I have somehow managed to get myself roped into a weekly volunteering gig in my son's 3rd grade class. It's every Thursday morning, and my job is to help out with the class store, where the kids can purchase second-hand crap (the stuff parents clean out of their kids' rooms and donate instead of throwing away) with their fake money that they earn by doing their homework and being nice to each other. I think it's a brilliant idea, because even with kids, money really is the best motivator.
The other mom who volunteers at the same time insists that that the kids address her as "Mrs. X." (X is not her real last name - I'm just trying to maintain a certain level of anonymity here). The teacher similarly goes by "Mrs. S" (again, not her real name), as do most of the female teachers in the school. I told everyone to just call me "Amy," but I can see how the school would want kids to maintain a certain level of respect for the adults by addressing them all by their title.
However, the use of "Miss" and Mrs." is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, especially when it involves children. We're teaching our kids that women are to be identified by whether or not they're married, but men are just men, married or not. I prefer to be addressed by "Ms." and I wish that were simply the standard for all women, as "Mr." is for all men. But apparently that sentiment has not reached our small town yet. In the recent class newsletter, Mrs. S thanked both Mrs. X, and me, Mrs. H, for our help in the classroom.
So here's my "dilemma." Do I ask the teacher, who seems like a very reasonable woman, to please henceforth use "Ms. H" instead of "Mrs. H" when referring to me, or do I just play it cool and maintain the status quo so as not to look like a jerk.
One more tidbit to throw into this situation: Mrs. X lives just down the street from me, and is a very conservative Catholic who only recently put her son in public school after having some sort of falling out with the local Catholic school. Since our sons have come to be friends and spend a lot of time together lately, she has seen the "Vote No on the Marriage Amendment" sign in my yard and probably already finds me to be a little questionable, and getting into the Ms. debate might turn me into a total commie leftist in her eyes, which could affect our sons' friendship I suppose.
So what should I do people? Leave it alone? Speak up? What would you do? I realize this is a really inconsequential "problem" that will not affect the state of the union, but I really would like some advice.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Romney-verse
So turns out Mitt Romney's a total asshole. I think we all knew that, but he really showed his true colors yesterday with that "secret video" that had him condemning almost half of the U.S. population.
In the video, taken at a fundraiser, Romney says:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Many things offended me in this statement, but I'll stick to ranting about the top two.
#1. The idea that people want to be totally dependent on the government. Do you know many people who want to be on welfare? I don't. Everyone I know who's ever had to take government assistance did so out of sheer necessity. They were going through a temporary hard time that they were trying to get out of. The amount of shame tied to taking government assistance is enough to assume that most people on welfare don't want to be in that situation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system for those who truly need it.
#2. The idea that you would only want a social safety net if you yourself were dependant on it. Am I on welfare? No. But for some reason, I still think it should exist. That reason is called basic human empathy. I grew up with very little and understand what it's like to scrimp and save. So therefore, even though I don't need it right now, I want government assistance to be there for those who do need it, and I'm happy to pay more in taxes to make sure that happens.
So it seems to me that Mitt and the crew really have no understanding of basic human empathy, even though they are the ones who always claim to be doing whatever Jesus would do. And although Jesus never spoke about abortion or gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he had something to say about loving your neighbor, caring for your brother, giving away your money and not spreading falsehoods. But what do I know? I'm not a Christian.
In the video, taken at a fundraiser, Romney says:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Many things offended me in this statement, but I'll stick to ranting about the top two.
#1. The idea that people want to be totally dependent on the government. Do you know many people who want to be on welfare? I don't. Everyone I know who's ever had to take government assistance did so out of sheer necessity. They were going through a temporary hard time that they were trying to get out of. The amount of shame tied to taking government assistance is enough to assume that most people on welfare don't want to be in that situation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system for those who truly need it.
#2. The idea that you would only want a social safety net if you yourself were dependant on it. Am I on welfare? No. But for some reason, I still think it should exist. That reason is called basic human empathy. I grew up with very little and understand what it's like to scrimp and save. So therefore, even though I don't need it right now, I want government assistance to be there for those who do need it, and I'm happy to pay more in taxes to make sure that happens.
So it seems to me that Mitt and the crew really have no understanding of basic human empathy, even though they are the ones who always claim to be doing whatever Jesus would do. And although Jesus never spoke about abortion or gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he had something to say about loving your neighbor, caring for your brother, giving away your money and not spreading falsehoods. But what do I know? I'm not a Christian.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Evil Advertising
Last night I was enjoying an old episode of "South Park" with my husband when a commercial came on attacking Rick Nolan, our Democratic candidate for Congress. The ad said that Nolan is "extreme" and that he wants to get rid of Medicare.
Now I've met Rick Nolan several times. In fact, I once sat next to him at an awards dinner and had a lovely conversation with him. He's anything but extreme. He's actually a genuinely nice guy who wants to make a real difference.
And I know for a fact that he doesn't want to get rid of Medicare. In fact, it's the Republican party, and their candidate Chip Cravaack, who would like to dismantle social programs like Medicare, because they don't really think it's the government's job to help people.
So I was more than a little perplexed by this commercial. I finally figured it out when they got to the part about Nolan wanting a "European-style health program." As we all know, anything European is bad, so this sinister guy is trying to get rid of your Medicare and replace it with something European?! What a jerk!
Well, actually, that "European-style health program" is really called "single-payer healthcare" and it's something that many people, like myself, have been advocating for for a long time. It's essentially Medicare, but for everyone, not just seniors. Because seniors, in my opinion, are not the only people deserving of healthcare, and a single-payer healthcare system is really the only humane way to tackle our healthcare problems, as most of the rest of the civilized world has already figured out.
So this ad, put out by the "American Action Network" is deliberately lying about Nolan's stance. Does he want to get rid of Medicare? No. If you take a quick trip to his website, http://nolanforcongress.org/, you'll find this quote, "Don’t turn Medicare into a voucher system for insurance companies, which will mean higher costs and less treatment." Does that sound like someone who wants to end Medicare? He may have backed off on singe-payer, which upsets me, but he's definitely not about to get rid of Medicare.
Is this ad not only lying about Nolan's stance, but also essentially taking Chip Cravaack's desire to end Medicare and pinning it on Nolan? Well, if you take a trip to Cravaack's website, you'll find. . . well . . . . nothing. No info on his stance on any issue. So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he falls into line with the Republican party and wants to end Medicare as we know it.
I know that all political ads tend to be a little misleading, so this whole thing doesn't really shock me, but the egregious LYING going on in this ad is really off the charts. The American Action Network should be extremely ashamed of themselves. Although sadly, I know that they aren't.
Now I've met Rick Nolan several times. In fact, I once sat next to him at an awards dinner and had a lovely conversation with him. He's anything but extreme. He's actually a genuinely nice guy who wants to make a real difference.
And I know for a fact that he doesn't want to get rid of Medicare. In fact, it's the Republican party, and their candidate Chip Cravaack, who would like to dismantle social programs like Medicare, because they don't really think it's the government's job to help people.
So I was more than a little perplexed by this commercial. I finally figured it out when they got to the part about Nolan wanting a "European-style health program." As we all know, anything European is bad, so this sinister guy is trying to get rid of your Medicare and replace it with something European?! What a jerk!
Well, actually, that "European-style health program" is really called "single-payer healthcare" and it's something that many people, like myself, have been advocating for for a long time. It's essentially Medicare, but for everyone, not just seniors. Because seniors, in my opinion, are not the only people deserving of healthcare, and a single-payer healthcare system is really the only humane way to tackle our healthcare problems, as most of the rest of the civilized world has already figured out.
So this ad, put out by the "American Action Network" is deliberately lying about Nolan's stance. Does he want to get rid of Medicare? No. If you take a quick trip to his website, http://nolanforcongress.org/, you'll find this quote, "Don’t turn Medicare into a voucher system for insurance companies, which will mean higher costs and less treatment." Does that sound like someone who wants to end Medicare? He may have backed off on singe-payer, which upsets me, but he's definitely not about to get rid of Medicare.
Is this ad not only lying about Nolan's stance, but also essentially taking Chip Cravaack's desire to end Medicare and pinning it on Nolan? Well, if you take a trip to Cravaack's website, you'll find. . . well . . . . nothing. No info on his stance on any issue. So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he falls into line with the Republican party and wants to end Medicare as we know it.
I know that all political ads tend to be a little misleading, so this whole thing doesn't really shock me, but the egregious LYING going on in this ad is really off the charts. The American Action Network should be extremely ashamed of themselves. Although sadly, I know that they aren't.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Education vs. Healthcare
As I was listening to news about the Chicago teachers' strike today, a seemingly obvious thought occurred to me. Why do we accept, as a society, the idea that all people deserve at least a basic education, and support that idea with our tax dollars, but we refuse to accept the idea that all people deserve at least basic healthcare, and then support that with our tax dollars?
It's a no-brainer that public education in itself is a good idea, no matter how you feel about the current state of our schools. At least we agree that we should have schools that are available to everyone at no cost, because we recognize that education is a right in America. So why not make the leap to healthcare?
I would argue, fairly easily, that healthcare is more important than education. I mean, you can't go to school when you're sick, right?
And we already extend this idea to the elderly. We provide them with Medicare because we believe they have a right to have their health tended to. So why not the rest of us? Why are the elderly more important as human beings than everyone else?
It justs boggles my mind that we can appreciate how important education is, but not how important going to the doctor when you're sick is. What is wrong with us?
It's a no-brainer that public education in itself is a good idea, no matter how you feel about the current state of our schools. At least we agree that we should have schools that are available to everyone at no cost, because we recognize that education is a right in America. So why not make the leap to healthcare?
I would argue, fairly easily, that healthcare is more important than education. I mean, you can't go to school when you're sick, right?
And we already extend this idea to the elderly. We provide them with Medicare because we believe they have a right to have their health tended to. So why not the rest of us? Why are the elderly more important as human beings than everyone else?
It justs boggles my mind that we can appreciate how important education is, but not how important going to the doctor when you're sick is. What is wrong with us?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Why I'm Progressive
Bill O'Reilly calls people of my persuasion "Secular Progressives" or "SP's" for short. He means it in a bad way; as a slur to fling toward liberals. But I take absolutely no offense at this label. I think it's an accurate descriptor for my views. Yes, I am secular, and yes, I am progressive.
I am progressive because I am on the side of progress. Is that a bad thing? I thought we wanted progress. Look at it this way, throughout history, the following positions were progressive positions:
Throughout history, people like me have always pushed unpopular ideas in order to make progress in our ever evolving understanding of the universe. Every piece of social "progress" that has ever been made was made by "progressives."
It's not that we progressives are a bunch of rabble-rousers who are trying to tear down "traditional values" or anything. It's just that we've learned from history that things can keep getting better for people if we keep pushing them a little further outside of their comfort zones, and into a world where we're all accepted and given a chance in life, no matter how we started out or who we are.
We are, in essence, people who care about the welfare of humanity, and want the best for everyone. And instead of hoping and praying that things will change and get better, we get out there and actually do something about it. We are looking down the road, to a future that is even more free for our children to live a good life.
If you think that progressives are making too much noise about gay rights and trying to "shove a lifestyle" down your throats, consider this: 100 years ago women were going to jail for trying shove the idea of women voting down everyone's throats. Women participating in politics was supposed to break up the family and lead to women thoughtlessly leaving their children and husbands. The only problem was, it didn't. Women fought against staggering odds to get the right to vote, and eventually they got it. In their day, they were the progressives.
So remember, 100 years from now, the things that progressives are fighting for today will seem commonplace, and your grandchildren will wonder why you were against it at all.
I am progressive because I am on the side of progress. Is that a bad thing? I thought we wanted progress. Look at it this way, throughout history, the following positions were progressive positions:
- Slavery is bad.
- Women should be able to vote.
- Children should not be forced to work.
- People should not have to be Catholic.
- Everyone should be allowed to read.
- Workers should receive a fair wage.
- Poor people shouldn't starve to death.
- All children should get an education.
- People should get to have a say in their government.
- Little girls should get to play soccer too.
- Husbands shouldn't have the right to beat up their wives.
- People should be allowed to marry outside their religion.
- Having a weekend off every now and again might be nice.
Throughout history, people like me have always pushed unpopular ideas in order to make progress in our ever evolving understanding of the universe. Every piece of social "progress" that has ever been made was made by "progressives."
It's not that we progressives are a bunch of rabble-rousers who are trying to tear down "traditional values" or anything. It's just that we've learned from history that things can keep getting better for people if we keep pushing them a little further outside of their comfort zones, and into a world where we're all accepted and given a chance in life, no matter how we started out or who we are.
We are, in essence, people who care about the welfare of humanity, and want the best for everyone. And instead of hoping and praying that things will change and get better, we get out there and actually do something about it. We are looking down the road, to a future that is even more free for our children to live a good life.
If you think that progressives are making too much noise about gay rights and trying to "shove a lifestyle" down your throats, consider this: 100 years ago women were going to jail for trying shove the idea of women voting down everyone's throats. Women participating in politics was supposed to break up the family and lead to women thoughtlessly leaving their children and husbands. The only problem was, it didn't. Women fought against staggering odds to get the right to vote, and eventually they got it. In their day, they were the progressives.
So remember, 100 years from now, the things that progressives are fighting for today will seem commonplace, and your grandchildren will wonder why you were against it at all.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Business BS
I am sick and tired of hearing people say that because Mitt Romney (or any other politician for that matter) has business experience, they are somehow qualified for public office. Having business experience really has nothing to do with working for the government.
Businesses in general have one main goal: to make a profit. And that's a perfectly fine goal. I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't make a profit. However, I am saying that the government shouldn't be making a profit. The main goal of the government should be to look out for the general welfare of its citizens. Paving roads, running schools, managing Medicare, providing food assistance: none of these things are supposed to be done for a profit. They are done for the betterment of society as a whole. If anything, an Executive Director of a non-profit corporation would make a better candidate for office than a business owner.
This seems to be the fundamental thing that Republicans just don't get. Our country is not a business. It should not be run like a business, and our citizens are not customers. Our government, in essence, is us. It's not some scary outside entity coming to get you. It is, in fact, meant to be a force for good and a means for us to take care of each other and the things that we all need to use.
Like healthcare for example.
Businesses in general have one main goal: to make a profit. And that's a perfectly fine goal. I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't make a profit. However, I am saying that the government shouldn't be making a profit. The main goal of the government should be to look out for the general welfare of its citizens. Paving roads, running schools, managing Medicare, providing food assistance: none of these things are supposed to be done for a profit. They are done for the betterment of society as a whole. If anything, an Executive Director of a non-profit corporation would make a better candidate for office than a business owner.
This seems to be the fundamental thing that Republicans just don't get. Our country is not a business. It should not be run like a business, and our citizens are not customers. Our government, in essence, is us. It's not some scary outside entity coming to get you. It is, in fact, meant to be a force for good and a means for us to take care of each other and the things that we all need to use.
Like healthcare for example.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Chick-Fil-A
Here in Minnesota, we don't have any Chick-Fil-A restaurants that I know of, so this whole Chick-Fil-A controversy doesn't affect me much. In case you've been living in a cave and haven't heard about the brouhaha, the owner of Chick-Fil-A did some radio show somewhere in which he professed his disdain of marriage equality.
So now you've got the LGBT community and their allies (like me) boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and religious fundamentalists gorging themselves on chicken sandwiches to support them.
One thing that is kind of bothering me about the marriage equality community's response to this whole thing is the planned "Same Sex Kiss Day" at Chick-Fil-A restaurants around the country that will be held tomorrow. It seems to me that showing up en masse at Chick-Fil-A's to make out with someone of the same sex only advances the stereotype that gay people are only concerned with sex all the time, and with shoving their "lifestyle" in people's faces.
What's wrong with a good-ole-fashioned boycott or basic protest? Or maybe organize an event to go and eat at some alternative chicken restaurant whose owner has some more progressive values? (Not sure which restaurant that would be, but there's got to be one somewhere.)
I'm just a little concerned about the photos that will pop up from this event, and how they will be perceived by all the bigots out there who already have pre-conceived notions of how gay people "are." I think the only way to change people's minds is to show them that there really isn't much of a difference between them and someone who they think is different, and most people I know have no interest in making out at a chicken joint.
I know it's not my job to change people's minds, and that we shouldn't kowtow to people who are just ignorant, but overall this could really just give some more ammo to the "being gay is all about sex" crowd. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and I'd be interested to hear what my LGBT friends would have to say about it. I just don't see much good coming about due to the event, and I see the potential for a massive backfire.
So now you've got the LGBT community and their allies (like me) boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and religious fundamentalists gorging themselves on chicken sandwiches to support them.
One thing that is kind of bothering me about the marriage equality community's response to this whole thing is the planned "Same Sex Kiss Day" at Chick-Fil-A restaurants around the country that will be held tomorrow. It seems to me that showing up en masse at Chick-Fil-A's to make out with someone of the same sex only advances the stereotype that gay people are only concerned with sex all the time, and with shoving their "lifestyle" in people's faces.
What's wrong with a good-ole-fashioned boycott or basic protest? Or maybe organize an event to go and eat at some alternative chicken restaurant whose owner has some more progressive values? (Not sure which restaurant that would be, but there's got to be one somewhere.)
I'm just a little concerned about the photos that will pop up from this event, and how they will be perceived by all the bigots out there who already have pre-conceived notions of how gay people "are." I think the only way to change people's minds is to show them that there really isn't much of a difference between them and someone who they think is different, and most people I know have no interest in making out at a chicken joint.
I know it's not my job to change people's minds, and that we shouldn't kowtow to people who are just ignorant, but overall this could really just give some more ammo to the "being gay is all about sex" crowd. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and I'd be interested to hear what my LGBT friends would have to say about it. I just don't see much good coming about due to the event, and I see the potential for a massive backfire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)