Here's What The GOP Congress Did Last Week

Every day that Congress is in session our representatives are reviewing and voting on important pieces of legislation. Knowing what the people we elect to represent us in government are doing is vital to creating a population of educated voters. Here's what Congress did during the week of May 19 to May 23, 2014. None of the votes will come as any surprise to left-leaning constituents.

HR 4435, Fiscal 2015 Military Budget 

325 For, 98 Against
216 Republicans and 109 Democrats voted for this legislation, while 13 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against it. The House authorized a $600.7 billion military budget for 2015. One thing done right in the passage of HR 4435 is improving mental health and suicide prevention programs for veterans.

 However, the House is sticking to its guns: Air Force U-2 spy planes will NOT be retired, even though the Pentagon doesn’t want them. The smart money is on the House catering to defense contractor lobbyists on this clause.

 Sadly, the House continues to block sexual assault victims from receiving justice outside the military chain of command. Military personnel who suffered rape or sexual assault will need to continue to fight against the status quo, good old boys club, that doesn’t want to acknowledge that they may be protecting rapists.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h240 

Minimum Wage, Equal Pay 

 Forget about it. The House voted against this bill (again). Just 4 Republicans voted in favor of this legislation, while 190 Democrats voted in favor. On the other hand, 4 Democrats voted against this legislation along with 227 Republicans.

The bill would have prohibited government contracts being awarded to companies that failed to pay a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour, and provide pay equity between female and male employees. So Uncle Sam may continue to award contracts to employers who discriminate against women by paying them less than men, and who refuse to pay a living wage.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h226 

Ban on Climate Change Spending 

 227 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted for an amendment to HR 4435 to prohibit the use of federal funds that would have allowed the Department of Defense some latitude in its 2015 budget, for spending on programs that address climate change.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h231 

Repeal of 9/11 War Resolution

 15 Republicans and 176 Democrats voted for repealing open-ended war authority, which was enacted one week after 9/11. However, 233 voted to NOT repeal this authority, which has been the legal basis of our continuing military actions since 9/11.

 Pay careful attention here, ladies and gentlemen. House Republicans made it clear that they want presidents (including President Obama) to continue to have the authority to detain suspected terrorists in U.S. military custody without charges, rather than assigning such cases to the civilian criminal justice system.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h234 

Guantanamo Bay Closure

 Republicans in the House again defeated an amendment to HR 4435 to shut down Guantanamo Bay. A total of 224 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted against closing Gitmo.  (6 Republicans and 171 Democrats voted for the passage of this amendment.)

 All that talk about how President Obama hasn’t lived up to his promise to close Gitmo is cheap and misleading. The GOP Congress doesn’t want to let go of the presidential authority to hold people in places like Gitmo. The Republican controlled House lies to your faces whenever they say President Obama is the reason Gitmo still exists.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h233 

Curbs on NSA Surveillance

 303 House members voted to scale back the NSA’s authority to collect bulk data on American citizens. The NSA will now be required to scale back caching our phone calls and emails, which was allowed under The Patriot Act. In future, the NSA will have to provide a “degree of specific information” - short of probable cause - to identify its target in the context of a terrorism investigation.

 Critics of this successful vote say that the “degree of specific information” standard is so poorly defined as to make it no more restrictive than in the past, but it seems to be a step in the right direction.

Quick Firing of Civil Servants

 The House voted 330 voted for, and 33 against (all Democrats), waiving certain civil-service job protections in a clear response to the recently reported, but decade old VA scandal. The House sent HR 4031 to the Senate for passage in one of the most rapidly resolved issues during the 113th Congress.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h229

 To keep track of how Congress votes on issues important to you, go to https://www.govtrack.us/. If we don't know how our reps are voting, how can we possibly know how we should vote?

Why People Wearing Guns In Public Do Not Make Me Feel Safe (Part 2, *For Dummies)

image credit Tracy Loeffelholz Dunn 

On May 23, 2014, 22 year old Elliot Rodger opened fire on a group of sorority girls, near the University of California, in Santa Barbara. The media says that Rodger was sexually frustrated and there is plenty of evidence that he was mentally ill, as well. The bottom line, however, is no matter how sexually frustrated and mentally ill he was, he could not have done what he did, had he not been easily able to purchase the gun.

The fact that we, as a country, cannot engage in a reasonable discussion about guns is a tragedy. The fact that so many of my friends will have the same old knee-jerk reaction to the most recent mass shooting, immediately turning the conversation to "Obama is coming for my guns," is also a tragedy.

No one wants your fucking guns. What I want is for us all to back the hell up, and simply sit down to discuss how we can work together to address this problem. It IS a problem, and it's high time for Second Amendment fanatics to get a grip. It might also be a good time for them to read the ENTIRE Constitution, to better understand that the militia they claim to be a part of is actually provided for under the Constitution. It's called the National Guard. If you want to be militia, JOIN THE NATIONAL GUARD.

NO ONE IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS. (I addressed this subject in part 1 of this series, you can read that here.)

Now can we please have a meaningful discussion about what it will take to prevent THIS story from happening again? (Of course, by the time we can agree to do so, there will be countless more examples just like this.) When will it be too much, too many?

When will we understand that the Open Carry nitwits are more likely to be poseurs and malcontents, who probably shouldn't be carrying loaded weapons into a restaurant where our kids are dining? When will we conclude that FEWER safeguards is a hazard? When will we realize that responsible gun owners seem to be in the minority when we look at gun owners as a whole?

I am not saying people shouldn't own guns. I am saying that if you want to own guns, you should own the reality of what guns do. This isn't about stupid arguments like "Criminals have guns, why shouldn't I"? It's not about whether or not criminals have more firepower than police. This isn't about their rights, my rights, or someone else's right to own a gun.

This is about our daughters, our sons, our spouses, our parents, our loved ones being exposed to people that have a gun and bear ill will toward others. WHAT WILL WE DO ABOUT THAT?

It is now time for those who staunchly, seriously believe in their Second Amendment rights to take some responsibility for the world in which we live. Come to the grown-up table and join in a real, productive discussion about just what it means to be living in the U.S., right here, right now.

I am sick to death of the right-wing’s predictable response to gun massacres. The left, moms, parents, we all rage against guns every time someone takes one into a public place and uses it to mow down other people. Every time we even HINT at the words “gun control,” or "gun safety," the right loses its collective mind, decrying Obama for his intention to take their guns. I don’t know why gun control is the equivalent of the dismantling of gun rights in the view of some Americans. I believe there is room for both controlling who can possess a gun, and the right to own a gun.

If the NRA and its automatons refuse to address the increasingly desperate situation of gun control, at some point pacifists, liberals, citizens of the U.S. WILL come to our senses. At some point, we WILL come for your guns.

IF WE COME FOR YOUR GUNS, IT IS YOUR OWN DAMNED FAULT.

I'm sure many who read this will disagree. Guess what? Unless you have something to add to the solution, you can tell your story walking. Peace.

Why People Wearing Guns In Public Does Not Make Me Feel Safe (Part 1)

So, in a world where mass shootings in public places happens routinely, why don’t I feel safer seeing people carrying weapons around in public?

Sure, sure, I’ve heard the argument that if more people were armed, these public mass shootings wouldn’t happen. But is that true? While I understand the theory that if more responsible people were armed they might be in a position to “put down” a nut who blasts rounds into a public place, I do not understand how having THESE people carrying loaded guns around is better.

The (mostly) men who keep appearing in photos at Chipotle’s, or Sonic, or Jack in the Box, do not make me feel safe, particularly when they seem to be engaged in a war against people like me - moms who are scared at seeing all those big-ass assault weapons carried by zit-faced boys and socially inept men.
I do NOT believe this is what the founders intended when they penned the Second Amendment, which reads as follows:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress shall have the following powers:

• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
• To provide and maintain a Navy
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces 
• To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress 

The above powers are the definition of what a “well regulated militia” is. The modern day equivalent of the Militia is the National Reserve. These yahoos out carrying their fully or semi-automatic weapons around are NOT militia members, no matter what their tiny, black hearts like to imagine. The men in such photos are bullies, plain and simple. Their mere presence in our restaurants, movie theaters, food courts, etc., is an affront to me.

I guess I have no faith that these simple-minded men would be the least bit effective if some nut decided to spray a hail of bullets into a public place where my family happened to be. In fact, whenever I see these armed men, I feel more scared, because I have no idea if they are the nuts that I need to worry about.

image credit whatwouldjackdo.net

Three Misspelled Gravestones And What We Can Learn From Them

In April, 2014, while attending a burial service for a relative at Riverside (CA) National Cemetery, Walt White, a Vietnam vet, noticed a typo on a headstone. And then another. And then a third.

“No trail to steep” 

“elegant Brithish lady” 

“Simper Fi” 

When you consider that simper means a silly, self-conscious smile, which is not even close to Semper Fidelis, 'Always Faithful', the motto of the US Marine Corp, you have to wonder how this headstone could have been put up, as written.

After the service Mr. White visited the admin office. He showed a cell phone picture of the marker memorialized with “Simper Fi” to the woman at the desk.

White was told that families generally come to the office to complete a form for the headstone inscription
immediately following a graveside service. What is put on the form is what is written on the headstone, and errors are not corrected on behalf of the family. The woman explained that it is not the duty of the National Cemetery to make changes to the family’s wishes.

Mr. White’s complaint fell on deaf ears, because policy dictates that only next of kin can request corrections.

When Dan Bernstein, staff columnist at The Press-Enterprise  received an email from White, he visited Riverside National Cemetery. After viewing the misspelled headstones, Bernstein spoke to the cemetery’s
public affairs chief.

It turned out that “Brithish” was an employee error. A new marker was ordered to replace the misspelled one.

As for Simper, it was the result of a contractor’s error. “Semper Fi” had been important to Gunnery Sgt. Kim Kermit Watrous, and his family had requested “Semper Fi” be inscribed on the marker. This fact was confirmed when the public affairs chief spoke to Watrous’ widow. Riverside National Cemetery set out to make the correction.

As it turns out, the correction had already been requested by a supervisor at the cemetery who also happened to be a Marine. The supervisor arrived in time to overhear White's earlier conversation with the woman at the admin desk. The Marine took one look at the picture and said, “We’ll get it changed, sir.”

Bernstein's report doesn't say how long these grave markers had stood there reflecting these errors. It may have been years or merely months. The Riverside National Cemetery is one of the most frequently visited veteran's cemeteries in the U.S., so it stands to reason that White and Bernstein weren't the first to notice the mistakes.

All of this just goes to show that, while a lot of us talk about honoring veterans, in order to truly honor them, sometimes we have to stand up and speak out, not taking no for an answer. If we truly care, then we shouldn't be content to see our country's defenders dishonored, whether the dishonor comes from a shoddy grave marker or an underfunded healthcare system.

It also goes to show that if we are determined enough to get something changed, because we care enough to do it, then we can and we will get it changed.

Semper Fi.

Texas Senator Dan Patrick's 'God-Awful' Speech On Climate (VIDEO)

Image credit theproblemwithlife.wordpress.com

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Texas Senator Dan Patrick (R) gave a speech to his supporters about climate change, which turns out to be a real revelation. Wow! I didn’t realize that President Obama thinks he’s the smartest person in the country. I also didn't realize that his use of the Constitutionally prescribed Presidential Executive Order (read, so, so, so many of them) shows the President thinks “Congress isn’t even up to his level.” I hadn’t realized that Congress was up to anyone’s level lately.

During the speech, Senator Patrick suggests that there has been meaningful scientific debate on the issue of climate change. He states, “If you want a tie breaker, if Al Gore thinks it’s right, you know it’s wrong.”
I suppose this passes for a meaningful conclusion, based on “facts.” Since 96 percent of Scientists say that climate change is happening, while 4 percent do not, how is that 'A TIE'?

Senator Patrick goes on to tell a dipsy-doodle anecdote about Al Gore’s presidential race, when, while in Texas, he was asked what he thought about the extinction of the Texas Eagle.  Mr. Gore replied that the Texas eagle is a beautiful bird, and he was sad to hear of its eminent extinction. (The joke being that the Texas Eagle was an Amtrak train on a route being eliminated.  I find it to be a leading question, though a pretty good anecdote.)

  Patrick says:

“When it comes to global warming…you know why he (Gore) is really behind global warming and climate change? Because he’s made billions of dollars in it.”

How does one make billions of dollars “in” global warming, or “in” climate change, for that matter? Patrick says;

“It’s a cottage industry for him.”

Huh?

Apparently, Patrick thinks that committing money to help stem the destruction predicted by 96 percent of the world's scientists will kill jobs. Apparently, he also thinks that committing funds to address the eminent problem will destroy our economy. Now, I’m not certain, but I don’t think the plan is to use those dollar bills to plump up sandbags.

I think Senator Patrick ought to start rowing. In the future, he may need to row himself back to the smaller habitable regions where people are figuring out a way to go on with their lives. He can then turn his rowboat upside down, stand on top of it, and proclaim in his folksy way that President Obama (who thinks he is God) thinks he knows better than Texans about what’s going on with climate change. The fun will be in hearing exactly how that helps Texans in the long run.

Does it need to clarified that it's not really President Obama or Al Gore even, who researched, authored or developed the data on climate change? It's not really the president or former vice president who think they know more than Texans. It's the people who study this stuff, you know, the experts, we like to call them Scientists. The tea party generally refers to them as the 'educated, elite people' who will never be on their side. Why is that I wonder?

God, who Patrick thinks has handled our climate pretty well, may not find Patrick very amusing, since he clearly has failed to act as a responsible steward to our Earth. Which makes me wonder… how will God view our abject failure to care for what He gave us? And how might He view the naysayers who have scoffed and chortled at the idea that humans have contributed to the problem?

It sure would be nice if some of these so-called Christians would take a moment to look at the future through something other than their dollar-colored glasses.

* Nicole is undecided about God, but feels certain that SHE would disapprove of all this posturing by the right.

Here's the video of Senator Patrick's God awful climate change speech,  from Raw Story.

Michele Bachmann's Insane Crusade Against Her Own Gender

On May 7th, Michele Bachmann stood on the House floor, asking her colleagues to vote AGAINST the creation of a bipartisan committee to explore construction of a privately funded effort to build the National Women’s History Museum (NWHM) on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. A Republican bill, clearly thought to be destined for quick passage, this measure was brought to improve the GOP’s tarnished image concerning women generally, and women’s rights specifically. But Bachmann argued that the NWHM “…will enshrine the radical feminist movement that stands against the pro-life movement, the pro-family movement, and pro-traditional-marriage movement.”

I, too, made a “cursory review” of the online exhibits presented by NWHM. Michele Bachmann only had eyes for Margaret Sanger, who brought reproductive care and birth control to women, and concluded that her inclusion in the profiles outshines other, worthy profiles, including Bachman’s own, in the Profiles of Motherhood category for her role as a foster parent.

Please note that I did NOT see Sanger’s profile on the front page, which offers categories including women in sports, women who have accomplished daring feats, women who spied for their country during times of war, women who changed our world, our country, our thinking, our beliefs, our role as citizens. Bachmann surely had to dig a bit to find what she wanted to object to. Perhaps she searched out Sanger specifically?

Where Michele Bachmann sees dangerous feminism at play in the engaging profiles, I found a well-organized, thoughtful collection of profiles of women worth knowing about. The profiles seem to me to be representative of all the areas where people have made significant contributions for the betterment of man- and womankind. That these people happen to be women does not diminish their contribution, nor does the fact of their femaleness suggest any radicalization or feminism overtly.

It is only when such an exhibit is mulled over by the fertile and perverse mind of a Bachmann (or a Limbaugh, for that matter, who commented that women already have a museum and it’s called the M-A-L-L) that the individual profiles can be found to be dangerous, anti-American, or hostile to families.

The National Women’s History Museum is an inspiration to girls, women and humans. To malign the intent to inspire by ascribing negative motives to the NWHM is truly the height of deviousness. To attribute nasty connotations to what ought to be a perfectly wonderful future museum is both closed-minded and manipulative. In a country where museums can, and have, been created in support of false claims (Kentucky’s Creation Museum, where displays show human kids putting saddles on dinosaurs, comes to mind), it seems absurd to make false claims about a museum simply because you can’t appreciate what it has to offer.

photo credit internetweekly.com

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

I have had it with hearing about Benghazi. It was awful, tragic, and criminal, but I’m talking about the actual event, of course. Unlike our Republican/Tea Party contingent. Benghazi is, and may always be, too awful, tragic, and criminal to forget about, but they refer to the supposed scandal. They paint President Obama with the brush of failure, corruption, and wickedness even as they fail to look at reality. (What is WITH this reality problem?)

There are other, equally tragic, incidences of American embassies being bombed, American lives being lost, in our not-too-distant past:

• On January, 31, 1968, in Saigan, Vietnam, Viet Cong commandos forced their way onto Embassy grounds, killing 5 U.S. Security forces.
• On April, 18, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon, an Islamic Jihad car bomb destroyed the Embassy. 63 souls lost their lives, 17 of them American.
• Also in Beirut, on September 20, 1984, Hezbollah’s car bomb at the U.S. Embassy killed 24.
• Not an embassy, but worthy of mention, is the October 23, 1983, Beirut Barracks Bombings. 229 American and French servicemen were killed when 2 truck bombs struck separate barracks during the Lebanese Civil War.
• August 7, 1998, in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, al-Qaeda attacked 2 U.S. Embassies, killing 224, including 10 Americans.

Diplomatic security has not been fully funded since 2010. Budgetary issues forced a lack of funding outside the hot countries: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Libya received less funding in the form of security upgrades for embassies and consulates. Republicans voted for the budgetary disbursements, and bear responsibility for the lack of security at Benghazi as much as anybody else.

The fact that Republicans now decry President Obama and Hilary Clinton is grotesque, and their continued focus on prolonging the “scandal” is disingenuous. Republicans need to let go of the past, and their past beefs, and try to move on. More important, Republicans would be wise to start dealing in reality. Eventually, even their own constituents will start to see through their duplicity.

image credit thepoliticalcarnival.net

Common Core Makes Me Sore

When my son was in grade school, beginning in 1999, and he asked for help with his math homework, I realized that schools had changed the language used to describe and talk about math. And because I hadn’t ever been exposed to this new, strange language, this nutty way of talking about math and math problems, I sucked at helping him. When he hit middle school, I was useless to him. Of course, I could DO or SOLVE every problem he presented, but I just couldn’t DO or SOLVE the problem the way he was required to.

I always liked math. A lot. I mean I excelled at math. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus…I aced all of them. Why, then, did I find myself incapable of helping my son with his basic math homework?

The question kept me up at night. It had me doubting myself. My son and I butted heads, and suffered hurt and hard feelings toward one another at times. All because of a math curriculum that had fallen into favor for the moment. The method of teaching math to students used during the late 90’s and into the next decade didn’t last. And now we have Common Core, causing another generation of parents and students to learn to hate math. In my view, math is math. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division - these are functions that have no need to be fiddled with. How does a so-called conceptual understanding of how numbers relate to each other add any competence in basic arithmetic?

If you have 5 cookies, then you give three away, you still wind up with 2 cookies left, and you have mastered subtraction! If you have 5 cookies, and you split them each in half, so that you and 9 friends can each have a half a cookie, you are doing fractions! How you talk about these numerical truths should NOT make them harder to understand. Especially from the parents’ point of view.

If schools and curriculum force parents to give up helping their students with homework, do students benefit? If schools and curriculum lead to family fights, and tears and disruption, do students benefit? If schools and curriculum create a distance between parents and students, and result in a complete inability to talk about math together, do students benefit? I think not.

Given the current dismal state of American academic achievement, and our notable failure to produce scientists and mathematicians in recent decades, it seems that fiddling around with the language of math has only weakened our ability to communicate about, and with, numbers.

How best to fix the problem is, of course, the biggest problem. Education advocates seem to have stuck on the idea that we need new programs to maximize a student’s potential for learning, and yet each new program seems underwhelming. While there may be numerous ways to repair the system, it seems that our focus on testing does more harm than good. Teachers find they only teach in preparation of tests, rather than having time to fully explore topics, especially those that engage kids. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with assigning math homework, for instance, that includes dozens of problems, rather than the 5 or fewer I saw in my son’s grade school homework. Assigning too few problems seemed silly at the time, since competence in any skill is only won through diligence and effort.

image credit teamuptutors.com

Maybe our biggest problem is that parents need classes just to understand the WAY their children are expected to solve a math problem nowadays.