1957 vs. 2007

So I got this e-mail forward from my dad the other day. Usually these types of e-mail are only good for a quick laugh at best, mild annoyance at filling up my inbox at worst. However, this one kinda stuck out to me. It compares our legal response to student's actions; how we would've responded in 1957 compared to 2007 (today essentially). Yes, some of them are skewed a bit one way or another, and I'm not trying to imply that these course of events would always take place, but... the twist that I'm putting on this forward is that, for as many as I can find legit sources for, I'm going to cite a similar incident that received the same type of response as stated in the forward. These were not provided with the forward, and come directly from me (life experiences), the blogs I read, and the almighty google. What may have seemed funny and obscure at first will now be brought into a much sharper focus. Caution: It may make you think and question the different means of punishment we've used over the years. We're/are things really that bad/good?

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2007



Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.


1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Ah guns. I don't have any stories of my own to share on this subject. Just a wish that people could learn to use a gun responsibly and need not assume that if someone has a gun in their car, that they're planing to kill you and/or others with it.

Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

My grandmother wrote a story with a similar theme a few months ago. Two boys were having confrontations and one slammed the other into a locker. A teacher then took the boys aside and supervised them as they wrestled out their differences on the mat. The "underdog" used brains along with a little brawn to defeat the other boy (without seriously hurting him) and then the two became friends. She was reprimanded by her teacher for having a teacher in her story who allowed the boys to fight. The thinking is that this isn't something boys should read about in a children's book. I disagree. I'm not saying that fighting is necessarily always the best solution, but under the circumstances presented in this short story, I think it was a valid solution that worked out best in the end. If I can find the story and get my grandmother's permission, I'll post a link to the story later so you can read and decide for yourself.

Scenario 3:

Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.


1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

This is a cynical way of looking at it. Students who legitimately have ADD need the help of medication in order to function properly. Not to be zombied out, just to focus. I has several friends who fit this situation and would've probably have been spanked as in the 1957 scenario because of not be treated appropriately. However, I do also think they is over medication of children in some cases where simple discipline, counseling, or other alternative treatment would be the best course of action. The hard part is knowing how to tell the difference.

Scenario 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car20and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goe to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Ah, the old corporeal punishment debate. Yes, I believe it is a legit way of disciplining children, though I personally wouldn't go farther than a smack on the butt. I find there are more effective means of punishment. (See that game system? Say bye-bye to it. If you can't respect hos windows, you're not going to be able to respect that system we bought for you. Show us otherwise and you'll get it back.)

Scenario 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.


1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Oh this one is ridiculous. One, I don't agree that you should be smoking, especially underage (and this is coming from someone whose smoked, and, for the most part, quit), but the deal with aspirin? Lame. True story: In middle school I once got a huge migraine. The kind where the lights and sounds hurt and make you want to throw up and rip your head off. I did the "right" thing. I went to the nurse's office, told them, and expected to get Tylenol or something for it. Want to know what they did? They left me curled up wish for death on the bench as they called my father who had to drive over from work to personally give me Tylenol. 45 min later I finally got them. Last time I went by the rules for meds. I admit it, I'm one of those "druggies" who kept Tylenol on my person every day from then on. Dad even told me I should do it too, because he agreed it was absurd. So there. Want to jail my father for giving drugs to a minor?

Scenario 6:

Pedro fails high school English.


1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

This bring up several issues, making it much more complicated than it may seem at first glance. This has an under current of social prejudices against Hispanics. Either way though, I think if you live in the USA, you need to be fluent in English. And, I think if you live in areas with a good size population of Spanish speaking individual, do yourself a favor, and learn the language. No matter your race, being bilingual is a highly valuable assent that you can add to your tool belt. This reminds me of a case where a Hispanic student was forced to take English classes at her school and denied graduation when she refused to jump through their prejudiced hoops. She was fluent in English, spoke Spanish at home, and just wanted to be treated as any other student. She was denied graduation for standing up for herself. And I've really really tried to find the link to where I read about this. When I do, I'll put it up here.

Scenario 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed .


1957 - Ants die.

2007 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents --and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

What they forgot to mention is that Johnny is probably poor and/or non-white. Shit like this happens all the time where was should be treated at a minor offense, is blown completely out of proportion to the original crime.

Scenario 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.


1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Interesting that they did the female teacher, male student thing. Usually, it's the other way around that gets blasted in the media. But yeah... teachers have a lot of unfair regulations about what they are legally and technically allowed to do in the classroom. Punish all for the actions of the few. Good going.

This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!!

I would say... more narrow minded and assuming, judging the many based on the actions of the few, rather than stupid. Not to say there aren't a good number of stupid people causing issues like those stated above.

Healthcare in the USA

Quixote from Shakesville recently made an interesting post about our healthcare system. Click the link to read the full article.

As interesting as the post it, I found DW's comments to be particular enlightening. Yes, there's a bit of rant in there, but many good points are made along the way, like why procedures cost what they do, priorities, and the overall structure of healthcare. (Maybe later I'll go back and underline or bold the main points. I can't right now, cause my lunch is over.) DW is one of the people that works at a doctor's office, doing everything except seeing the patients.

***Edit***
I got the chance to bold and underline some of DW's main points in case you just want to skim it.

DW Yesterday 09:06 PM
Today at work, a patient balked and complained about the cost of her exam and how expensive it was. Granted, $229 is a lot of money. The flip side is that she doesn't know what hubby knows. He's the doctor. He went to school for years and years and years. The kicker is that she is my former hair stylist. A cut and a color ran $180 three years ago when I last saw her. I didn't balk at her prices. She's the professional - I am not. Doctors have been devalued to a great degree. Some patients leave us because we no longer accept their insurance. Some return after seeing how poorly they are treated elsewhere and some return because they realize they get exemplary care from hubby. Some never return, but continue to pay $180 for their hair every eight weeks. It's bizarre. No one would stand for managed hair care, would they?

Lets not even go into the outstanding student loans.


DW Yesterday 09:56 PM
Let me also add that I don't think patients CAN control the cost of healthcare and I'm not sure they would want to. We are much more costly than some physicians and much less than others. We DO get price shopped. And often there is someone willing to see a patient for a lot less. Unfortunately, one must then make their wage on quantity, not quality. Some insurance companies, like Oxford, reimburse us a pittance. Sometimes the copay is more than the insurance company deems the exam worth! Others, like Aetna, pay us roughly four times what Oxford pays. Sometimes, I don't get paid AT ALL by the insurance company and eat it. Or I wait none months and have to spend four hours tracking down claims. And then I eat it. And sometimes we just do the service gratis because the patient needs it and has no resources or is in pain or is otherwise NOT getting this treatment unless we do it gratis. As a rule, we tun no one away because that is not what medicine is about. It is a reality that the patients who can pay do pay as it helps us meet payroll and offset the services we perform gratis. We hope for reforms because this way is truly broken and I get to experience that from a provider's point of view every day.

I had a point when I started this rant...


DW Yesterday 10:02 PM
Actually, Wondering, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying this system is fucked up. It hurts many doctors as much as it hurts patients. Insurance companies fuck us as much as they fuck patients and should be cut out, or minimized, of the equation. My point was healthcare is NOT a commodity, although it is treated as one. It should be a basic right. When it is treated as a commodity, everyone suffers, especially patients. My point with the hair care comparison was to show how doctors are devalued when it IS treated as a commodity.


DW Yesterday 10:07 PM
...and furthermore, patients are also devalued when healthcare is a commodity. All we want to do is provide and treat and serve. Instead, I get a shit pile of denied claims and insurance company BS routinely. That hurts our patient care because we spend so much damn time chasing claims and making phone calls. Insurance is the ultimate scam. That, to me, is a crying shame.

Gah. Long day at the office.


Yesterday 11:08 PM
Yeah, I'm having a bad explaining day. Sorry. I went off on a riff before I got my explanation out.

I gotta tell ya'll, we work hard. We see every emergency, every everyone who can pay or not. What galls me - GALLS ME - about the hair care comparison is that no one would allow a third party to dictate their hair care but we have our healthcare dictated to us. That is STUPID!!!!!eleventy one to infinity, squared for good measure.

It does piss me off that I would pay someone the ridiculous sum of $180 to cut and color my hair and she would turn around and complain that our service fees were too high. Um, hello? Like, almost equal. Some of the hidden costs doctors bear are rent, utilities, staff, FICA, Medicare tax, worker's comp, disability, malpractice, health insurance for our employees, equipment that allows us to practice at the standard of care, pens, paper, soap, computers, EVERYTHING. If Oxford finally pays us 6 weeks later a whopping $46.50 for an exam I'm lucky. I would love, love love, love, love to just know I was getting x dollars for every single patient that we saw even if x was lower than most of the plans we take now. Often, we don't know what testing plans will cover despite calling them before the exam. And it is pretty hard to do that when you have 6 back to back patients and the insurance company phone tree pretty much guarantees you never get a human being on the line. As a general rule, doctors are NOT business people. Nor should they be. Sign us up for a new system, please.

Thank you for giving me the space to further rant and explain. I am completely stressed out over our office situation and I'm trapped there because I work for peanuts in this family business because we couldn't afford to pay someone else to do what I do which is everything but actually see the patients.

DW Yesterday 11:24 PM
A Sniper - I can explain some of that. As a provider, I MUST bill everyone at the same rate. But each individual contract we sign with individual carriers reimburses us at a different rate. Often, there is a cap on rates for a geographic area. If I set my fees too low, I don't get reimbursed the maximum for my area which, btw, is usually substantially less than the billed amount. I am not permitted to discount based on carrier. Which puts us all in this conundrum. So all those providers bill outrageously high amounts hoping that they will capture the prevailing maximum fee which is ALWAYS less than is billed. The shitty side is that no discount is then applied to the private payor who ends up with the crazy bills. We bill every insurance company $269 for a routine exam. We accept anywhere from $45 to $195 for that service depending on the contract. Outlandish, no?

A few years ago, I saw a top thyroid specialist in NYC. He took one plan - Oxford. I didn't have Oxford. He charged me $500 out of pocket to see him. He would have billed Oxford the same $500 but accepted $125 from them for the same service. Totes not even remotely sensical.

DW Yesterday 11:27 PM
I meant @ Sniper. I'm on a roll today. I'm going to stop posting these epic comments. If anyone has a question about insurance, please ask me. Unfortunately, I know more than I'd like to know. :(

DW 32 minutes ago
@MomTFH, my point about the hair dresser was to show how docs are devalued, not to compare their services, where you have choices, to medicine, where you do not. It was also to demonstrate that as Americans, we have a skewed priority system. And patients expect that once they hand you their insurance ID card, they are abdicated of all financial responsibility. And they are not because roughly 1/3 of the time, there is a non covered service or a deductible or a coinsurance that neither we, no they, are aware of. YES, there are docs who do expensive things JUST for the reimbursement. Some are greedy and some are just tired of constantly fighting the insurance company to receive a fraction of what they bill and what they deserve to be paid. The system is inherently unfair and completely skewed towards profit for the one controlling the checkbook - not in the best interest of patients OR docs.

After being with my sister in labor and delivery twice, I know just how hard C-sections are pushed. At the convenience of the doctor, in her case. Was it necessary? I bet three different docs would give you three different answers. The next baby, she used a mid wife. It was a vaginal birth. Go figure.

Buffy vs. Edward [Twilight Remix]

So what happens when you replace Bella with Buffy the vampire slayer? This...



Bravo.

Here are a few of my favorite lines and scenes:

You know, being stalked isn't really a big turn on for girls" - Buffy

"Get out, or I will drop you out head first" - Buffy (After waking up to Edward being in the room.)

Edward: "I wanted to kill you. I've never wanted a human's blood so much in my life. Are you afraid"
Buffy: "No... you know what I feel? Bored." *Smashes Edward through glass window, fights, staking him at the end*


Thanks to Professor What If for posting this on her blog, where I originally found it.

No Matter Who Is President of Iran, They Would Stone Me

Click Here to read the full article

This is a piece written by Lila Ghobady. She is a women living in exile from Iran, now living in Canada. In this article she discusses the harsh inequalities that Iranian women face and why she and many other boycotted the "election" that was held. Below is the part of her article that lists 10 reasons a women could be stonded to death in Iran for. I can't imagine living in a country like this, and my heart goes out to the millions of women who do.

Here are some simple facts that demonstrate that irrespective of who is president, I would be stoned to death in Iran:

1. As a woman whose husband refused to divorce her when she escaped the country and came to Canada as a refugee, I am considered this man’s wife as long as I am alive. It does not matter if I lived separate from him for years, have divorced him in my new country and am in a relationship with a new man. Under Iranian laws and the Iranian constitution, which are based on strict interpretation of Islamic laws, I am considered his wife and am at risk of being stoned for “adultery” if I ever go back to Iran. In fact as a woman, I have no right to divorce my husband under the country’s laws while he has the privilege of marrying three more times without divorcing me. This is the case no matter who is the president of Iran; Ahamdinejad or Mousavi.

2. As a journalist and filmmaker, I am called upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect the red lines. These “red lines” include belief and respect for the Supreme Leader and the savagely unjust rules of traditional Islamic law in my country. I am expected not to write or demand equal rights. I am not allowed to make the underground films I have made about the plight of sex trade workers and other social diseases rampant within Iran, as I did secretly 12 years ago. In fact, I am not allowed to make any film without the permission and without censorship by Iran’s Minister of Culture. If I did openly do all these things in Iran, I would disappear, I would be tortured, I would be raped. I would be killed as have so many women journalists, filmmakers and activists in Iran. Among those killed include Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian photo journalist, who was brutally tortured and murdered for attempting to photograph and publicize brutalities committed by the Iranian regime.

3. I would be considered an infidel if I was born into a Muslim family and later converted to another religion or had I considered myself a non-believer who does not follow strict Islamic morality. My branding as an infidel would result in my public murder, probably by stoning. No matter who is the president of Iran.

4. I would be lashed in public, raped in jail or even executed or stoned to death for selling my body in order to bring food to my family, as so many unfortunate Iranian women have been forced to do secretly including many single mothers who have no access to social assistance in a rich but deeply corrupted country like Iran. Even the simple crime of being in love, engaged in a relationship outside of marriage, or worse yet, giving birth to a human being out of Islamic wedlock is considered a crime against humanity! The product of such a union would be considered a bastard and would be taken away from me, and I would receive 100 lashes immediately after giving birth to my baby. No matter who is the president of Iran.

5. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be denied a university education, a government job and a say in politics and it would be as if I basically did not exist if I was a Baha’i. I would be considered half a Shia Muslim if I was Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or even a Sunni Muslim by all levels of society, no matter who is the president of Iran.

6. I would disappear and might be found dead if I were to keep writing and demanding my basic rights as a woman and an intellectual who has no say in politics (there was not even one female minister in the so-called “reformist cabinet” of Mohamad Khatami). This would be my fate had I continued to argue against and challenge the authorities to the fact that although Iran is one of the richest countries in the planet when it comes to resources, 70% of my people live in poverty because of corruption among the leaders and their generous contributions to external causes from fanatic Muslim Hezbollah in Lebanon to the communist government of Venezuela through which they build alliances around the world. Huge numbers of children go to sleep on empty stomachs. Little girls are forced to sell their bodies in the streets of Tehran, Dubai and even China just to survive. I would be jailed or disappeared no matter who is president of Iran.

7. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would not be able to be a judge or even a witness in court as a woman. This is because according to Islamic Courts, two women are equal to one man. No matter how educated and aware, I still would be considered half of a man who might be at a demonstrably much lower level of education and qualification, no matter who is the president of Iran.

8. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be lashed if I did not cover my head and body in public in compliance with the mandatory Islamic dress code. If I would be caught at a private family/friend/party or wedding taking place in mixed company, I would be punished for the crime of not being covered. Much worse would happen if I was caught drinking. It would not matter if I considered myself a non-believer of Islam who simply does not want to follow Islamic rules. I would be punished harshly, lashed, raped while in custody and even before going on trial. No matter who is the president of Iran.

9. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be killed if I was openly a homosexual. I would be denied all rights as a human being since homosexuality is considered one of greatest possible sins under the Iranian Islamic regime. I would be considered a criminal and be killed because “there are no homosexuals in Iran!’ That’s odd, because some of my closest friends in Iran say they are gay, but stay “in the closet” for fear of execution, No matter who is the president of Iran.

10. No matter who is the president of Iran, Iranian activists living in exile, including myself and many others who are openly opposed to the regime for its cruel human rights violations, will not be able to enter the country. We would be caught at the airport by the regime’s police forces and forced to sign an apology letter for our actions against the regime. If we refused, we would be jailed without trial for wanting freedom for our fellow people. I would be denied of my basic rights as an opposition to the regime and would be called a “spy”, jailed, tortured, raped and executed. This would happen regardless of who was the president of Iran.

The Letter

Political Food for thought...

Click below to watch, or you can read the transcript, although, I recommend watching the videos. I always take things on Fox with a grain a salt, but it brings up some good points. Irregardless of your specific political views, this is good to watch.



Click here for direct link to part 1



Click here for for direct link to Part 2

Full Transcript: (found here)

Glenn Beck: The Letter

June 17, 2009 - 10:36 ET

GLENN: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership: I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense
Now available in book stores nationwide...

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Agree? Disagree? I mostly agree with the above. I can pick on some of the points, like "illegal immigration", and explain the finer details of that and some other things to the "home grown citizen" that wrote the above letter. (Which I might later, when I have more time.) However, that aside, it's well written and brings up a lot of good issues that we all should be thinking about and acting upon.

Ethnic Makeup

Watch. It makes you think.

Lessons in Vocabulary: Ostensibly and Presumably

Obstensibly
Ostensibly:

Etymology

From ostensible < French ostensible < Latin ostensus, past participle of ostendō ‘I show’, from ob ‘before’ + tendō ‘I stretch out’.

Pronunciation

* (RP) IPA: /ɒsˈtɛnsɪbli/ or /ɒsˈtɛnsəbli/
* (US) IPA: /ɑːsˈtɛnsəbli/

Adverb

ostensibly (not comparable)

1. seemingly, apparently, on the surface

A bedroom is ostensibly the safest room in the house, but many parents started to think differently and install better window-security features when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped from her own bedroom one night.

Synonyms

* (seemingly): apparently, arguably, at first blush, seemingly

-From Wiktionary

Presumably:

pre·sum·a·ble (pr-zm-bl)
adj.
That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster.
pre·suma·bly adv.

presumably
Adverb
one supposes or guesses; probably: he emerged from what was presumably the kitchen carrying a tray

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adv. 1. presumably - by reasonable assumption; "presumably, he missed the train"
presumptively

presumably
adverb IT WOULD SEEM, probably, likely, apparently, most likely, seemingly, doubtless, on the face of it, in all probability, in all likelihood, doubtlessly

-From The Free Dictionary

Subtle difference... yes. In a nut shell it boils down to: on the surface (ostensibly) vs. taken for granted (presumably), but they can have essentially the same meaning. Even some of the Thesaurus words match: seemingly and apparently. In case you use one instead of the other, you're probably not misusing the word itself. You will, however, give a different shade of meaning to your sentence than you were ostensibly presumably going for.

In LGBT News this Week....

Click the links below for the full stories.

The Good:

Vermont's Gendertopia

No, I admire Vermont's recent standing as the 4th state to legalize gay marriage and for the after school program at Burlington High School called Gendertopia. The program helps students understand the vast spectrum of gender and sexuality past male/female, gay/straight. Amazing! Gendertopia is partly funded with tax dollars and run by Outright Vermont, Vermont's queer youth center and advocacy organization. The program teaches the difference between gender and sexuality, has students go into their community and photograph ways gender is translated in pop culture and explores the damaging ways homophobia and transphobia affect the individuals on the receiving end.

The Bad, and the Ugly:

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

Another Trans Person Shot in Memphis

Last Wednesday, Memphis resident Kelvin Denton was shot in the nose and throat. According to police documents, the alleged shooter Terron Taylor says that he committed the assault because Denton misrepresented hir gender.

Kelvin Denton is currently still in critical condition. Details are short at the moment, and so how Denton self-identifies with regards to gender is currently unclear; The Memphis Flyer and Helen G report that Denton is a trans woman, while the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition says that the details of Denton’s life are still unknown and declines to speculate on hir gender identity. (For that reason, I will be using gender neutral pronouns in this post, and update later if/when Denton’s gender identity becomes known.)

Axe needs Axed

Please click here to see picture. Blogger is acting up and not letting me post it directly here for some reason.

"Sure it’s a little bit sexist, but at least it’s creative! When Gee Seoul ad agency created this giant "calendar" ad for male deodorant Axe on the side of a female dorm. You get the message, I’m sure." - Alex from Neatorama

Uh, you think? What you do you think the women living in that dorm are thinking? How would you like to be objectified in your own college home and used to sell Axe? You know, the company with one of the largest misogynist and objectifying advertising schemes known to man. Would you want to be unwilling used to advertise how easy it would be for a guy to sleep with you, as long as he wore Axe? ...only to ditch you the next next and move to the women in the next room. Yeah. Big. Advertising. FAIL.

"The creative team at Axe Body Spray—the stinky man-goop that supposedly makes any guy instantly irresistible to beautiful (and powerful) women—wrapped a women's dorm in a "calendar" labeled "Axe schedule" for a recent ad campaign. Because if you wear Axe, you can have every woman in this dorm, get it? Looking at the photo, I don't know what's more disturbing—the idea that the aim of wearing Axe is to screw (and ditch) as many women as possible, or the fact that all the women in the photo are posed by their windows in various stages of undress, putting the viewer in the position of peeping Tom. Either way, it's an epic advertising fail."
- Erica at Shakesville

Thank you Erica.