How do I explain it?

I need help. Last night our sixth grade student came into our room at bedtime in tears.  "I hate America" was the shocking statement that was made.   We asked, why and what happened because not even an hour earlier this smart, goofy kid who takes tap dancing classes, loves volleyball and is on the honor roll at school was telling us silly jokes and practicing a moonwalk.   "I don't understand why we're scared at school, and that people hate me because I'm different."

After some digging it boiled down to just the two topics that are the most worrisome for us as parents in 2023.  Gun violence and an increasing amount of law makers across the country talking about the dangers of saying "gay", people in Drag, or books in schools that represent real life people. 

We can't do the easy and reassuring parent trick of saying "it will be ok, a shooting at your school will never happen to you" because we don't know that.  Gun violence has already touched our little family.  On a boring Saturday morning we stopped into a local mall to shop for spring clothes and there was an altercation that resulted in two people being shot.  The terror in not knowing what was happening and the need to get out of the area was awful.   We were separated and our third grader had to rely on strangers for comfort and help until we were reunited.  

It simply isn't believable to tell kids that there is no risk in going to school.  The drills they do for lockdown are more likely to be put into action than the earthquake drills we did, and the atomic bomb drills our parents did.   American kids live with a real worry that it will be their school next.

Ok, so training and preparation.  That "solves" the gun issue, but what about the other thing?  How do we explain that legislators are railing on about drag queens because it's an easy thing to vilify?   How do we explain that just because they don't feel comfortable being called a girl that they are talked about by adults in power as deviant, or suggest that they were groomed.   It feels like they are suggesting that if it hadn't been for external factors, that my kid would be 'normal.'  Oh my, was it the true story about two male penguins at the zoo who hatched an adopted egg?  It can't be, our doctor, the therapist we hired after the shooting, and even the clergy at our church have said our family as healthy, loving and frankly ordinary.   

So, I am asking for help.  How do we explain inaction on limiting access to guns that are so powerful that parents have to use DNA to identify their child, but at the same time that these same legislators will limit the use of pronouns because pronouns are are harmful?  How do we explain that the rights of American's to have guns is more important than the right for children to survive the day of school?   How do we explain that even though we have freedom of religion in America that those who believe in the Bible use it to make laws, based on their interpretation.  How do we explain that we as parents would do anything to keep them safe, but we can't stop bullets and we can't stop useless and hurtful laws.

This kid is smart and sees through the irony of inaction on something that will literally kill them and action on stuff like words that don't matter.   

How are we as parents supposed to explain it?   

Guns and Kids

It's America, so it's happened again.   Yesterday, a person with either a mental disturbance or misguided racial motivations murdered innocent people doing normal things.  Last week it was people shopping for groceries and yesterday it was a teacher and 18 elementary kids during the school day.

I am not heartbroken, I am not devastated, and I am not shocked.  I am ANGRY.  

America pretends to be the "land of the free" when we are asking our children to put on a brave face and go to school knowing that they may have to put into action the active shooter skills they practice starting in kindergarten.  

America pretends to be the "land of the free" when some states are passing laws so that a twelve-year-old, whose mind and body is not ready to be a parent cannot end that pregnancy.

America holds on to the Second Amendment of the Constitution as if making any adjustments for modern weaponry or simple background checks will burn the entire country to the ground.  

"It is our right to form a militia to protect ourselves against the government."  Really, a government that is so filled with inaction, blood money, and infighting that the very idea of working together to resolve a baby formula shortage is TOO MUCH.  

It is too much, too much to process, too much to hold in my heart, too much.

It's spring, the bees are hard at work in the flowers outside my window, that should bring hope, but it doesn't.  I put our child on the school bus this morning with tears in my eyes.  I hope she makes it home from school.

Happy Birthday!

 HB to my guy.  We have lots of special surprises for today.  💋💋  We are the luckiest to have you.

Now, onto current events.   The inauguration went off without a hitch.  That was a big relief.   There are still lots of warnings about internal terrorists who have plans to disrupt "things", and the nations capitol and the state capitol has lots of extra security.  

What is interesting is that the same people who were going on and on about the election being rigged and stolen were pretty silent on the 6th, and are now bitching about all the extra military at the capitols.   I think they genuinely do NOT see a connection to their (support of) actions and the results.

It has been blissful with the former president not being able to tweet his hate for others, and his 'silence' is like a breath of fresh air.   It doesn't mean that the crazies aren't still crazy, but the news at the end of the day is about progress, rescinding hateful executive actions, and confirmations of  (GASP) qualified people to cabinet positions.   

I knew that with a new president that not everything would calm down, and it hasn't.   There are people who genuinely believe that the main stream media is filled with lies and that the election was faked.   I posted on facebook a story about a rule change that was adopted in late December early January that amongst other things allowed social service agencies to turn people away because of their sexual orientation.     A cousin of J's hopped right into it and attacked my post because my source was CNBC.  After I found and posted the actual rule change from the agency, this person went on with anger and vitriol.   

NBC says it so it must be true..... You are the Brainwashed and the Fascist bullies that want to force people to believe as you do! The media does no research and regurgitates what the AP says. #NotMyPresidentEver #resist

Then later, someone else, who I actually know popped in with this:

Yet you voted for a twice candidate who sold out his country to enrich his son and brother, who authored the crime bill which jailed more blacks than slavery, who eulogized a KKK member, and is beholden to China and is so secure in his "victory" he has 35k troops protecting the inauguration. You support everything you say you hate about Trump. Good luck with Joe.

 When I first read the first post I was taken aback by the missing of the point, but now that I read it again, he pretty clearly states that he doesn't agree that the rule change is wrong.   That's sad.  He has gay family members - maybe not his own kids but pretty close.  I'd bet my soul that Jesus wouldn't say "Feed the poor, except the homos, they are on their own."

As for the other guy, this is a great example of missing connections.   Why would troups be needed if people hadn't stormed the capitol, or weren't planning to do it again?   

I don't excuse past behavior, but I'd rather have a president who acknowledges that decisions made years ago aren't right anymore than one who does those things today and without apology.   

I'm sure someone will read this and rip me a new one or be pissed that I'm airing my opinions in public but I stand by my original point - discrimination based on anything including sexual orientation, gender, race is bad, and a government who is supposed to represent all the citizens should not allow it to happen.

So this is crazy...

  Here we are, 263 days into the Covid-19 stay at home situation.  Lock-down is the wrong phrase, as we are free to go where ever we want and while our household is choosing to stay home as much as possible we still visit the grocery store at least once a week and do takeout food 1-2 times a week.   We are not locked in our house Anne Frank style.  

However, we celebrated the second of the big three family holidays with just the three of us.  July 4th is usually a big family gathering, Thanksgiving is the other 30+ people event and we will be passing on Christmas as well.  

Summer was easy to manage as we had lots to do outside, backyard pools, distanced hanging with the favorite neighbors and good weather.   Thanksgiving was a different event.  We made our own dinner and, honestly it was pretty good.  A bit too salty, but better than dry and tasteless.  

The picture shows the settings I've just allowed on my phone, which means that I should get an alert if I'm at the grocery store and someone who is positive is within 6 feet of me.  I cannot really accept that I'm giving others the ability to track me within 6 feet, but until we're clear of this virus, I'll keep it active.  I can turn it off (in theory.)   There is a small piece of me that wonders if it's a big plan to whittle away our privacy, but I know people in the medical field and they cannot be lying about deaths.  

We are doing well, planning for a quiet Christmas.  We will be mailing our holiday gifts to our beloved parents this week.  I wish they could come, but it's not smart.  

The good news is that the (sorry) fuck-tard trump did not win a second term and grown ups will be returning to the white house in January.   Mr. Biden was not my first choice, but I'm very happy.   He's packing his cabinet with qualified people and many of them are women.  I hope that we don't pay for this moment of sanity in eight years when the GOP elects a literal bag of shit.   Common ground would be nice, but tRump...what a nightmare.  I would hope the GOP could find a candidate that would stand for their values without being a racist, whorey bag of crap.   And, (while I'm at it) be against abortion, but maybe let's make it irrelevant vs. illegal.  The un-aborted baby is a human who will need support, especially if the mother wasn't in the position to have a child in the first place.   

Oh man... ranting.

We are safe, we are happy, the tree is up.  

If I ran the presidential election...

At one point in my house cage fighting idea was also suggested but it would be hard to turn it into an intellectual discussion.  We thought it would also be really unfair. If we put Hillary C. and Sarah P. in a cage and asked them to duke it out, Sarah clearly would have the advantage - she's scrappy.  But, if you could work in an intellectual angle she'd be outmatched and you might have to give her a weapon to even things out.  It doesn't sound very dignified.

I'll chew you up!

I'm pretty

It's interesting to hear the from the smart people in my life their different perspectives on the national presidential convention speeches.  The majority of my west coast people are leaning left and were inspired by Mr. Clinton's speech last night.  My middle of the country people aren't moved at all and are expressing that they feel like the current president has been bad for our country.    I've heard sound bites from both conventions that set my hair on fire, but haven't been able to watch much of either show.

To me the conventions are a colossal waste of money - what is the point?  The skeptical side of me thinks that the DNC and the RNC leaders have made their decisions as to who would represent "their" party in private sessions and the convention is for show.  I'm sure it energizes the delegates who get to attend, but isn't that like throwing a Christmas party for your close friends and expecting the Muslim neighbors down the street to convert to Christianity?

I'm going to suggest a different solution.  I want to know what these candidates actually think and I don't think we will ever know as long as they are able to consult with their political advisers, and are 'on topic' with whatever the message of the day is today, (i.e. Romney is out of touch with regular (non-rich) Americans, Obama is bad for the economy.)  To keep the rhetoric down I propose that we lock both candidates into a separate small box for the period of one month.  They may eat and read classic literature (the same offerings to both dudes) but they may not tweet, facebook, teleconference, consult or communicate with anyone. On day 30, we will unlock the box, let them shave and then bring them to a stage with two sound proof booths where they will be asked the same questions and allowed to answer but without the benefit of hearing the other person's answer.

Another idea is a CBS Survivor style show that places the candidates on a deserted island and they have to duke it out for the right to be the next most hated person in our country - er, the President.  However, this plan needs some tweaking.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the candidates be allowed to wear standard bathing suits.  They should be in the Lucy swimsuits.  They cover all manner of bumps and lumps and would prevent nip-slips or having to view the accidental crack exposure.  The weekly challenges could be working out how to pay for day care and car repairs for a family of 4 on minimum wage or explaining a standard insurance bill, or explaining so idiots like me could understand it how "futures" work. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to be POTUS.  As soon as you win, you are instantly to blame for everything and people lose their memories as to who initiated which policies that are under fire.  Is Obama the reason you don't have a job, or is it Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan or Carter or Nixon, or Adams, or Jefferson...

Election season makes me crazy.  It is hard to get real information that isn't muddled by opinions and then there's the terrible fact that neither candidate is PERFECTLY Perfect nor are they EVIL.  It's not like we're choosing between Darth Vader and Jesus Christ.    Although... that would be a very interesting cage fight.

That isn't the real Jesus.

Sally Ride and a genuine question

So, at the young age of 61 the first woman in space, Sally Ride died.  She was part of my youth and watching her break that barrier was important.  Of course at the time, I didn't know that it was remarkable and that she was doing something no woman had done (or been allowed to do) before.  To me, she was unique because she was on the news.  No one had told me that I couldn't do something because I was a girl.  She was a pioneer and a hero.  She was a champion for education and especially for girls in science. That's a hard sale these days.

Her obituary is causing some ripples because it ends with a simple statement that she leaves behind Tam Soandso, her partner of 27 years. She was GAY and we didn't know it. Gasp.

Some folks are up in arms that she was in the closet and did the gay community a disservice by not outing herself. I totally disagree.

Even though I think our society is served well by knowing that the gay community serves beside us in everything we do, I don't think that everyone who is gay has a responsibility to offer themselves up as a spokesperson.  Ms. Ride's calling was her family and education.  These are honorable causes.  From what I've read it sounds like her family and friends knew she was a lesbian.  That isn't closeted.  Sure, she didn't invite the media and the American people into her bedroom, but she also didn't advocate in the public sphere her stance on lots of issues.

I had a bit of a back and forth on a friends web page on this topic and I gracefully bowed out. I said that I understood where he was coming from but that everyone should have a choice to be vocal or not.  Then I let him have the last word.  After all, he was the one who felt betrayed and I'm just a soon to be middle aged, married lady.

I think our modern American world has lots of progress to make regarding our homosexual neighbors.  I understand that for some folks they may not know anyone who is gay (or don't know they know them) and they have been educated that being homosexual is a sin.  That carries a lot of weight for folks who use sin as a marker for how to live their lives.  Many people are adamant that GOD is calling this a sin.

I don't pretend to know what GOD says or thinks.  We have a nice little book that tells us what some men say GOD said or thought, but many of the items contained within that book are out of date in our modern world and are not followed to the letter by these folks either.  (I've mentioned this before.)  I can only do what in my heart feels like the right thing.

Sorry, I'm on a religious tangent and I wanted to go somewhere else.   My thought process of late has been trying to formulate a question to pose to the world at large about same-gender marriage that goes something like this:

The Washington State law (and upcoming ref 74) regarding same-sex unions does not require any church or religious organization to perform same-sex unions.  Therefore they are allowed to opt out of participating in these unions and can express their beliefs for their congregants anyway they like.

If we take religious arguments, the bible, and God off the table for reasons to oppose same-sex unions, what are the other arguments against it?

I'm interested in hearing a non-religious based answer.  I like religion, I enjoy participating in church and I am not trying to discount that some people feel adamantly that God is against this.  However, we don't limit the rights of others because they don't belong to our church, any church, or heavens to pete don't believe in church at all.   We do inflict Christmas on non-believers but Rudolf is so cute.. you know they like it.

I doubt I'm ever going to change the mind of anyone, but I am interested in hearing a genuine argument that isn't based on religion - especially in a country founded on religious freedom.

I-1183 will kill hundreds of puppies!

If I-1183 passes, puppies will eat this baby!

and....

• 1000 mini-marts will sell booze to underage drinkers. 
• A drunk driver killed my child, and that's why I'm voting no on I-1183
• We already have an enforcement issue, I-1183 will make it worse.
• If I-1183 passes the terrorists will win. 

In the event you're not from the Washington state area, or you mute every political ad you see, I-1183 is a proposal that would privatize the sale of hard alcohol in our state. Proponents say that it will eliminate government spending on storefronts and allow for somewhat competitive pricing. Opponents say that it will lead to an increase in consumption, drinking and driving and sales of liquor to children.

There are big dollars being spent to sway opinion on the issue, the "YES" people stand to make a lot of money on smaller margins and the ability to market a product people are already buying. The backers of the NO side stand to lose a lot of money by having to give up a standardized markup.

In researching my "facts" about who is paying for what I found an article on the Bellingham Herald webside that says they did some research into the backers:

Protect Our Communities, which is against the initiative, is mostly funded by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America. In fact, of the more than $5 million the campaign has raised, 95 percent of the funding comes from that group. The campaign also has significant union support.

The Yes on 1183 Coalition, on the other hand, gets most of its funding from Costco - 94 percent of the cash contributions, in fact. The rest comes from Safeway and Trader Joe’s. This group has lots in in-kind contributions. Of the 1.3 million in in-kind contributions, 98 percent of the in-kind contributions come from Costco.

(These numbers are all as of about 5 p.m. on Sept. 12.)

Assuming their research is accurate, I stand firmly beside my opinion that ALL the pro and con arguments regarding this issue is about money. However, the NO people can't say "we dont' want it because we'll lose out on money" they have to appeal to our more basic values, and thus "I-1183 kills babies."

The scare tactics work, no one wants kids to buy booze, and certainly no one wants them to drive drunk or be killed by drunk drivers. However, the suggestion that the increased availability of booze will increase consumption is silly. Studies conducted in the last few states to privatize sales showed that there was no increase in consumption of alcoholic beverages (wine, beer AND booze) after the privatization occurred. And, lets not forget that you can buy wine and beer at almost every corner grocery and gas station mini-mart in our great state.

 I have an acquaintance that is against the passing of I-1183. I respect her right to her opinion, but could only hold my tongue for so long when she was spamming facebook with her message about the death of children associated to privatization of liquor sales (it wasn't THAT bad, but since I'm the writer here I get to present her message my own way).

My response was:

With all due respect and honoring your right to your opinion, but I believe the statistics used in many of the NO on I-1183 ads and information being given to our community is skewed. Now, I won't deny that both sides tell the story to enhance their own views, but if you look at the last few states to privatize liquor sales (WA is one of the last holdouts) consumption remained flat after privatization.

I'm certainly not an advocate of anything other than responsibility when it comes to this topic, but I don't see how being able to buy liquor at Costco is any different than being able to buy cases and cases of wine, or kegs of beer. 

Both sides, the Yes and the No people are backed by big money. These backers don't care about our kids, they care about our pocketbooks. I hope people will do their own research and vote according to facts vs. scare tactics. 

This is my opinion and my apologies if this opens an ugly debate. Not my intention, because I'm not good at debate.

____

She didn't reply to me, but her sister did and she opened with " Terri, as a Mother, I...." and then went on to explain that her underage son is already attempting to buy beer at the local mini-mart and while he knows it's wrong he has bad decision making skills.  Therefore limiting availability is good for her.

Blah Blah Blah, I stopped listening after "as a Mother".  That got under my skin as if she was suggesting that only MOTHERS could see reason, or that if you're not a MOTHER that you don't care about children.  Well, as someone who until very recently was NOT a mother I say "phlllltttttttt" to that idea.  I'm sure that was not her intent, but that's what I heard.

As a mother, I need to get back to work, so here is my ultimate point:  please do your OWN research on this issue and make an educated decision when you vote. 

Occupy My Couch (armchair economics)

Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't see how 50-100 people sleeping outside in Downtown Seattle will have any impact on anything except keep people from journeying downtown.  I do give them some serious props for holding their rally in October - especially considering the damp fall day we're having.

I've seen some interviews on national media and periodically there's an articulate person who is able to explain the purpose of the occupation. Mostly, to me anyway, it seems like bored college kids who are happy to be involved.

The people do need to rise up and express our outrage - but at what exactly?  This dismal recession and lack of jobs?  Yes, our economy blows (not an economics major, cut me some slack) but I do believe that the growth we were seeing in the early 2000's was out of control and obviously not sustainable.  Some people are still getting rich while others are struggling.   The struggle is awful and I don't have a point of reference - even when I was unemployed for 5 months I was fine.  I had options, reasonable rent and no kids to feed or insure.  

What I'm most outraged about it my naive belief that our government works.  I feel like a fool for continuing to make thoughtful decisions about whom to vote for only to have the folks that are sent to Washington do nothing but spin.  Votes are delayed, influenced by re-election desires and what might make someone else look bad.  The President's jobs bill was to be voted on in the Senate today and before it even hit the floor I was sure that it wouldn't pass. The fact that the votes are entirely on party lines tells me that the defeat isn't about the right thing, it's about the "not HIS thing".    Raising taxes is not a popular idea, and I don't know if it is the right thing to do or not do, but I want to stand on top of my house and scream  "JUST DO SOMETHING!"  

Cut everything - including defense spending.  Give every Senator, Congressman, Secretary, assistant and janitor  who works for the Legislative branch a common salary, heck let's give them all the salary that a teacher with 15 years of experience gets paid in the state of Washington $60,242 plus benefits.  They can get a bump to $62,917 if they get their PhD.   The districts & states that these good folk represent can budget $1500 per month travel monies, and a reasonable budget for office expenses, say $5k per month.   (Now, please don't all over me because you think I'm suggesting that the VALUE of a teacher is the same as a US Congressman - I surely don't think that.  Teachers are far more valuable...duh).

The other thing that pisses me off is how taxes are managed and talked about.  Everyone should pay the same amount, a flat percentage based on income (including alternate equity for those tricky executives.)  The girl behind the counter at McDonald's should pay the same percentage of her pay as the CEO of Bank of America.   Sure there are arguments against that such as the rich can afford to pay more, alternatively by not letting folks write off their charitable donations or mortgage interest then people won't make donations or buy houses - but I think that's crap. I didn't buy a home for the tax write off, I don't donate to the charities of my choice because of the impact to my taxes, it's about need and humanity.  It seems that in the American dialog about taxes the idea of eliminating a tax cut is talked about as an increase in taxes.  Um... no.  If something costs $10 and it goes on sale for $8, when it stops being on sale the price is still $10.  I can see how, since these tax 'cuts' have been in place for ages that it seems like they are permanent, but if they were intended to be permanent, wouldn't the excellent legislators have made them permanent.  (Bwahahahahaha - foolish girl no, they don't have the balls for that.) 

Oh I could go on and on with my armchair economics.  Don't get me started on the highway robbery that is Estate taxes.  We got our cut of that money once - we shouldn't get a second crack at it because Daddy died.

I have to stop typing and go play on the floor with my baby.  It calms me down, much in the same way an animal is good for old people.  I guess that is why new Presidents always seem to get a pet.  "Here, you run this shitty operation, but in return we'll give you this cute puppy."  (Calvin Coolige had a goose, but an animal that does nothing but squawk, attack and poop seems Presidential to me in the modern day.) 

Weiners, Liars & Cheaters...oh my

Boys, boys, boys...

Get it together, and by that I mean keep it in your pants!  This simple advice was called out to my prom date as we left his house my senior year.  It didn't make me feel like a princess, but the advice was reasonable.  There are times when you have no business showing your business to others. 

I know, it can be confusing to know when and where certain behaviors are allowed so I've laid out what I think is common sense that might be helpful to you:

1) If you're married and the person you want to show your business to is not your wife or your doctor... the answer is NO.

2) Unless you're being paid to be in a quality magazine like "The Dicks of Capital Hill" don't photograph your penis.

3) Unless it is your only source of income never EVER post images of your penis on the Internet.

4) If you think what you're about to do could cost you your job, that is a strong CLUE that you shouldn't do it.

5) If you have to hide from the media, this is another CLUE you're on the wrong path.

6) If the Onion.com is writing articles about you, you have already screwed up.

7) If you're married and you meet someone who turns your soul on fire, deal with your wife FIRST.  If this new thing is true love, it will still be there after you respectfully deal with the woman who has stood next to you during events like the death of your child.  (You're a slimy douche bag John!)  Word to the wise Miss thing...if he's willing to knock you up while his wife is unaware, don't expect him home for dinner every night.  I think the "once a cheater, always a cheater" line might actually be sound information.

8) If you're a Republican and FOX news is calling you a douche bag you've gone to far.  The same is true for MSNBC and you Democrats. 

9) If you've commented on the morals of others as part of your campaign platform then you should refrain from having sex with the maid, sleeping with your photographer or twittering pictures of your pee pee.  

10)  There is no such thing as discretion when having sexual encounters with anyone but your committed partner. 

Bonus Point  11)  It doesn't matter how 'important' you are, if the woman says no or you have to force the issue it is RAPE.  They teach that rule pretty early here in the US and I thought it was a similar understanding in other civilized parts of the world.  By the way, attacking the character of the woman you've (allegedly) sexually assaulted is a dirty play.  She cleans toilets for a living, do you really expect us to believe that she's running an on the side call girl business? 


So, do you want to know who I think is classy?  Al and Tipper Gore.  They sadly ended their marraige without any (credible) evidence of wrong doing.  They announced together that they were done being married and then both quietly moved on to their own personal lives and we don't have to hear about it.  While I hope they both have new hot lovers making them eggs in the morning, I hope we NEVER have to hear about it.

The rest of you...well, like Danny's dad said:

KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!

...

The news of Osama Bin Ladens death is welcome in my household.  A trial would have likely only strengthened his place in the al-Qaida mythology, and while I hope that the idea was to raid the compound and take him alive but dead he is.  I hope that whatever afterlife judgment committee he has to face is unpleasant. 

I am very uncomfortable with all the images of people celebrating in the streets of our country.  I felt sick to my stomach after 9/11 at the images of young men dancing in the streets burning our flag and celebrating the horrific deaths of 3000 people who did nothing more egregious  than wake up on a lovely day and go to work.  I feel sick to my stomach when I see people (kids mostly) hoisting the same flag and celebrating the death of this monster.  Images of our celebrations will only fuel the fire of hate burning in the remaining al-Qaida wackos.  The death of Osama Bin Laden doesn't really end anything.   The talking heads on the telly have indicated a strong opinion that our bigger threat is the al-Qaida cells in Yemen and that OBL wasn't a driving influence for those folks.  I am saddened that for us, death commonly results in death.  I'm glad to live in a world without this person, but fireworks and dancing in the streets feels really wrong to me.

I also don't like how politics always seems to creep in.  "Obama didn't thank Bush", "Bush couldn't get him", "Obama seems to be taking credit", "Bush should be the hero."  Osama was a snaky, hard to find and VERY well protected individual.  It does not surprise me that it took this long to resolve the issue, I don't think which ever administration that was in place that sealed the deal should matter.  I'm not now nor never was a Bush fan (I think I was clear on that point) but I don't think on this topic that his administration failed - this resolution is an American one, not a democratic or republican one. The attacks on 9/11 certainly weren't targeted towards stupid liberal Democrats, better than everyone else Republicans, nor Christians, Muslims, Jewish or the fools who dare to not declare or feel a religious preference.  The attacks were on Americans, and the fact that we are all those things and more is what really pisses these crazy people off. 


So, Mr. bin Laden, I hope that your meeting with your maker brings to light how off the mark your life path was, but if there is no such resolution, I'm happy to have you out of our world.  I don't celebrate it, I am saddened that your actions triggered these actions.  Saddened because these actions will likely trigger something else down the road... there is no "win" in this scenario.

(As soon as I hit publish, someone sent this to me: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/story/index.html?story=%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2011%2F05%2F02%2Fbin_laden  nice to know I'm not alone in my opinions.)

Missing the point, big time.

Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas made an announcement that it will picket the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old who was one of six people killed Saturday during the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

WBC is the same group that has made its name by staging protests at funerals of people who died of AIDS, gay people, soldiers and even Coretta Scott King.  These folks test my patience and make me wonder how on earth they sleep at night. 

If you don't like gay people, um don't be gay (not that you'd have a choice if you were gay) and if you're against to war then be peaceful and work to better your community or the community of people affected by war.  If you're against AIDS - heck, we're ALL against AIDS.  Fund research and prevention education.   If Coretta Scott King pisses you off... then I'm just confused.  (Well, she did advocate for human rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, economic issues, world peace, and various other causes - that "evil" woman.)
 As for protesting the funeral of a 9-year-old girl who was caught in the cross fire of a (may I suggest) deranged and misguided person, the idea is preposterous.  What good can come from causing this kids family more pain?  How is God involved in that action?  Do these people expect to be rewarded by God?


I wish I lived in the area to participate in the Angel Corps.  These are folks who will line the streets with tall wings to block the protest signs thus enabling the family, and mourners to enter their place of comfort without the visual distraction of hate signs.  The WBC people may be heard, but they won't be seen.   It is a beautiful, non-violent reaction.  The WBC people have every right to say what they want, per our constitution, but as fellow humans they disgust me.


As for the other topic of the day, this kind of sums it up.  I think we all need to be mindful of the "rhetoric" we put out there because you never know who might be paying attention.  If nothing else, the implication of a connection between your sassy little map Mrs. Palin and the events on Saturday are detrimental to your intended message of what you think is good for America. 

Then there's this response to the election

see more Failbook

Post Election Blues

When the issues that I think are important fail at the ballot box I have to wonder why am I so out of touch? 

I'm ok with the failure of the income tax initiative and the second booze initiative (had there been only one, to allow private retailers to sell booze too it might have passed, but by confusing the issues - they were doomed to failure) but the repeal of the candy/water tax makes no sense to me.  Are we unwilling to fund our services?  Do the people who vote not see a correlation between our tax revenue and public services?   Our state will end up having to make dramatic cuts in expenditures, which on the outside seems like a FABULOUS idea.  Government shouldn't be bloated and a cash cow for some.  However, since 70% of the state budget is "protected' the 30% that is discretionary is going to take a whopper of a hit.  It's going to be ugly for "optional" services.

Reading the 10% budget cut proposals that have been submitted to the Office of Financial Management for the 2011-2013 (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/reductions/2011-13/#affected) is daunting.  Some smaller groups, like the commission of elected officials that 10% represents training and printing budget.  Other areas, like the Department of Social and Health Services the 10% represents the elimination of 49 positions and the closure of a ward at Western State Hospital.   This could have a much larger impact on our community.  The Eastern Washington Historical Society claims that this cut would kill their program entirely (a cumulative effect of previous years cuts and loss of community support.)  It's a bummer that we'd lose a museum, but if executed well the artifacts and information wouldn't be lost to our community.

One thing is clear when reviewing these initial proposals (that were submitted in the August, September and October time frame) is that the primary way to cut is to eliminate staff.  Efficiency and waste are not quick budget wins.  Jason keeps saying an entire tax overhaul is needed in our state, but that also means a holistic look at services that we pay for should have to be fully evaluated.  I don't see how it would be possible.  

I heard last night on the news before sulking off to bed was a commentator talking about Dino Rossi.  He basically said that it's clear that Dino could run for King of Eastern Washington and rule for years and years, but the voters in the more populated counties won't let it happen.  I think that is true, but similar to how votes are split in other areas of our nation, folks in the more densely populated areas tend to trend towards Democrats.  Maybe we need some sort of exchange program so we can see and understand the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens in other areas.  Can we meet the needs of populated and rural areas at the same time?

Last night I read something that made me really angry. Some fella who had just won a seat in the US Congress, where the majority shifted from Democrat to Republican vowed to block all Obama's legislative attempts.  REALLY!?  Rather than vote on each item on its own merit and for the value and benefit it may bring to your country the plan is to stonewall and do nothing.   It's that kind of "all X are bad" mentality that makes me hate our political system.  (That us and them crap isn't localized to Republicans - Democrats do it too.)   Maybe it's time to abolish the parties altogether and let our leaders lead based on their smarts.  I guess, that's a silly idea. 

I need an adult beverage... but whine is all I get to indulge in these days.

Voting: My opinion of this crazy process

My ballot arrived yesterday and I quickly got to work on my duty as an American and voted.  I hope that the moment the ballot hits the mailbox that the nagging and dreaded political ads will stop. 

I wish that candidates would spend their advertising dollars to tell us what they have done that is noteworthy and not link their opponent to dreaded and dastardly deeds.  I think I would respond better to that.   I'm a Patty Murray fan, I think her efforts to support veterans and to bring earmarks to our state have been beneficial to our community.  Yes, she voted for the banking bailout (which most of the big banks have paid back) and she like every politician alive has taken money from big business and special interest groups - sorry people that's how this crazy system works.  I'm not impressed with Dino Rossi and haven't seen (or paid attention to) his plan to improve things.  His platform seems to be "time for a change".  That's a reasonable idea, but bring something to the table other than "I'm not her".   Both of them need a time out for their nasty and misleading ads.

The real effort in voting this go round are the multitude of initiatives and propositions.  Is it ok to sell booze at the grocery store?  I think yes.  Should we restructure the taxes on booze? I think not.  I don't mind paying a ton of taxes on unnecessary items like booze or cigarettes.  Yes, it is a slippery slope, I mean at what point do my pretty shoes become unnecessary and could be subject to more taxes than someone's work boots? 

Should we repeal the taxes on bottled water, soda pop and candy?  Again, these are taxes I don't mind.  It is a nutty convoluted calculation as to what is considered candy and what isn't, but  for the most part these are items that aren't required to live.  The bottled water issue could be questionable in an emergency situation, but we're typically not in emergency water situations. 

One ad went to town on the issue of certain local foods being subject to taxation that foods manufactured elsewhere weren't subject to.  This turned out to be true but not really accurate.  The local foods were subject to a B&O tax that the out of state items weren't subject to.  B&O is a tax that most, if not all, local business pays on their products and services.  If you hold a Washington State Business License, you pay B&O.  I paid city B&O in Issaquah as well as the portion of my consulting income that I paid to the state.  These out of state food manufactures are not subject to local B&O - they likely pay a similar tax in the location where their business is located.  Taxes like B&O are part of doing business and if you don't like it, move your business to a state or city that has low B&O rates.  (Did anyone notice that Boeing moved it's headquarters to a tax friendly location of Illinois?  Washington Mutual did the same thing when they moved their primary holding company to Arizona or some similar nicely tax friendly location.)   Granted, it is hard to establish a business license in a place where you have no physical presence, but when you're Boeing or formerly WaMu, you can move some poor lackey to the area and hold down an office without having to move your headquarters.   I think Boeing actually moved to Chicago - but none of the execs at WaMu moved to the southwest.

Some of the other issues were not so easy to land on a decision.  Thankfully, Jason and I can cancel each others vote out on topics like income tax for the wealthy.  I'm torn between thinking we need to do something to shore up our finances but am worried that we'll drive our big income families out of our state and open ourselves up to an entire state income tax.  Granted, taxes paid to the state in the form of income tax can be deducted from your federal taxes so our rich friends won't actually be paying MORE taxes we're simply redistributing the flow of money to our state.  But, is that the right thing?  Aaarg.  How are we supposed to know?

When little Lucy says she wants to be President of the US when she grows up I'll be thankful that the likelihood of that actually happening is more remote than my winning Project Runway. 

Jason says that he hates that we have to pay for postage to mail back our ballot.  I do agree that voters might be more likely to participate if they didn't have to find a stamp. (I mean who has STAMPS these days?) His suggestion is that every candidate contribute the cost of one ad to a fund to cover the cost of postage.  I think we need to go farther and require that for every single stinking dollar advocacy groups and candidates spend on advertisements that have any inkling of negativity or are found to be false or misleading that they contribute the cost of the ad (including the cost of printing, or airing the ad) to a fund for a good cause like education.

One thing is for sure, I will never run for office.  I've stated too clearly my distaste for negative ads, my support of equal rights for our gay community and my opinions on silly Lindsay Lohan to ever be taken seriously as a politician.   My inability to get through a debate without a "Frankly Mr. Opponent, You SUCK" would also knock me off the podium pretty quickly.

But, I will endure the season of negative ads and vote.  For this I think I get a cookie!

Ann, Ann, Ann....

Ann Coulter?

As much smack as I talked about W, I really didn't think he was evil. Ann Coulter on the other hand keeps sticking her foot so deep into it that it makes it hard for me to even try to listen to what she has to say.


Recently, Ms. Coulter was speaking at a GOProud event (Homocon) and popped off with a comment about how the gays should start to back the anti-abortion movement because: "as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who's getting aborted."

Scuse me!?  (*%^ said what???? And now I'm deaf to anything else she has to say because there is blood dripping from my ears.

GOProud is a conservative gay group. She was invited to speak about being fiscally conservative and lost many in the audience when she deviated to anti-abortion and sex education in school. She may have a point that perhaps kindergarten is too young to teach a child about the concept of fisting. (look it up if you must, but it doesn't sound like much fun to me. But that's just my opinion.) However, since kids are exploring things like oral sex as early as 10-12 years old, when is too early to let them know it's too early? YES, parents SHOULD be the ones to introduce these topics to their own children, but in the immortal words of Donna Martin on Beverly Hills 90210, "if there's a swimming pool in the back yard isn't it safer to teach your children to swim rather than to tell them not to swim?" (and now I hear the swell of a reved up crowd chanting "Donna Martin Graduates!!!" I miss that show.)

We will be educating our Peanut about sex, but won't be pulling her out of classes that discuss the topic.  This is where being involved in your childs education will come in handy.  If you work with your childs teacher you can ensure that the education is reinforcing your values.  As busy as they are, I imagine ALL teachers welcome the opportunity to partner with parents.  You can't change the curriculum, but you can know what the hell it is so you are prepared to co-educate your kids. I do hope sex-ed doesn't open with "fisting"... that would be awkward.

Back to the point. Ms. Coulter is entitled to her opinion, but her opinion makes me want to throw poopie in her face.  I do think she has balls to speak at an event called Homocon.  I wish I had come up with that.

I tried to find an appropriate photo of Ms. C, but this one came up under her name and it made me laugh out loud.  There is a theory that she's really a transgender person (a dude who is living as a female) and that she has an adams apple and balls.  This is silly.  I am a bit offended at the idea that a woman can only be strong willed and opinionated if she has (or had) a penis, I dislike her enough to suggest that she's an just an attractive dude.  In real life she is conventionally pretty, but her convictions kill it for me. 

off my soap box...

For your enjoyment:

Oh Sarah...you perplex me

I'm confused by Sarah Palin's association with the Tea Party.  Isn't she a Republican?

The Tea Party, in my opinion, seems to be the wackiest of the wacky and they have found their queen.

Most of the Republicans I know (yes, there are a few) don't seem to be on the Sarah P band wagon.  My beloved Father-In-Law shakes his head everytime her name is brought up.

The idea that she'll be part of the 2012 Presidential conversation gives me the shivers.  I hope and pray that the Republicans can drum up a more worthy candidate. One that represents their point of view, and represents the non-wack-a-doo constituants.   How is it that I'm so out of touch with the people who think she's the cats meow?

You may not be thrilled with the current administrations ability to dig us out of the great big hole we got ourselves into (note the non-partisan blame) but I can't fathom a world in which SHE would be better than my dead uncle Bob in resolving the economic nightmare we walked (willingly) into.

PS - I'm aware that the Tea Party name is a nod to the Boston Tea Party and the rejection of unfair taxation and not to children sitting around a table in pretty hats, but this is my world and I get to choose the graphics.

What I think...

This is what the blog is all about really, my personal view of the world.

In brief (hopefully):

Health Care: aka "Obamacare" Doing something is better than doing nothing. It is pretty easy to be angry about a huge change like this if you already have coverage, but what about those who don't? Do those people not matter? I think they do.

I think the insurance companies WILL find a way to make lots and lots of money in this new environment. I think we, the consumers, will pay and pay and pay but I still think we still have to start somewhere.

I'm not sure I think fining people who elect not to have health care coverage is a smart thing to do, but if they can't pay their emergency room bill at the door maybe they don't get coverage. (ooh my, really? Do I really think we would turn away a bleeding individual at the ER... no. it would never happen, but the American people shouldn't be held responsible for those folks.

In my opinion, the failure of any Republican legislator to vote for this bill (LAW) says more about their decision not to govern than to actively participate and represent their people. Our governmental processes make me crazy - I feel this way even when "my" party votes as a single unit rather than as individual, smart, thoughtful decision makers I hope I have elected.

This law will have to be refined over time and I'm sure that as the Insurance companies elevate their rates to unheard of levels it will.

Right now, the system we have doesn't work. Jason has a CPAP machine (over sharing, sorry honey) and gets supplies on an annual basis. The box comes and the bill comes - it is almost about $1000 that is billed to the insurance company. The insurance company pays their "pre-determined" amount and the supply company writes off the rest. They are happy with their 20% (which tells me the cost with lots of profit built in) is $200. The poor saps without health insurance would get and have to pay the full $1000. Or more likely, just suffer though with a dangerous breathing disorder because the testing, machine and supplies are to daunting.


Health care pricing is terribly confusing. I had a minor procedure done that was the equivalent of removing a large splinter and the bill was $1300. Holy crap, do you know how many pairs of sexy shoes a girl can get for $1300? Oh I know, it depends on the shoe.

We are headed to Denver for Easter and while I know my lovely father-in-law falls on the "this shizz is horrible" side of the fence I'm hopeful to be able to hear his objections in a clear way without going into a debate. I can't debate because I refuse to argue until I know all the facts. I can blog however, because while I welcome your opinions you won't be getting in my face with your alternative views of the world. It is nicely segregated. The likelihood of getting hot under the collar and still needing to be nice at dinner is pretty low.

No Shit Sherlock!

WASHINGTON —
The four-star Army general who is managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan says "the time has come" for the military to rethink its policy toward gays.
Gen. David Petraeus stopped short of saying whether he personally believed if the military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" is outdated or unfair.
Instead, Petraeus told a Senate panel Tuesday that he wants to see the results of an internal study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before any changes are made. He said he wants to know if allowing gays to serve openly might hurt recruiting and retention, or the military's ability to fight.

While I like the direction the military is finally going (and still irritated that Clinton didn't do it when he had the chance) the idea that they need to "study" it floors me.  Is the suggestion that the folks in the military are so backwards and homophobic that they won't be able to fight next to someone they KNOW is gay rather than just SUSPECT is gay?  

I wonder if their study will reveal that GAY PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE... ooh scary.

Warning, gay people are in business jobs, construction jobs, teaching jobs, the clergy, they are parents, they are artists, they live in the suburbs, they are homeless, they are rich, they are poor, they are Americans, they are French, they shop at Walmart (ok, well maybe not Walmart) but they are everywhere.  They vote, they pay taxes and gasp...they fall in love with people who have the same naughty bits that they do... WHO CARES?????

I posted a snarky comment last night on Facebook about my neighbors who are using sheets to cover their windows in their brand new house (offering to throw a telethon) and got flamed by some smart and kind people. I also took joy in comments from my designer friend and former paint store manager who understand that I'm not equating their lack of curtains to their lack of worth, but that their 'window treatments' make the house and our shared neighborhood look junky.

Anyway... it was meant to be funny but I felt badly about my choice and decided to remove it in the morning.  It must have been weighing on my head because I had a very elaborate dream that I was running for political office in Spokane (why Spokane?  donno)  and I started to think about the stuff I post online and if my virtual self would be unappealing to the conservative crowd in Eastern Washington.  (Of course it would...)

From there in the dream I started to process the kinds of questions I might face as a political candidate and the one I spent the most time on (dream time) was "Do you support gay marriage?"  My liberal, love everyone except sheet-curtain people self wants to say yes.  The imaginary political candidate sadly needed to soften the answer to something more 'palatable' to those for whom this is a hard concept.

My answer was a round about yes, in that I support the concept of marriage between two adults who are mature enough to understand the commitment, the legal aspects and the work that a marriage will be.   I certainly don't support marriage for someone like me at the age of 18 who was focused on music, school, partying and having fun... but me at 40, I'm all for it!  Do those two people have to be a specific gender?  No...

I see where people who believe that God has said that homosexuality is a sin can't separate the idea of a marriage ordained in the church from the legal and emotional bounds of marriage ordained by the state.  But... not everyone believes the same thing, which is why no matter where you have your wedding, you aren't officially married until you have the certificate from the state.  

If marriage is only 'real' if it conforms to the Christian definition then all those Muslims, Jewish folk, and *gasp* atheists aren't actually married. Why aren't "we" up in their face about their non-sanctified unions????  Maybe because there is comfort in the inconsistency.

So, to wrap up:

1. Gays are in the military already.  Allowing them to say they are gay won't change anything.
2. I support gay marriage.
3. I probably won't be elected in Spokane anytime soon.
4. I wish my neighbors would put up real window treatments which can be purchased economically from Ikea, Target and even Walmart...

Oh yes, I am THAT evil!

I read in one of the helpful wedding magazines that if you send your wedding invitation to the President of the US that you will get back a lovely signed card.

I, an Obama fan with an extra invitation in hand and a dollar laying around for postage, fired one off before the wedding.

The Obama's didn't send a gift (selfish jerks) but did send a pretty little card with the White House stationary insignia on it congratulating us and wishing us years of happiness.

It is a pre-printed card that was addressed to us by some (I'm guessing) intern with swirly handwriting who put a comma between the street and the NE portion of our address:

123 Squirrel St, NE
Bloggerville, CO 12345

Anywho... I think I shall frame it and put it on the bedside table in the room where my lovely, but Republican father-in-law sleeps when he visits. This should bring me years and years of joy.

Vote!

For a year without a "marquee" election I am very nervous about the election tomorrow.

I don't live in Seattle anymore and think either mayoral candidate would be fine. The big issue that separated them is nothing more than lip service. Seattle will have a tunnel to replace the Alaska Way viaduct. It will be expensive and the citizens will hate it. However, the decision is made and time for discussing it is over. Greg Nichols sort of gave his mayoral career for the tunnel and I imagine he sleeps at night.

The King County Executive race is one I'm on the fence about. The news caster lady has some fishy things in her back pocket, but is endorsed by some groups I respect. However, Dow Constantine has the support of some very smart people who I have learned through the years care deeply about our community. Short of doing my own research I made a choice and I will stick with it.

I am deeply and passionately apposed to Tim Eyman's bill 1033. In addition to hurting schools his continual quest for less taxes will hurt social services that are badly needed in our community. If the Rhianna / Chris "I smacked her" Brown incident from earlier this year shows, domestic violence can happen to anyone. Cutting taxes and as a result programs like the Eastside Domestic Violence Program isn't good for us. I hope Timmy never needs to have a safe place to get away from his spouse but if he does I hope he isn't turned away over a few $$.

I am, as you might expect, in favor of keeping the domestic partner rights that was signed by our governor in effect. This bill is not about "gay marriage" it is about non-traditional families. Your or my religous beliefs aside - this bill evens the playing field when it comes to health care decisions, common property issues, and even child support.

In addition to same sex couples who have signed paperwork to be domestic partners there are quite a few elderly American's who are also documented domestic partners. Sometimes this happens because one or both have pensions that they financially rely on, but if they were to re-marry the pension would terminate. Is this a crime? I don't think so.

If my father were to pass away my mom would be entitled to a portion of his pension. This is/was a benefit my dad's employer offered, and at the time of his primary employment they had an expectation that "the wives" didn't work. It wasn't written anywhere, but the pressure was intense and it was clear that certain jobs were ok, but others were not. So, there's my mom, who as the 60's & 70's housewife wasn't earning her own pension and was supporting my dad's job by being flexible regarding the rotating schedule. (4 months at 9 to 5, 4 months at 7pm - to 11 am, 4 months at 5am to 2pm)

So, back to my example. Mom and Dad, now retired live off his pension. If he were to "go on a long bus trip" she would be paid his pension. I could see a scenario where, 10-15 years later my mom meets some nice old man and they decide to shack up. Unless he was willing to foot the bill for her every need, I doubt they would marry no matter how wonderful he might be, thus they might decide to file paperwork to allow them to care for each other related to property, health care decisions and child custody - but not legally marry.

This scenario may seem silly, but I can't tell you how many people I talked to when I worked for the Social Security Administration that couldn't marry because it would hurt them financially, and I don't mean not being able to go to Red Lobster every night, but not being able to pay the mortgage or keep their insurance.

Old people aside (because really, who cares about old people) - it is true that the majority of families that will benefit from this bill are same sex couples. But, is that so bad? This law has been on the books for almost a year now - has it hurt your marriage? Has it lessened your meaningful relationship? I don't think so.

Repealing it is simply wrong.

So, I'll be watching the returns with anxiousness. Will we do the humane thing?