More thoughts on guns and rights

I've heard guns compared to cars. You know, guns don't kill people. Just like cars don't kill people. The drivers do.

Here's a thought for you.

Cars, and drivers, are well-regulated. They must meet certain safety standards. Both the cars AND the drivers. Drivers need to take a class on the rules of the road and basic safety in order to obtain a license to drive. Yes, a LICENSE. And... they have to prove themselves competent every 4 years to continue to drive a car.

Cars must meet safety standards. In order to be driven on public roads, cars have to maintain a certain level of safety, fuel efficiency, air quality. They must have safety belts. Whereas guns are not required to have a safety on the trigger.

You need a license to drive. To fish. To hunt. All of these things are regulated - fish of certain size must be thrown back. You can only kill a certain number of animals and some animals are protected. When you obtain a license to do any of these things, you agree to these regulations.

Why then do we allow anyone to obtain a weapon, many times without undergoing a background check, without requiring safety and training courses on a recurring basis, without ensuring that the weapons meet basic safety standards?

Ordinary people can't drive military vehicles like tanks on the road. Why should ordinary people be allowed to own military grade weaponry?

Why do we refuse to recognize that the rest of the free world has regulations in place and is much safer for it? Like the healthcare debate, we are so sure that our way is best. That the rest of the world should learn from us rather than taking the opportunity to learn from the successes of the rest of the world.

And for those who cry "But the Constitution!! It's my RIGHT!" would do well to remember a couple things. First, that the 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia. Well. Regulated. And second, that we have an amendment process for a reason. Our founding fathers knew that things would change, as society always does. They built in a process for making those changes.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that he never expected the Constitution to remain inflexible and unchanged:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

~Thomas Jefferson

Inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial. (emphasis mine)

click to enlarge

Americans are arrogant, plain and simple. We are at a point where we refuse to acknowledge that we could learn from others'; mistakes. We are still a very young country compared to countries in Europe and Asia. We have a lot to learn. It's time that we become more flexible and take in the wisdom of those around us.

A thought on guns in schools

Like so many Americans and so many around the world, I take issue with the NRA's idiotic proposal to post armed guards at every school in America for so many reasons. Too numerous to name - and the media has gone through most of them. They are plentiful and obvious.

But the biggest problem I have with with it is one I haven't heard discussed much. Let me start with a story. (as always!)

My youngest son is a sophomore in high school. He's a very sensitive kid. As well as being adorable, smart as a whip, talented, etc etc etc... We had a long discussion about Sandy Hook on the day it happened. He was understandably horrified.

Last Thursday we got a robo-call from our high school principal. He noted that there were rumors going around about how there would be violence at school on Friday because of "the end of the world". He explained that these were simply rumors, there was no credible threat, and that our local PD would have extra security on campus and parents shouldn't worry.

Great - but what about the kids? Nobody ever thinks about the psychological impact of repeated threats of violence on kids in school. My son's response was "Oh great. Cops on campus. We must be so safe." (insert the sarcasm only a teenager is capable of delivering).

Well, the end of the world came and went, and along with it came Wayne LaPierre's unbelievably stubborn, ignorant, and horrifying suggestion to put armed guards at every school. Ignorant because it won't work. Is he aware that Columbine had an armed guard on duty? Is he aware that most shopping malls have armed guards? Should we put an armed guard at every movie theater, every fire, every house of worship? A single person armed with handguns or even a shotgun is no match for an adult wearing body armor with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon that shoots 30-60 rounds in the space of a minute or less. It just isn't.

Stubborn because LaPierre flies in the face of the desires of Americans and even his own NRA constituency. Most of us want some sort of gun control - the average citizen does not want or need a high capacity magazine or a weapon that shoots hundreds of bullets in hundreds of seconds. I have a friend who said it best. The only hunting done by those weapons is human hunting.

And horrifying because the majority of us picture more guns on campus, more opportunities for anger management by gunfire, and more ways to frighten our children.

So back to my story. I could see in my son's face and eyes the fear wrought be the idea of the need for armed guards at his school. And he's a teen. He has seen violent movies. He's played violent video games (though thankfully, he doesn't really care for them much - yay!). He sits at the dinner table and discusses current events with us. He's well aware that violence exists. And yet he fears the implication that his "safe place" - school - is unsafe. The place where he goes - without his parents - every day, could be the place that he is most vulnerable. Imagine how that fear would multiply if he was still in elementary school.

And so I hugged my boy and reassured him that he was safe. That his school was safe. That his world was a safe place and he can live his carefree life as always. Like a child should. Free to explore, learn and thrive in a safe place.

Although his delivery could have been a hell of a lot better, even President Bush (the worst president. EVAR) didn't want us to live like we were intimidated or afraid after 9/11. Yes, the whole "go shopping" thing was incredibly poorly delivered. But the sentiment behind it - your world is safe - was a good one. Too bad he then fearmongered the rest of his presidency in order to win elections and restrictions on freedoms and went on to become the worst president in American history, but that's a story for another day. Bottom line was, when the horrifying events of 9/11 happened, President Bush tried to reassure us that we were safe in going about our everyday business. He didn't tell us to be afraid (that came later, of course).

I don't want my children living in fear every day. Having armed guards on campus doesn't make kids feel safer. It makes them more fearful. It makes them think they are in perpetual danger. It makes them think that they are not safe. And it will make some of them more likely to bring weapons on campus in order to protect themselves from that unknown evil. And children and guns DO. NOT. MIX. Because guns are not an anger management tool. They are not a fear management tool. They are deadly weapons that kill. And people who live in fear are more likely to use deadly force if it is at their disposal.

I want my kids to grow up knowing that there are times when bad people do bad things, but that most of us are law-abiding, good people. I don't want them to be distrustful of all they meet. I want them to be open to new experiences. Open to meeting new people. Open to new and different ideas. Open to learning how to have disagreements and resolve them. Without violence. To know that there are so many ways to learn from others and that our way is not always the ONLY way. That when you don't agree with someone, it's ok to yell and scream, but it's never ok to use violence to solve disagreements. Any sort of violence, but especially deadly violence. And I want other people's children to learn these same things, so that my kids don't need to live in fear of being shot in a disagreement, or road rage, or by a trigger-happy fearful armed guard who refuses to let kids learn and grow by having heated disagreements on campus.

Placing armed guards at their "safe place" makes that impossible for my kids and yours. It removes their feelings of safety - and school is the only safe place for so many kids who face uncertainty at home, whether financial or emotional. It is the one stable environment for so many kids.

I don't want my boys heading off for 8 hours a day to a place that makes them afraid for their lives. What does that do to our next generation of kids? And their emotional stability? Their psychological well-being?

I urge you to call your Congressmen and Senators and implore... no... DEMAND that they reinstitute the assault weapons ban as a first step toward making our kids safer.

How America’s priorities are effed up

We perseverate on the wrong things here in America. No, we do. I wasn’t planning on posting about the horrific tragedy in Connecticut last Friday, because I can’t even hear about it on the radio without busting into tears. So I'm not going to do the emotion-packed post. I just can't. And many much more eloquent than me have talked about their ruminations on how God could allow this to happen. However, our misplaced priorities struck me as I was scrolling through my blog feed this morning.

On 9/11, hijackers used box cutters to overpower the airlplanes. So now? We have no real silverware on planes and we can’t take little pointy combs onto airplanes. No seriously. My hubby’s 90 yo grandmother had hers confiscated at security.

We had one crazy dude put a bomb in his shoe. Now? Every single passenger has to take off their shoes to go through security. In 2012, they finally acknowledged that little old ladies are unlikely to place a bomb in their shoes, so if you’re over 75, you get a reprieve. Gee, thanks!

We had someone come on board with liquid explosives, so now? You can’t bring your own water on board. Can’t afford $5 for an 8 oz bottle of water on the other side of security? Tough luck. Other things you can’t bring on board? Peanut butter. No. Seriously. During Pesach last year, I was traveling on business. It was 2-day trip, so I avoided a check-in bag as I like to do. Problem was, I had my matzah crackers and unopened small (albeit larger than 3 oz) jar of peanut butter in my carry-on. Guess what went into the trash? Yup. Peanut butter.

So…

We’ve had 62 mass shootings in the last 30 years. And hundreds of thousands of gun-related “non-mass-shooting” deaths since then. The answer? Take away the guns? Don't be ridiculous (^TM Balki). The answer is, of course, MOAR GUNS.

How does that make sense?

In the same breath they contend that women have thousands of abortions every year. The answer? Outlaw abortion! But of course!

How does that make sense?

Well, you see. Abortions are about the wiminz, and GUNS are about the MANLY MEN and making the MANLY MEN feel MANLY. Think I'm wrong? Good luck convincing me. I saw this great quote today from Eclectablog: "If only guns were as well regulated in this country as vaginas are."

Oh, and also? We should arm teachers. With assault rifles. Teachers who, by the way, do not wish to be armed. Because, yeah. What could go wrong there? Mother Jones did a thorough study on mass shootings in America and how many were prevented by an armed civilian taking out a shooter. The answer? Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Although, several of those armed civilians did manage to get themselves killed in the attempt. Brave of them, but freaking stupid.

Also, these same people who now want to arm teachers and other educators with assault rifles in the classroom (I shit you not) are the same people who think teachers are worthless sacks of shit who are union thugs getting paid bazillions of dollars for part time work. So… if we arm them, don’t we have to train them? (Naaaahhh.) And if we train them as first responders, don’t we have to include them in all the exemptions that other first responder unions get in all those right to work (for less) states? The right to have a union shop. The right to collectively bargain.

Make up your minds America!! Are teachers worthless bags of crap who don’t do a thing for our children or are they amazingly qualified to take care of our children under the worst kind of duress?

And why why why doesn’t the media call out this kind of idiotic hypocrisy? Also, why doesn't the media just give the stats on gun-related deaths - you know... REPORT the FACTS instead of worrying about being seen as "left-leaning".

And for the many who blame this horrible tragedy on homosexuality, or abortion pills, or WHERE IS GOD IN OUR SCHOOLS?!?!, I say screw you. God has been out of our schools for over 200 years. And if this is God’s way of punishing us, did you ever stop to think maybe He is sick of your self-righteous, homophobic, misogynist, Christian-supremacy ways? Maybe he wants YOU to shut up instead of everyone else. Maybe He’s telling you that you DON’T speak for Him.

Whoa, calm yourself, Lori. God and our personal private feelings about Him are just that. Private. Personal.

That is off topic, however I somehow don’t think that the families burying their babies in temples and churches as a result of gun violence in Connecticut and across the nation think it’s because they abandoned God. They likely do think, however, it’s because anyone can buy an assault weapon and magazines, and hollowpoint bullets only intended for military use, and shoot up their little children.

When you say " if the principal should have had an assault rifle she wouldn't have died", how do you think you make her family feel? That brave woman died trying to save her students and you demean her like that?

When you say that "if George Zimmerman had been there, those children would still be alive", you place a murderer in higher esteem than small children and the educators who gave their lives to protect them.

When you say that those little babies could have prevented this if only someone had taught them to rush the gunman (because we all know that 8 or 10 6-year olds can easily defeat a heavily armed adult male), you blame this massacre on the victims. Think what that does to their parents?

When you blame this on homosexuals or abortion, well... I got nothing. You're just an effing stupid lunatic.


How about we take care of the obvious first, hmmm?

Like this:
- Charlotte Bacon, 6
- Daniel Barden, 7
- Rachel Davino, 29.
- Olivia Engel, 6
- Josephine Gay, 7
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6
- Dylan Hockley, 6
- Dawn Hochsprung, 47
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 6
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6
- Chase Kowalski, 7
- Jesse Lewis, 7
- James Mattioli, 6
- Grace McDonnell, 7
- Anne Marie Murphy, 52
- Emilie Parker, 6
- Jack Pinto, 6
- Noah Pozner, 6
- Caroline Previdi, 6
- Jessica Rekos, 6
- Avielle Richman, 6
- Lauren Rousseau, 30
- Mary Sherlach, 56
- Victoria Soto, 27
- Benjamin Wheeler, 6
- Allison N. Wyatt, 6

זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה May their memories be for a blessing.

Quote of the day: Oops, Matt Lauer is a jerk

"It was obviously an unfortunate incident. It kind of made me sad on two accounts. One was that I was very sad that we live in an age when someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment, and rather than delete it, and do the decent thing, sells it. And I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies the sexuality of unwilling participants."
Actress Anne Hathaway with an incredibly classy and insightful "shame on you" to Matt Lauer on the Today show

Because some idiot photographer caught her getting out of a car in a short skirt that rode a little too high, and before she could pull it down, said photographer grabbed a crotch shot and sold & posted it on the internet. And because Matt Lauer, being the very hard-hitting investigative reporter & journalist and all-around really decent guy that he is, needed to not only embarrass a woman on his show, but also bring it to the attention of thousands of unaware viewers so they could all go have a peek at the peek show, too.

Yay freedom of the press!

Don't get me wrong - freedom of the press is hugely important. It's one of the strongest tenets of our society. But think back to why it's in our constitution. It is so the press can speak out against policy and government without fear of retribution. I'm guessing it wasn't so we could post crotch shots of celebrities without their consent or knowledge. So yes, it's important for us to have freedom of the press.

Matt Lauer had the audacity to ask about her "wardrobe malfunction". First off, it wasn't a wardrobe malfunction. She wasn't in front of millions of people intentionally drawing attention to herself. She was getting out of a car and adjusting her clothing. Because Matt Lauer never has to adjust his coat or pants when he steps out of a car.

"What is the lesson learned from something like that?" he asked.

Lesson learned? Other than you're a complete douchebag? How about this? Our press needs to find something useful and important to report on, rather than trying to titillate and enable the dumbing down of our society and encouraging the misogynist attitudes that seek to nullify strong, talented, accomplished women.

Because nothing else important is going on in our country right now that might need the attention of the press for which that amendment was designed.
*coughfiscalcliffdebtceilingvotingrightsworkersrightswomensrightscough*

It's the end of the world as we know it...

And I feel fine.

Like all of you, I’m sure, my twitter and Facebook streams were filled with DOOMSDAY and the END OF AMERICA!!!!! after the election on Tuesday. But one particular comment struck me, and that’s what I want to address today.

The comment was along these lines:
I just heard from my employer that they have to report on our W-2 how much they are providing in health care coverage. So we’re now having to pay taxes on our health insurance benefit. That means if you received $5000 in health care benefits, and your tax bracket is 20%, then you have to pay taxes on an additional $1000. America Died! (^tm Victoria Jackson)

 (or something to that effect – the man is a friend of my husband, not mine, so I can’t access the actual post).

So here’s the thing. First off, employers are simply required to report what they pay in health insurance-related benefits by 2012. Last year it was optional. This year it's not. They are reporting it to the government but it is not part of your taxable income. Your employer reports lots of things to the government that you aren't taxed on. So no, you aren't paying taxes on your health benefits this year. You’re full of shit. Or ignorant. Or both.

Next, we all pay taxes. Far from being unconstitutional, this is explicitly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution y’all claim to love so much.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States (emphasis mine)

And your beloved Roberts Supreme Court declared the Affordable Care Act constitutional. And much as Rand Paul would like to wish otherwise, yes Virginia, a majority of the Supreme Court ruling something constitutional actually does make it constitutional.

Whether we like it or not, health insurance is a benefit of employment for most of us. Most of us like it. Because when we need it? Yeah, we’re really happy it’s a benefit. Paying $20 at the doctor is so much nicer than paying $200. Also, isn’t the Republican motto something like “You don’t get anything for free”? So guess what? Your benefits aren’t free either. They encompass part of your employment package. Just like vacation days and sick days and paid holidays like Christmas (and for the record – I don’t get paid for Yom Kippur, so shut up). When benefits are provided, we pay taxes on them. If I get a bonus cause I’m such an awesome employee? That’s taxable income. If I call out sick and use 8 hours of sick time? Yup. That’s taxable income. When I get a day off on Christmas? Yup, taxable income. If I get paid for my vacation? Nodding. Taxable income. See where I’m going here?

Employer provided health insurance is a benefit, just like vacation days, sick days, holiday days, or a bonus. So if my employer pays $5000 for me to have health insurance? Yes, that could be a taxable benefit. Do I have to like it? Of course not. But those are the facts.

Here are some more facts. We don’t all love where our tax money goes. I didn’t want my taxes to pay for two wars I disagreed with (un-American me!!). I didn’t want to pay for Dick Cheney’s heart transplant, or even to give him his very first heart. I am not the Wizard of Oz. I am not in the business of providing those without a heart, a heart. To be honest, I also hate that my taxes pay for Mitch McConnell’s health insurance or any other rape apologist misogynist idiot who happens to get elected by spouting un-Christian Christian beliefs. And I pay for their health insurance for life. Every single member of Congress. AM I happy about that? Nope. But guess what? My tax dollars pay for all that shit. And more.

So first, before you go spouting off about what you’re being taxed on, learn the facts. Your employer is obligated to report your health insurance benefit. Period. You are not required to pay tax on it.

And even if you were? It’s an employee benefit, just like sick time. So you should pay taxes on it. Get the fuck over it already.

And just because it needs to be said again… here’s what I posted in my Facebook feed yesterday after seeing one too many “We’ll see if the US still survives in 4 more years” comments:

OK, I was gonna hold my tongue after the election, but enough. Really. Corporate profits are hugely up under President Obama. The stock market is at record highs under President Obama. My 401K went from down 50% when Pres Bush was in office to recovering the loss to a gain of 50% under President Obama. All you whiny whiners whining about how bad he is for business and doomsdaying America need to take a dose of shutup.

And one more thing. If anyone has assassination comments here, on twitter, or anywhere, they should keep them to themselves and reevaluate their motives. I'm pretty sure, no I'm positive, that I despised almost every single one of President Bush's policies and thought he was a weasel and a bit of a dick personally, but I never, not once, wished for or advocated for his assassination or his death (by whatever means).

If you don't like the election outcome, guess what. President Obama will be out in 4 years. You get to vote again. Yay for you. Now be quiet.

I'll say it again. Now be quiet.

Why is the presidential race even still remotely close?

How in all good conscience, can anyone vote for Mitt Romney? What's he going to do for us (except get that uppity black man out of office and back in the fields where he belongs)?

If you plan to vote for Romney, here's a few things to think about.

He disdains half the country based on their socioeconomic status and kowtows to the people in his party who want to take away the rights of those less fortunate than himself.

He disdains half the country based upon gender, and would take away our rights over our own bodies, our right to equal pay, our rights not to get beaten in our own homes, and everything else other than our right to get back in our binder and cook his meatloaf on Friday nights.

He blames the unemployment rate on President Obama, when his party is solely responsible. The policies of President Bush and the unwillingness of a House whose leadership met on the night of the inauguration to agree to stonewall everything just to get the black dude out of office.

He blames President Obama for the "5 million more women out of jobs", when the fact is that most of those are public sector job losses presided over by mostly Republican governors at the state level (you know, where Romney wants everything to happen). And that those job losses were lauded and praised by his party. So when he claims that President Obama promised to have the unemployment rate below 5%, well, had those Republican governors not laid off tons and tons of (mostly female) teachers, and underfunded firefighters and law enforcement, and made collective bargaining and unions illegal, unemployment would likely be far less. Oh, and if the President had a Congress who was willing to work with him instead of agreeing to block everything he wants to do? Things might be better.

He flat out lies to the people of this country. Jeep, welfare, taxes,  12 million jobs, Libya, $716 billion. All important things.

He has changed his opinion on every single issue facing Americans with the exception of "Corporations are People."

He refuses to share anything about his taxes. He would reduce his own, all while planning to raise mine.

He wrote off more on his taxes for his horse than the average American household earns in a year.

He buys canned goods and hands them out to people at his fundraisers under the guise of "collecting supplies for victims of Hurricane Sandy."

He refuses to answer questions from reporters. And no, Fox news doesn't count.

He blames our problems on President Obama's "failed policies", but the fact is, the American Jobs Act has been sitting in a committee in the House untouched for 2 years. So these are not President Obama's policies. They are still George Bush's policies.

We publicly decry this type of behavior in foreign leaders. Why is it acceptable here?

How can you in all good conscience vote for this man????

Contrast that with President Obama.

We've had 32 straight months of job growth. The unemployment rate has dropped below 8%, with no help from those Republican governors mentioned above.

Millions more people have health insurance.

Pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue in determining whether you can get health insurance.

College students can stay on their parents' insurance until 26.

He ended one war and put plans in place to end a second.

The repeal of DADT.

A start on the problem of immigration.

Signed new trade treaties.

Saved the American auto industry.

The credit card bill of rights, which protects us from unannounced, arbitrary rate changes.

Tax cuts across the board and for small businesses.

Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Wall Street Reforms.

Wants to protect my right to autonomy over my body, my right to fair pay, my right to not be beaten or have a rape baby (excuse me... a Gift From God).

Recognizes that family planning is good economic policy.

Recognizes that the Constitution guarantees that we do not have a national religion.

Believes in scientific evidence.

Brought the reputation of the US back to a positive rather than a negative in the world.

He believes in climate change (though admittedly has done little about it).

Increased oil production in the US to its highest levels.

Appointed two women of diverse ethnic backgrounds to the US Supreme Court.

Signed a new START treaty with Russia.

Chose the most bad-ass Secretary of State ever.

Endorsed same-sex marriage. Which really? Is just reiterating his position that we all deserve equality.

Presided over the killing Osama Bin Laden and much of Al Queda's leadership.

Do you know what his main problem was? He refused to toot his own horn (no that's not a euphemism). He treated us like we were adults. Major error there. Because we're nothing but a nation of spoiled brats who want instant gratification and refuse to find out any information on our own. We rely on TV, which no longer investigates, but only replays sound bites. We expect the problems brought on by 30 years of policies to be completely fixed and everything to be hunky-dory in less than 4 years.

Grow the fuck up people. Why is this race even remotely close?

Really, whatever happened to looking at the character of a man? To actions speaking louder than words?

There are so many other things he's done. Too many to even count. Try a couple of websites which list his accomplishments.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Who are these moocher taker "government workers" anyway?

The GOP is sooo fond of talking about cutting government. Awesome blossom. Except they forget a few details.

1. Every single "government worker" who is extraneous, superfluous  a drain on society to the GOP is a person. A person who contributes to our economy. A person with a family, who needs to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter that family. A person who will likely need to now collect unemployment (which will be blamed on the President - he's not a job creator!) and who has to support a family without a job, so might need food stamps (WELFARE!!! NOOOOO!) and now cannot contribute to a growing, healthy economy.

2. The majority of losses in the public sector have been presided over not by the federal government, but by Republican governors and local entities. 12 Republican states have presided over 70% of the total public sector job losses. Simply put?

Republican states are responsible for the high rise in unemployment overall.

Why? Well, private sector jobs are up 30 months in a row, and have driven the national unemployment rate to 7.8%.  Just imagine if we didn't vilify teachers, firefighters or law enforcement officers.  Unemployment could be driven down even further.

President Clinton, Secretary of Explaining Things put it perfectly. I want a Congress who cheers when unemployment goes down.

Yes. This.

I don't want a Congress who refuses to enact legislation put forth and then blames those same folks for not getting the job done. I don't want a Congress who secretly (and not so secretly) roots against the American people simply to retain power. I don't want a Congress who looks down on the same people they want to lay off as deadbeats and moochers, takers, not givers. And I want a President who has the best interest of the American people at heart, not just the best interest of his bank account.

Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others are not superfluous. They are real people. They are the people responsible for educating our children, for keeping us safe in our homes and on the street. Without them, we go back to the lawless, uneducated society we once were.

Oh. Right. Never mind. That's the end goal anyway. Put guns in the hands of every single American (the more uneducated the better) so we can all STAND OUR GROUND because VIGILANTE JUSTICE AHOY!

I do not want to move backward. We've been there, done that. Obviously it didn't work. So we made changes. That's what civilized society does. It recognizes that society and societal values have changed, and shifts laws and other rules and regulations to fall in line with societal norms.

On the national level, we add amendments to the constitution. If our founding fathers had meant for that document to go unchanged foreverandeveramen, they never would have allowed the amendment process. As it is, they wrote the Constitution and immediately added 10 other things to it. At the state and local level, we write, update, repeal, and change laws also.

• We decided it wasn't proper to have people in the streets carrying firearms and shooting people when they had a disagreement.
• We decided it as important for our children to all be educated.
• We decided it was important that we not discriminate against others based upon the color of their skin, and that we not enslave those people.
• We decided that people shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol, and then we decided we were wrong about that.
• We decided that presidents should only serve 2 terms.
• We decided that women and black people were smart enough to vote.
• We decided the government can't run without funds, and so gave the government the right to tax us.
• We decided that child labor was wrong and that children shouldn't be forced to work in unsatisfactory conditions.

I want to go FORWARD not backward.

I don't want to go back to the times when:

• Women had no control over their bodies.
• Women were 2nd class citizens.
• Discrimination was not only rampant and accepted, but condoned.
• Disputes were settled by guns at dawn.
• Only the rich were entitled to any deference.
• Children were only educated if they were wealthy and white.
• Children should be seen and not heard.
• Women who are raped brought it on themselves.
• We looked down upon those who came to us for refuge.
• It was ok for people to live on the street because they had nowhere else to go.
• We blamed people for not working, when they could lose their job at the whim of their employer.
• Only rich people could afford a higher education.
• People worked in unsafe conditions, and there was nothing they could do to protect themselves.
• It was ok to force children to work long hours in unsafe conditions for almost no pay.
• Equal pay for equal work was unheard of.
• It was ok to beat the crap out of your wife and children just because a man felt like it.
• You couldn't serve your country simply because of who you loved.
• We had a short life expectancy because people couldn't afford to receive medical treatment.
• Angry rich white men looked down on the rest of society as unworthy losers, inferior, not full people, or contemptible - to be sneered at and ridiculed. (Oh, wait...)

Add your own in the comments. What don't you want to go back to?

Let's move FORWARD not backward.

Quote Unquote: Math, math, math

"It's like saying you're going to drive from Boston to Los Angeles in 10 hours without speeding. There's just no way to make the numbers add up."
Daniel Shaviro, tax law professor at New York University

On making Mitt's numbers work. It simply can't be done. But what does this dude know anyway?

Here's another thought on this. Romney/Ryan claim they aren't giving specifics because they want to work in a bipartisan fashion to make it work. Awwww. How sweet. But we're dealing with the most obstructionist Congress in history (granted, they were obstructing the black dude) - people who have no history of working with others at all (except to ensure the black dude doesn't get re-elected).

Also? It's the President's job to lay down a plan the way he'd like to see it implemented and then Congress' job to debate, compromise, and make it work the best way for the American people (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!).

So by refusing to give that first direction as to how he'd most like to implement it, Romney continues to show a remarkable lack of leadership.

Shocking, I know.

ETA: Wait! I stand corrected. Here are the specifics... RomneyTaxPlan.com

Also, have a gander at the Secretary of Explaining Stuff's newest video on Mitt's numbers. And I swear, as long as we keep talking Constitutional amendments, can we please repeal the 22nd amendment for this guy?

The one debate question on women's rights

So, apparently, last night we had a debate between Smokin Joe Biden and Lyin Paul Ryan.

A lot has been made about Biden interrupting Ryan (GASP - WHO would do that in a debate?!), but finally... finally Martha Radditz got to a question about women's rights. She asked about their Catholic faith and how it relates to abortion. Here are the answers as well as a few other thoughts from me and others.

Ryan on why he can't separate his faith from his politics (and he never really did answer the question; another shock, I'm sure):

"Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

You know, I think about ten and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven week ultrasound for our first born child, and we saw that heart beat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day we have nick named our first born, Liza, bean.

Now I believe that life begins at conception. Those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now I realize that this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother."

So, reason and science are what named his daughter Bean? Ok. I can dig that. My oldest was flipping me off during his first ultrasound. It sure explains a lot if I go by Ryan's theory.

Also this: "My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life." This doesn't say a whole lot about Ryan's interpretation of Catholicism if his policies reflect how he believes he should take care of the vulnerable. SUFFER, ASSHOLE!! AYN RAND 2016!

What I'd love is for one of these guys to just have the balls to stand up and say that he believes in life at conception and that he's more important than me so his beliefs are more important than mine. Therefore, I have to do what he wants. That's the bottom line of their thought process anyway. Cut out the bullshit and say what you mean. Then people could make a more informed decision.

Biden on why he separated his religion from his politics:
Joe Biden's answer is far more in line historically with other presidents and thought leaders. He has his own beliefs and lives his life by them, but also realizes that it isn't his role or the role of government to impose his religious beliefs on anyone else.

"My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. People who need help.

With regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. I accept that position in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims and and Jews…I just refuse to do that, unlike my friend here, the Congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the Supreme Court. And I’m not going to interfere with that."

John F. Kennedy was asked about how being Catholic might bring on an imposition of faith based upon the papacy. He gave this answer, in part, during his speech on the issue. (Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960):

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

Watch the speech in its entirety. Seriously. he was a truly awe-inspiring speaker. And it's so interesting to me that back then (only 50 years ago!), the answer that he MUST give in order to be accepted as a viable candidate was that his religion wouldn't impinge upon his politics. And now? It seems the required answer is the opposite. Which sucks big hairy donkey balls. It just does.

Jimmy Carter, a self-admitted evangelical Christian, in his book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (which I reviewed here), contends that religion has its place in politics in the same way that it has its place in everyday life - by guiding our hand toward being valuable, moral and compassionate human beings - not by guiding public policy and law.

He also said this in Christianity Today, March 2, 1998:

"Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education."

I like this page of presidential & thought leader quotes on the separation of church and state.

This one, though, sums it all up, in my opinion. Damn, they sure were smart back then...

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
~ Benjamin Franklin

And today in Someone Invokes Hitler

For the love of all that is holy, cut it the fuck out.

Oops - mom, you might want to stop reading now. A 'splosion of eff words is about to spew forth...

I feel like if I have to explain the difference between Hitler and anything else even one more time my head will 'splode.

So, commence with the 'sploding heads.

Adolf Hitler had a specific plan in mind. He wanted to, in a fit of 'I'm so much better than you', rid the world of anyone who wasn't exactly like him and his cronies. Meaning white, Aryan, straight, etc (although there is a lot of evidence that Hitler's cronies all visited the easily found gay hangouts and ...errr... enjoyed them tremendously).

Hitler, in that effort, systematically rounded up anyone not fitting his own vision of perfection, sent them off to prisons in cattle cars hundreds of people deep, worked them to death in camps, gassed and shot them, medically experimented on them in unspeakable ways, buried them in mass graves and cremated them in huge ovens to not only hide the evidence, but because there were so many damn bodies they had to do something with them, and tried to wipe evidence of their existence from the earth altogether.

While Christians may advocate converting everyone to their way of thinking, most people would raise a fuss over exterminating entire populations of people in the same manner as Hitler did. Or maybe that's just my innate optimism shining through.

What? You don't think I'm optimistic? I'm actually a pretty sunny person.

So, why do I feel the need today to explain this yet again (to the dismay of my poor 'sploding head)? Two reasons:

Today, the Wall Street Journal decided that President Obama's campaign team calling Mitt Romney a liar (and he is!) is a path down the road to Nazism. I shit you not.

Explicitly calling someone a "liar" is—or used to be—a serious and rare charge, in or out of politics. It's a loaded word. It crosses a line. "Liar" suggests bad faith and conscious duplicity—a total, cynical falsity.

Do go on... I'm fine with this so far. Seems to describe Romney to a T.

The Obama campaign's resurrection of "liar" as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s.

Say what? Was the term liar invented for Hitler? Somehow I missed out on that in my Jewish and American history education. Oh, my mistake.

No. Calling someone out on their untruths (aka LIES) is not being a sleazy fascist. It is not invoking totalitarian propaganda. It simply means that Romney is lying. If they want to call out President Obama on lies, by all means, call him a liar, too, if he is. But hmmm... that doesn't seem to be happening. Perhaps because Romney is such a big, bald-faced liar.

The other Nazi reference came today here. The former Archbishop of Canterbury has now likened opponents of gay marriage to Jews in Nazi Germany. Awww, those poor folks who want to diminish the rights of others are just like all the Jews who were killed. Uhhh...

Just shut the fuck up, with all due respect (and apparently very little is due).

From The Guardian: Asked about opponents of gay marriage being described as "bigots" – on one occasion by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister – Carey said: "Let us remember the Jews in Nazi Germany. What started against them was when they started to be called names. (ed note: not true)

"And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state. We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way."
...
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, said: "We're deeply saddened that Lord Carey seems to be resorting to student union abuse. The reality is that gay people are very well aware of the consequences of the Holocaust, for obvious reasons, and when someone descends to this level of rhetoric it suggests they don't think they have very powerful arguments to rely on.

"Lord Carey is perfectly entitled to his view and we respect that. It's the view of many people of his generation and we accept that, but to compare Cameron to Hitler is just sad as well as being entirely inappropriate.

"It's extraordinary that he should resort to this sort of invective and profoundly unchristian. There will be gay people of faith who are very disturbed by what he has said.

Stop with the Hitler calling. Do I need to say it again? Why yes, apparently I do. Stop with the Hitler calling.

It's especially galling here because Hitler included gays in his extermination plans, and now Carey is trying to use those that hate gays (aka, if we have to make comparisons... those on Hitler's side of the issue)  as pseudo-victims and intimate that they will suffer the same fate as the actual people that Hitler wanted to kill off (aka, if we have to make comparisons... gays). Really? Such unmitigated gall.

No, no, no. You do NOT get to use the backs of those killed in such a horrific manner to advance your own political agenda (which appears to be,...errr... to rid the earth of gays. Sound familiar?)

My head has now 'sploded and there is nothing left of my brain but a pile of goo and mush. Lucky you. Hopefully that means this is the last post of the day.

Romney and the media-condoned lies

Dear news media,

You suck. Seriously. I don't care whose pocket you're in - left, right, whatever. Report the news, not the news bites. Or stop calling yourself news.

The news is, that Romney lied his ass off during the debate, and that he has in the week since, continued to lie his ass off. He says one thing on the national news (like, I have no intention of signing legislation to restrict a woman's rights) - BIG NEWS, and his campaign quietly corrects that statement a couple hours later (Romney is firmly pro-life and will support all pro-life legislation) - no news. 

By letting him get away with the lies, you endorse that as a campaign tactic. 

Romney was sooooo presidential at the debate!!! 

Yeah, you can look and sound presidential and forceful, but if what's coming out of your mouth is a pack of bullshit, I hesitate to call you presidential.

I implore you, report the facts. Call Romney on his lies (and yes, President Obama as well), but really actually dooo eeeet with as much gusto as you report the lie. Say, "Hey, today Romney said he has no idea of any anti-abortion legislation that might be part of his agenda, but for the last 2 years, he has claimed he'll put only pro-life justices on the supreme court who will overturn Roe v Wade, and would support personhood amendments to the constitution." 

Uhhh... little flip flopping there? How about you report that? And then how about you note that 2 hours later, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul says, "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president. Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

Here he is just 8 months ago:


And in 2011, he signed this pro-life pledge.

Also, when Romney claims that he has no idea of any legislation to restrict abortion, it's an obvious lie. But even if it wasn't... the President is the leader of the party by default. The GOP party platform in 2012 calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. Uhhh, I'd call that an idea for legislation, wouldn't you?

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

That's pretty effing clear as to the direction legislation might turn, isn't it? Report it, dammit!

I am so effing sick of the media being blamed for being so liberal, when in fact, they are so scared of being labeled as such that they continually report the news in a right-leaning fashion.

Where is your integrity? Where is your pride in a job well done? Where is your freaking dignity?

I don't care how much of an instant gratification world we live in. Realize the importance and consequence of what you say. This is not child's play for chrissake. This is the future of the United States of America and the world at stake. Act like it. Grow a pair of freaking balls and tell the people what needs to be said.

And if you can't? Then shut the hell up and get out of the game. Because you will ruin the future for us all.

Disgustedly yours,

Lori

Quote of the day: Hubby, Romney doesn't love you anymore

"[Obama] wants to hire more school teachers. We all like school teachers. It's a wonderful thing. Typically, school teachers are hired by states and localities, not by the federal government. But hiring school teachers is not going to raise the growth of the U.S. economy over the next three-to-four years."


Romney goes back to his original position on teachers now that the debate is over and the cameras are off (hint: he doesn't love you anymore).

His statement is typical of the short-term strategies of the GOP that create long-term problems. They cry that President Obama doesn't create long-term strategies, when in fact it's the other way around.

In the debate, when pressed, Romney lied his ass off (again) and said, "I reject the idea that I don't believe in great teachers or more teachers." (emphasis mine)

No, teachers as a group aren't going to fix the US economy in the next 3-4 years. But teachers will do the following:

Head households whom the government needs spending money to 'raise the growth of the US economy over the next 3-4 years.' The more we brag about reducing government jobs and public sector jobs, the more that the GOP can brag about all the teachers they've put out of work. Every single one of those government jobs that has been eliminated represents a person. A US citizen who pays taxes, buys product, and participates in our economy. Every one of those public sector workers that has gone on public assistance now represents the 47% of moochers that Romney would like to ignore. So when he says we don't need teachers (or other public sector workers) he is shooting the US economy in the foot. Also? Most of the public sector job losses have been presided over by Republican governors, not the federal government, so that isn't President Obama's fault, dude. It's your own party's lack of compassion for the people who work for the people.

What else will teachers do?

They will educate the next generation of folks who WILL 'raise the growth of the US economy'. Will that next generation of people be educated or will they be uneducated? Will they be respected in the global economy or will they be ridiculed? Will they know enough about history and economics in order to not repeat past mistakes and utilize the latest and greatest theories? Or will they rely on WWJD in an economy of 2000 years ago? Obviously, we know which Romney (and so many other GOPers) prefers.

So, the idea of the federal government not needing to be involved in education or the hiring of teachers or the policies of what our children should learn really comes down to a matter of priorities - as the President has said. Budgets reflect the values of the people who create them. If you are only thinking about the next couple of years when you talk about an economy the size of the US, then you are short-sighted and have very little compassion for the folks you are downsizing. But then again, we are talking about the king of downsizing and outsourcing and definitely not the king of compassion. So, you get what you pay for, don't you?

Please vote. And vote for the long term health of our economy, not the pretend quick fix brought by heaping the problems of our country onto the shoulders of teachers.

Is an informed electorate really too much to ask?

President Obama is a socialist communist from Kenya who wants to kill all your babies and let all the illegals overrun our country.

Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping elitist who is incapable of feeling anything for struggling Americans because he's so freaking rich his maids have maids.

These lies are flying all over the internet - on blogs, on social media, in the form of memes (the pictures with a quote slapped onto it) or simply via divisive statements from your Facebook friends. How do we sort out what's real and what's not, without blindly accepting what we see as gospel?

Well, Fox News and even MSNBC would rather that you didn't. They'd rather that you simply believe the talk. And the American people seem to agree with them.

I recently came across this photo on Facebook along with an angry note about how President Obama is letting illegals vote but taking away military voting rights. If that was true, I'd be outraged and angry too. The problem is, that it isn't even remotely close to true.

Looks like the source is aclj.org - more on that in a moment.

The ACLJ, if the above is to be believed and if it indeed came from them, has put this in no context whatsoever, and is actually putting out a blatant falsehood. This one gets a Pants on Fire rating. If one were to go to their website, you'd find out how much President Obama hates Israel, and what a horrible person he is. The ACLJ stands for the American Center for Law and Justice. Sounds fantastic, right? It is, until you read the fine print in their website footer:

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law.

In the midst of voter suppression efforts across the country, Ohio's move sought to end early voting for all Ohioans except the military. This would strongly affect voting in heavily urban districts where the opportunity to vote on the weekend and/or additional chances to vote on other days can often mean the difference between voting or not, and between keeping your job or losing it because you took the time off to do your duty as an American citizen and vote.

Sidenote: I'm extremely fortunate and glad that my company grants us 2 paid hours on election days to vote. They view it as our constitutional duty, and therefore pay us to find the time to do it. So, thanks to my company and our most generous benefits package! If only every company across America were to do this, then early voting days would be unnecessary. End sidenote.

During the course of this political wrangling in Ohio, two Democratic party election officials were fired for simply voting to keep expanded voting hours. We are now at a point in America where you can be fired for doing your job - the job you were hired to do, people.

Anyway... the Justice Department has had its hands full these days trying to keep Americans' voting rights intact. States all over the union where Republicans are in charge are trying to take away eligible voters' rights and access to the polls. The Justice Department filed suit against Ohio - NOT to take away early military voting, but to restore it to ALL Ohioans. Here's where reading your local newspaper instead of listening to Fox might be helpful for many.

The judge even quoted the Supreme Court ruling on Gore v Bush when rendering its decision in favor of the Obama Administration and all Americans. The judge ruled that the

"court stresses that where the state has authorized in-person early voting through the Monday before Election Day for all voters, ‘the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. Here, that is precisely what the state has done.'"

In other words, yes, the military has done wonderful things for us and deserve the right to vote, but each military members' vote still counts as one vote and it counts the same as the plumber's vote next door. That is because we live in America, where we ALL have the same constitutional right and responsibility to vote.

I write this not to embarrass the Facebook friend in question. In fact, I applaud her willingness to read up on the issues when I pointed out the correct information to her. Her response that she should do more research is EXACTLY what we ALL need to do!

The only defense that voters have amidst all of the partisan news and sound bites is to educate themselves on the issues. With Facebook and twitter rapidly becoming where so many get their "news" we rely far too heavily on the partisanship of voters and media and not nearly enough on our own investigative skills.

Yes, researching all of the issues and the candidates' stance on each is time consuming and can sometimes be difficult. But we're electing the leader of the free world here, people. People fought and died for our right to vote in just such a way. To allow each and every eligible American citizen the right to have a say in who their elected officals are.

Do not squander this right. It's said that this election is the most important election in our lifetime. I disagree. While this is extremely, extremely important, and the differences between the candidates has never been more pronounced and distinct as it is in 2012, I hold the belief that every Presidential election is the most important. At any time, our elected officials can tank the country or lift it up. Any election. Any candidate.

It is our job - no, it is our DUTY - as citizens of this country to learn about the issues and make informed decisions. I don't count partisan news outlets such as Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. Read your local NEWSPAPERS. They are available online, and still offer the most in-depth analysis of issues.

Don't rely on Facebook's pretty pictures with a quote slapped on it or partisan news channels to make your election decisions. They rely heavily on emotional appeal, not on facts. Find out who is talking to you and what their motivation is.

If your local news channel only reports what the candidates said, but doesn't fact check them, I urge you to contact that news station and beg... BEG them to not just repeat the sound bite, but to inform the voters if that sound bite is true or not, whether it was taken out of context, what that context actually was, and what the truth actually is. I realize that it's not as sexy to them, and may not sell as many ads, but as citizens and as the 4th estate, it is their job, their DUTY as journalists. If they don't do it, they should lose the right to label themselves as such.

It's ok that we have philosophical differences - that's what makes us America and Americans. But it's not ok to inform ourselves with falsehoods and then vote based upon those false accusations.

Be informed with REAL facts. Be a good citizen and go to the polls armed with facts so that you can make an INFORMED decision in that election booth.

And above all, VOTE.

It's the best gift that you can give to America.

Being “online”: what does it mean today?

The online world has changed more rapidly in the past 5 years than perhaps any industry in history has changed in the same time frame. Five years ago, being online in business meant that you had a website – perhaps you did ecommerce on it, perhaps not. That was it. A website. If you were a blogger, your blog was your website, and you wrote and posted blog posts, period. We all know that the goal of a website 5 years ago was to drive traffic to your site. That was even the goal 2 years ago.

What is the goal of corporate and personal websites today? Is it to drive traffic to your site or to drive customer engagement? It is to drive engagement. It’s all about content. You want your customers/readers/followers to engage with your content, share it, use it. Ultimately, if you're in business, engagement with your brand online drives business. Yes, ROI is difficult to measure, but in order to compete, you need to go where the people are. That is on social sites, not on the traditional internet.

Being online is no longer about going to websites. We engage online in a variety of ways in 2012. Yes, websites are still important. But how do people access your content? No longer is the traditional desktop the main avenue of online engagement. People do still engage from their desktop, yes – but they also engage from their laptop, their tablet, their phone, through apps, mobile sites, and yes, still the good ol’ internet.

We no longer have a Field of Dreams internet. If you build it, they might come. But they’ll come by their preferred means of transportation. If you want them to come, you have to make it easy. Let people engage where they are. Don’t force the method of engagement, or you’ll find that you are left far, far behind in this rapidly changing technological world.

Here are several examples that all happened to me just this morning (and I admit they are all a daily occurrence):

I follow several hundred blogs. Many are for work, many are for pleasure, many are political (no, that doesn’t count as pleasure, obviously!). But to make my life easier, I aggregate all those blog feeds into a single feed reader. I use Google Reader, but there are tons of feed readers out there. I want to be able to go through my blog feed each morning, read the news and engage where I choose. That means rapidly moving through blog posts, reading them, and if I choose to, either sharing them via social media or email or clicking through to comment on them. It used to be that commenting on a blog was the only way to engage with others on that post. If you limit yourself to that today, or if you gauge success by the number of comments on a particular blog post, you are not seeing the full picture. People share, people talk on social media. That is still engagement with you, your brand, your online presence, even if it isn’t actually engaging on your internet website itself.

Where do I read all these blogs in my Google Reader? Usually on my mobile device, which is mostly my phone. You may have a tablet, but it may not always be with you. You may have a laptop, but it may not always be with you. Your desktop is only with you at home or in the office. But my phone? Aren’t we all attached at the hip (sometimes literally) to our phones? Mine goes almost everywhere with me. Unless you ask my kids, who frequently want to know why I didn’t answer their texts.

Point is, I read blogs on my phone. Therefore, my use of the traditional internet, while not hampered, may not be as easy a process as I might like. When I read blog posts, I want to read the entire thing before I decide to engage or not. If you make me click through from my feed reader (which is an easy to use app on my phone) to the big bad internet just to read your post (not having chosen to engage yet), it’s just too much trouble. I have 300 other posts to read, and I don’t have the time to wait for my phone’s browser to load only to discover the site isn’t mobile friendly, and it’s a pain to read your post. That is just not going to happen.

What does happen if you don’t include your entire post in your feed? I delete your feed. Therefore, I don't see your content at all!

We need to make it easy for people to engage. I can share a blog post on Twitter or Facebook straight from my feed reader, along with a comment about it. From there, I can engage other users about the content in that post. I can email the link straight from my feed reader to my husband (who despite my best efforts) isn’t all that tech savvy, and would rather read it online, and tell him to read the article. This is still engaging with your content, even though I haven’t commented on your post.

Major social sites need to make sharing content easy. And for the most part they succeed. But my irritation was triggered this morning when, while checking Facebook on my phone via their mobile app, I wanted to share something. Facebook has become all about sharing content. But the one item missing from their mobile app is the Share button. If I want to share a picture, I either have to go to the full site (NO!) or download the picture and repost it, which defeats the entire purpose of the “Share”. Not to mention that it can bring a whole host of copyright infringement issues because it makes it that much more difficult to attribute content to a specific user.

If I belong to a specific online networking community (like a Ning, for example) for professional purposes, I want to be able to access that easily on my mobile device. Not everyone uses an iPad. Like I said, my mobile device of choice (by the default rule of convenience) is my smartphone. Make it easy to network and access content in that community on my phone. Otherwise, I’m not likely to participate in your community.

So if there is a point to my post today, it is this:

1. Let your readers engage where and how they want, whether you’re a huge brand or a small blogger.
2. Include a FULL feed of your content in your RSS.
3. Make it easy to share content (looking at YOU, Facebook).
4. Re-evaluate how you determine success. It may mean that you change the metrics at which you look on a monthly basis. Instead of number of comments, look at number of shares. Find the count of your social mentions. Look at backlinks. Engage with your customers (readers, whatever) where they are and where they want to be, on social sites like twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn (for companies), Reddit (look at President Obama’s AMA on Reddit yesterday!)
5. Don’t force people to use the internet in any particular way, like forcing them to your site to read your content. It will only lose you readers, not gain you engagement.

I'm interested to know what you think. Agree? Disagree? Do you have a full feed or do you limit it to a few words of content, trying to entice readers to your site for more? Tell us how you engage online.

What's with all this rape foolishness?

Now we have definitions of rape like Forcible rape and Legitimate rape?

What the fuckitty fuck?

This week, Rep Todd Akin of Missouri (who is running for Senate against Claire McCaskill, and in a sad statement on the people of Missouri, is actually ahead in the polls) has made a complete ass of himself.

Being a cosponsor along with VP Candidate Paul Ryan of HR3 (referenced above) that tried to redefine rape wasn't enough. Now he continues his fight to redefine rape as "legitimate" vs not legitimate. Because if you're legitimately raped, all your baby-making parts shut down so as to avoid pregnancy. Thank goodness. Because if there's no pregnancy, then no harm, no foul. Phew!

Except that the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (that horrid, academic journal written by smart people who went to college and all) did a study on this, and found that

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year...

A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester

Now I know we can't trust these book-lernid dockters and all, but still, even if they were just making it all up, it's something to think about.

Not only that, but Akin believes that criminalizing marital rape only gives the woman ammunition to use against her husband in the event of a divorce.

First, YES. RAPING YOUR WIFE SHOULD BE USED AGAINST A HUSBAND IN A DIVORCE. Oh, and to THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL.

Second? Why all the need to compartmentalize and categorize rape?

RAPE IS RAPE.

Looks like we are back to the whole rape is a sexual act thing. No, it is not. Rape is an act of violence. An abuse of power. Carried out in the most humiliating, most painful way possible for the victim.

The end.

There is no qualification that needs to be attached to it. If you qualify it, you do just what Akin has done. You legitimize it.

Of course, in typical 2012 GOP fashion, he tried to get a do-over, claiming he "misspoke". That's Republican for "Crap, I got caught, dammit."

You don't make statements like Akin did without a deeply held belief built over years that you are right. That men should have the right to rape their wives. That some rapes are actually ok. That women can't get pregnant if they're really forced into having sex.

Which brings me back to Akin's fundamental misunderstanding of rape. It is not an act of sex.

Rape is an act of violence, perpetrated by one with more power over another.

I DARE the mainstream media to give this story a voice and to claim that Akin is wrong. This is a story that directly affects the future of the Senate.  They should be giving this airtime, and not just stating that Akin said "oops, didn't really mean that."

In the same week, Akin has put out all this garbage, he also decided it was time to starve poor kids and  repeal the Voter's Rights Act. Maybe he's on to something. If we starve all the poor folks to death, there's no need for a Voting Rights Act. Because then all those black and brown and un-moneyed and lazy and old people (hey, they're gonna die soon anyway right?) couldn't vote against his party.

George Carlin once said: "Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders."

Looks like we're there already, and if they all have their way with our education system, we'll have selfish, ignorant leaders for decades to come.

Yay America!

Here's the thing about Paul Ryan

There are questions as to whether Paul Ryan was a genius pick for VP or a dud. There are arguments for and against.

Paul Ryan definitely appeals to the far right conservative tea party base. He wants to gut all government services while at the same time preserving tax breaks for the wealthy. His hero is Ayn Rand. He's led a completely obstructionist House and managed to stop President Obama from getting anything productive done since 2010, all the while blaming President Obama for getting nothing done.

I have no doubt that in many cases Ryan is exactly what he appears. He seems a dedicated family man. He has a beautiful young wife, 3 adorable young kids - all of whom he seems to love tremendously. He's a good Catholic (except for the whole caring for the poor part). He's a good looking wholesome guy next door (if the guy next door hated everything you stood for). All the photos that have been surfacing this week via social media portray him as just a regular guy. The guy who carts his babies around in a sling. Who played sports in high school. The prom king. The guy who tragically lost his dad at the age of 16 - and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended here - that is indeed a tragedy for any child. The guy who was voted biggest brown-noser of the Class of '88 (HA - love that!).

I'm sure that in addition to appealing to the far right, they thought he'd help with the ladies, too. After all, we girls love our handsome, dreamy legislators. I know that's how I choose a candidate, and I'm sure all my sisters-in-arms can agree that the cuter a candidate, the better he'll treat me. He's young, good looking, and loves cheese. Be still my heart.

Here's the thing, though.

Ryan is that guy. You know, the high school jock who smiles super pretty and talks sooo sweet, and then once you've given it up, treats you like crap and tells everyone in the whole school what a piece of trash whore you are.

He's a cosponsor of HR 212, which would bestow personhood upon fertilized eggs, even before implantation. Thus, pretty much making almost all forms of birth control illegal, as well as imposing a death sentence on women with ectopic pregnancies, with any life-threatening illnesses (including mental illness) and basically gutting our rights to any autonomy over our own bodies. Yes, the old incubator argument.

He wants to basically do away with Medicare as we know it - privatizing it and giving seniors vouchers worth approximately half their current benefits to purchase their own supplementary insurance. Which would be superdy duper, except aside from cutting benefits in half, he also wants to repeal the ACA, meaning that seniors would be subject to all sorts of pre-existing condition restrictions AND insurance would cost them more if they could even get it at all, only they'd be getting only half the benefit amount to assist them that they were previously receiving. Which they'd have to pay for using their now non-existent social security benefits, which for many is their only source of income.

He freely admits his hero is Ayn Rand, who would screw the poor and laud the rich until the cows came home.

He wants to do away with government programs that help the poor, elderly, and underserved, including Medicare and social security, yet he went to college on the social security benefits he received as a survivor when his father died. Apparently what's good for the goose is definitely NOT OK for the gander.

The Republican party has been challenging President Obama's experience for 4 years now - claiming he had no private sector experience (a lie, BTW). Yet Ryan went straight from college to an internship on Capitol Hill to a Congressional seat. That is an entire career in public service. Which, BTW, I think is admirable, except that when a Democrat (or a less wealthy person) does that, it's called a lack of experience and a detriment to their understanding of how the "real world" works. Additionally, they would have you believe that because Ryan drove a Wienermobile and waited tables during college he has worked as a professional in the private sector. Ummm... ok then.

Double standard, anyone?

NOT that I don't respect waiters and Weinermobiles. I waited tables in college. And I love wieners (heh). But that doesn't qualify me to be the next President of the United States... errr.... Vice President of the United States.

By all indicators, Ryan had an upbringing no different than yours or mine. Nice midwestern family. Popular high school kid. College on a shoestring budget. You would think that he would get it. But that's where it all ends. Ryan married into a boatload of money. I have no doubt that had he not, he might have some compassion left in him for those less fortunate. I'm sure that he believes that putting money on the plate every Sunday in church means he's doing his part to support the poor.

But here's the thing.

When you're a legislator, your responsibility to care for your constituents goes beyond the cash you give every Sunday. It goes beyond saying you're a nice religious family man. You don't get to toss your money in the plate and walk away because you did your part. Being a legislator means that you have to look outside your own worldview and understand the plight of all people. Because you serve all people. Not just handsome midwestern family men with adorable wives and children who give $10 every week just like you. You also serve the homeless guy on the corner, and the Wisconsin teacher who just got fucked by the state, and the guy who plunges out your toilet when your adorable kids toss their Hot Wheels cars down it.

What - that doesn't happen to you, too?

You're responsible for the poor, the elderly, the rich, the teachers, the doctors, the homeless, the plumber, the lady who sells you shirts at Sears, the lady who sells you shirts at Nieman Marcus, the cropduster, the farmer, the construction worker, and everyone in between. And when you're the VP, you're not only responsible for those in your state, you're responsible for the whole damn thing.

Yes, Ryan is a good guy next door from the midwest. He loves his wife and kids and church.

But he doesn't love Americans. And that's who he wants to represent.

It can be done

Tolerance. Respect. Embracing difference. It can all be done.

We'll be sending our son off to college in a couple of weeks. He and his friends have been having lots of parties to say goodbye to each other. A lot. As I see all the pictures getting posted on Facebook, it occurred to me that yes, it can be done. Spirited debate, but debate that never loses respect. Tolerance for different backgrounds and races and religions.

I've said before that we live in what I like to call the bible belt of our county. It's a highly Republican, highly fundamentalist Christian area. Church, Elton Gallegly, Buck McKeon, guns, and God. Here is the breakdown of the demographics for the school district in 2011:

Race/Ethnicity	# students	%
African American/Black	259	1.30%
Asian American	1,437	7.21%
Caucasian/White	11,791	59.15%
Filipino	362	1.82%
Hispanic/Latino	5,577	27.98%
Native American/Alaska Native	109	0.55%
Pacific Islander	29	0.15%
Multiracial	369	1.85%

source: www.kidsdata.org

In a city that's 88% white and Latino, my son has a group of friends that consists of Jews, Indians, Japanese, Venezuelans, Italians, African-Americans, and Mexicans, among others. That is just the core group of friends.

They are everything from Jewish to Catholic, to Unitarian, to fundamentalist, to Hindi, to evangelical Glenn Beck lovers. Some are planning on 4-year universities, some on community college, some on the military, some will just try to find jobs. Some come from "intact, nuclear, traditional" families. Some from divorce. Some with single mothers, some with both parents. Some are abstinent and some are having sex like rabbits.

But the one thing all of these amazing kids have in common is tolerance. They are born with it. They embrace their differences and come together on their similarities. They respect that each of them has a viewpoint and that it may or may not differ from their own. They argue over issues. Hell, they argue over what to put on their pizza.

And yet, they manage to spend almost every day together. Without petty disagreements over whose god is better, or whose interpretation of the bible is right. Without pulling a gun and standing their ground. Sure they have political discussions - what group of educated 18 year olds can be completely blind to this election? (Really, don't answer that.) And many of their political views were shaped by their parents.

Just like kids everywhere.

But...

Every one of them is unfailingly polite, well mannered, educated, and non-judgmental (except in that judgy way that teenagers judge). They are very much a "live and let live" group of kids. I couldn't be prouder of my son and his group of friends. They are everything that one would hope that kids would grow up to be; the embodiment of what America is and should be. They are our future.

I'm sure there are groups of kids like this all over the country.

So why the hell is it so hard for the grownups to do the same?

Adults can learn a lot from observing and respecting kids. My kids and their friends do not live in fear. They aren't afraid that someone will try to take their god away from them. They aren't afraid to voice their own opinions - hell, to form their own opinions. They aren't afraid to learn. To expand their world view. They aren't afraid to dissent (oh, if only they didn't dissent on our rules and decisions in the house!). They value other's opinions, and they value their own opinions. They have a strong sense of social justice, of right and wrong. They live by the Golden Rule. Mostly. (They are teenagers, after all.)

They are heading off to college, yet they are not snobs. They will vote in November - not all of them will vote democratic. In fact, likely very few of them will vote blue. Why suppress their vote and their voice?

Let these future politicians and doctors and soldiers and mothers and fathers and cashiers and lawyers and Wall Street execs have their say. And respect what they think.

Watch them. Learn from them. And yes, emulate them. Because they are doing a hell of a lot better than many of the adults they are supposed to emulate.

The thing about Chick-Fil-A

So here’s the thing about Chick-Fil-A. Yes, they are owned by a bigoted idiot. Yes, I would never eat there. However, Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s owner, is well within his rights to have an opinion and to state that opinion. And I can even applaud him for having the balls to come out and give that opinion publicly, even if I disagree vehemently with the strength of a thousand suns. He has every right to own a business. And as long as that business doesn’t violate any laws (which is debatable as of now), his business is all his to do with as he sees fit. If Cathy wants to be a bigot, that is certainly his right as an American. And all the people who supported Chick-Fil-A last Friday are completely entitled to their bigoted opinions, too.

More power to ‘em. OK, well, actually, no. I hope not.

But here’s the thing. I have the same First Amendment rights as Cathy does. So that means it’s also my right to tell anyone who will listen that Cathy is a bigot.

And if you aren’t sure what a bigot is, then here’s Merriam Webster’s definition (caps direct from M-W):
a person who is OBSTINATELY or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So he doesn’t have to discriminate against the LGBT community to be a bigot. He only has to regard them with hatred and intolerance.

So, as I was saying. It’s my right to not patronize Chick-Fil-A if its owner’s politics bother me. It’s my right to not patronize Chick-Fil-A if I don’t agree with the way they may spend their profits generated by my business.

For years, I refused to buy Dominos Pizza, much to the dismay of my teenage boys. Under their previous ownership, they were heavy donators to the Right to Life Foundation and other anti-choice groups that live to suppress the rights of women in our country and abroad.

Similarly, I recently cancelled my subscription to Angie’s List, who is still advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show. The obstinately refuse to remove their sponsorship. Ironically, Angie’s List is run by a woman who tries to make it easier for homeowners to find reliable servicepeople (a task that usually falls to the woman within the household). And BTW, they made it virtually impossible to cancel my subscription – you can’t do it online. You have to call and go through a customer service rep who will at first refuse to refund you any money for the unused portion of your subscription. Keep at it! I finally got him to delete my account & refund my remaining subscription. Why must companies make it so damned difficult to stop receiving their services? I get the whole “We want a chance to convince you otherwise” thing, but gah! This made me more determined than ever that even if Angie’s List were to stop advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show, I would never do business with them ever again anyway.

But I digress.

My point is this: It violates nobody’s first, second, third, or 570th Amendment rights or anything that came before the Amendments if Dan Cathy is a bigot. It just makes Dan Cathy a bigot (and an asshole). Similarly, it violates nobody’s first, second, third, or 571st Amendment rights or anything that came before the Amendments if I choose not to give Dan Cathy or any other organization a dime of my hard earned money.

So here’s the thing. The great thing about our country. We get to spend our expendable income however we see fit. And yay for us! Capitalism lives and breathes in America, regardless of what Fox News would have you believe.

Just because I don’t agree with someone’s point of view doesn’t make them a bad person, except in the case of Cathy, who thinks that gay people are an abomination when in fact he’s the abomination, and oh, in the case of Fox News because they constantly lie to the people about what’s happening in America and the rest of the world, and oh, these people who are the ultimate in douchebaggery and who are the prime example of why education is so damned important. Jeez, people. Learn grammar and how to spell! Oops, off on a tangent again. Where was I? Oh yes. I can disagree with you and still respect your thoughtful approach and intelligence on any particular topic. I disagree with people all the time, and I don’t boycott their businesses. BUT, and a mighty big but it is…, I also have the right to say out loud if I think you’re a total douchebag who deserves to only sell his product to other douchebags. In case that was too subtle, yes, I just called Dan Cathy a douchebag.

You are entitled to your opinions. And I’m entitled to mine. And we’re both entitled to shout them from the rooftops. Yay America! Lest you get overly cocky, I’ve been told my voice is very loud. And if you ask my kids, I’m sure they’d tell you that I’m a super duper most excellent shouter. So never doubt that I will outshout you from the rooftops and that you will be on the wrong side of history.