It’s coming. It’s coming faster than many people realize and it scares me. On August 2 we as a country default on our loans. We’ll drop 14 (I think) credit ratings. We’ll be on par with Zambia. "Failing to raise the debt ceiling would do irreparable harm to our credit standing, would undermine our ability to lead on global economic issues and would damage our economy," former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
I’m not going into the politics here. However, the very moment we had to break into emergency reserves someone should have thrown the lock on the Capitol Building door and refused to allow a single congress-person out until this was figured out. It is unacceptable to me that with less than two weeks left (in fact barely over one week), the House would be on break this weekend. It is incomprehensible to me that the people who are elected by Americans and paid to represent America’s best interest would decide that when America’s future is at stake is an acceptable time to take a break.
On top of the House breaking this weekend, talks between the Speaker and the President have fallen apart.
“Boehner said he had withdrawn from the talks because the president wanted to raise taxes and was reluctant to agree to cuts in benefit programs.” -MSNBC Yet despite his “reluctance” to cut benefits, it’s done. The agreement made between the two men includes at least some cuts. But as of now, it includes only rollbacks of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, no new taxes. Those new taxes are at the heart of Boehner’s walk out, at least according to him. “Obama has offered more cuts than any other democrat would in an effort to strike a deal, yet the republicans still are playing games. Remember, the sign of a fair deal is one in which neither side gets everything they want. The democrats have offered a deal like that but the party of no (hope) just doesn't get it.” (comment)
Here’s the part that makes me angriest. Not only is the House taking a break this weekend, but Boehner is playing games with the President. “A White House official told NBC News that the president called Boehner on Thursday night, but did not hear back. Then, Friday afternoon, the speaker's office reportedly emailed the White House to say Boehner would be available to talk at 5:30 p.m. ET. The White House called the speaker's office after that email was received to ask if they just talk right then, but his aides reiterated that Boehner would be availabe at 5:30 p.m. ET. It was during that call that the speaker walked away from the talks.” -MSNBC Boehner, we didn’t have time for you to waste a day for your pride. It’s your job, that the American people elected you to, and pay you for, to get this done.
Is this the time to walk away because you don’t agree? Gentlemen, man up and figure it out. No one walks away until this is done.
Showing posts with label history and politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history and politics. Show all posts
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Rock the Vote
You probably know by now that politics are very important to me. It’s not that I need you to agree with me, it’s that I need you to make educated decisions about how my country should be run, and then I need to you to go the polls and make your voice heard. If you can do those two things, no matter if we vote for the same things or not, I can respect you. I personally generally choose to go as above and beyond that as much as possible. I email my congressmen when something important is going on, I receive innumerable emails from the lobbies I care about, and I sign a multitude of petitions that are sent my way. Today a petition crossed my path that I think is important enough that not only did I sign it, I emailed most of my address book, and now I’m posting it here.
Rock the Vote did a study of the voting systems in all 50 states, and the average score was only 41%. That’s a big fat “F”! The highest score in the country was only 68% and too many states are going in the wrong direction.
You’d think that the most basic element of our democracy - the right to vote - would be guaranteed and easy to access for anyone who is 18 and a citizen of this country.
Sadly, this isn’t the case. For a majority of young people around the country, their elected leaders are failing to meet their needs.
We found that states make it unnecessarily confusing to get registered, make voting inconvenient, don’t implement new technologies that are common in every other part of life, and aren’t teaching young people about voting and elections in high schools. This is a recipe for disenfranchisement
Not satisfied with the results (see Illinois results below)? Let your elected officials know by sending them Rock the Vote Voting System Scorecard. (We've made it really easy if you click here.)
The Voting System Scorecard serves as a national benchmark that measures state laws and policies in three key areas: (1) voter registration, (2) casting a ballot and (3) young voter preparation. The 21-point scale evaluates each state’s implementation of policies that increase access to the political process.
Illinois Results
Automatic Registration: 0/3
Permanent and Portable Registration: 0/1
Online Registration: 0/3
Same Day Registration: 0/3
Third Party Registration Drives: 0/1
Registration Score: 0/11
Voter ID Requirements: 2/2
Convenience Voting: 2/2
Residency Requirements: 1/1
Absentee Voting: 1/1
Overseas and Military Voting: .9/1
Voting Score: 6.9/7
High School Civics: 0/2*
Pre-registration: 0/1**
Preparation Score: 0/3
Total Score 6.9/21
Percentage Score: 33%
*I have to note that as a history teacher, this one kills me. This was a pass/fail situation and Illinois passed. A state received 2 points if they taught civics and evaluated student performace and 0 points if they didn’t. That means my state, the state I am trying to teach history in, is inadequate in teaching MY subject matter!
**This one is also important because it really helps enfranchise young adults. The idea is that a student can register to vote at 16 or 17 and have that automatically activate on his or her 18th birthday. The reason this helps enfranchise students is because (1) they are registered to vote on their birthday, meaning that they CAN vote, and there’s no “Shoot, I forgot to register!” surprises and (2) in these areas election officials reach out to younger voters and education efforts are more important which helps give these first time voters more of a voice.
Rock the Vote did a study of the voting systems in all 50 states, and the average score was only 41%. That’s a big fat “F”! The highest score in the country was only 68% and too many states are going in the wrong direction.
You’d think that the most basic element of our democracy - the right to vote - would be guaranteed and easy to access for anyone who is 18 and a citizen of this country.
Sadly, this isn’t the case. For a majority of young people around the country, their elected leaders are failing to meet their needs.
We found that states make it unnecessarily confusing to get registered, make voting inconvenient, don’t implement new technologies that are common in every other part of life, and aren’t teaching young people about voting and elections in high schools. This is a recipe for disenfranchisement
Not satisfied with the results (see Illinois results below)? Let your elected officials know by sending them Rock the Vote Voting System Scorecard. (We've made it really easy if you click here.)
The Voting System Scorecard serves as a national benchmark that measures state laws and policies in three key areas: (1) voter registration, (2) casting a ballot and (3) young voter preparation. The 21-point scale evaluates each state’s implementation of policies that increase access to the political process.
Illinois Results
Automatic Registration: 0/3
Permanent and Portable Registration: 0/1
Online Registration: 0/3
Same Day Registration: 0/3
Third Party Registration Drives: 0/1
Registration Score: 0/11
Voter ID Requirements: 2/2
Convenience Voting: 2/2
Residency Requirements: 1/1
Absentee Voting: 1/1
Overseas and Military Voting: .9/1
Voting Score: 6.9/7
High School Civics: 0/2*
Pre-registration: 0/1**
Preparation Score: 0/3
Total Score 6.9/21
Percentage Score: 33%
*I have to note that as a history teacher, this one kills me. This was a pass/fail situation and Illinois passed. A state received 2 points if they taught civics and evaluated student performace and 0 points if they didn’t. That means my state, the state I am trying to teach history in, is inadequate in teaching MY subject matter!
**This one is also important because it really helps enfranchise young adults. The idea is that a student can register to vote at 16 or 17 and have that automatically activate on his or her 18th birthday. The reason this helps enfranchise students is because (1) they are registered to vote on their birthday, meaning that they CAN vote, and there’s no “Shoot, I forgot to register!” surprises and (2) in these areas election officials reach out to younger voters and education efforts are more important which helps give these first time voters more of a voice.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin Laden
I already wrote about this late last night, as I watched it unfold. I shared with you someof my initial thoughts. Perhaps you were able to read between the lines of exhausted scribblings and see my relief, my worry, and frankly my guilt. My initial thought was that we had just murdered a man. To be sure, he was an evil man, and man that committed terrible acts, and inspired evil and hatred in others. Yet even as the news showed pictures of hundreds of people (maybe even thousands) celebrating his death, I wanted us to pause, just for one second, and really think about this. Our government ordered the murder of a man, and that to me is a sobering thought. I don't say that it was wrong, just that perhaps, must maybe, we don't need to jump right to celebrating it.
However, as I have had time to think, to reflect, and to better understand what happened, I recognized that based on the description of what happened, Bin Laden COULD have choosen to surrender. President Obama didn't send in drones, or attack from the sky killing everyone in the compound. He ordered in people who were able to take "care to avoid civilian casualties" and had Bin Laden decided not to fight, I have to assume that those soldiers had at least been told to accept his surrender. This wasn't "murder" this was one more act of war, in a war we didn't start. That said, I still can't rejoice over the death of a man. Because before all the other words that describe him, the most basic word is "human".
However, as I have had time to think, to reflect, and to better understand what happened, I recognized that based on the description of what happened, Bin Laden COULD have choosen to surrender. President Obama didn't send in drones, or attack from the sky killing everyone in the compound. He ordered in people who were able to take "care to avoid civilian casualties" and had Bin Laden decided not to fight, I have to assume that those soldiers had at least been told to accept his surrender. This wasn't "murder" this was one more act of war, in a war we didn't start. That said, I still can't rejoice over the death of a man. Because before all the other words that describe him, the most basic word is "human".
Sunday, May 1, 2011
You Guys, We Just Murdered A Guy
Sorry if I don't make a lot of sense tonight. I'm writing this as it unfolds on MSNBC, and perhaps I'll feel differently in the morning.
On September 11, 2001 we went to war against terrorists. They declared war first. But we’ve had a terrible, decade long war. A war that should never have been against any one country, or even a group of countries. Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a country. On September 11, 2001 no country declared war against us. But we did. We declared war on a government that rightly swore they had nothing to do with September 11. I am glad he clarified that we’re not at war against Islam, and that Bin Laden wasn’t an Islam leader.
As I waited for the president to speak tonight, I was AIMing a friend. Here’s some of what we had to say (I edited out some generic comments)-
Christina Zastrow 9:48 pm
...so did we kill him? or did he just die?
Chris 9:48 pm
havent said yet
Christina Zastrow 9:48 pm
because we aren't really supposed to assassinate people
Chris 9:49 pm
oh well
Christina Zastrow 9:49 pm
you don't care as long as he's dead?
Chris 9:49 pm
I don't know. Im going to wait for Obama to explain
Chris 10:14 pm
I also wonder if we really just made a martyr.
Christina Zastrow 10:14 pm
yeah, i'm pretty sure we did...the more i hear (especially the way they are talking about it) the more mixed my feelings become
Christina Zastrow 10:21 pm
i want to hear how it happened, so that i can figure out how i feel about it
Chris 10:29 pm
hm shot and killed
Christina Zastrow 10:29 pm
did he just say that we feared he might die of natural causes before we could get to him?
Chris 10:29 pm
yep
Christina Zastrow 10:30 pm
oh good lord
"Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy" Keith Olbermann
Chris 10:46 pm
well, I like the fact that it was in a firefight rather than a drone attack....as in he couldve been captured if he had allowed himself to
Christina Zastrow 10:48 pm
yeah, it makes it seem less like murder/assination to me- not that i don't know that it's what we needed to do, but after the whole torture thing, i think we need to stand even taller to earn back the reputation i want us to have
Chris 10:48 pm
but I am worried about retalliation
Christina Zastrow 10:49 pm
yeah
Christina Zastrow 10:50 pm
i'm not sure that the news people have thought this through- they were talking before about people uniting (as in various groups in the area uniting WITH us), but i would be more worried about some groups uniting AGAINST us
the way many people would unite against someone who killed Oprah
Christina Zastrow 10:51 pm
well, he's not exactly a political leader like Obama- he's more of a lifestyle leader, so...
On September 11, 2001 we went to war against terrorists. They declared war first. But we’ve had a terrible, decade long war. A war that should never have been against any one country, or even a group of countries. Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a country. On September 11, 2001 no country declared war against us. But we did. We declared war on a government that rightly swore they had nothing to do with September 11. I am glad he clarified that we’re not at war against Islam, and that Bin Laden wasn’t an Islam leader.
As I waited for the president to speak tonight, I was AIMing a friend. Here’s some of what we had to say (I edited out some generic comments)-
Christina Zastrow 9:48 pm
...so did we kill him? or did he just die?
Chris 9:48 pm
havent said yet
Christina Zastrow 9:48 pm
because we aren't really supposed to assassinate people
Chris 9:49 pm
oh well
Christina Zastrow 9:49 pm
you don't care as long as he's dead?
Chris 9:49 pm
I don't know. Im going to wait for Obama to explain
Chris 10:14 pm
I also wonder if we really just made a martyr.
Christina Zastrow 10:14 pm
yeah, i'm pretty sure we did...the more i hear (especially the way they are talking about it) the more mixed my feelings become
Christina Zastrow 10:21 pm
i want to hear how it happened, so that i can figure out how i feel about it
Chris 10:29 pm
hm shot and killed
Christina Zastrow 10:29 pm
did he just say that we feared he might die of natural causes before we could get to him?
Chris 10:29 pm
yep
Christina Zastrow 10:30 pm
oh good lord
"Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy" Keith Olbermann
Chris 10:46 pm
well, I like the fact that it was in a firefight rather than a drone attack....as in he couldve been captured if he had allowed himself to
Christina Zastrow 10:48 pm
yeah, it makes it seem less like murder/assination to me- not that i don't know that it's what we needed to do, but after the whole torture thing, i think we need to stand even taller to earn back the reputation i want us to have
Chris 10:48 pm
but I am worried about retalliation
Christina Zastrow 10:49 pm
yeah
Christina Zastrow 10:50 pm
i'm not sure that the news people have thought this through- they were talking before about people uniting (as in various groups in the area uniting WITH us), but i would be more worried about some groups uniting AGAINST us
the way many people would unite against someone who killed Oprah
Christina Zastrow 10:51 pm
well, he's not exactly a political leader like Obama- he's more of a lifestyle leader, so...
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Senator Mark Kirk- making political activism complicated since 2010
Senator Mark Kirk- making political activism complicated since 2010
I get a lot of political email. Quite a bit of it is lobbyists for groups I support asking me to sign petitions. I almost always click the link and sign, but now instead of getting a “thanks for your support” page like I used to get, I get this notice
“Senator Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) requires that you provide this additional information in order to communicate via email….
*Phone Number___________________________”
So, I dutifully, although aggravatedly, type in my phone number, expecting my “thanks for your support” page. And despite the additional effort I’ve put into contacting Sen. Kirk, I now read,
“Your message was not sent to the following decision makers:
Senator Mark Steven Kirk - Senator Kirk will not accept email messages unless they are sent using this web form.”
So now, I’ve taken the time to type in my phone number to contact him and failed to do so. How many people do you think now take the step of copying the information and going to his form to email him? I’m guessing not many. So in addition to doing that, I flood his office with phone calls. “Senator Kirk, I’m calling about [whatever my issue is]. As your constituent, I would urge you to [whatever I want him to do. Explain why]. I’m calling you because I was unable to simply sign the petition on this matter, because you require an additional form. Thank you for your time and service.” Man, that guy must HATE me and I feel like a jerk- but at least I know he’s heard what I think!
I get a lot of political email. Quite a bit of it is lobbyists for groups I support asking me to sign petitions. I almost always click the link and sign, but now instead of getting a “thanks for your support” page like I used to get, I get this notice
“Senator Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) requires that you provide this additional information in order to communicate via email….
*Phone Number___________________________”
So, I dutifully, although aggravatedly, type in my phone number, expecting my “thanks for your support” page. And despite the additional effort I’ve put into contacting Sen. Kirk, I now read,
“Your message was not sent to the following decision makers:
Senator Mark Steven Kirk - Senator Kirk will not accept email messages unless they are sent using this web form.”
So now, I’ve taken the time to type in my phone number to contact him and failed to do so. How many people do you think now take the step of copying the information and going to his form to email him? I’m guessing not many. So in addition to doing that, I flood his office with phone calls. “Senator Kirk, I’m calling about [whatever my issue is]. As your constituent, I would urge you to [whatever I want him to do. Explain why]. I’m calling you because I was unable to simply sign the petition on this matter, because you require an additional form. Thank you for your time and service.” Man, that guy must HATE me and I feel like a jerk- but at least I know he’s heard what I think!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Political Climate Pt. Five
I don’t care what your politics are – Democrat or Republican, Communist or Theocrat. You don’t have to agree with me for me to respect you, or for me to expect you to respect me. However, we all need to band together and agree this is not okay. (Seriously, click that link).
“The Westboro Baptist Church said Monday it plans to picket Thursday’s funeral for Christina Taylor Greene because ‘God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America.’ The fundamentalist church has picketed many military funerals to draw attention to it’s view that the deaths are God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.” (Daily Herald, 1/12/11, page 2)
Christina Taylor Greene was nine years old when she was shot and killed Saturday.
I had heard of the church’s activities before. I even know of a group that defends military funerals from the picketers. Enough is enough! Christina was nine. God did not kill her to make a political point! Out rhetoric has gone too far. It is time to agree, as a country, we respect people and we don’t threaten death to make a point. I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on my politicians and I will draw attention to them if they threaten violence to anyone. More to the point, I will not be voting for those who do so.
“The Westboro Baptist Church said Monday it plans to picket Thursday’s funeral for Christina Taylor Greene because ‘God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America.’ The fundamentalist church has picketed many military funerals to draw attention to it’s view that the deaths are God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.” (Daily Herald, 1/12/11, page 2)
Christina Taylor Greene was nine years old when she was shot and killed Saturday.
I had heard of the church’s activities before. I even know of a group that defends military funerals from the picketers. Enough is enough! Christina was nine. God did not kill her to make a political point! Out rhetoric has gone too far. It is time to agree, as a country, we respect people and we don’t threaten death to make a point. I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on my politicians and I will draw attention to them if they threaten violence to anyone. More to the point, I will not be voting for those who do so.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Political Climate Pt 4
Last night I watched the Daily Show expecting a refuge from thinking about the weekend's shooting. Since I had taken a short sabatical from the news, I didn't really know what else might have happened in the 24 hours BEFORE the shooting and I figured Jon Stewart would have to cover something other than the shooting (making light of tragedy isn't really his thing, but making light of everything else is). Instead he talked a bit about the shooting, not to make fun of it, but in a very intelligent way. I wanted to share that with you (in case you don't watch the show). Therefore, enjoy this clip...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Arizona Shootings Reaction | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Political Climate Pt. Three
In 1170 King Henry said something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" or "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" Six months later Thomas a Beckett was murdered by men believing that they had done what their king wanted. Thomas was canonized by the church, King Henry was punished and the English crown was weakened for some time as a result of Henry’s thoughtless words. We as a country need to learn this lesson- words are powerful, especially when they come from powerful figures.
In case you don’t know exactly where this post is going, I’ll fill in a little background info. Yesterday at a political rally in Arizona, a man opened fire and killed six people (twelve are injured including Rep. Giffords the politician involved). One of those killed was a little girl who begged her parents to take her to the rally because she wanted to learn more about politics because she wanted to be a politician. She had become interested in politics as she got old enough to understand the significance of her birthday – September 11, 2001.
You may recall that I wrote a few posts on this subject prior to the last election, but I never posted the final two entries I had written on the topic. One of the posts I never posted was about exactly this. When we are so divided and no one listens to anyone else and people in position of respect and power (like our newscasters) are saying things like “Don’t retreat, reload” (Palin) or drawing crosshairs over the faces of politicians they don’t agree with (Palin again) or “We will use bullets if ballots don’t work” (Schultz on Meet the Press) or saying someone can’t go home or “he’s a dead man” (Boehner), it’s time to double check our priorities. On the MSNBC website I found this quote “intemperate rhetoric from politicians and from news media personalities might encourage some individuals to act violently”. I don’t think that goes far enough, because I don’t think there’s any “might” about it. When you threaten violence, even if it’s just a rhetorical device, you have still threatened violence.
I think Kristin put my thoughts into words best as we AIMed about this tonight. “There should be some sort of legal ramifactions for public figures who announce others should be "taken out." They might mean it metaphorically, but wackadoodles have taken them literally far too many times for it to be excused.” If I told you on this blog that I intended on killing someone, and then that person wound up dead through suspicious means, I guarantee that the police are going to come question me. But apparently if you say that you think someone should be hurt or killed and someone ELSE does what you said, you aren’t responsible for that and I don’t think that’s right. I think we all need to make responsible choices, and threatening public figures is not a responsible choice.
In case you don’t know exactly where this post is going, I’ll fill in a little background info. Yesterday at a political rally in Arizona, a man opened fire and killed six people (twelve are injured including Rep. Giffords the politician involved). One of those killed was a little girl who begged her parents to take her to the rally because she wanted to learn more about politics because she wanted to be a politician. She had become interested in politics as she got old enough to understand the significance of her birthday – September 11, 2001.
You may recall that I wrote a few posts on this subject prior to the last election, but I never posted the final two entries I had written on the topic. One of the posts I never posted was about exactly this. When we are so divided and no one listens to anyone else and people in position of respect and power (like our newscasters) are saying things like “Don’t retreat, reload” (Palin) or drawing crosshairs over the faces of politicians they don’t agree with (Palin again) or “We will use bullets if ballots don’t work” (Schultz on Meet the Press) or saying someone can’t go home or “he’s a dead man” (Boehner), it’s time to double check our priorities. On the MSNBC website I found this quote “intemperate rhetoric from politicians and from news media personalities might encourage some individuals to act violently”. I don’t think that goes far enough, because I don’t think there’s any “might” about it. When you threaten violence, even if it’s just a rhetorical device, you have still threatened violence.
I think Kristin put my thoughts into words best as we AIMed about this tonight. “There should be some sort of legal ramifactions for public figures who announce others should be "taken out." They might mean it metaphorically, but wackadoodles have taken them literally far too many times for it to be excused.” If I told you on this blog that I intended on killing someone, and then that person wound up dead through suspicious means, I guarantee that the police are going to come question me. But apparently if you say that you think someone should be hurt or killed and someone ELSE does what you said, you aren’t responsible for that and I don’t think that’s right. I think we all need to make responsible choices, and threatening public figures is not a responsible choice.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Political Climate Pt. 2
Last time I talked politics, I began talking about the divisive political climate in our country. What I think few Americans realize is that this is not the only time in history that we’ve disagreed about serious issues. This time it is getting out of the recession and health care reform causing most of the broo-ha-ha. From the beginning, our country was made up of people who disagreed. At first, we disagreed about whether we should even form our own country, there were people who stood behind King George and Parliament long before the first shots of the revolution were fired, even after the last shots died away. But let’s skip forward a few decades…
The year is 1856. The place? Washington D.C., Senate Floor. In mid-May Sen. Sumner gave an anti-slavery speech in which he singled out two other senators (including Andrew Butler) as committing crimes against Kansas in the Bleeding Kansas incident. Three days later Sen. Preston Brooks, a relative of Butler’s waits until evening in the capitol building. He waits until all the ladies (secretaries and such) have left the building, and then…Brooks confronts Sumner at Sumner’s desk (which is bolted to the floor of the Senate). "Mr. Sumner,” Sen. Brooks began, “ I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to rise, Brooks proceeded to beat him with the cane Brooks carried. Eventually, Brooks literally ripped Sumner’s desk off the floor and continued beating him until his cane broke. He then proceeded to casually walk out of the room. Sumner required three years to recover. Brooks received dozens of new canes from his constituents and remained in office until he died in 1857 (he was even relected!). This is of course just one incident, but all over the country people were shouting each other down, and generally acting like hooligans. Of course we all know that just a few years later in 1861 the country was at war.
One would hope that we could mature as a country. If the kids in my class acted the way people on the news have been, let me tell you there would be some serious time outs in order. Even my two year olds are required to let each other talk, but for some reason we don’t have the same requirements of our adults. One more comment from the news article I talked about last time…
Obama does not legislate, Congress does. Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years, and have obviously have failed. Liberals will go in November... BUT... thank you very much for your waste-of-time novel. –Comment by Bandonite
Did the end of that comment need to be added? I think Bandonite could have more effectively made his point, and contributed to a more respectful political climate, had he ended his comment after the word November.
Election day is coming! Be prepared.
The year is 1856. The place? Washington D.C., Senate Floor. In mid-May Sen. Sumner gave an anti-slavery speech in which he singled out two other senators (including Andrew Butler) as committing crimes against Kansas in the Bleeding Kansas incident. Three days later Sen. Preston Brooks, a relative of Butler’s waits until evening in the capitol building. He waits until all the ladies (secretaries and such) have left the building, and then…Brooks confronts Sumner at Sumner’s desk (which is bolted to the floor of the Senate). "Mr. Sumner,” Sen. Brooks began, “ I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to rise, Brooks proceeded to beat him with the cane Brooks carried. Eventually, Brooks literally ripped Sumner’s desk off the floor and continued beating him until his cane broke. He then proceeded to casually walk out of the room. Sumner required three years to recover. Brooks received dozens of new canes from his constituents and remained in office until he died in 1857 (he was even relected!). This is of course just one incident, but all over the country people were shouting each other down, and generally acting like hooligans. Of course we all know that just a few years later in 1861 the country was at war.
One would hope that we could mature as a country. If the kids in my class acted the way people on the news have been, let me tell you there would be some serious time outs in order. Even my two year olds are required to let each other talk, but for some reason we don’t have the same requirements of our adults. One more comment from the news article I talked about last time…
Obama does not legislate, Congress does. Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years, and have obviously have failed. Liberals will go in November... BUT... thank you very much for your waste-of-time novel. –Comment by Bandonite
Did the end of that comment need to be added? I think Bandonite could have more effectively made his point, and contributed to a more respectful political climate, had he ended his comment after the word November.
Election day is coming! Be prepared.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Political Climate Pt. 1
As you probably noticed, I love politics. I love feeling like I’ve done something to influence the way my country is run, even when I’m only one voice in millions I do have a voice. But I have to be very precise about what I love. I love the process of learning about my politicians, and picking the person I think will do the best job. I love discussing politics with a certain kind of person-the kind of person who can be respectful of a point of view they don’t agree with. I love signing petitions, going to the polls, emailing my representatives. I love being a part of the process. What I don’t love is the political climate among that portion of the population that cannot respect any opinion but their own.
At the end of a CNN article I read the other day, I skimmed the comments, and this is what I found.
Bush's mess did not go away when he got on that helicopter for the last time. His problems remain, until action corrects them. And Republicans have done absolutely nothing to fix the mess they helped create!! People that don't work should get fired. –Comment by TheVeteran
To me this seems like a reasonable comment. There had been some previous comments about how President Obama has had almost two years, and we’re still in a recession therefore he’s failed. TheVeteran is fairly politely pointing out what has been said before, that it took eight years to get us here, it might take time to get us out of it. The response he got was…
Obama, and all other Dems will never accept responsibility for their own failures. All he is trying to do is turn attention away from his failed policies. –Comment by Republam
This kind of bothers me, because during the Bush presidency I felt like anytime something went wrong it was Clinton’s fault, but when Obama truly has to deal with stuff leftover from Bush, he’s not accepting responsibility. It feels like a double standard to me, but it’s not what makes me so angry. Later this comment was made…
I just would like to say that I feel as if the people who are commenting on this page are way to harsh on Obama! You have to understand that we would not be in this predicament if Bush was not in office for the past eight long years. It took eight years for this country to fall apart, Obama is doing his best and what he feels is necessary to get this country back on is its feet. He can not correct all the issues over night or by himself; this is going to take time and more support from people in order to move forward effectively. And plus if you have time to write rude comments about him on this site why not use that energy else where such as helping people find jobs, and research other means of health care. Or better yet, U try being president for a day! –Comment by Ice Cold
The responses immediately below it were…
RE: Stop whining. –Comment by Dolleybird
Estimates are there is $1 trillion, to a high of $4 trillion, of investor money sitting on the sidelines waiting until the spend-and-tax Democrats are out of office. That's what will happen in November. You will know some of these things if you read the front page instead of the comics. –Comment by Bandonite
These two replies are fairly representative of the political climate. In this case it’s conservatives making me angry, but liberals do it too. Instead of just arguing the facts, people have to take it one step farther and insult each other if they disagree. In some cases, they don’t use facts at all, just “Stop whining.” I don’t think anyone is whining, I think that these are overall people who are concerned about politics in this country, stating their opinion and being shut down. I think this is what created the situation we saw this summer where townhall meetings were overtaken by people who didn’t want information out there at all. If you don’t remember, this summer when politicians held townhall meetings about the health care bill, many of them were shouted down and people asking legitimate questions were chanted over, or were not even able to get into the meetings because there were so many people there to protest. I’m not saying we all have to agree with each other, but I am saying that we have to be respectful of each other. This post is getting long, so I’ll finish with a quote from John Stewart. Later I’ll be following up on this with a few historical stories about the last time our political climate got this divisive.
"We live in troubled times with real people facing very real problems; problems that have real if imperfect solutions that I believe 70 to 80 percent of our population could agree to try and could ultimately live with. Unfortunately the conversation and process is controlled by the other 15 to 20 percent." –Jon Stewart
At the end of a CNN article I read the other day, I skimmed the comments, and this is what I found.
Bush's mess did not go away when he got on that helicopter for the last time. His problems remain, until action corrects them. And Republicans have done absolutely nothing to fix the mess they helped create!! People that don't work should get fired. –Comment by TheVeteran
To me this seems like a reasonable comment. There had been some previous comments about how President Obama has had almost two years, and we’re still in a recession therefore he’s failed. TheVeteran is fairly politely pointing out what has been said before, that it took eight years to get us here, it might take time to get us out of it. The response he got was…
Obama, and all other Dems will never accept responsibility for their own failures. All he is trying to do is turn attention away from his failed policies. –Comment by Republam
This kind of bothers me, because during the Bush presidency I felt like anytime something went wrong it was Clinton’s fault, but when Obama truly has to deal with stuff leftover from Bush, he’s not accepting responsibility. It feels like a double standard to me, but it’s not what makes me so angry. Later this comment was made…
I just would like to say that I feel as if the people who are commenting on this page are way to harsh on Obama! You have to understand that we would not be in this predicament if Bush was not in office for the past eight long years. It took eight years for this country to fall apart, Obama is doing his best and what he feels is necessary to get this country back on is its feet. He can not correct all the issues over night or by himself; this is going to take time and more support from people in order to move forward effectively. And plus if you have time to write rude comments about him on this site why not use that energy else where such as helping people find jobs, and research other means of health care. Or better yet, U try being president for a day! –Comment by Ice Cold
The responses immediately below it were…
RE: Stop whining. –Comment by Dolleybird
Estimates are there is $1 trillion, to a high of $4 trillion, of investor money sitting on the sidelines waiting until the spend-and-tax Democrats are out of office. That's what will happen in November. You will know some of these things if you read the front page instead of the comics. –Comment by Bandonite
These two replies are fairly representative of the political climate. In this case it’s conservatives making me angry, but liberals do it too. Instead of just arguing the facts, people have to take it one step farther and insult each other if they disagree. In some cases, they don’t use facts at all, just “Stop whining.” I don’t think anyone is whining, I think that these are overall people who are concerned about politics in this country, stating their opinion and being shut down. I think this is what created the situation we saw this summer where townhall meetings were overtaken by people who didn’t want information out there at all. If you don’t remember, this summer when politicians held townhall meetings about the health care bill, many of them were shouted down and people asking legitimate questions were chanted over, or were not even able to get into the meetings because there were so many people there to protest. I’m not saying we all have to agree with each other, but I am saying that we have to be respectful of each other. This post is getting long, so I’ll finish with a quote from John Stewart. Later I’ll be following up on this with a few historical stories about the last time our political climate got this divisive.
"We live in troubled times with real people facing very real problems; problems that have real if imperfect solutions that I believe 70 to 80 percent of our population could agree to try and could ultimately live with. Unfortunately the conversation and process is controlled by the other 15 to 20 percent." –Jon Stewart
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Pledge To America
The GOP (republicans) just released their “Pledge to America” revealing what they want to do if they gain seats in November. Below I have quoted it quite frequently, but I have also quoted other sources that either explain what those who don’t support the Pledge believe it means, or evidence that shows how the Pledge may be misleading. If I haven’t included any citation other than a page number, it is direct from the Pledge which you may read here. Also, I have bolded the selections from the Pledge.
“We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of or American values.” (p 3)
I will choose here to simply ask a question rather than cite evidence. Can we “promote greater liberty” by refusing liberty to some? “Traditional marriage” is conservative speak for items like the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage and all it’s benefits as belonging to one man and one woman. I believe that in the space of three lines, the Pledge has contradicted itself. It should instead read, “promote greater liberty to those we agree with”.
“We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels…” (p 6 and repeated on p 21)
I believe the wording here is misleading. It refers to “pre-stimulus, pre-bailout” in that order for a reason. It seeks to convince people that the stimulus, clearly related to Pres. Obama was passed BEFORE the bailout, thus laying the burden of the bailout on Pres. Obama as well. However, as astute readers will recall, the bailout (which I believe more people oppose than the stimulus as it sought to provide relieve for companies, not people) passed in October 2008- before the election of Pres. Obama. Therefore, it passed a Democrat Congress, but was signed by a Republican president.
“The trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ spending bill has made ‘Where are the jobs?’ a national rallying cry after failing to live up to the specific promises made by it’s architects.” (p14)
The stimulus was passed in February of 2009 (President Obama had only been president for about a month) and by November was seen by a variety of analysts “across a wide range of views” as working. Indeed, Republicans blocked proposed tax breaks later that same year. (New York Times)
“We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.” (p 16)
First and foremost, these are not actually tax increases. What is actually set to happen is the expiration of Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to renew these cuts. For taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year. One analyst states “raising taxes only on the wealthy is probably the safest bet”. In a few days, I will probably write about why trickledown economics has been widely discredited, and explain why the wealthiest Americans need to pay taxes like the rest of us.
“For the first time in modern history, the House failed to pass or even debate a budget…” (p 32)
Again, this is somewhat misleading. The House did not debate a budget, but it wasn’t the first time in modern history that the House did not pass one. In fact, no final resolution budget was passed in 1998, 2004, and 2006 (all Republican led Houses). The “modern history” part refers to the time since 1974 when the current rules were put in place. According to The Hill “For weeks, Democratic leaders have tried to strike a deal on the budget, which is a non-binding resolution, but to no avail.” Also, Majority Leader Hoyer has stated “It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December.” In other words, they wanted to wait to pass a budget until they heard from the experts.
“We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority on which the bill is justified.” (p 33)
However, the Pledge vows to keep individuals suspected of committing terrorist acts off American soil even refusing Miranda Rights and fair trials. In part it states, “We will keep terrorist combatants in Guantanamo Bay not in our local jails and courtrooms.” (p 7) “We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil….Foreign terrorists do not have the same rights as American citizens.” (p 38)The Constitution reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” (US Constitution, Amendment VI emphasis mine). However, there are some who would argue that the Constitution was never meant to apply to non-citizens. Therefore, let us turn to Georgetown University’s Law Department’s opinion on the matter. “creating different rules for suspected terrorists would amount to ‘new rules for sets of people, not sets of crimes.’” As one political economist stated it “The Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that [some] treat this document [the Constitution] like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy—unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone.” (read his opinion here)
Finally I will quote Nadeam Elshami (spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) “Congressional Republicans are pledging to ship jobs overseas, blow a $700 billion hole in the deficit to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, turn Social Security from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble and, once again, subject American families to the recklessness of Wall Street and take away patients’ rights…”
Election Day is coming. Be Prepared!
“We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of or American values.” (p 3)
I will choose here to simply ask a question rather than cite evidence. Can we “promote greater liberty” by refusing liberty to some? “Traditional marriage” is conservative speak for items like the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage and all it’s benefits as belonging to one man and one woman. I believe that in the space of three lines, the Pledge has contradicted itself. It should instead read, “promote greater liberty to those we agree with”.
“We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels…” (p 6 and repeated on p 21)
I believe the wording here is misleading. It refers to “pre-stimulus, pre-bailout” in that order for a reason. It seeks to convince people that the stimulus, clearly related to Pres. Obama was passed BEFORE the bailout, thus laying the burden of the bailout on Pres. Obama as well. However, as astute readers will recall, the bailout (which I believe more people oppose than the stimulus as it sought to provide relieve for companies, not people) passed in October 2008- before the election of Pres. Obama. Therefore, it passed a Democrat Congress, but was signed by a Republican president.
“The trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ spending bill has made ‘Where are the jobs?’ a national rallying cry after failing to live up to the specific promises made by it’s architects.” (p14)
The stimulus was passed in February of 2009 (President Obama had only been president for about a month) and by November was seen by a variety of analysts “across a wide range of views” as working. Indeed, Republicans blocked proposed tax breaks later that same year. (New York Times)
“We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.” (p 16)
First and foremost, these are not actually tax increases. What is actually set to happen is the expiration of Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to renew these cuts. For taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year. One analyst states “raising taxes only on the wealthy is probably the safest bet”. In a few days, I will probably write about why trickledown economics has been widely discredited, and explain why the wealthiest Americans need to pay taxes like the rest of us.
“For the first time in modern history, the House failed to pass or even debate a budget…” (p 32)
Again, this is somewhat misleading. The House did not debate a budget, but it wasn’t the first time in modern history that the House did not pass one. In fact, no final resolution budget was passed in 1998, 2004, and 2006 (all Republican led Houses). The “modern history” part refers to the time since 1974 when the current rules were put in place. According to The Hill “For weeks, Democratic leaders have tried to strike a deal on the budget, which is a non-binding resolution, but to no avail.” Also, Majority Leader Hoyer has stated “It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December.” In other words, they wanted to wait to pass a budget until they heard from the experts.
“We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority on which the bill is justified.” (p 33)
However, the Pledge vows to keep individuals suspected of committing terrorist acts off American soil even refusing Miranda Rights and fair trials. In part it states, “We will keep terrorist combatants in Guantanamo Bay not in our local jails and courtrooms.” (p 7) “We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil….Foreign terrorists do not have the same rights as American citizens.” (p 38)The Constitution reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” (US Constitution, Amendment VI emphasis mine). However, there are some who would argue that the Constitution was never meant to apply to non-citizens. Therefore, let us turn to Georgetown University’s Law Department’s opinion on the matter. “creating different rules for suspected terrorists would amount to ‘new rules for sets of people, not sets of crimes.’” As one political economist stated it “The Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that [some] treat this document [the Constitution] like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy—unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone.” (read his opinion here)
Finally I will quote Nadeam Elshami (spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) “Congressional Republicans are pledging to ship jobs overseas, blow a $700 billion hole in the deficit to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, turn Social Security from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble and, once again, subject American families to the recklessness of Wall Street and take away patients’ rights…”
Election Day is coming. Be Prepared!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Lies My Teacher Told Me
I just recently finished a book called “Lies My Teacher Told Me” which I highly recommend. The book explains why you were probably bored in history classes, and why to this day you think you aren’t interested in a subject which affects you in many ways, every day. I have friends who can’t even be interested in politics which affects our lives in a very meaningful way every single day, because they can’t stand history. Yet if history were taught the way this book suggests, I think everyone would have some interest in the topic.
I have often regretted what the book calls “heroification”. This is the process of taking very real people, with very real flaws, and making them into more than they were. The classic example is Thomas Jefferson. The man wrote the famous words “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Yet over the course of his adult life he owned over 200 slaves. In a time when many men freed at least some slaves upon their deaths, he freed only five, all of whom were directly related to him. If real history were taught, the gritty things that raise people’s hackles, discussions would be held in the classroom and in our living rooms, and far more people would have a far better understanding of our history. Instead, we teach a sanitized version of history that leaves children thinking that those great men, who did those great things were so great they can’t be role models. It is hard to look up to someone who never made a mistake and think “I can be just like that guy!”. But to tell students that despite the mistakes that people made, they also did great things? That would give our students true heroes.
The author proposes that the reason behind this sanitation of history is that without it, history would offend, and offensive history wouldn’t get adopted by selection committees. The selection committees want to indoctrinate students to think only the best of our country and our past, and so our students must only be told the good things we’ve done.
This book has helped remind me of why I love history, and why I want to teach it to high schoolers. Many times since I graduated, I’ve considered settling not for what I want to do, but what I should do. I don’t want to leave behind those dreams, I don’t want to settle. I want to inspire the next generation to truly think and to question why we do things. I can’t do that by retreating to the hallowed halls of academia, I can only do that in the dirty halls of a high school. I appreciate that the author of this book has helped remind me of that goal, and thus helped set my determination.
I have often regretted what the book calls “heroification”. This is the process of taking very real people, with very real flaws, and making them into more than they were. The classic example is Thomas Jefferson. The man wrote the famous words “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Yet over the course of his adult life he owned over 200 slaves. In a time when many men freed at least some slaves upon their deaths, he freed only five, all of whom were directly related to him. If real history were taught, the gritty things that raise people’s hackles, discussions would be held in the classroom and in our living rooms, and far more people would have a far better understanding of our history. Instead, we teach a sanitized version of history that leaves children thinking that those great men, who did those great things were so great they can’t be role models. It is hard to look up to someone who never made a mistake and think “I can be just like that guy!”. But to tell students that despite the mistakes that people made, they also did great things? That would give our students true heroes.
The author proposes that the reason behind this sanitation of history is that without it, history would offend, and offensive history wouldn’t get adopted by selection committees. The selection committees want to indoctrinate students to think only the best of our country and our past, and so our students must only be told the good things we’ve done.
This book has helped remind me of why I love history, and why I want to teach it to high schoolers. Many times since I graduated, I’ve considered settling not for what I want to do, but what I should do. I don’t want to leave behind those dreams, I don’t want to settle. I want to inspire the next generation to truly think and to question why we do things. I can’t do that by retreating to the hallowed halls of academia, I can only do that in the dirty halls of a high school. I appreciate that the author of this book has helped remind me of that goal, and thus helped set my determination.
Monday, September 6, 2010
I Don't Facebook...
...but your representatives might, and you should friend them even if you don't agree with them. Just check out this article from Rock the Vote
"Can a politician be your friend?
September 3rd, 2010
Ok, so you were a little hesitant when you got a friend request from your parents and you have a special privacy setting for professors or your boss. There really isn’t a need for them to see the pictures you took over the weekend or for them to know you really didn’t have a touch of food poisoning the Friday before a long weekend.
But have you considered friending or liking your elected officials?
CBS’ Washington Unplugged has a story about Facebook’s Washington, DC office that features pages of members of congress, departments of the government and more that are on Facebook. According to this report, more than 300 members of congress are on Facebook. Is your member of congress on Facebook? What about your mayor or local legislator. It’s not about showing support for a candidate or elected. It’s about following who is elected and being able to interact with those people to tell them what you, as their constituent, wants from them as a public servant.
Some electeds use their Facebook page to push press releases and announce where they are and that’s boring. But other use the Facebook page as a forum of ideas, a place for debate and interaction.
Just because you “Like” an elected doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to vote for them or support their political ideology. But what it does mean is that you are keeping tabs on that office holder. And who knows, maybe when they say they missed a town hall meeting for a vote and they are tagged in a photo at a fundraiser, you can be the one who holds them accountable."
For your representatives, visit Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code. All of my elected offials had a facebook page when I looked today.
Election Day is coming. Be prepared!
"Can a politician be your friend?
September 3rd, 2010
Ok, so you were a little hesitant when you got a friend request from your parents and you have a special privacy setting for professors or your boss. There really isn’t a need for them to see the pictures you took over the weekend or for them to know you really didn’t have a touch of food poisoning the Friday before a long weekend.
But have you considered friending or liking your elected officials?
CBS’ Washington Unplugged has a story about Facebook’s Washington, DC office that features pages of members of congress, departments of the government and more that are on Facebook. According to this report, more than 300 members of congress are on Facebook. Is your member of congress on Facebook? What about your mayor or local legislator. It’s not about showing support for a candidate or elected. It’s about following who is elected and being able to interact with those people to tell them what you, as their constituent, wants from them as a public servant.
Some electeds use their Facebook page to push press releases and announce where they are and that’s boring. But other use the Facebook page as a forum of ideas, a place for debate and interaction.
Just because you “Like” an elected doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to vote for them or support their political ideology. But what it does mean is that you are keeping tabs on that office holder. And who knows, maybe when they say they missed a town hall meeting for a vote and they are tagged in a photo at a fundraiser, you can be the one who holds them accountable."
For your representatives, visit Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code. All of my elected offials had a facebook page when I looked today.
Election Day is coming. Be prepared!
Monday, August 30, 2010
It's My Blog and I'll Politic If I Want To
Last month, a federal court in Alaska found that the Bush administration violated the law when it approved oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Chukchi sea without sufficient information and analysis about risks to the Arctic environment.
Yet, President Obama's administration has so far failed to revisit protections for the Chukchi - arctic waters off Alaska's coast and has asked the court in Alaska to allow activities that would pave the way for drilling to proceed, potentially jeopardizing an area key to the survival of not only polar bears, but also bowhead whales, Pacific walrus and other wildlife.
The courts and scientists have all said that more information is needed about the Arctic environment before we even consider drilling in its ice covered seas that are cloaked in darkness most of the year.
I just signed a petition telling President Obama to pull the illegal leases sold in the Chukchi Sea and halt seismic testing in the Arctic this summer.
Have a look and take action here. it's not hard, just a few basic questions (name, etc) and you too can sign the petition! (Note: both those links are to the same place, I just wanted to give you an extra chance to click.)
Also- credit where credit is due, I didn't write this post, I copied it from an email from CREDO.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Very Long Post About the Library. And Torture! And Work.
Why is my AWARD –WINNING library useless when it comes to books on the Black Plague? I use the term in to mean a very specific event in Medieval Europe, the common usage of the term, an event that some estimate killed as many as World Wars One and Two combined (not including the Holocaust). Doesn’t that seem like an something that should be covered? Instead my library (which is fairly large and amazing) has three books on the topic in the adult section. Combined they are about 200 pages, all with the amount of information you might find in an Eyewitness book (you know these books right? They are mostly pictures with some lengthy captions that only cover what you probably learned up through middle school). If you have some ideas about where I should look, let me know. Especially if you know of any scholarly books that would include information about Jews and how Jews were treated during this period (Semitic history is my particular interest in history, and this is a time I would like to know more about).
*********************************************************
Every morning my class starts with the Pledge of Allegiance. This has been going on since the first day of summer, and yet this morning was different. This morning, my class stood for the Pledge and several of my kids began acting up, speaking in silly voices, playing around, etc. My plan for this, one of the last days of summer vacation, was to say the Pledge, take attendance and let them go. Instead, we began a discussion on what the Pledge means. I got as far as explaining the words “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America” mean (essentially) “I promise to respect my country” when “it” began. “It” is my understanding of my children’s political backgrounds. One of them said, “Why should we respect this government? The government sucks.” Another added, “Our president is terrible.” Then it really began. “People only voted for him because he’s black and they wanted the first black president.” “He’s not black stupid. He’s Hawaiian.”
Whooooa. Hold on kids. Let Miss Tina talk. And so talk I did. I talked about why our government is good. I talked about how we have privileges, and with those privileges come responsibilities. I think they understood that, coming as it did mere weeks after our discussion about heroes (thank you Peter Parker!). I explained that one of the privileges is that we don’t EVER after have to share who we voted for, but that I wanted to share with them. I told them that I voted for President Obama and I could guarantee I didn’t vote for him because of his skin color. That I didn’t know anyone who voted for him for that reason, but that perhaps some people did. However, there are some people who refused to for him because of the color of his skin. That outraged my class. We’ve talked about segregation and people like MLK, so they understood what I was saying. They wanted to know why I voted for him, so I explained that one of those responsibilities is to be an educated voter, and that I agreed with him about more stuff than McCain. They wanted to know what that stuff was. I asked them what they knew, and you guys these were their answers…“He thinks we should kills babies who are six months old.” (Please note I asked for this one to be repeated, assuming I heard it incorrectly.) “He let the people who knocked down the Twin Towers go free.”
So I felt I had three choices. End the discussion, and let my kids (age 6-9) go about with misinformation. Talk about abortion to my small children. Talk about torture and 9/11 with my kids. You guys, I have always felt that if I CAN answer a question I should. I couldn’t just end the discussion and perhaps their curiosity about politics. I talked to my kids about torture. We talked about the war in Iraq (we probably should have been more sure about their participation in 9/11). We talked about what torture is (hurting people, or threatening them, to make them tell us stuff) and why we shouldn’t do it (not nice, doesn’t work, agreed we wouldn’t). We talked about the consequences (other countries might do it to our guys, makes people not like us). I told them that President Obama did NOT want to just let the people who “knocked down the Twin Towers” go free. They asked intelligent questions, they listened to what I had to say, better than they had all summer. I tried to give them facts. I tried to keep my opinions out of it because I don’t want to make them think any specific thing (Inception!), I want them to form their own opinions as they get older. But, I talked about torture to my class!!
This afternoon, I got to mention to every parent what we talked about. There were two main responses. One, was “oh, okay” the other was “Good for you Miss Tina”. So I don’t think I’ll get in trouble. Even my boss didn’t seem too worked up about it when I told her. However, I think I need to find myself a high school to teach at fairly soon, because if I’m going to talk politics, I think I should be doing so with older kids. Six years old is too young for me to have to make the call I made this morning!
*********************************************************
Every morning my class starts with the Pledge of Allegiance. This has been going on since the first day of summer, and yet this morning was different. This morning, my class stood for the Pledge and several of my kids began acting up, speaking in silly voices, playing around, etc. My plan for this, one of the last days of summer vacation, was to say the Pledge, take attendance and let them go. Instead, we began a discussion on what the Pledge means. I got as far as explaining the words “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America” mean (essentially) “I promise to respect my country” when “it” began. “It” is my understanding of my children’s political backgrounds. One of them said, “Why should we respect this government? The government sucks.” Another added, “Our president is terrible.” Then it really began. “People only voted for him because he’s black and they wanted the first black president.” “He’s not black stupid. He’s Hawaiian.”
Whooooa. Hold on kids. Let Miss Tina talk. And so talk I did. I talked about why our government is good. I talked about how we have privileges, and with those privileges come responsibilities. I think they understood that, coming as it did mere weeks after our discussion about heroes (thank you Peter Parker!). I explained that one of the privileges is that we don’t EVER after have to share who we voted for, but that I wanted to share with them. I told them that I voted for President Obama and I could guarantee I didn’t vote for him because of his skin color. That I didn’t know anyone who voted for him for that reason, but that perhaps some people did. However, there are some people who refused to for him because of the color of his skin. That outraged my class. We’ve talked about segregation and people like MLK, so they understood what I was saying. They wanted to know why I voted for him, so I explained that one of those responsibilities is to be an educated voter, and that I agreed with him about more stuff than McCain. They wanted to know what that stuff was. I asked them what they knew, and you guys these were their answers…“He thinks we should kills babies who are six months old.” (Please note I asked for this one to be repeated, assuming I heard it incorrectly.) “He let the people who knocked down the Twin Towers go free.”
So I felt I had three choices. End the discussion, and let my kids (age 6-9) go about with misinformation. Talk about abortion to my small children. Talk about torture and 9/11 with my kids. You guys, I have always felt that if I CAN answer a question I should. I couldn’t just end the discussion and perhaps their curiosity about politics. I talked to my kids about torture. We talked about the war in Iraq (we probably should have been more sure about their participation in 9/11). We talked about what torture is (hurting people, or threatening them, to make them tell us stuff) and why we shouldn’t do it (not nice, doesn’t work, agreed we wouldn’t). We talked about the consequences (other countries might do it to our guys, makes people not like us). I told them that President Obama did NOT want to just let the people who “knocked down the Twin Towers” go free. They asked intelligent questions, they listened to what I had to say, better than they had all summer. I tried to give them facts. I tried to keep my opinions out of it because I don’t want to make them think any specific thing (Inception!), I want them to form their own opinions as they get older. But, I talked about torture to my class!!
This afternoon, I got to mention to every parent what we talked about. There were two main responses. One, was “oh, okay” the other was “Good for you Miss Tina”. So I don’t think I’ll get in trouble. Even my boss didn’t seem too worked up about it when I told her. However, I think I need to find myself a high school to teach at fairly soon, because if I’m going to talk politics, I think I should be doing so with older kids. Six years old is too young for me to have to make the call I made this morning!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)