and to respect those differences instead of condemn them, and most importantly to love and to forgive. Will it be enough? I hope so.

Sick and Tired of the Negativity

I used to watch CNN almost daily. That greatly lessened when I started having children. Lately, though, since going to the gym and having 27 different TVs on, all broadcasting the latest news updates I have caught more than my fair share of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the like. It has become abundantly clear based on what I see daily on TV and just in my own personal experience that it is pointless to discuss politics. One side is never going to change the other side’s mind. Democrats and Republicans will never agree on much and each will continue to think the other side is wrong, ignorant, short sighted and the host of other stereotypes and impressions spoon fed by the media and shoveled down by the masses.

So, why is our society obsessed with constantly arguing and discussing politics? I have been guilty of it plenty of times as well. I guess I just don’t see the point anymore. Politics has become so polarized that regardless of how sound the logic of a Democrat is a Republican will never acknowledge that even if it makes them appear ignorant in the process and vice versa. It frankly is exhausting to constantly have to defend one’s reasons for believing a certain way and honestly is hovering dangerously outside the boundaries of social norms. I don’t understand why everything has to be a political battle or why every event has to be littered with political undertones

The constant back and forth tit for tat just seems like a waste of time, energy, and breath. People spend more time trying to convince others they are right. Why? You believe you are right. Probably most of the people you insulate yourself with think you are right and those that don’t will never think you are right anyway. So, for whose benefit are you preaching, arguing, lecturing, vilifying, etc.? I just don’t get it. I have become so fed up with the constant bickering by both parties and the people that support those parties that I really can hardly stand it.

There wasn’t much I agreed with Bush on, but I didn’t feel the need to talk about it all the time. And despite my overall displeasure with his presidency I can also acknowledge that he did some things right and well. So, I guess I find it interesting that those who criticized the Bush bashers so much are the first ones and the most vocal ones to be relentlessly Obama bashing right out of the gate, not even acknowledging when he does something right (like his handling of the Somali pirate situation). I find it an extreme position to declare that you are wholly opposed to everything he has done, will do, or might even consider doing. Obviously if you are a Republican you are not going to be a fan of Obama. Everyone knows that. And I mean everyone. Limbaugh has spoken. So, what is the point of screaming it from your rooftops? Those who are like-minded obviously agree with you and those who voted for Obama and even some of those who didn’t are going to disagree. You’re not going to convince anyone otherwise. So, again I ask, what is the point? More and more it is starting to look like there is none. I’m seriously contemplating canceling my cable service, canceling my Internet subscription, and running the treadmill with my eyes closed just to get a break from the constant negativity that has so permeated American culture. Can you tell I am fed up?

The Uneducated Blindly Follow

I was a high school teacher for almost six years. I come from a family where the value and importance of an education was ingrained from an early age. Three of the four of us have graduated from college and my youngest brother is currently a junior in college. So, to say that I value education is an understatement. Hence, it is discouraging that when faced with a budget crisis on both a local and national level one of the first things to go is funding for education. When Janet Napolotano left her position as Governor of Arizona to join Barack Obama we lost a huge advocate for education. Our new governor, Jan Brewer, stayed true to her party's history of minimizing the value of an education and started slashing funding for education from kindergarten through college. Along the same lines, one of the biggest points of contention between Dems and the GOP when debating the stimulus package was funding allocated for education. In order to get it passed, money for education was cut. I don't understand this line of thought.
The United States does not sit on an academically or intellectually superior throne anymore. We are surpassed by lesser and more undeveloped nations on an annual basis who achieve more, are smarter than we are, and whose leaders invest in the future of their country. Arizona, specifically, already ranks so low in national education (48th) that it would seem that we wouldn't want to drop much lower. It's interesting that those who are so critical of our educational system are the ones who want to continue to strip that system of the money it needs in order to educate our future leaders. So, basically they want to give schools no money yet then want teachers held accountable when students don't succeed. That sure makes a lot of sense.
I am certainly not naive enough to think that everyone needs to attend college. I realize there are many successful people in our world who lack a college degree. However, in today's climate especially, a college degree opens doors that simply having a high school diploma would not. Someone with an engineering degree, for example, would get a job working at Boeing before someone who lacked a degree (as a friend of mine recently found out). People would hire an independent contractor who has training in a specialized area before they'd hire someone who is simply self-taught or has a natural interest. While your continued success might not lie in the fact that you possess a degree from an institution of higher learning, the initial opportunities afforded to you were certainly a result of the education and degree you received. You would think on that point alone it would be enough to convince those who so willingly throw away money overseas to fund a losing effort on a war based on misinformation would rather spend that money on our own country in an effort to educate the people who will be making these decisions in the future.
Part of me wonders if there is a conscious effort to keep our citizens uneducated. After all, the uneducated are often the easiest to manipulate and brainwash. They don't question or challenge. They follow blindly what they are told and react aggressively and irrationally when confronted with an idea that differs from their own. I realize I am stepping out on a limb here, but with all the areas that funding is being cut from it makes me wonder what the intention of these politicians are.

Take Your Ideals...

I have listened to the term “idealistic” be tossed around as if it were a negative characteristic. As in Obama is simply “idealistic.” Or Obama is full of “ideals.” Why is that said with such disdain and disgust? It seems like we would want someone who was idealistic, but also rooted in reality. One who envisions the implementation of these ideals yet is also able to adapt to what certain circumstances dictate and demand. I don't know about you, but I like idealistic people. I admire people who hold fast to their ideals. It is those ideals that bring about change, that revolutionize the way we see or do things. If being called “idealistic” is the biggest insult that can be heaped then I think it is safe to say our President is moving in the right direction.

I don't want a leader of any type: a husband, a boss, a governor, a senator, a pastor, or a President, who holds so steadfastly resolute to his ideas that he refuses to change when faced with a set of circumstances that certainly call for flexibility and compromise. I want a leader who has his or her own ideas but who is willing to scrap those if there is a better way, who is willing to compromise if necessary, or who is willing to put those ideas on hold if called for. That's wise leadership in my opinion. I have had a variety of coaches, a variety of bosses, and a variety of other leaders both formal and informal. By far the most effective leaders were those who were most flexible while still staying true to their vision, to their ideals. So, I return to my previous question. When did “idealistic” become a dirty word?

Reflections of the Inauguration

A lot of my close friends and family are Republicans. Over the course of this last election period I have grown tired of the constant belittling and disrespect shown to our new President. It is also amazing the amount of half-truths and lies being circulated about what they THINK Obama MIGHT do, despite those ideas being in direct conflict with what he has SAID he WILL do. It seems that maybe we should give him the chance to screw up before criticizing him for potential mistakes.

Anyway, today I read a blurb from someone I am friendly with about how he finds Obama to be a hypocrite because he wants workers to cut back on their hours in order to give co-workers more hours, yet believes Obama has no problem spending in excess of $150 million on his inauguration. When I first read that I was a little concerned myself, so I was curious as to what other Presidents have spent, specficially Bush. Doing a little digging there are many sites that claim Bush only spent $40 million and used that as a platform to criticize Obama for wasteful spending. However, I dug a little further and this is what I found.

While many claim Bush only spent 40 million for his innauguration, here is why using $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represents a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. The $40 million (Bush inauguration cost) does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.
The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration?

Buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers." You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Plus that doesn't count the 16 billion a month he has spent on the Iraq war. Talk about wasteful spending.

On a more positive note I had many wonderful conversations today with people who seem to be hopeful and optimistic. I realize, as do most, that Obama will not solve everything and I also realize there are many who just will never like him and will always find something to fault him for. To each his own. However, the historical significance of today's inauguration should not be lost on anyone: supporter or critic. It is an important day for our history and I am proud to have witnessed it.

________

Random Notes:
I had my daughter watch portions of today's festivities with me. She knows who the Obama's are as we have talked at length about them with her. She obviously does not understand the significance of this, but I am glad she was a part of it nonetheless because someday she will understand why this election was so historic and hopefully this will mark a turning point for our country. Anyway, I digress. There is a book we have been reading lately called Llama Llama Mad at Mama. My daughter now calls our President "Barack O'mama llama" and our First Lady "Michelle O'mama llama."

I pointed out George W. Bush during the swearing in and said he was our old President and Obama was going to be our new President. She said, "But Bush was our new President and now he is our old President?" I said, "yes." She then asked when Obama would be our old President. I told her hopefully not for another 8 years.

Michelle Obama came out wearing a gorgeous dress for one of the balls. When she came on stage my daughter asked, "Is she a princess?" I replied, "She looks like a princess doesn't she?" My daughter then asked, as Obama took his wife's hand, "Are they going to get married now?" I told her that they already were married to which she replied, "He is her Prince." My daughter relates all aspects of life to Disney Princesses.

So, what are your thoughts on the inauguration? Do tell.

A Reason to Hope for Change

I don't know if I can adequately explain my feelings about the upcoming Presidential Inauguration. I have never been filled with such hope and optimism for an incoming President; I've never been so excited for a new President to take the helm and outline his plan for our country. Part of it is my age, but most of it is because I don't think we have had a President generate this much expectation and excitement before. Well, at least not anytime during the past eight years.


The expectations facing this man are great. He will be expected to fix what has been damaged or destroyed over the course of the last eight years and he will be expected to do it quickly. There are those who think he is up for the job and those who are hoping he fails (a concept so foreign to me...I would never want any President to fail, regardless of party affiliation). The reality is that President-Elect Obama will not be able to remedy all that ails our country overnight. It will take years, but I am so hopeful that he will immediately begin to implement his plans to fix our economy, our healthcare system, the war in Iraq, etc.


Television has been flooded with Obama this and Obama that and there seems to be fairly consistent rhetoric when it comes to the way people describe him. Both his supporters and critics alike describe him as truthful, cool, calm, collected, analytical, even-keeled, and other similar adjectives. That is exactly the type of person I want making hard, complicated decisions. That is the type of person that should have been in the White House for the past eight years.


It will be interesting to see how Obama's beliefs grow and/or change. President Bush governed Texas more from the middle. Few would describe his record as Governor of Texas as extreme. It wasn't until he got to the White House that he began to veer so far to the right, polarizing the majority of Americans. He no longer represented most mainstream Republicans. Sure, there are those fringe, right-wing fanatics who think he is a terrific President and I think over time, the decisions he made and the long-term effects of those decisions will prove otherwise. But it gives me pause. Could Obama do the same thing the other way?


I'm a moderate. Some would say I am a liberal Republican, most would say a conservative Democrat. Technically, I'm neither. I do know that I don't want a President who deals in extremes. We've had one of those for eight years and have been repeatedly shown that that does not work. It's divisive. Obama has governed from the middle. I hope he remains that way. Just as Bush went off the right side deep end, I pray that Obama will not dive off the left side deep end. By all accounts thus far it does not appear that way, but Washington DC has a way of thwarting even the best of intentions. I truly do believe that Obama will do a much better job of uniting and not polarizing our nation. I also think he will not label those that differ with him as evil or un-American. I have faith that he will not cultivate a climate of fear, but instead one of hope and optimism.


One of my favorite aspects of Obama is the way he interacts with his family. He seems to have a wonderful, strong, respectful marriage and it is obvious that both he and Michelle Obama have a tremendous amount of respect for each other. In a day and age where politics and scandals seem to mix it is nice to see a positive model of marriage (I would say the same thing about President and Laura Bush's marriage for the most part as well). It is also endearing to see his interaction with his children. It's been a long time since children, in the truest sense of the word, have moved into the White House. Watching how Michelle Obama and our future President have made the transition with their daughters' best interest at the forefront of all decisions instills me with a sense of comfort and security. I can't really explain it other than to say that I think you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat their children and their spouse.

I watched an interview with Warren Buffett this weekend. I was surprised to learn that he is a staunch Obama supporter. I don't know why that surprises me so much, but it does. Buffett had a slew of compliments to bestow upon Obama, namely believing that he truly can fix the economy over time. He acknowledges it will take years, but believes the policies Obama plans to implement and the team he has put in place is the appropriate one for our current predicament. Buffett said one of Obama's best qualities is his ability to listen and absorb the information.

So, I'm excited to see what new policies this President will implement, I'm anxious to see new people in charge working together instead of divisively pulling each other apart. I am excited to be able to hope again, to feel optimistic about our country, and to truly believe that the American people, you and me, will once again have a say. We have been silenced by fear and accusations of being un-American for eight years now. It's time to hope for change.

A Feminist in the Making

About 8 to 10 months ago I took my two children to a Hillary Clinton rally. My daughter had a great time chanting, "Hillary, Hillary" at every available opportunity and still, this many months later, she talks about Hillary like they are old friends. So, today she saw Barak Obama on the news and I asked her if she knew who that was. Here is the conversation that followed.
Her: "That's Barak OMama."
Me: "That's right. He's going to be our new President."
Her: "I'm not going to like him."
Me: "Mommy and Daddy like him. You might like him too."
Her: "I like the girl better."
Me: "What girl?" (I'm thinking 'oh please don't let her say Palin')
Her: "Hillary. I like Hillary better than Barak OMama"
Me: "Well, you can like Hillary better if you want."
Her: Runs through the house with her fist in the air chanting, "Hillary, Hillary."

I Am Hopeful

I am one of the many who is glad that Obama prevailed and is our President-Elect. I am hopeful that he will live up to the hype and redirect our country back to the path that it has so drastically veered from these past 8 years. I watched anxiously as the polls closed in key states and celebrated when Obama clinched the battleground states that were so vitally important in winning this election. I watched McCain's gracious concession speech and thought that if he could have come across that humble and gracious throughout his campaign he would have stood a much better chance (although that doesn't change his stance on issues it maybe would have changed how some viewed him). I realize that while I am celebrating this victory there are many who are disappointed and beyond that angry and indignant and blinded by their party's propoganda.

This victory gives me a lot of hope. While I have great hope for Obama's presidency, I also have hope for the millions of Americans who are disappointed by this decision. I would hope that they would really look at what Obama has said and where he stands on the issues and not cling to the rhetoric that has been so prevalent throughout the campaign. I would hope that people would quit saying Obama plans to do one thing when he has very clearly said he'd do the other. I would hope that it would become less and less acceptable to so casually toss around words like, "terrorist, Muslim, socialist" as synonymous with Obama. I realize all candidates run on issues and promises that some either aren't able to keep, won't keep, or simply had no intention of every keeping. That's just the way it is whether you are a Republican, Democrat or somewhere in between. What has bothered me and what I would hope would now stop is the gross misrepresentation of Obama's plans when it comes to issues like taxes, healthcare, abortion, education, and the environment.

I have sat and listened to ignorant people claim that because he attended a Muslim school when he was a CHILD that certainly means he is a Muslim today. How can someone be held accountable for decisions that parents made for them when they were a minor? I have sat and listened to people tear apart his tax plan with gross inaccuracies. You may not agree with his plan, but at least get what he is proposing correct. Half the people complaining about having "their" money taken and given to the "poor" and "lazy" don't make enough to be affected by these increases anyway. I have sat and listened to conservative Christians claim Obama is "for" abortion. Is anyone "for" abortion, truly? Being against the government having a say in a personal and moral matter does not make someone "for" the issue at hand. There is a difference.

It was interesting to me during Bush's administration the number of Republicans who said all the time how Bush is our President and like it or not we should support his decisions and support him. For the most part I agree with that. While I personally thought Bush was one of the worst President's this country has ever seen and I disagreed with him on almost everything I always had respect for the office he held and would never wish him any personal harm or misfortune. It will be even more interesting if this sentiment of respect and support is now expressed when there is a man in office who they did not vote for. Does the same courtesy apply?

This campaign and election has brought out both the best and worst in people. It is amazing to me to think about how many people voted this year. It is mind-boggling that a black man will soon hold the highest office in the land when it was not that long ago that a black man could not even vote. I am hopeful tonight that this nation can find a way to come together, to meet somewhere in the middle and start finding solutions to the problems that have plagued us for so many years. We need a president who can do that and honestly I think we will soon have him.

Here's to hoping, America!

My Political Soapbox

Everyone keeps saying that this election is the most important one in our lifetime and probably in many ways it is. We are at war, in an economic crisis, buried in debt, and the list of maladies afflicting this country goes on. When candidates began campaigning I was undecided, truly stumped as to who I would vote for. During the primaries I liked Bill Richardson for the Republican Party and John Edwards for the Democrats. Of course Edwards dropped out and there was the whole affair debacle and while I wasn’t a huge fan of Hillary I preferred her to Obama. Over time I began to like her more and while many viewed her husband as a hindrance I viewed him as an asset. After all, despite his moral and personal shortcomings, he was a great President and even though he would probably butt in it might not be such a bad thing to have his input now and then. However, since I am registered as neither a Republican nor a Democrat I would have been unable to vote in the primaries anyway.

So, when it became clear that our candidates were McCain and Obama I was disappointed and for the first time contemplated not casting a vote. Then I began to really pay attention. I wanted to learn everything I could about both candidates. I wanted to know their voting records in the Senate, where they stood on issues, what they had for breakfast, etc. I listened to what they said (and what they didn’t say) and ignored what each said about the other or what others said about them.

I’ll be honest and tell you that I don’t love either candidate…still. However, to me it has become clear that Obama is a unifying force. I feel that McCain is divisive and I base that on the ads he has run recently, his body language and facial expressions during debates, and what he has said in a series of speeches which have grown more desperate and more attacking as election day draws near. I do not agree with every one of Obama’s ideas. In fact, there are some I wholeheartedly disagree with. However, for me it comes down to whom I agree with more. As time goes on there is less and less that I like or can even tolerate with McCain. His healthcare plan is most frightening and his tax plan or a variation thereof has proven to be ineffective in dealing with the current economic crisis.

There’s also the sense of calm around Obama’s campaign. There is not the frenzied flurry and often desperate and dramatic measures that seem to surround the McCain campaign. If the way each candidate has run his campaign is any indication of how each would run his White House I have to say that I prefer the calm resolve Obama has shown and not the chaotic panic demonstrated by McCain and Co.

I have taken some flak lately because I am not voting Republican. I am a Christian; I attend church regularly. My family and most of my friends hold similar Christian beliefs. Many Christians believe when it comes to Christianity and politics that you can’t be a Christian and vote anything other than Republican and that abortion is the ONLY issue. The rest are secondary.

As a teacher I rarely allowed research papers or position papers or debate topics to be on the issue of abortion because it is such a personal topic that inevitably someone would become offended or have their feelings hurt or just get outright mad. I would end up with a classroom of hysterical, teary-eyed, hormonal teenagers who, while they felt passionately one way or the other, could not articulate WHY they felt that way, let alone even fathom that there was another side to the issue.

In a lot of ways, many Christians are like those high school students. They refuse to acknowledge that someone can be a Christian and also a Democrat. Or they refuse to consider that someone can both be pro-choice and pro-life. It’s not as if these concepts and beliefs have to be mutually exclusive of one another. You can be both or all.

I do not think that anyone is truly pro-abortion (except maybe a few low-life degenerates). Nobody I know gets pregnant hoping for an abortion. I realize that abortion is often abused and some use it as a form of birth control. Truly, that makes me heartsick. I personally am pro-life. It is hard for me to believe that I would ever have an abortion (Don’t even ask me to speculate as to what I would do if I were a victim of rape or incest or my life was in danger while carrying a child because I would like to say I would never abort, but until one is in that situation no one really knows). However, for every other woman in America I am pro-choice. I don’t think it is the government’s place, right, or responsibility to govern or place mandates on morality. It bothers me that so many Christians (people ascribing to a similar or the same religious doctrines I believe) will vote for McCain SOLELY for this reason. Look, if you are a McCain supporter I begrudge you nothing. Vote your conscience and if you think he is the right man for the job then that is great. But don’t claim that in order to be a Christian you have to vote Republican and you have to vote on the issue of abortion alone. I have similar feelings towards those who will vote for Obama strictly because he is black or will not vote for him because he is black.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do believe Obama will make a good President, not a perfect one by any means. And while I am sure McCain would do an okay job (well, I am not even really that sure) we need someone who will do more than just an okay job in our country’s time of crisis. We need someone to unite the parties and not divide them. My point is also that someone can be a Christian, a Democrat, pro-choice, and pro-life all at the same time and being one does not negate or invalidate being any of the others. So, on that note I encourage you all to vote next week, whether it is for McCain or Obama. Where I was once unsure of whom I would vote for, or if I would even vote, I am now confident and comfortable in my vote for Obama.

Healthcare

Why does it seem that every year health care premiums increase yet coverage decreases? I had some first hand exposure this week to what healthcare would mean under a McCain/Palin administration. If there was ever any doubt about who I was going to vote for (and for a short while there was) that was cleared up this week. God (or whoever you believe in) help us!