tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80673471243509137352024-03-05T08:14:37.538-08:00Kyra at the MomentLooking at the social and political world today through my sociological and artistic imaginationKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.comBlogger283125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-16580222344460408332016-07-31T09:21:00.002-07:002016-07-31T09:23:32.853-07:00A Quick Science Lesson: Vote for Hillary<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD1Ci1Ym5i1BSF59O9kRPFEgce34tmYqmZZHFD8JQfbkcjgpAytJt_LdBx8RpoG54T-PmNwLFjTzaX0F0bZmyiRDP-gwOM1gfpmwBW6WZGHyxHpFZXMHZOM3BkVO-9b57UY1jCveLEoxj0/s1600/Klimt_Tree_of_Life_1909.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD1Ci1Ym5i1BSF59O9kRPFEgce34tmYqmZZHFD8JQfbkcjgpAytJt_LdBx8RpoG54T-PmNwLFjTzaX0F0bZmyiRDP-gwOM1gfpmwBW6WZGHyxHpFZXMHZOM3BkVO-9b57UY1jCveLEoxj0/s320/Klimt_Tree_of_Life_1909.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Where does air come from? Trees. Or, more specifically, what keeps our air breathable? Photolysis and photosynthesis. We all remember that last one from school, right? Leaves go through a process of photosynthesis and that’s why they’re green, right? Photolysis is one you probably don’t know but it’s what happens to air molecules when light hits the atmosphere. It breaks apart the water part from the gas part. </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Here’s what’s important. Without a lot of photosynthesis, the process of photolysis results in more air gasses drawn down to and absorbed into minerals. Really. Oxidization, the process that causes rust, is photolysis. Red rocks? Red earth? Photolysis back in the day. This made air heavier. So, our early atmosphere, back before we started, was mostly methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen. We can’t breath that. If we do, we die.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So, trees. Photosynthesis basically means that trees absorb the carbon dioxide and monoxide, and release air. All clean. So, as the earth developed trees, and grass, and bushes, the air changed and became beeathable, thus allowing for man. Ever heard of the tree of life? It’s a symbol used by just about ever culture in some way. By the way, if you believe in creation and that the earth is 6,000 years old, if you’ve even gotten this far, you should probably quit now. This is for people that want to learn something. </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Over time, as man pursues ever more technology and just stuff, the rain forests of the Amazon are burned off so that the poor indigenous farmers have land to farm. Use of fossil fuels changes the atmosphere just enough that it creates a sort of cover that heats up the earth (think of a car on a summer day; the air is enclosed with nowhere to go and heats up). Air is moved by heat and cold (jet streams, remember?) and changes in temperature change weather patterns (why do you think we have a hurricane ‘season’?). So, we have droughts, and with dryer conditions, more fires, and all that carbon from all those fires adds to the ‘cover’ heating up our air and so on and so forth. So we lose more trees.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">See how just little things, when multiplied by the billions of people on the earth, can change our weather? What exactly do you think will happen when we use it all up? Have you already started shopping for a new planet?</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">This is why you must vote for Hillary. Trump doesn’t believe in climate change (nobody dependent on the Koch brothers does). Trump may not get money from them, but everyone else in the Republican Party does and so the laws they pass, regulations they enact, or cancel, are whatever keeps that oil flowing. So with him, and Republican control of Congress, we can pretty much count on climate change continuing and maybe even accelerating. Don’t care, cause you’ll be dead by then? Do you have kids? Cousins? Nephews or nieces? Friends? </span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Co-workers? Anyone at all that you care about who might be effected?</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">What about Stein? After all, she’s the Green Party, right? Number one, she can’t win. Number two. She’s batshit crazy. Check out her platform. Go ahead, I’ll wait.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: calc(1.6666666666666667rem) auto 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So if for no other reason, no matter what you think you might know about Hillary, or Trump, think of their position on climate change. That’s all. You can care about the other stuff, too, but really, if for no other reason than that you like to breath, vote Hillary.</span></div>
Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-32141909984970808152016-07-13T09:21:00.001-07:002016-07-13T09:21:03.564-07:00Ginsburg Absolutely Appropriate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmIeyWctTjdtkWVM9kzCVpL9rwGZauC-tUd3SzW_Z1V3H-2Sj4rPcrzHVhyphenhyphenVLxwkpHN6GNJny9v9RuqvFS4G09EsDGjs73tUHDTMHkKA9RUEwnk2gGzZtNnR4n_C5QSPkiH0jmF8EdGoAN/s1600/Screen+Shot+2016-07-13+at+9.05.37+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmIeyWctTjdtkWVM9kzCVpL9rwGZauC-tUd3SzW_Z1V3H-2Sj4rPcrzHVhyphenhyphenVLxwkpHN6GNJny9v9RuqvFS4G09EsDGjs73tUHDTMHkKA9RUEwnk2gGzZtNnR4n_C5QSPkiH0jmF8EdGoAN/s320/Screen+Shot+2016-07-13+at+9.05.37+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Gather round girls and boys for a little history lesson. Justice Ginsburg has made the news for what many are calling inappropriate comments about Donald Trump. In short, they are not inappropriate.<br />
<br />
First of all, regarding judicial codes of conduct. Yes, federal judges are not allowed by their ethical code to engage in partisan politics. Theoretically they don’t have to because they don’t have to run for office—they are appointed. The Supreme Court, however, is not bound by this judicial code of conduct. They can do pretty much anything they want. The reason they go through such an intense confirmation process is so that Congress can look at their work over their legal career; review opinions written and decisions made. The idea is that the past is prologue, or, most of us behave much as we have in the past.<br />
<br />
This week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made headlines for her blunt comments about Donald Trump. She has made it very clear that she does not think he is qualified to be president and in fact, fears for our country if he wins. Of course, the Republicans are in a tizzy and even such “balanced” tomes as the New York Times have weighed in stating her comments were inappropriate. Trump, of course, has tweeted about this and says she is an embarrassment (someone give that man a mirror).
Unfortunately, our distinguished media has once again, failed to do their homework. Once again, facts and evidence seem not to matter.<br />
<br />
On to the history lesson. Our first Chief Justice, John Jay became Governor of New York. He ran while a sitting justice and after losing in his first attempt, won and only then stepped down from the court.<br />
<br />
David Davis ran for president in 1877 and avoided a tie-breaker by accepting a position of Senator. The most fascinating was Charles Hughes. A sitting justice, he ran against Woodrow Wilson (if you aren’t familiar with our history, Wilson won). He did become Secretary of State and in 1930 after service as a diplomat, returned to the court to become Chief Justice.<br />
<br />
Moving a little outside of politics but still interesting, the famous Warren Commission which investigated the assassination of John F. Kenned was run by Chief Justice Warren. The Nuremburg trials held after WWII at the International War Crimes Tribunal were prosecuted by Justice Jackson.<br />
<br />
More recently, Chief Justice Roberts sitting in the audience at a State of the Union speech very visibly and clearly made his disdain for President Obama known when the President criticized the recent Citizens United decision. What is more political than that? Justice Scalia not only spoke frequently about political issues, but did so on Fox News. He attended Koch brothers gatherings, accepted trips from lobbyists, and was at a private hunting club (all expenses paid of course) when he died.<br />
<br />
So. Can we all just let Justice Ginsburg say what she wants and perhaps give Donald Trump a copy of the Constitution?<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by, come back soon,<br />
k<br />
<br />Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-15266367779567208502016-07-07T15:36:00.001-07:002016-07-07T15:36:17.869-07:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZJGh7oUCN0tN2yw4mjhyfLoAqSyTJN9vfZBfj7JlLMbW9gsv6HxaDgUH5lJX74UlJ80X3sRo9ixqbqlOTkNl80TZrbCWWWSJMRqsKbR4tQ7UshiKLT6mzdyolq6QMg5jNx7MFmpaZbrk/s1600/Entitled+to+opinion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZJGh7oUCN0tN2yw4mjhyfLoAqSyTJN9vfZBfj7JlLMbW9gsv6HxaDgUH5lJX74UlJ80X3sRo9ixqbqlOTkNl80TZrbCWWWSJMRqsKbR4tQ7UshiKLT6mzdyolq6QMg5jNx7MFmpaZbrk/s320/Entitled+to+opinion.jpg" width="320" height="206" /></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I read something the other day that got me thinking. It’s a topic that I’ve talked a lot about, thought a lot about, and have written on, but I wish it was something more people would address. The issue? Opinions. Most of my adult life, one of my pet peeves was the phrase “In my opinion…” or “I’m entitled to my opinion.” In my opinion, you are not. Facts are ignored in favor of opinions and as long as we hear from both sides of an issue, we have been given everything we need. We report, you decide. Unfortunately, most of us are not in the position to know the truth unless someone—a reporter for instance—gives us the evidence we need to decide whose opinion on an issue is worthy. As long as the facts remain static, when presented with two or more options for resolving the problem, we can then decide which position, whose opinion is the right way to go</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Many, many people are confused about what opinion is. I see it everyday when I turn on the tv to watch the news. I see it in print media and internet postings. This campaign season, it is becoming more and more an issue because people assume that people they like are truthful and those they do not, are not. Supporters of Donald Trump are quite open about the fact that they don’t care whether he speaks the truth. They care that he’s going to fix every one of their problems. A top campaign official even said during an interview that it wasn’t fair to Trump to fact-check him because nobody cared anyway and what was important was what he said. We have as a people, lost sight of what is in fact opinion, and what isn’t. Even worse, we apparently don’t care. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Here’s the thing. Most of what people refer to as opinion, is to be blunt, ignorance. Or misinformation, or misconception. We have been trained and conditioned to this over time as we lose sight of what reporting is, what commentary is, and why it matters.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Opinion is preference. I like blue, and dark chocolate over light. Those are tastes, what I like and what I dislike. My mother’s favorite phrase as I grew up was <i>Non disputandum est. </i>Latin for “there is no disputing taste.” Our tastes then, are opinion.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Information, however, is data: facts and evidence. I might say grass is orange, but we know it’s green. I might want it to be orange, but it’s not. I learned about photosynthesis and also about rods and cones that determine how we see color and learned that there is a scientific reason why the grass is green. I learned to answer “why is the sky blue?” with information about light and refraction and what happens when the sun’s rays hit the atmosphere and at what angle. Two plus two always equals four, no matter how much we might like it to add up to more. Graphs and charts show the slow but steady increase in temperatures over time, yet corporations more interested in extracting every resource available spend millions if not billions to ensure that we doubt the existence of climate change. Snow is evidence of it’s falsity and yet, I have never seen a commentator explain the difference between weather (what we see when we look out the window) and climate (long-term, usually 30 year, patterns of weather. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Misconceptions are an absence of evidence and reflect what we would like to be true. The Anti-Vaccine movement, for example, is a glaring example of someone globalizing a single event as the evidence to explain their own personal experience. We like answers, explanations and when something tragic or serious happens, we look for reasons. Cause and correlation are different and yet, when one thing happens after another thing, we often link the two together. Sometimes, there is not even a correlation; simply a cooncidence. We forget that everything that occurs happens somewhere in time; other events will happen either before, after, or simultaneously. The fact that one thing follows another rarely means that the first caused the second.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So how have we come to this point? I could write a book on the amazingly successful propoganda campaign of the Republican Party that over the past forty years has conditioned us to accept opinion as fact and ignore sensationalism, marketing principles, and ulterior motives.</span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Journalism is a case in point. Somehow over the past couple of decades, there has been a significant blurring of the line between reporting and commentary, or opinion. Used to be, the Opinon page was just that. It is where the editorial board opined on the issue of the day, where columnists gave their perspectives on various things and letters to the editor were a, sometimes humorous, feature. We could assume then, that everything else in the paper was news. Who, what, when, where, and if possible, why. It was the job of the reporter to gather facts and present them in a cohesive manner to help us make sense of the world. Surprising to many today, reporters were required to have evidence before presenting something as fact. If they were reporting on a campaign event, or a school board hearing, if someone presented information that was wrong—and all good papers had fact checkers—it was the job of the reporter to present that information; what was said and then the truth. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Talk shows were for commentary. Over time, the talk show format grew and today we have shows with panels and commentators and others there only to present one side or another of an issue. I remember David Gregory who took over Meet the Press from Tim Russert famously said that it wasn’t his job to present the facts, but rather to present both sides. Having a Republican and a Democrat was sufficient to “balance” the show. The fact that many of his guests—to be fair, on both sides—often misstated the facts was, to Gregory, not the point. His job as he saw it was to make sure each side of an issue was heard. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Unfortunately, this perspective in journalism, frequently referred to as both-siderism, is now not the exception, but the rule. The line between reporting and commentary is virtually non-existent. Often, panels gathered to discuss politics include big name journalists there to present their opinion; experience reporting on a subject or a politician serves to credential their opinion. The electorate then, has little understanding of what they are hearing. Is it fact? Is it opinion? What bias might the person speaking hold? Why aren’t we hearing from actual experts rather than those who have developed an opinion from those experts? </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">In the past, journalism had standards and practices that were held by all media. Reporters lost their jobs and reputations if in-depth reporting turned out later to be fabricated. If there was any conflict of interest, it was announced up front so that the listener or viewer could factor that into what weight they gave to the information they received. Today? Not so much. Insider reporters state publicly that they have to ensure “access” to politicians so they do not ask difficult questions, or follow-up vague or contradictory statements with more pointed queries. When reporting on Washington, a popular journalist neglects to inform us that her husband, Alan Greenspan, was Chairman of the Federal Reserve and remains active as a consultant. Reporters, just like most of us, like to mingle with the power players. To ensure they keep this access, they make sure that their reporting is such that we are left with the desired reaction. Surely if Hillary Clinton had actually done all the things that she is said to have done, some sort of evidence would have turned up. The fact that it has not is then proof that she is corrupt and pays off those who could give us that evidence. Politicians are universally assumed to be paid by corporate interests and so we assume that “both sides do it” whether catering to corporate interests, their donors, or their own ideology. The fact that both sides don’t do it—or at least not to the same extent—is ignored. Reporters talk about an electorate angry with Washington, neglecting to point out which party is responsible for the things people are angry about. Sure, Democrats take corporate money and are responsive to their donors. The difference? Democrats become Democrats because they have an interest in promoting social welfare. Ideology to ideology, the people most harmed by the actions of the Republican Party invariably vote Republican. Why? Because they have been taught over the years that the Republicans are the party of Christians, family values, and personal responsibility. And anyway, both sides do it. They’re all the same, so just vote for the person you like the best, the one that “speaks” to you. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The 2008 election was remarkable in that for the first time, we had a national candidate in Sarah Palin who not only contradicted statements she had made in the past, but often, contradicted statements she had made in the previous paragraph. She confidently presented her opinion as fact and plucked data out of the air to “prove” her point. Remarkable because the media, after Katie Couric was roundly criticized for being to hard on her, calmly listened to her obvious lies and then turned to the Democrat and listened to theirs. A watershed moment occurred when Gwen Ifell of NPR moderated a presidential debate and pointed out an error of fact; an event that ensured that she would never again moderate an important debate or even have equal access to politicians. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So what do we do? Educate ourselves. We live in an amazing time of access to information if we but use it. Libraries are online. Research studies are online. If we gather information from a variety of sources, over time we will begin to learn which are trustworthy. We will learn how to distinguish fact from opinion. We will learn about the relationships between journalists and their sponsors, between politicians and corporate interests. Even who is married to whom can tell us if there might be some bias in their reporting if the information might help the person they married. We can turn off the tv, or watch a variety of sources. We can turn up the scepticism and listen for the bias. After awhile, even the most even-handed of journalists and talk show hosts will show us which candidate they prefer; which ideology they support. There is no problem with that, as long as we understand how to filter what we hear. </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">And finally, we accept that politics is messy and complex. We can understand that in a country of over 300 million from every country on earth embracing a variety of ethnicities, religions, races, and creeds, we are never going to agree. Being a successful politician means compromise. It means forming alliances and coalitions and knowing when to give up. We do them no service demanding ideological or religious purity. We do ourselves a greater disservice. </span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">This is not heaven or hell. It is not Utopia. It is reality and as adults, we learn that much as we might like to have it all our way, grownups know we cannot. </span></div><div><br></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-20599286742737347872016-06-08T14:39:00.001-07:002016-06-08T14:39:35.579-07:00A Little History for Young Women; and Men<div>A little history for young women--and men--who don't get why Hillary being a woman is a big deal.</div><div><br></div><div>We have a conservative movement that is trying to legislate women's bodies. And LGBTQ. And what we think and believe by restricting what teachers can say, what books we can read, and what news we hear.</div><div><br></div><div>We have a representative government--not a democracy. This is to protect the minority from shifting opinions. More than 50% of us are women, yet for the 1st time in history, we have a viable woman candidate of a major party.</div><div><br></div><div>And for those who think gender shouldn't matter, the fact that you can say that is testament to the women who have come before--women who have died so that we can be equal and vote.</div><div><br></div><div>Think I'm a little extreme? When I was born, contraception was illegal. When I was born, Jim Crow was the law of the land. When I was young, my aspirations were limited to nurse or teacher--not doctor or professor, but nurse or teacher. I got my first pair of pants when I was in 2nd grade. You try to climb trees and play fully in a dress. I watched my president get assassinated. I watched police use fire hoses on people. I watched Martin Luther King, Jr. speak and watched him get shot. And Bobby Kennedy. </div><div><br></div><div>We have had to fight and die so that millenials and old, white men can tell us that gender doesn't matter and that it's our fault that things aren't better. Sorry, but after thousands of years of women as property and persons of color only 3/5 of an actual person we've come a long way, but still have a longer way to go. People who think that both parties equally bad, both candidates equally bad need to learn their history.</div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-23567234736466031382016-02-20T20:52:00.001-08:002016-03-17T11:57:33.402-07:00Why Hillary? Record vs RecordHillary won the Nevada caucuses amid claims of dirty tricks from both sides. I have read many articles, essays, open letters, and blog posts describing why I support (insert name) or why I switched to (insert name). For the most part thoughtful, insightful, and well reasoned. Unfortunately, the debate and the questions seem to come down to gender. Younger people are universally for Bernie--or so says the media. Women who support Hillary do so because she's a woman (usually mansplained as women not having done the research needed to make an actual informed decision). Young women say that they are angry that older women think they should support Hillary because she's a woman. They say that Bernie gets it and his plans to tear down Wall Street and give free college are the reasons to support him, among other reasons designed to appeal to young people with uncertain prospects.<div><br></div><div>As an editorial aside, yes, I am generalizing. Women are not a monolithic, homegenous group. Nor are young people or men, or any other labeled group. That's actually not my point. To do so, I need to use the groupings that are already in use for these conversations.</div><div><br></div><div>I have given this a lot of thought and find myself agreeing with or disagreeing with points from both sides. I think I get the complaints about women supporting women irritating young women although again, various points of view and varied reasons can lead to the same result. That said, it's impossible to argue against the conclusion. Each point has to be answered; again not my purpose.</div><div><br></div><div>What I see, is a group of people who face a very uncertain future that I think most can agree was caused by (or at least exacerbated by) the 1%. Student loan debt is overwhelming when there are few jobs that will allow the average individual to build a life like or better than their parents in the face of that debt. Along comes Bernie promising revolution, universal healthcare, and free college. Hillary prefers to work incrementally and yes, has often compromised what should be ideals too pure to be diluted. She's changed her mind on major issues over time and gets money from the 1%. </div><div><br></div><div>What I find sad, is that it is assumed that every politician is corrupted by contributions and is owned by big business. Perhaps. I agree that money buys access, but politics is messy. It's complicated and tedious. It takes skill to first run a campaign to get the job, then propose and gain consensus for bills. Not only does the politician have to form alliances within, but begin to campaign (and raise money for) re-election. Many politicians manage to juggle conflicting needs and still serve their constituents. Personally, I prefer to hire people skilled at the job so accept some of the mess that goes along with the sausage-making.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, that puts weight on the Bernie side. Right? </div><div><br></div><div>According to govtrack.us, Bernie ranks highly as far as bills proposed, but 2nd lowest in bipartisan support. Specifically, he tends to gather support from his side. Remember, he was an Independent until last fall and caucused with the Democrats. Bernie has been there 25 years. I speak to this connectedness because in order to reach his campaign goals, he will have to have Republican support. Period. If you want to read a really fascinating study done in 2006 on the effects of "connectedness" and success passing bills, check out "Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks." You could google that title or comment me and I'll send you the link (I'm working on cranky tech). Warning, it is peer-reviewed and 11 pages, but 2 of those are bibliography and several pages are diagrams and charts.</div><div><br></div><div>Also from govtrack, Bernie scored the most progressive, but well down on leadership. Hillary scored higher in leadership but I think most people agree that in ideology and voting recordes, they are remarkably aligned.</div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div>If <span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">you look at the categories of bills sponsored, Bernie was at 27% in armed forces and national security, Hillary 0. Bernie came in at 18% health, Hillary 14%, Bernie was 11% labor and employment, Hillary 9%, Bernie 10% energy, Hillary 0. Bernie was 9% government operations and politics, Hillary 23%, Bernie 9% education, Hillary 8%, Bernie 8% taxation, Hillary 0, and finally for Bernie, 7% finance to Hillary 15%.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Hillary had some zeros (remember, these are bills sponsored). But her interest diverges somewhat as she then sponsored 11% science, technology and communications, 10% social welfare, and 10% families. [source govtrack.us]</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif">If you are interested in comparing the two bill by bill, those sources (and Congress's own sites) can delve into details. What I do not hear as we compare history, is recognition of the world around them. Yes Hillary campaigned for Goldwater (massive demerit) but she was in high school. Her time in the Senate was the years of W, Iraq and the meltdown of the economy. Yes, she has friends on Wall Street, but she was the senator from New York and they were constituents, too. They also funded (generously) speeches to support her foundation, but what does the foundation do? What percent goes to actual program? (87.2%). Google it. Yes, I'm unhappy with some of her record and previous choices, but I am more concerned by someone who won't change their mind or explain how they went from belief A to belief B. Can anyone honestly say that their beliefs have remained unchanged for the past 20-30 years? I didn't think so. But then, I believe in evolution, both in science, and in our emotional development. </font></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif">So Bernie is all about income inequality. Every question to him comes back to it. His legislative career suggests otherwise if you look at his interests. There are a variety of committees and sub-committees and legislators tend to gravitate to those areas that are of interest and hopefully, in which they have knowledge and experience. Bills proposed tend towards those interests which is why I listed the breakdown above. Amendments are numerous and success comes down to who you can get to co-sponsor and who they can get and so on. Having high-level friends (in terms of networking rank) gets you better chances. So personality, the ability to compromise, and working both sides is essential to success in Washington. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif">Much of this article and the research I did came from how to answer all these people who see only negatives in Hillary and hang their choice on the "I won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman."</font></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif">In a conversation the other day, we came to the conclusion that there are two types of people, politically speaking. There are those who like to delve deep, who get news from a variety of sources, who pay attention and have a history and a context. These people can place campaign statements along side everything else that person has said and done and remain politically tuned in all the time. Year after year, election season or not. Wonky nerds. The other type are those who somewhere along the line begin to pay attention, usually in a heated primary season but often not until the only commercials on tv are political ads. They may or may not read a newspaper or news magazine. They likely do not spend much time reading blogs or talking about politics. Their information and everything that informs their vote comes down to randomness. Family, friends, co-workers, always vote x, or saw a clip somewhere and the candidate seemed nice. Or not. Single issue, or what their pastor tells them. They don't have the context.</font></div><div><br></div><div>So when young women, or young people get excited about Bernie and angry when other women tell them they should vote for Hillary don't know the history. The forty year GOP plan to dumb down the voters, appeal to fear, and knowledge that if you cut funding for education and teach them that science is just a theory and build a culture around sound-bites, you can say anything, pander, and then get to Washington and do what you want.</div><div><br></div><div>You know that common phrase frequently heard from the right that "I don't hold my finger up to see which way the wind blows, I vote my conviction?" We actually should want them to see how the wind blows, or in other words, listen to their constituents.</div><div><br></div><div>The GOP has been after Hillary since she appeared on the scene. People don't trust her, but can't actually find anything that would show that. They say she's power-hungry and stayed married so she could run for president some day. Really? You heard all their private conversations? You really think that all politicians marry for and remain married for love? Even if she did have hopes and dreams to one day be a politician herself, what's wrong with that? We all have dreams. How many wives got their foot in the door to positions in or around politics because of a spouse or other family? That's how it works. Why shouldn't she want something for herself after all those years of being the wife?</div><div><br></div><div>Ever notice that Bernie is cranky, shouts, and oh, that's just Bernie but then tells Hillary not to shout?</div><div><br></div><div>I haven't seen any changes in Hillary <span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">since this campaign started. She has shifted some priorities but that's what we should hope for as she gets out on the trail and talks to people outside the bubble. I have seen a lot of changes in Bernie. Some good as he actually gets out in the crowd, but he's doing big donor fundraisers and has as much as called Hillary corrupt without actually saying it. He's tried to erase his lingering sexism (and suggesting that Hillary is playing the gender card when she talks about being the 1st woman president and then turns around and talks about being the first Jew) is a form of sexism.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So, my own thinking has evolved as I write this. I have always liked Hillary but waited a long time before deciding who to support. I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, but I hope it's Hillary. </span></div><div>I watched woman struggle for autonomy along with other groups after the civil rights act and gain ground slowly but always moving forward. I watched as the disabled fought for and gained rights. And for the last 20 years, I've watched as the extremist right has chipped and chipped away many if not most of those rights. Unable to enact the big things, the right has used funding to deny services. I watched as they continue to tell women that we don't get to say what to do with our bodies. I watched as young girls are told by the media to be sexy even as little girls, than shamed at school because they grow breasts and has to ensure that no one wants to rape her because her clothing reveals her shape. That's why I will vote for Hillary. When it comes down to it, because she is a woman and because she has gotten this far while a woman and because she knows how to do the job.</div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-66781195681769069012016-01-08T08:56:00.001-08:002016-01-08T09:33:11.902-08:00The PC Police and Both Siderism<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Huh. Just read that the reason people support Trump is because they're afraid to say anything because of the PC police and he says what they can only think.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Seems the liberal left dominates the debate and anything they don't like is wrong. </div><div><br></div><div>Here's the thing. Just because a bunch of people have an opinion, even if it's a majority of the people, doesn't make their opinion true, or okay. We wouldn't need the Bill of Rights if that were the case. Remember, we are not a simple democracy ie majority rules; we are a republic with representative government with a Constitution that protects the minority from shifting public opinion.</div><div><br></div><div>We're all raised to respect others' opinions, but you know what? Some opinions shouldn't be respected. There's this belief that a middle ground somewhere is a good thing, but it matters the middle of what? Some western GOP legislators want to give federal land back to who it really belongs to--in their opinion, ranchers, mining companies, etc. others want the land protected by the federal government for the benefit of all (who do you think benefited when John McCain worked a deal to sell tribal sacred lands to an international mining company?). If we really believe the land should be returned, lets all pack our bags and go back to wherever our ancestors came from. Oh, now it's cool to have native blood? </div><div><br></div><div>Our country as embodied by our media suffers from both-siderism. Each "side" has an opinion so in fairness, each "side" gets to have their say. Notice, nobody actually fact checks and we get to decide, based on perceived political orientation (or whatever our opinion is based on) which"side" we're on. Sometimes opinions are just wrong (all Muslims are not extremist jihadis just as all white Christian men are not members of the Klan). </div><div><br></div><div>It isn't PC to call people people instead of adding qualifiers (black, white, gay, straight, male, female...) it's just the correct thing to do. It isn't anti PC to be a bigot, misogynist, sexist...it's just wrong. Drawing a line somewhere in the middle between hate and love isn't finding common ground. It's allowing hate to flourish because remember, everyone is entitled to their opinions.</div><div><br></div><div>Have your opinion. Just don't expect me to respect it or you.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,</div><div>k</div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-54977309675329598542015-12-24T00:53:00.001-08:002016-01-08T09:40:32.755-08:00Empathy Run Amok?So I have some Twitter friends who I have followed since the beginning--although I did take a couple years off Twitter as well as blogging. Most of my timeline includes people interested in politics and social issues. Over time, we let some of our real self creep through and begin to see each other as real people. One friend who has battled some serious depression linked to an article on empathy.<div><br></div><div>When I was learning to be a counselor we were told over and over again that the single most important factor in a successful therapeutic relationship is empathy.</div><div><br></div><div>The article, by a clinical psychologist, suggested that we can have too much empathy and cited examples in which people actually did themself harm by relating too much. </div><div><br></div><div>Um. No.</div><div><br></div><div>Empathy is simply the ability to understand where someone is coming from; that you walk a mile in their shoes to use an old expression. Pity, sympathy and the like are harmful because it is more of a one up one down relationship. I can empathize with someone, understand their point of view and still see distortions of thought and disagree with actions taken. The point is understanding where that person is right now and nonjudgmentally understand their point of view.</div><div><br></div><div>I have seen harm done by therapists feeling sympathy for their patients, which then leads to the therapist trying to "fix" them. Counselors don't fix people. We help people work through whatever is keeping them stuck and help them decide for themself how to move forward. </div><div><br></div><div>In discussing with others, it was suggested that someone might feel so worthless that they put themselves in situations that are harmful because their empathy leads them to believe others are more worthwhile. That is not empathy. Someone deeply depressed, experiencing poor self esteem, or feeling worthless is not likely to be capable of much empathy at the time. That level of pain becomes so all-encompassing that the gaze is usually directed inward. The notion then that someone else is more worthwhile does not come from empathy, but rather from a belief that the self is worthless. This is not empathy run amok. It is clinical depression, derealization, depersonalization, loss of self.</div><div><br></div><div>Just some thoughts.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,</div><div>k</div><div><br></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-4225060979886077032015-12-23T20:40:00.001-08:002015-12-23T20:40:27.694-08:00SourcingI haven't included sourcing in my latest because there are just too many. Turn on your nightly news of choice to get an example of Trump at his most outrageous. If you still insist on links, let me know.Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-10181264280512452922015-12-23T13:04:00.001-08:002015-12-23T20:38:30.188-08:00Disgusting. Terrible. Trump.<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Anyone paying attention to the debates? Even if you are not particularly political, it's hard to avoid politics when Trump dominates the news. A 24/7 news cycle has created an industry of competition for viewers and clicks, often with little substance.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Trump is an interesting man. Just when we think he cannot be more outrageous, that he has sunk as low as is possible, he comes up with more. I avoid him if I can, but every event generates a cutaway from whatever news show is broadcasting. It is clear to everyone that he sees women as objects. Asked at a campaign event about childcare, he called the questioner darling and said that children are important. He then said that his companies offered childcare; just get one or two people and some blocks... Easy. He is quick to call women disgusting, fat, ugly, or whatever thoughts cross his mind. During a deposition a few years ago, an attorney asked for her scheduled break and when he refused, she took out her breast pump to explain why she needed the break. He left the room, and the deposition and was horrified that anyone would actually do that and that she is a horrible disgusting woman.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you sense a theme here?</div><div><br></div><div>Fact checkers have given up, stating that he has not said one true thing during his campaign. When pinned down, he says that "it makes sense" or that it could be true, therefore it is true. He cites sources that include his twitter fans or his excellent memory and has to inject profit into every discussion. When Steve Harvey named the wrong winner at the Miss Universe pagent, Trump had to offer that he sold the pagent "for a very good price" saying that what happened was horrible, implying that if he still owned it, the mistake would never have happened.</div><div><br></div><div>During the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was late returning after a break and to hear Trump tell it, it was absolutely disgusting to think of why she was late. People are often disgusting to Trump. If they question him, they are disgusting. Protestors are disgusting and deserve to be beaten up. Journalists are disgusting and he hates them--this while keeping them in a penned area at events. I remember growing up and their were two things we could say guaranteed to set my mother off. One was that someone was an idiot, the other that we hated someone. She would tell us that hating someone meant we wished they were dead. Period. Now, when I hear Trump so easily hate, it makes me wonder. </div><div><br></div><div>Another comment made by Trump regarding Clinton is that she got schlonged. The one or two people unfamiliar with the term were quickly educated via Facebook, Twitter, and news shows. Now Trump has decided that everyone has changed the definition and that we are disgusting for suggesting anything improper by his use of it. One of the fastest trending hashtags on Twitter is #ReplaceAwordwithschlong. A lot of really funny and creative people in my timeline. </div><div><br></div><div>Somewhere along the way, Trump learned that women are not really people, but rather, disgusting objects of derision. Anyone who says he "cherishes" women and then is so quick to opine on their appearance, weight, ect., only cherishes what women can do for him. He sees nothing wrong with seeing his daughter as "dateable" and rather than attack Clinton's policy positions, calls her a terrible, disgusting woman because she has the temerity to question him and call him out for his lies.</div><div><br></div><div>Fun times ahead.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,</div><div>k</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-64315894950119607462015-11-16T13:37:00.001-08:002015-11-16T13:37:50.493-08:00To Engage or not to engageIn the past few months, I've become more active on Facebook and Twitter. I have unfollowed some people and written some pretty strong posts.<div>In the past few weeks as the presidential campaign heats up, I have received 3 kinds of responses.</div><div>The first, that they like and/or agree. I can usually tell ahead of time who those people will be.</div><div>The second, from friends posting memes about shutting out negativity, meditating, or otherwise ensuring that we allow in only those things that are positive and healing.</div><div>The third, and a category in which too many people are falling, that they have decided either to back off Facebook for awhile, or will disengage from any political issues because they are a) too depressing, b) too divisive, or c) creating tension between family and friends.</div><div>I tried to keep Facebook as a place to stay connected with family, old friends and classmates, but over time, people would invariably post something that I either found offensive, lacking facts, or something to which I agreed so strongly that I had to repost and/or comment.</div><div>When people would suggest I tone it down, I replied that I received a number of positive responses requesting that I continue. I even had people of quite different perspectives tell me that because they knew me, they tried to keep an open mind and actually thought about what I said.</div><div>So we come to today and the horrors of last Friday the 13th. I watched as so-called neutral reporters such as Jake Tapper essentially blamed President Obama for ISIL and others at a news conference who were so busy planning their own question they failed to listen to the President's previous answers (which actually demonstrated the bias of the questioner).</div><div>Remarkable to me, were those who repeated accusations made by Trump or Carson. Remember, Trump's answer to everything is that he'll negotiate a better deal. Really? He obviously doesn't understand the role of President. And Carson has not said a true thing yet (according to all the fact checkers). This is the man who discounts historical records and claims that the pyramids were obviously to store grain. Anyone old enough to remember the traveling King Tut exhibit?</div><div>So, who is right? Do we engage and experience all the frustration that entails, or do we back off because after all, what can I do?</div><div>I know where I stand and why, do you?</div><div>Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.</div><div>k</div><div><br></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-62669485913679621632015-10-23T10:53:00.001-07:002015-10-23T11:02:25.112-07:00and then there was Hillary<h4><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Hillary,Clinton,Congress,Republican,Campaign 2016, Benghazi</span></h4><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I remember the whole Clinton Lewinski scandal. I was going to school after a many year hiatus and had gotten to know many other "non-traditional" women. We often met in the cafeteria to drink coffee and work on homework, gripe, and basically support each other as we each, in different ways, struggled with being students while holding down jobs, raising families, and coping.</span><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The internet was still fairly new and I got involved in a web forum at the NPR website. Threads were organized by show: someone inevitably started a thread after each guest or issue heard on NPR.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Not sure who started it, but a new thread formed titled Move On. We ultimately were considered the longest running single issue thread and in fact, a few of the early members left the forum to start moveon dot org.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">All that to say that I was actively involved in everything Clinton. My belief, still held, was that the most investigated couple had been proven to done one thing. Bill lied under oath in answer to a question I don't think we had the right to ask.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">A somewhat circuitous route to my story. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">My women friends and I rarely discussed politics. Partly lack of interest or time to really absorb the details. I was fortunate in that I had plenty of free time to engage in my addiction to politics. I was blogging and on the forums daily. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">One day, the conversation turned to Hillary. I think she had just done her "vast right-wing conspiracy" interview. One of my friends said "I hate her." Startled, I asked why. Her response shouldn't have surprised me, but I was when she said that Hillary lied, had a fake marriage, and essentially was there to provide cover for Bill. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">We remained friends, even after I expressed my two main beliefs regarding the Clintons. First, no one knows what goes on inside a marriage except the two people involved, and two, whatever arrangements they might or might not have, were none of our business. I went on to add that unless he was actually sexually harassing or assaulting women (which we eventually knew he did not), any questions about Bill or Hillary's sex life were inappropriate.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The inevitable questions about character came up. I am still puzzled that my belief that morality is about how you treat others and not what your sexual habits are or how often you go to church is considered to be a fringe attitude but there it is.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">And so now we have Hillary, a competent attorney who became First Lady, first of a state, then the nation. With more experience than many who seek or hold those offices, she ran for and won a senate seat. Had she remained in the Senate, she would likely have been re-elected. When she ran for president, many complained--in fact John McCain touted her lack of experience as a reason not to vote for her--that she wasn't qualified.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Although not a huge Hillary fan, Obama's decision to nominate her to be his Secretary of State was inspired. By so doing, he ensured that he would not have to face her again in his re-election campaign. That she turned out to be a really good SOS was a bonus. Sure she was political and sure she likely made decisions that were politically advantageous to her. But seriously. Why are people so surprised when politicians make political decisions?</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Whatever the worth of the Libya policy, or who was its chief architect, the fact remains that we had a Libyan policy, obviously supported by the President, That led to the conditions which placed four men ar risk. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">What the 7.5 investigations into what happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2011 have found, is that the security was inadequate to protect them and that in the first hours and days following the attacks, information was slow to arrive, confusing, and chaotic. Or as Hillary said, the fog of war.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Yesterday, after 11 hours of attempts by a Republican congress to blame, Hillary ultimately showed that there really is nothing new under the sun, and that the American people were able to see very clearly a strong, capable woman who holds up phenominally well under pressure. What we saw was a group of white men badgering a woman, two women who tried to prove her callous and unfeeling because she didn't demonstrate sufficient concern--by their definition--and through it all, someone who showed with her poise, words, and emotion that she cared very much, but did not let that command her duties to the country. Had she become emotional over the threats to her friends, set aside all other concerns of state to mourn them, she would have shown us that she is not capable of leadership. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Believe it or not, I have not yet decided who I support for president--except to say it will be whoever is the Democratic nominee--but yesterday, the GOP gave a tremendous gift to the country as they showed us how qualified and capable Hillary is to be president.</span></div></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">k</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-74189765948292721502015-08-06T16:34:00.000-07:002015-08-06T16:34:16.876-07:00GOP DebatesWell. Anyone else paying attention to the GOP debates? We're at least 6 months out from the first primaries and I think only the most dedicated are paying attention. Seeing some of the polling suggests that people respond to what is most familiar, who has made the most noise or headlined the news. Unfortunately, even when we get closer, many people (most?) will vote based on party affiliation, who they react to emotionally, or some vague, non-specific reason. So far, I'm not seeing much difference between any of the GOP pool, even Trump is toeing the party line even if somewhat crudely. It will be interesting.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-72218536971352292242015-06-05T13:05:00.000-07:002015-06-05T13:05:07.468-07:00AvatarsHaving been away from this blog for quite awhile I've been going back through some of my old posts and re-reading comments made.
I was surprised at the reactions to my avatar of all things. Silly on a "serious" blog. Pretending to be young and thin. Obviously young so obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Readers trying to figure out my message in why I chose it.
One of my favorite bloggers used for years, a pair of yellow rubber boots as her avatar and many, use none. Trying to remember my thinking when I chose that image, I think I was just trying to use it as a caricature. I do have long brown hair that usually looks like that and I frequently wear suits. I even wear glasses and I have to say, when Sarah Palin came on the scene, I seriously considered cutting my hair - but I'm lazy when it comes to hair and this is the easiest style there is.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying, seriously?
This blog isn't about me except in the sense that I am offering my educated opinions. What I look like shouldn't be a factor and my avatar is just a touch of whimsy. If I remember, the program I used came with a male or female form, I just added features, colors, etc.
So, a response to the various questions about my avatar. What I'd really like though, is for commente about my content.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-71628086384573018482015-06-04T22:49:00.000-07:002015-06-04T22:49:38.434-07:00Checking InLately, I seem to be responding to things in the news -- or should I say media -- in a way I haven't in awhile. I've been focused on writing other than blogging, but there is just so much going on. The presidential campaigns are getting off the ground, McCain et al is trying to sell off an Apache holy site, the divide between fundamentalist Christians and everyone else becomes ever wider, and climate change is above the fold once again. this is just a belated check in but will begin actual posts tomorrow.
Thanks for stopping by.Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-43492208122476110592014-10-31T19:04:00.000-07:002014-10-31T19:04:31.130-07:00Happy HalloweenHappy Halloween. As I sit here, waiting for the doorbell to ring with the next wave of trick-or-treaters and trying to think what to write about as Nanowrimo begins at 12:01, I realize that I haven't posted in longer than I can remember.
Every now & then, Liz & Dick rear their heads & I am tempted to post another Dear Liz article, but they disappear off media radar almost as quickly as they appear so as yet, I've kept my peace.
Just a quick note this time. Thanks for stopping by.Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-88159304669140233662013-12-28T14:02:00.000-08:002013-12-28T14:02:26.426-08:00WhewWhew. My brief hiatus from blogging has become much more than brief. Working odd hours in a job requiring intense concentration & focus leads to lots of lazy evenings & weekends when putting fingers to keyboard one more time is beyond me. But, my Christmas present this year is this amazing MacBook Air which I am enjoying although I have always been a PC user - & yes, there is a learning curve. Any writing I've done since my last post has been editing or work-related, so my need to create is bubbling up. A certain frustration in BOTH sides of government, a sense of going in circles, & thone occasional need to take a break from the insanity that is our country has left me less inclined to comment. Unfortunately, I have only to turn on the news, pick up a paper, or log on to one of my favorite online news sources, & it's impossible not to have an opinion. So, my resolution is to reactivate this blog & try to continue adding my voice to the conversation.
Thanks for stopping by. See you soon.
Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-70093818664326168442011-03-12T13:15:00.000-08:002011-03-12T13:15:38.095-08:00Life Happened...No, I have not fallen off the face of the earth nor have I stopped blogging. Life has a habit of happening, even if you've made other plans, and I have gone through significant changes in my life in the past couple of months.<br />
<br />
As most of you are aware, I have been looking for a "real" job that will help pay the bills. Much as writing feeds my soul, it doesn't do much for the bank account, unfortunately. My two novels are far from ready to submit for publication, and I believe that it is important to be on top of the news of the day if I am going to blog.<br />
<br />
To my great relief, I now have a job. Time clock, paycheck, and everything. Sadly, it's not full-time, yet, however, as soon as the census increases, so will my hours. Ironically, I am working at a place that I have never applied to. A little frustrating considering how many resumes and applications I have sent out over the past couple of years! I've been on the internet job sites and frequently received inquiries from companies interested in my business background, but none from places that would allow me to work in my profession. Then out of the blue, I get a phone call from a company who saw my resume and asked me to come in for an interview. Several interviews later, and a couple of months beyond what I might have expected (and so had written them off), I get a call asking me to start work in 2 days. Needless to say, I frantically got myself together, rescheduled appointments, and went to work. My "part-time" job was actually full-time until last week as I was in training and helping cover a workload shortage, but hopefully within a couple of months, I will work full-time for real.<br />
<br />
My hours are insane (I have to get up at 3am to arrive on time) and then I got sick, so slept all the hours I was not actually working. It is just this past week that I have started to adjust physically, to the point that I feel human this weekend for the first time in forever, it seems. <br />
<br />
So, I'm back on board. I have kept up with the news and had several posts going in my mind, but the news changed so fast and was, quite frankly, overwhelming in the complexity and variety of subjects to write about that I decided to wait until I could give my posts my full attention.<br />
<br />
Right now, I am following the situation in Wisconsin, Japan, and the related damage to coastal California and other locations. Every time I think John Boehner can't say anything stupider, he opens his mouth and proves me wrong. Sarah Palin disappeared, briefly, but is back ensuring that we all remember how truly ignorant and classless she really is. Gabrielle Giffords is healing remarkably and I am in awe as I compare her to other patients I have worked with who experienced a traumatic brain injury. I am beginning to wonder if there was some grand, Democratic scheme to let the Republicans have the House at the mid-terms to ensure a resounding victory in 2012 for the Democrats and the President. If not, they (Republicans) are certainly behaving as if they hope to lose in 2012. <br />
<br />
I have heard from some of you, and periodically receive comments written months ago, likely the result of a Google search. What are you talking about today? What's at the top of your list for discussion? How do you feel about Sarah Palin's latest comments? The actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin? Any other items in the news that need some additional commentary? <br />
<br />
Let me know and I will be blogging again. <br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-32582387063408170532011-01-12T13:23:00.000-08:002011-01-12T13:23:42.581-08:00Jarod Loughner IS A Schizophrenic With Paranoid Tendencies, And Sarah Palin? Fail.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7P0bu3VQOUBH0UHQgj12z-S7stfP70_VQK_h5o4e5TnEQQNepc_pAA4ZjGnzQZzg0On_gLYHs2Rd7R4RsqbyMS9CQpJziRBDaqHv20G4oAkDBXVHY-sd1jLzsEzpMrhntzlU6uxBs4KMD/s1600/STRNAGER-REMIX.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7P0bu3VQOUBH0UHQgj12z-S7stfP70_VQK_h5o4e5TnEQQNepc_pAA4ZjGnzQZzg0On_gLYHs2Rd7R4RsqbyMS9CQpJziRBDaqHv20G4oAkDBXVHY-sd1jLzsEzpMrhntzlU6uxBs4KMD/s400/STRNAGER-REMIX.jpg" width="303" /></a></div><br />
I've been saying, since the horrific events of last Saturday, that it was too soon to characterize the shooter as having schizophrenia with paranoid tendencies. While I have also said it is likely that mental illness is involved, no one could actually diagnose without actually speaking with the shooter. I was in error, however, in stating that no reputable mental health professional would diagnose without more information and direct contact with the subject. Dr. E. Fuller Torrey has made that diagnosis and claims that he has sufficient information from the limited writings and YouTube videos available. He also noted the flattened affect displayed in the photo that we have all seen, which I thought was a pretty big signal of schizophrenia (one of the features that we look for is inappropriate affect - smiling at the wrong time for example). I am pleased that one of the leading experts on schizophrenia validates my opinion that it is only a tiny percentage of persons with that illness who exhibit violent tendencies, and his agreement that it is past behavior and substance abuse that are more likely indicators. What <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/jared_loughner/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/01/11/jared_loughner_paranoid_schizophrenia_and_why&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110">Dr. E. Fuller Torrey</a> explains, is that it is the content of the delusions that is important in someone with schizophrenia, in this case, the paranoia. Dr. Torrey says that Saturday's shooter is a "textbook case" of paranoid schizophrenia (the formal diagnosis would be schizophrenia, paranoid type, and then what type of paranoia). This doctor knows far more than I ever will on the subject, so I defer to his judgment.<br />
<br />
When interviewing someone who has delusions, and claims to hear voices, the first question I ask, is "what do the voices say?" Command hallucinations, as we call them, are those in which the 'voices' tell the individual to do something. Frequently, someone with hallucinations that involve hearing voices will describe conversations going on in their head that are 'about' them or 'to' them, usually in ways that diminish self-esteem, but a 'command' hallucination is dangerous in that the only way the individual has to make it stop, is to follow through with the commands given. Any mental health professional encountering someone with command hallucinations will immediately take notice and seek to determine what the commands say. One of the very few instances in which we can break confidentiality, is when the individual is a danger to themselves of to others whom we can identify. Someone with paranoid features to their schizophrenia and who is in an active phase, will have delusions that include the idea that others are trying to do something to them (insert thoughts into their brain, listen to their thoughts, or control them in some way). Evidently, Jarod Loughner believed that the government was trying to control his grammar--a quite unusual fear and definitely evidence of paranoia. <br />
<br />
What is very sad about this whole incident, is that it shines a light on the lack of mental health care in this country. Several Republicans in the past couple of days have stated, quite strongly, that the problem is not political rhetoric, but rather the lack of mental health care. I am puzzled by these comments as they are in complete contrast to the Republican desire to repeal the current health care legislation, and mental health care is one of those dreaded social services that conservatives love to deride. Perhaps after this, they will re-think their derision of government-funded health care.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkKmTJD0GjZwNHt9zA94FT53gfM4x_anHDG-MJAHoKhVaWqcNuT1mn5WeYVsa8RacXX4LDSQr9J0MDfLtJ6hAX5u7NYR9zCkWV9wCepOA-w1F3GQFF4q1ApBpGln-R3FVSP0fPHwiN23i2/s1600/sarah-palin-blood-libel-statement-thumb-290xauto-20679.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkKmTJD0GjZwNHt9zA94FT53gfM4x_anHDG-MJAHoKhVaWqcNuT1mn5WeYVsa8RacXX4LDSQr9J0MDfLtJ6hAX5u7NYR9zCkWV9wCepOA-w1F3GQFF4q1ApBpGln-R3FVSP0fPHwiN23i2/s1600/sarah-palin-blood-libel-statement-thumb-290xauto-20679.jpg" /></a></div><br />
This morning, Sarah Palin released a video with her statement regarding the blame that seems to have attached to her since Saturday's shootings. She says that she has spent the past few days in reflection, and we are given to understand that she is releasing this statement in response to her puzzlement at the (unstated) left's desire to "apportion blame." Not wanting to accept any blame, she makes this video. You'll note that she has chosen to appear in a dark blazer, a flag pin that is not her usual crystal embellished pin, and in front of a fireplace (read "Fireside Chat"). Very presidential. It is clear that she has either read my posts on her body language or finally begun to listen to her advisors as her poll numbers drop as she rarely displayed her usual "tells" to give away her complete disdain for having to give this speech. Had not the intertubes and Twitter not been full of comments about her deafening silence, I am sure that she would remain silent still. What is remarkable about the following comments, is that, as said by many others, she missed an opportunity to appear bigger than she is, presidential even. If she has been watching the cable shows other than Fox, she would have taken note of the many pieces of advice about what she should do, what she should say, and what would immediately dilute all the negative reaction that she has been getting. Obviously, she did not.<br />
<br />
I agree that Saturday's events are not directly her fault, but I do believe that she is one of those holding primary responsibility--the others being Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck--for the level of vitriol that passes for politics today in this country. Whether or not politics has anything to do with Saturday's events has not been determined, however, it <i>has </i>been determined that Loughner hated Congresswoman Giffords and that she was his primary target. How can the attempted assassination of a political figure not be political?<br />
<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><i>"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy. </i></blockquote><blockquote><i>I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic's core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day. </i></blockquote><blockquote><i>There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. <span style="color: red;">[And it took her three days for her scriptwriters to come up with something for her to say to undo her first, unscripted remarks and to counter the blow-back from Glenn Beck's reading of purported emails from her] </span>President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." <span style="color: red;">[Unfortunately, while he did say these words, the context was that he was arguing against providing any social services to the inner cities] </span>Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, <span style="color: red;">[Although the left does not use maps with gun sights accompanied by her favorite slogan, "Don't retreat--reload"] </span>not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election. <span style="color: red;">[And just because something is legal means of course, that it is the right thing to do]</span></i></blockquote><blockquote><i>The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country's future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. <span style="color: red;">[well, not exactly] </span>In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power <span style="color: red;">[?!? transition of power? sorry hon, just the House, so not really a 'true' transition of power] </span> proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. <span style="color: red;">[Which I have abused by telling lies] </span>And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. <span style="color: red;">[What is reprehensible is using a term 'blood libel' that has a very specific history in Judaism and is offensive when the primary victim on Saturday, Congresswoman Giffords, is Jewish. And manufacture? Just the word is incendiary in itself, connoting as it does conspiracy on the part of (whom?) to stir things up] [And once again, she contradicts herself in the same paragraph. First, the crime stands on its own, then somehow, speech can 'incite blood libel?']</span></i></blockquote><blockquote><i>There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. <span style="color: red;">[?] </span>And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren't designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders' genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure. <span style="color: red;">[So you have no desire for an ideal world? If so, you would have stopped the hateful comments shouted out during your campaign rallies as John McCain did, or at least noted their inappropriateness in civil, albeit heated, political debate. And this level of rhetoric? It is unique as never before have we had a television station devoted 24/7 to promulgating lies in aid of a political party and ideology. You clearly do not believe your own words, that the crime stands on its own as you regularly claimed that then Senator Obama "palled around with terrorists" and tried (and still do) to claim guilt by association for all your opponents]</span></i></blockquote><blockquote><i>As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we 'take up our arms', we're talking about our vote." <span style="color: red;">[Funny, this was when your gunsight map generated controversy and Congresswoman Giffords went on MSNBC to tell you that words have consequences. Just sayin] </span>Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional. </i></blockquote><blockquote><i>No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults. <span style="color: red;">[Oh wow. This, from the Queen of Thin Skin! But I forgot, in Sarahworld, the 1st Amendment is about protecting her and political figures FROM the press, so muzzling the voices that call her to account is okay, but limiting hate speech is not?] </span></i><br />
<i>Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply "symbolic," as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred <span style="color: red;">[No Sarah. It is not 'sacred.' This is a secular country and our founding documents are not sacred.] </span>charter of liberty was more than just "symbolic." But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. <span style="color: red;">[Hmmm. Where were you when all the members of your party sat on their hands as Bush and Cheney raped the Constitution?]</span></i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God's guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. <span style="color: red;">[Would that it were mindless] </span>We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.</i><br />
<i>- Sarah Palin"</i></blockquote></blockquote><br />
My takeaway from all of this, is that once again, it is all about Sarah. Were she not vilified in the "liberal" press for her (granted, small) part in all of this, we know that she would have injected herself into the conversation anyway (and likely much sooner). She could have, as so many have said, taken the high road and apologized for the inappropriateness of her gunsight map (especially as Congresswoman Giffords herself commented on it at the time of its release and was concerned) and done so while still saying that she was not at fault. I don't think I have heard anyone blame Sarah Palin directly for Saturday's events and it is impossible to form direct cause-effect links, however, just the fact that she found it necessary to 1) have the website taken down immediately, 2) have her mouthpiece try to claim that the symbols on the map were surveying marks rather than gunsights (when she talked constantly about reloading and asked people to go see the map?), and 3) had the email exchange with Glenn Beck in which she complained about people using this as a reason to criticize her suggests that she knows she bears some responsibility for the level of hate present in this country today. The fact that politics has always been heated and that this was nothing new (although I disagree) does not mean that she shouldn't use her position to attempt to improve things.We will always have people on the extreme fringes of our society, people vulnerable to suggestion, whose locus of control is external so looking for someone to blame for their problems. Providing them the trigger to act is the height of irresponsibility and not in the least presidential.<br />
<br />
No, as usual, Sarah Palin had to play the victim once again, make this about her, and try to turn it into a political opportunity. The one thing I am confident of, is that in this she has failed.<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-32684585446659865962011-01-10T15:58:00.000-08:002011-01-10T15:58:48.257-08:00Violence Does Not Automatically Equate to SchizophreniaIt's likely that the shooter of Saturday has a mental illness. It is even possible that he has schizophrenia, possibly with paranoid features. But, there is no evidence that he has ever received that diagnosis and if he has, it would be illegal for any medical professional to say so.<br />
<br />
Actually, the first medical professional to speak to the subject of the subject's mental health is Rand Paul, the self-certified ophthalmologist recently elected to the Senate. He stated on Sunday morning that he had seen the shooter's writings and determined that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. First, not likely, second, get real.<br />
<br />
If the legal community in Tucson had possession of the shooter's writings, it is unlikely that a junior Senator from another state would have had access to them. Even a mental health professional would be unwilling and/or unlikely to make a formal diagnosis without assessing the individual (and at that point, the shooter was not talking to law enforcement), and if they were willing to make a guess, would not couch it in those terms. If they did guess, they would use the appropriate, current, terminology which is not paranoid schizophrenic. If anyone has had access to any writings, it is certain that no diagnosis would have been made by Sunday morning from them alone. <br />
<br />
It is too bad that mental health is a subject that continues to carry such a huge stigma in this country. People who are experiencing a mental illness are often unwilling or unable to seek help because of this stigma. Often times, families are unwilling to recognize the need, or unable to afford treatment. In homes with high religiosity in particular, the need for intervention is often denied. Just pray it away, in other words. <br />
<br />
During the recent economic downturns, local mental health facilities have seen their budgets decimated. I reached a point in which my clients could only be seen at the County Mental Health for medication if they had a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Never mind that the most dangerous disorder (to my clients) was depression. At one time, I had six clients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Each had some tendencies towards paranoia, however, they were able to function, to a point. Not one was violent, and studies show that even at the height of a delusional phase, most persons with schizophrenia do not have violent tendencies. Our biggest risk for violence is for persons under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Of course, six clients is not enough to be representative of anything, however, there are numerous studies and meta-analyses that will bear this out. <br />
<br />
I am sure that as the days unfold, that we will discover more and more about the young man who shot the Congresswoman and others. I just think we need to step back before we make statements of fact before we know them. What we do know, is that we can be certain that this was politically motivated (law enforcement has said that they have evidence that Congresswoman Giffords was the target) although we have no idea if the shooter was a member of any group or party. My bias is that he was probably a right-wing extremist or at least attracted to that rhetoric, mainly because I have yet to hear a progressive or a Democrat use gun imagery or language, or suggest that their opponents should die, or have their followers show up at events wearing guns. Just sayin.<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-37179487052913470732011-01-08T13:16:00.000-08:002011-01-08T14:35:36.458-08:00UPDATED: Sarah Palin Can Now Check Off One Of The Gun Sights On Her MapAs of this time, Congresswoman Giffords of Arizona is out of surgery and doctors are "very optimistic" for her recovery as she was communicating with her medical team. A nine-year-old child has died, as well as a federal judge. According to the Sheriff's Department, a total of 18 people were injured in the shooting this morning at a constituent meeting event held by Congresswoman Giffords.<br />
<br />
It should be noted, that Sarah Palin and others on Fox News should reserve their false condolences, particularly as this image and similar comments have been, immediately, removed from websites.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYW5Nbf4m49L95POWWHqVsjHtZQMK7OUiD74k6H0NwOLHJe0SktK8Ln-Kux1rveDPuYbwB1F58nBw5145hsh2YfqORkWB-2CqXbbxx7dLoknwp4lMPVNrTuu5nneBdQuPypyHKlXK9Qr7d/s1600/sarah_palin_gunsight_pac.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYW5Nbf4m49L95POWWHqVsjHtZQMK7OUiD74k6H0NwOLHJe0SktK8Ln-Kux1rveDPuYbwB1F58nBw5145hsh2YfqORkWB-2CqXbbxx7dLoknwp4lMPVNrTuu5nneBdQuPypyHKlXK9Qr7d/s640/sarah_palin_gunsight_pac.jpg" width="394" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Image: Courtesy of SarahPAC</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div> Please note the 4th name on the left-hand column.<br />
<br />
On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin said of the shooting, [emphasis added]<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, <b>and for peace and justice</b>."</i></blockquote><br />
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.<br />
<br />
This image may have been removed from her website, however, it should be distributed thoroughly around the web so that anyone who may have missed it, see it.<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
k<br />
<br />
UPDATE:<br />
<br />
Congresswoman Giffords opponent placed this ad prior to the election:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRgVwl3ydPad-zfPxThqsll3cFB9mXDcPnucbVcSFzcFOC-NPbZy9HlfDHmgBSsE6nP9ObXQLetblVu1ca5ANn-sLHxxZ7LUk8EyLliUV928yx_zWWZDi2T3pkaiOx6U7v8meFrUURWjGV/s1600/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0133f0e5916a970b-800wi.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRgVwl3ydPad-zfPxThqsll3cFB9mXDcPnucbVcSFzcFOC-NPbZy9HlfDHmgBSsE6nP9ObXQLetblVu1ca5ANn-sLHxxZ7LUk8EyLliUV928yx_zWWZDi2T3pkaiOx6U7v8meFrUURWjGV/s640/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0133f0e5916a970b-800wi.png" width="338" /></a></div>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-20137544116802003382011-01-05T17:42:00.000-08:002011-01-05T17:42:53.792-08:00Back to Work & Looking Forward<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxHr3qDUPDQC_Xo_bOo9-qCQ5jdso_qWFT79Va6YKxCuaDAoIs0d63v8mV-Hs_SBfhpQUBQemediYXiM3DY-F8GiMz3tm1WkZfUDMHw3GvG3PhyR8qn8ei5UXHPcPf_dnlRjjfd0Vj3LV/s1600/38minutes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtxHr3qDUPDQC_Xo_bOo9-qCQ5jdso_qWFT79Va6YKxCuaDAoIs0d63v8mV-Hs_SBfhpQUBQemediYXiM3DY-F8GiMz3tm1WkZfUDMHw3GvG3PhyR8qn8ei5UXHPcPf_dnlRjjfd0Vj3LV/s320/38minutes.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Image: 38minutes</span></div><br />
I apologize for the absence of any new posts for a couple of weeks. I hope that you all had a wonderful holiday and managed to get where you wanted to go and survive any weather in the process.<br />
<br />
I was traveling, by car, and my 3G network was more often 1G in remote areas where I spent most of my time. I found that often, high-speed wireless offered in hotels is more like dial-up, so my ability to access the net was severely limited. <br />
<br />
So, we start a new year and a new Congress. I think we are in for some truly interesting times and I look forward to continued discussions of the antics of Sarah Palin, the Republicans, and the punditry and villagers who try to tell us what to think.<br />
<br />
I was struck yesterday by a comment made by Michele Bachmann in which she said (and I paraphrase) that the classes that she was organizing for the House to teach them the Constitution would enhance their purpose, which was to learn and study the Constitution each week while in session. Funny. I would expect that my representatives already have a good understanding of the Constitution and quite frankly, their purpose is not to learn and study the Constitution, but rather to apply it. Their job is to legislate, which means write law. Period. <br />
<br />
Justice Scalia is in the news today for his comments about the Constitution, particularly his thoughts on the equality of women (not in the Constitution in his opinion). He is noted for saying that being a justice is easy, because the Constitution is so easy to understand and apply. Makes me wonder why we need him.<br />
<br />
Keith Olbermann noted on his show tonight that progressives are actually quite pleased that the Republicans have decided to read the Constitution into the Congressional Record. Perhaps by reading it out loud, they will discover those amendments that they try to ignore (or perhaps do not even know) and also discover where they are wrong. <br />
<br />
Still trying to get caught up so may be a little light on the posts for a bit, but I'm sure there will be no shortage of topics to discuss.<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-17822460672657290712010-12-17T18:11:00.000-08:002010-12-17T18:11:26.073-08:00Study Shows Fox Viewers Most Likely to Believe MisinformationThis may not be a surprise to anyone, but I appreciate when scientific studies support what I have always thought to be true. A <a href="http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=">study</a> recently completed by World Public Opinion based at the University of Maryland found that voters are misinformed at a substantial level and that Fox News viewers in particular, are most likely to believe misinformation. After the Citizens United decision which enabled corporate contributions to political campaigns to increase, the researchers wanted to discover whether the level of misinformation disseminated to voters had increased and if so, whether or not it was effective (to be effective, it must be believed).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwgsoAQoDiLH2VHkObhcWXXnt_2rMUvBmLx5Y2EnZ3ZFjc0d9Tp9M41PI6S68Z_8U1q1RSE4V5qV6UUHys0LHnm15ApAZKLJKUKiWZS2NVE9rYlLSsvL_h3z2Fx38ZtuMQQW70gSzEVYbX/s1600/Misinformation_Dec10_graph1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwgsoAQoDiLH2VHkObhcWXXnt_2rMUvBmLx5Y2EnZ3ZFjc0d9Tp9M41PI6S68Z_8U1q1RSE4V5qV6UUHys0LHnm15ApAZKLJKUKiWZS2NVE9rYlLSsvL_h3z2Fx38ZtuMQQW70gSzEVYbX/s1600/Misinformation_Dec10_graph1.jpg" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Image: jugbo</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Some of the results are remarkable. I know that I stopped watching network broadcasts because most of what I was hearing was either incorrect, incomplete, or slanted in favor of the Republicans, but unless people are willing to devote a lot of time to the quest for information, cable or network news is probably their best best for political news. Using data gathered by government agencies who are generally believed to be non-partisan, questions about issues of the day were asked. <br />
<br />
A few findings include:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><i>Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the <b>stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs</b>, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.</i></li>
<li><i>Though the CBO concluded that the <b>health reform law would reduce the budget deficit</b>, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.</i></li>
<li><i>Though the Department of Commerce says that <b>the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then</b>, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.</i></li>
<li><i>Though <b>the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring</b>, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).</i></li>
</ul>For people who watched Fox News, the results were to be expected. They were:<br />
<ul><li><i>12 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill caused job losses</i></li>
<li><i>31 points more likely to believe that the health care law would worsen the deficit</i></li>
<li><i>26 points more likely to believe that the economy is getting worse</i></li>
<li><i>30 points more likely to believe that there is no climate change occurring </i></li>
<li><i>14 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill did not contain any tax cuts</i></li>
<li><i>14 points more likely to believe that their own income taxes have increased </i>[we actually paid the lowest amount in 60 years]</li>
<li><i>13 points more likely to believe that the auto bailout was an Obama initiative</i></li>
<li><i>12 points more likely to believe that most of the Republicans were against TARP</i></li>
<li><i>31 points more likely to believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.</i></li>
</ul>The most remarkable point above, is not the distance between what a Fox News viewer is likely to believe compared to someone who receives their news from other sources, but that party identification did not seem to matter. Democrats were just as likely to believe misinformation if they were regular Fox viewers.<br />
<br />
When the results of this study were released, Fox News senior vice president for news Michael Clemente responded by stating that the University of Maryland was highly ranked as a school for Students Who Study the Least, and being the Best Party School (it is actually one of the highest ranked state universities in the east) and therefore, "<i>...given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with...</i>" It should be noted, that rather than dispute the <i>findings </i>of the study, Fox chose to attack the study itself. This is a classic strawman <a href="http://kyrafrost.blogspot.com/p/fallacies.html">fallacy</a> as Clemente creates something to attack to deflect attention from the issue.<br />
<br />
I see as I finish this that Countdown did a segment on this report and I've seen a few tweets about it, but the whole article is well worth a read. I didn't think it would get this much attention or I would probably not have written this, but it's nice to have something I've believed validated by scientific research.<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-46333592512521316262010-12-08T19:22:00.000-08:002010-12-08T19:22:00.052-08:00Imagine. EnjoyA moment of Zen. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2xB4dbdNSXY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2xB4dbdNSXY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Kyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-61213166883096635502010-12-05T21:44:00.000-08:002010-12-05T21:44:16.256-08:00Liz Cheney Demands President Do...What He Is Doing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2BOrf3jNScwl_IxUMQanYCsM76Gf0a8uHaI7zChY9HhKHS041i6uv3TvEv587GX1iA35hkfTTitK75aQuPQnZcG6MFaH-l4CEqw0de05eQBeas_pkXbdwgikwTZZZ_hgFd0WpxcjwtRzT/s1600/liz+and+nukes+question+rantsfromtherookery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2BOrf3jNScwl_IxUMQanYCsM76Gf0a8uHaI7zChY9HhKHS041i6uv3TvEv587GX1iA35hkfTTitK75aQuPQnZcG6MFaH-l4CEqw0de05eQBeas_pkXbdwgikwTZZZ_hgFd0WpxcjwtRzT/s400/liz+and+nukes+question+rantsfromtherookery.jpg" width="389" /></a></div><br />
Liz, Liz, Liz. Every time you go on the Sunday talks, you say something breathtakingly stupid and I get to write another post suggesting, again, that you give it up and go home. I have no idea why you are given air time, but considering the state of news in this country -- and I mean the networks as well as Fox -- there is not much useful said on Sunday mornings (or weekday evenings for that matter). I have studied, among other things, history, political science, economics, psychology, all of the schools, theories, and techniques of counseling, am considered a qualified witness on the ADA, and followed politics in this country since Richard Nixon. I was even a Navy wife. Do I feel qualified to judge President Obama's decisions on Afghanistan? I believe I have as much education and experience in the work world as you (we were both mid-level managers of comparably sized units in the public sector), plus I was actually a military wife. But, no. I have an opinion rooted in my pacifism, but if I were invited to appear on a talk show to discuss defense policy, I would have to respectfully decline. Nor am I qualified to discuss decisions made in my father's field despite many, many dinner-table conversations. But, you've learned how to make a living trying to whitewash your father's history, so I am sure you will continue to present yourself as a foreign policy, terrorism expert. <br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></b><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Appearing on <i>Fox News Sunday </i>today, you inserted both feet into your mouth when you angrily demanded that President Obama do exactly...what he is doing.</b></span></div>After giving your oh so thoughtful approval for his visit to the troops, you said: [emphasis added]<br />
<blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"You know, what I'd like to see-because I do believe that setting the 2011 deadline did cause significant damage to the effort, in terms of convincing people that we're committed to be there to win-I'd like to see the president repudiate it. <b>I'd like to see him say, "Just let's be clear: We are going to make our decisions based on conditions on the ground, not based on dates we set back here in Washington."</b></i></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"...It's important for the Pakistanis to hear that as well, so that they understand it is not in their interest at all to help to support, provide safe havens to the extent that the Taliban has safe havens in Pakistan. That message is a critically important one, and <b>I'd like to see the president say "conditions-based," not just "deadline set."</b></i></div></blockquote>What is interesting, is that although I personally would prefer that the President bring the troops home, I understand that he is trying to clean up your father's messes. Typical of the extremist right, you have just plucked words out of the air to create an argument, the support for your argument, and the necessary actions to reach a satisfactory conclusion.<br />
<br />
On August 31, 2010, President Obama gave a speech in which he said: [emphasis added]<br />
<blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"... next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. <b>The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground</b>, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin-because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."</i></div></blockquote>Discussing the additional troops that he was sending, he said: [emphasis added]<br />
<blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"...these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. <b>Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground</b>." </i></div></blockquote>I think most of us would like all of the troops to come home, and the money that is being spent instead go to restore social programs here in this country and pay back the debt incurred by your father and George W. But, your father wanted war and along with W, ignored Bin Laden to go settle a grudge and start a war that had been planned since the early 1990's. Then, realizing their mistake, moved into Afghanistan and tried to solve the problems that we created. So you don't like how things are going? Neither do I. But next time, pay attention before opening your mouth. You look foolish.<br />
<br />
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon. (h/t Media Matters)<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067347124350913735.post-21817543005145273792010-12-01T14:37:00.000-08:002010-12-01T14:37:45.665-08:00Me, Me, Me! It's All About Me! Look At Me! Me!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSsZxDYybooIYQahjXYmxMwCcQ91oPmhcRYM4djm309VNxETE-cEK0rj895-IWZj4cLqLqE4mWotbUe_ekK5shE-1BTwCkmo0oPZZflxiaGmf5H5gqw6ZOIX8oR49VO_shPyucw0IVjSV9/s1600/Webicon+Palin.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSsZxDYybooIYQahjXYmxMwCcQ91oPmhcRYM4djm309VNxETE-cEK0rj895-IWZj4cLqLqE4mWotbUe_ekK5shE-1BTwCkmo0oPZZflxiaGmf5H5gqw6ZOIX8oR49VO_shPyucw0IVjSV9/s400/Webicon+Palin.png" width="270" /></a></div><br />
If this were a television show, the ratings would be huge, we'd all make sure we were sitting there on our Barcaloungers each week, popcorn in hand, waiting for the next episode of the Sarah Palin Me, Me, Me show. Everything out of her mouth contradicts not only what she said a day, week, month, or year before, but often contradicts what she has said several <i>sentences </i>before. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not a television show. This is our life as we watch our country disintegrate around us and the ignorant folk who have previously always felt somewhat ashamed of their high school or community college only education, or lack of a high-powered, important career, can now wave signs and <i>be </i>somebody because, hey, ignorance is cool!<br />
<br />
Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against people without advanced degrees or any degree at all for that matter. In fact, I was that person with a GED and some college who managed to rise to a mid-level management job, then take those skills and run two successful small businesses for a number of years before I was finally able to attend college and get through graduate school. It would have been better had I led a more conventional life as I have discovered in this economy that most employers consider self-employment for women worthless, and when offered young brand new graduates without experience or older brand new graduates with all kinds of experience but not a lot in their new field, they invariably pick the young ones. Whatever. My point, is that I am not including myself in any particular group, but I am comfortable saying that many people--including, I would imagine, many Palin supporters--are secretly jealous of those who were able to attend really good schools, earn professional degrees, and privately ashamed that they don't understand all of the nuances of economics, foreign affairs, or even national or state politics because of their lack of education. That particular attitude drives me crazy, because people psych themselves out of learning these things because of their lack of formal education. I have been involved in politics for years, and well understood nuance because I took the trouble to educate myself about issues I cared about.<br />
<br />
Then, along comes someone like Sarah Palin. Out for the main chance, angry at the world (why, we don't know), who somehow manages to be in the right place at the right time. Defensive because she is put in a position of looking ignorant (and excuse me, a governor who climbs on a state airplane to fly to a conference or meeting and takes as her reading matter a People magazine rather than a briefing book has no excuse) and exhibits her one strong talent. Turning her negatives into positives and convincing people with a wink and a sparkle, a twitch of the mini, that up is down and left is right. One wonders what she will do when plastic surgery is, inevitably, no longer an option? Her appeal is emotional, not logical, and thus extremely difficult to counteract.<br />
<br />
The funny thing about emotions and feelings is that they don't always make sense. We've been taught to understand that feelings don't have to make sense, they just are. This is true, but a bit simplistic. Depression just "is," as is anger, fear, and in some, paranoia and panic. Sure, there are often reasons, but not always reasons that we can understand. These are all emotions that are natural and normal, part of the human condition, but can also be destructive if they interfere with the function of everyday life. Fortunately, we know how to treat these feelings and help people manage them in such a way as to live a better life. That said, because we understand how to help people manage them, we also know how to manipulate them. Great salespeople learn how to work their contact to close the deal, and believe me, psychology is integral to the workings of a good salesperson. Politicians learn how to discover what people want, and make sure they say what people want to hear. If you listen carefully, most pols rarely actually answer a question, but rather answer something else that will get out the message that is important to them in that moment in time. People trained to receive information in short bursts but who have <i>not </i>been trained to be critical thinkers, will often, especially if they like the politician, feel as if someone is finally listening to them.Their good impression of the speaker is reinforced because, hey, they listened to me, they answered me, they care about me.<br />
<br />
When we make a decision based on emotion, it is not usually a good one, but it is always a decision that we become attached to on a personal level, so let go of with difficulty. Sarah Palin works these emotions to bring people to her side, and keep them there. Her use of Facebook notes to communicate her rants--and that's what they are--allows her followers to feel as if they are part of something because they can comment. The fact that negative comments are deleted immediately tells those whose comments are retained that they have been approved for membership into this club, which reinforces their belief that if they are special, then she is special. It is a mutual admiration society that unfortunately, is one-sided. Sarah Palin does not care about her followers. They are useful to her, but if she truly cared, then she would be concerned about actually making their lives better.<br />
<br />
How do I know that she does not care about making their lives better? Her record. It's not secret. She left her job of mayor with the town millions of dollars further in debt than when she started. She had barely been elected when she spent $50,000 to redecorate her office (and she claims to love second-hand clothes). As governor, when villagers were having to make choices between food or freezing to death, rather than declare an emergency, she took them cookies (and took the cookies to a different village so that she would not have to actually face those who were desperate). Rather than focus on the job of governing, she spent her time retaliating against those who bad-mouthed her. Journalists who asked her basic questions, that should be expected for anyone running for office, especially national office, were accused of attacking her and she retains that vendetta to this day. <br />
<br />
Most disturbing, is that in the rise of the astroturfed tea-party movement, she caters to their anti-government mood by deriding the government--especially the President--at every opportunity. Never mind that she has nothing useful to contribute, every event must receive a comment from her. Every action taken by the President receives a "gentle" chiding on what he should have done or what she would have done in his place. In her latest book, "America By Heart," she tells people that everyone needs a "First Dude." She says that had they won the 2008 election, she would not have balanced anything [family and job] because had they won, they [she and Todd] would have done the White House like they did everything else, as a team. She still thinks that she lost the election to President Obama. I hate to be the one to tell her, but she did not. Sen. McCain lost the election. She may well have been a contributing factor, but she was really just along for the ride and actually, would have lived in the Naval Observatory, not the White House. I could go on and on, and on, but you get the point.<br />
<br />
Lately, I think that she may have turned a corner and gone too far. It is one thing to be critical of policy decisions whether she understands them or not. People understand that she is planning to run for president in 2012 and that she is building up a library of media sound bytes for the campaign, and floating trial policy balloons. What she is doing lately, however, is attacking people. I think most of her followers understand and expect her to attack the President on a personal level, after all, she has them convinced, with the help of Fox News, that all of the criticism she receives are personal attacks against her. The media criticizes Bristol, or rather, the actions of Sarah Palin's followers in regards to Bristol, and therefore, it is open season on Sasha and Meliah Obama. Never mind that Sasha and Melia are young children and Bristol is 20. Never mind that she is a "teen advocate" who has made a number of public appearances which to me, denotes a, I don't know, public figure? I'm not sure why she is also personally attacking Michelle Obama, but she has done that in the past, in fact, she is recycling attacks from the 2008 campaign, probably because there is nothing else to say. The difference between her children and the Obama children is immense, but she cannot see it. <br />
<br />
Sarah Palin has this ability to conflate issues to support her opinions. Politicians take campaign photos that include their families for a brochure or maybe a commercial, and take them onstage when they declare victory (or defeat), so to Sarah, this is exactly the same as her trotting her children to every campaign event, speaking engagement, or book signing that she attends. As governor, she got into trouble because she insisted on her family attending every event that she did, and in fact, photos of, for example, visiting trade delegations include attendees in appropriate business attire, Sarah in jeans and a windbreaker, and Piper. Very, very few official photos did not include Piper. One wonders if that child ever attended school. We know she did occasionally rather than being home-schooled from the questions she was asked by reporters on the campaign trail. When questions arose about Trigg, she immediately announced that her unmarried, underage daughter was pregnant, then forced her to sit on stage and endure a level of attention that was likely extremely humiliating (remember your teens?).It is not wonder that her detractors accuse her of using her children as props to deflect attention from her flaws or attract attention to her as the perfect mother. Props they are.<br />
<br />
Her latest, and purely to pander to her supporters, is another attack on government overreach and intrusion by "the Feds" as she likes to call them. Teabags are anti-government, so gosh-darn-it, every time the government does anything, Sarah Palin will attack. Michelle Obama is well-known for advocating against childhood obesity and for better diets for all, Sarah Palin has chosen to attack Michelle Obama in her most recent book:<br />
<blockquote><i>"Take her anti-obesity thing that she’s on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And..and..and I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."</i></blockquote>What is amusing, is that while governor, she was not entirely useless. Probably little more than a talking head, as she was when she claimed to be a journalist, in her State of the State speech in 2009, Sarah Palin said: [emphasis added]<br />
<blockquote><i>"Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, <b>but government policy can help."</b></i></blockquote>Chef Kurt Michael Friese <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kurt-friese/sarah-palin-wants-governm_b_788735.html">responded</a> to the exchange with one of the best comments that I've heard:<br />
<blockquote><i>"You see, Mrs. Palin, contrary to what President Reagan once said, government is not the problem, nor is it the solution. Government is a tool, like a hammer. And like a hammer it can be used by people to build things up or tear things down. I would choose the former, and you would choose to throw the hammer out the window."</i></blockquote>Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.<br />
kKyrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08960054079537689148noreply@blogger.com4