Don't even get me started

This a really a post for when I have more time, but let's just get it started with this mini preview . . . I think gay, lesbian, and transgender rights are the biggest civil rights issue of our day.

Read this:
Newsweeks cover story Published Dec 6, 2008 - Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

By Lisa Miller
Excerpt: "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."

Watch this:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

And Listen to this:
NPR What's the Word?

And I'll get back to you with more . . .

The New Years Reading List

This is just a taste of what I plan on reading in the new year. I'm having a blast getting to read something not required by school . . . and yet some how all roads lead to social work . . .





















Give Me Liberty by Naomi Wolf
Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv
Global Capitalism by Jeffery Frieden
Propaganda and the Public Mind by Noam Chomsky

What else do I want to read in the new year . . . .

Here's NPR's Best Books for a Transformative New Year list:
- The Tribes of America: Journalistic Discoveries of Our People and Their Cultures, by Paul Cowan
- Hunger of Memory, by Richard Rodriguez
- American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century, by Gary Gerstle
- The Wordy Shipmates, by Sarah Vowell

And here's NPR's Best Political And Current Affairs Books Of 2008 list:
- The Forever War, by Dexter Filkins
- An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action for the Twenty-First Century, by James Orbinski, M.D.
- Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, by Rick Perlstein
- The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer
- The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century, by Steve Coll

And of course, last but certainly not least, I want to read Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America by Paul Tough. Nashville could really benefit from a program like the Harlem Children's Zone, can I get an Amen!

Yes We Did!

Thanks America for voting for a brighter future! Our friends and loved ones toasted change last night and felt so grateful for our new articulate, compassionate, and positive leader the whole world can be proud of. I'm still swooning!

OK, this one is heavy

So the other day in class we spoke about reproductive rights. Among a group of social workers you can find consensus on most things, but people have many different points of view when it comes to abortion. I think defining when life begins is one of the most complicated issues. Scientific examination of all stages of fetal development can support that many different moments are the moment a fetus becomes a baby.

That's why I think Obama hit the nail on the head when he said, "There is a moral dimension to abortion . . . I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about. People of good exist on both sides. Nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will and can differ. And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."

This is the problem with the pro-choice vs pro-life debate.  No one is anti-life. The framing of the pro-life camp is that to go against them is to be against human life. That is not at all the case.  People who are pro-choice are simply against controlling another person's moral decisions.  Nobody is 'pro-abortion'.  It's a decision that no woman wants to ever have to face, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.  Needing a liver transplant is a situation nobody wants to be faced with, but you wouldn't make alcohol illegal.  Using a gun to defend yourself and your family from an intruder is a situation nobody wants to be in, but you wouldn't take away the right to bear arms.  The point is that abortion is a decision not to be made by lawmakers or the church; it is a personal decision to be made only by oneself.

It's also important to recognize that as with alcohol and firearms, banning abortion wouldn't put a stop to the practice, it would simply make it far more dangerous.  Not to mention, it could open the door to restricting all sorts of other basic human freedoms. The pro-life camp does not hold exclusive reign over the morality of this issues. If the moral lines were clearly drawn, there would be no debate.

So, the focus on both sides of the issue should be, as Obama says, to work together to try to reduce the number of pregnancies that result in abortions. To do this we need education about preventative measures, to crack down on sexual offenders and rapists, and to provide great health care and public services that work to provide equal opportunites to all American citizens. With a better educated, protected, and healthy country, we'll face fewer occasions in which an abortion is a necessary option. Let's realize that we are all good people and we all want what we feel is best for women. Let's join together to raise women up, so as few people as possible are faced with this heartwrenching choice.

Here are two great NPR shows about abortion inwhich they talk about both sides of the issues.
FreshAir Oct 30th, 2008 & Morning Edition Oct 30th, 2008

Class and Corps

This whole 'welfare for Wall Street' situation has me thinking about class issues. I think it’s important that we examine why class delineation is pervasive. American class division is clearly sustained by our government welfare programs, our educational system, and myths of the American dream of rags-to-riches. The structures of corporation (taking advantage of loopholes, providing no or poor benefits for workers, and preventing unions) also upholds class divisions. But to what end? I think with all the information we are reading, its becoming clear that the top 5% and corporations benefit financially from class divides.

American systems work together in a cycle that brings huge profits to large corporations by demoralizing workers, maintaining economic and class stratus through failed government systems, and supporting myths and ideologies that support class striation. I see the cycle going as follows. First, when people work for companies in which they are not paid enough to live they are stuck in a never ending cycle of desperation. This desperation requires people to take whatever they can get and not demand what they deserve. It’s like in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ says, if you’re hungry and have no place to live, you’re not thinking about finding a career that correlates with your path of self-actualization. This is a wonderful position for a company to have its employees in, because desperate people can be taken advantage of and will work for well below their value, therefore saving the company money.

Second, if we examine 'economic dependency theory', it states that wealthy nations often exploit poorer nations, which makes rich countries richer and poorer countries poorer. I think we are seeing this theory play out within our own borders as a result of capitalism. In the process of a company attempting to reach wealth of exorbitant proportions for their executives and shareholders, they exploit the lower-wage workers. This exploitation pushes low-wage workers into a government run system, welfare, which does not assist people in truly getting out of their economic or ‘class’ situation, just getting through day-to-day.

Third, changes are not made in the welfare system because myths of the American Dream, independence, bootstraps, and rags to riches are entrenched in the American lexicon, paid for and supported by big companies that dominate our print and television media. This is advertising well spent of course. It pulls at the heartstrings of the American public by touching the hope within each of us that we can independently cross the prairie, make a billion dollars, and ride off into the sunset on a horse, or in an expensive foreign car. This makes us want to buy things too because we feel inspired, but it also makes us believe we should all be capable of achieving anything at all times. This in turn makes ‘blaming the victims’ seem justified when people do not achieve the successes they hope for. Furthermore, when we blame others for their circumstances we absolve ourselves of responsibility for their situations and become complacent to improving conditions for the poor.

Why do we participate in this cycle and maintenance of class divides? There could be so many reasons, for every person we make conscious and unconscious choices that preserve the status quo. Is it because people secretly hope they’ll slog through life to the top and one day be that high paid exec? Or do we feel the need to draw a line in the sand between ‘us and them’ because the slope downhill to a lower SES or lower class feels so slippery and precariously close? I feel when we draw divides between each other, we’re only hurting ourselves, giving companies power over the management of our government, and allowing ourselves to co-opt the values companies are selling us for their own benefit.

_________________________
For more information of class issues and corporations check out:
- Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America by Barbara Ehrenreich
- Race, class, and gender: An anthology (6th Ed), Edited by Anderson & Collins (2007)
- Economics for Social Workers: The application of economic theory to social policy and the human services, New York: Columbia University Press (2001)
- Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States, Census Bureau (2006)

A must see!

This is the PBS documentary about Obama and McCain. It's really a must see!

VOTE VOTE VOTE

It's so important that we don't lose our energy here at the end of the races. We need to keep our eyes on the prize and vote! Remind your friends, family, and neighbors to go to the polls! It's the final and most important step to getting a president who represents our morals, values, and vision for America.

McCain and Palin eat their words

Group think is a dangerous thing.

Dangerous and reactionary responses can erupt when people get together and join in an angry "us vs. them" mentality based on partial truths, and misinformation. People's safety is put at risk when misinformation continues unfettered to fuel a fire of fear.

I think McCain learned this the hard way as he stood in the middle of a mob of his own creation. I don't think McCain or his campaign managers fully understood the repercussions that false accusations of terrorism could have on the American public and their understanding of the Democratic candidate. I like to believe they didn't, because if they did, then their phrases constituted libel and intentionally risked another candidate's safety.

Thanks for addressing this misinformation and correcting dangerous half truths, McCain. Let's make this campaign about issues, not slander.

tee hee

Tell your Grandmamma to vote for Obama!

It's not news that senior citizens are more likely to vote than any other demographic. In 2004 Federal Census figures showed that 69% of all eligible seniors came out to vote. But it may be news that McCain is still leading slightly with the over 65 set. It is incredibly important that we talk to our grandparents and parents about voting for Obama, because he wants to preserve our social services like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, that will benefit American seniors and their families. McCain on the other hand has a series of plans, which weaken our Medicaid and Medicare systems by reducing funding from the federal government, privatize care, deregulate and reduce oversight, and put American families' savings at risk in the open market. We all know what can happen when Wall Street fails us. Where would a plan like McCains leave our parents and grandparents? I can tell you where, exactly where we are today. We need to reogranize and put our families first by voting for Obama.

Info about American Seniors:

- 6 Million workers are 65+ years
- In 12 months, number of unemployed persons increased by 2.2 million
- At age 50:
75% of the population has less than $5,000 in the bank for retirement.
- At age 65:
45% of Americans depend on relatives
30% depend on charities
23% are still working (most work until they are no longer physically capable)
Only 2% are self-sustaining.

Obama's Plan:

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

- Leave Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans.
- Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.
- Expansion of Medicaid & the State Children’s Health Insurance Program’s (SCHIP) eligibility. (allowing coverage for children from families just above the poverty line)
- Eliminate excessive subsidies to Medicare Advantage Plus plans (private plan alternative not cost efficient.)

SOCIAL SECURITY

- Against rising the retirement age.
- Against privatization
- Would ask those making over $250,000. A year to contribute 2%-4% more in total. (Combined with employer and employee.)
- Protect Pensions-Companies cannot shed pensions as debt.
- Will prevent Companies from issuing executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions.
- Will increase amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court.
- Limit circumstances under which retire benefits can be reduced.
- Will require detailed annual disclosures about employees pension fund investments.
- Will strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

TAXES

- Freeze Estate tax at 2009 levels
- 45% tax rate on estates valued at more than $3.5 million
- Married couples can combine their exemptions for a total of $7 million.
- This would exempt about 99.7% of estate taxes
- Eliminate Income Tax for seniors making less than $50,000 annually. (7 million seniors save $1400 each a year.)
- 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return.
- Simplify Tax Filings for millions of Americans (pre-filed tax forms created from input of IRS, banks, employers -savings of $2 billion in tax prepares fees.)
- $1000. Emergency Energy Rebate for American families ( from Windfall Profits Tax)
- Patriot Employer Act 2007 (tax credit to employers that provide full time work and corporate headquarters within US. Provide health insurance-retirement benefits.)
- Tax relief for Small Businesses (eliminate capital gains taxes)
- Provide a $500. Making Work Pay tax credit (to almost every worker in America.)
- Childcare Tax Credit (family refund of 50% for childcare expenses)

UNEMPLOYEMENT

- Opposes Bush- National Labor Relations Board’s ‘Kentucky River’ (decisions that take away rights to form unions by changing definition of ‘supervisor’.)
- Will raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011.
- Will provide $1.5 Billion for Paid Leave Fund (start –up fund for employer incentive.)
- $25 Billion in Jobs and Growth Fund. (Save over one million jobs that risk being cut i.e. road maintenance, school repair.)
- Supports Advanced Manufacturing Fund (Create 5 million new Green Jobs engaging disadvantaged youth-most innovative proposals to create new products and jobs.)
- Will Strengthen ability of workers to unionize - right to join union without harassment or
intimidation from their employers
- Supports Employee free choice act - ensure that his labor appointees support worked rights and ban the permanent replacement of striking workers

Big ideas, big inspirations

Harlem "Baby College" Website







This American Life: Going Big This Program talks about an interesting project in NY designed to help parents raise their children for success. The program is narrarated by the author of yet another book I've added to my ever expanding reading list: Whatever it Takes: an in-depth look at the Harlem Children's Zone by Paul Tough. It's always wonderful to be inspired by someone else 'going big' for their dreams and values.

More programs about Harlem Baby College:

Activist Aims High with Harlem Children's Zone, NPR, Tell Me More, September 24, 2008 · Many observers believe that the New York neighborhood of Harlem is undergoing its second renaissance. Social activist Geoffrey Canada, who is among that number, is creating a new education project that goes beyond schools, and tries to better children's lives in the community. Canada and author Paul Tough discuss the idea behind the "Harlem Children's Zone."

NPR, Fresh Air from WHYY, September 15, 2008 · The Harlem Children's Zone, writes New York Times reporter Paul Tough, is "the first and so far the only organization in the country that pulls together ... integrated social and educational services for thousands of children" — all under one umbrella, all in one place, all at one time.

If you're a woman do you have to vote for a woman? NO!!!!

Wow, this NPR roundtable blew me away. It's great to hear other people articulate so eloquently why we should vote for policy, not for the race or gender of a candidate. Really worth a listen! I've also included the link to the Richard Trumka video they reference because I wanted to see what this white male labor union leader had to say about racism. I think it's always important for us to examine our own beliefs when we're making a descision, because our gut reactions are not always the most enlightened. I'm working hard these days to be more than my animal insticts.



I've also included more programs about racism and our current campaign below. Very, very interesting:
- NPR, Spet. 11, 2008, Does Race Matter pt 1
- NPR, Sept. 11, 2008, Does Race Matter pt 2

I'll have the plate of content with a side of truth please

Negative ads and inflammatory semi-truths are just wearing me out. I'm totally over them and I think the American public is too! On NPR there was a great program that fact checked both the Democrat's and Republican's content in their attack ads and touches on the public's feelings about negative ads. I found it particularly interesting that when candidates fall behind in the polls they are more likely to run attack ads. In this interview with Stephen Marks, the author of The Confessions of a Political Hitman, he also addresses the attack ad as 'last ditch' approach. One of my professors recommended his book and, after seeing this interview as well, it's on my ever expanding list of books to read.



Ideally, this is what I want for the remainder of the political season . . . positive speeches with real content and ads which summarize what candidates will do once they're in office. This is how we develop an informed public and promote a political system which allows us to vote based on issues not fear and other knee-jerk reactions. So, can I have that please, PLEASE!

Winning by not losing . . . or just losing

The vice presidential debates are now over and I have to say, both the Republicans and Democrats seemed to get what they wanted out of it. Joe Biden was in a tough situation, but he exceeded expectations and was congenial, articulate, on point, knowledgeable, and didn't pursue tangents as he's known to do. All in all, I think the Democrats can be proud to know that Biden is very intelligent and can keep his cool. Palin too exceeded expectations, albeit an easy task after her embarrassing stumblings with Katie Couric. The Republicans achieved what they were hoping for, to salvage some dignity for their candidates. However, I couldn't help but feel discomfort with Palin's folksy approach that parallels the speeches of the last eight years.

David Folkenflik described it best in his article Palin, Pundits and Partisans: A Made-for-TV Drama; "Palin looked right into the camera, winked, smiled, joked and conveyed just by how she carried herself that, doggone it, this normal non-beltway professional would be perfectly comfortable being the understudy for the most powerful person on Earth. . . . That's not to say Palin actually answered the questions posed by moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS. She didn't always bother. And why should she have? The abbreviated periods mandated by the event's format hardly required it."

I have a real problem with our president not being taken seriously internationally and an even bigger problem with our president not taking their position seriously. The American president should stand as the consummate professional, an intellectual, and a leader. When our leaders think that 'playing dumb', or just being dumb, makes them popular, we embarrass ourselves. This 'Joe six pack', 'I'm just a hockey mom, I don't know what you Washington bigwigs mean?' flaky folksy approach shames our entire country. I want to see someone standing up in a debate, on national television, and at conferences with international leaders who impresses the world with their compassion, grace, intelligence, and honor. I don't want to think, "I could have a beer with them!"

As always, it's helpful to check the facts after a debate. I found this breakdown particularly helpful. Click the link above to check it out for yourself.

Here's my favorite moment from the debate. Thanks Biden, for being an honest, open, strong, and sensitive man. You're devotion to your family makes you a role model for people across our country.

Economic Philosophy

All American people are trying to figure out what are the clear differences between the candidates in this campaign. I think one of the clearest differences is in their economic philosophies.

McCain, as many neoconservative Republicans do and some neoliberal Democrats, supports an economic theory which gives tax breaks to companies and wealth members of our communities without market regulation and oversight. This "trickle down" theory is clearly not working though.





If we didn't see it before, this economic crisis on Wall Street clearly shows that when given power and money people and companies do not share their wealth, nor do they regulate themselves, they become corrupt and buy luxury goods. This is discussed by NY Times financial reporter Gretchen Morgenson on NPR, Fresh Air, September 23, 2008 and addressed in the book American Social Welfare Policy by H. J. Karger and D. Stoesz.

On the other side, there is a theory of bottom up or grassroots economics. This theory espouses that when people in lower and middle income brackets are given more access to services, education, and money they will pursue higher education, invest, and acquire assets. These actions will benefit the individual but also stabilize the economy and the country as a whole. I think this approach is ideal for our economy because it does not contradict our independent American ideals nor human nature. This approach provides average American families the opportunity to better themselves and their families. Isn't that what we all want to do?

This 'grassroots economics' is what Obama has described on the campaign trail. Obama was quoted on NPR, All Things Considered, September 15, 2008 · "Today offers more evidence, Colorado, that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store," Obama said. "For eight years we've had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans." Obama says he doesn't blame McCain for these problems, but he does blame the economic philosophy that he says McCain subscribes to. "It's the same philosophy we've had for the last eight years — one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else," Obama said. (To hear the full commentary click the NPR link.)

It seems clear that the outdated economic theories and out-of-touch candidates, as well as their advisers, stand to irreparably damage the American public and middle America. 1% of the wealthiest Americans own over 50% of the nations wealth. Our wage gap is increasing every day between CEOs and the people 'in the trenches.' When are we going to put an end to this abuse and create a nation where the American dream is alive and well again?!

I want the American people's constitutional rights honored. It seems that the systems we live with fuzz the lines between church and state, give more power to private companies than the American people, and protects an economic model designed to raise a minority to the lap of luxury while the majority pays the price. I'm sick of it!!

I want a president in office who's going to protect the Average American. If someone thinks the high prices of gas, the massive numbers for foreclosures, and the outrageous cost of health care is 'all in my head' or not too big a deal, they're not the President for me. If someone thinks that the economic philosophies that have been at the root of our economy for the past 8 years should continue, then they're not the President for me. I want real change. Change I will see on Main Street.
___



___



____

Feeling full of Joy

This is AMAZING. It has always been my dream to work at a science museum. If I ever get to work a one, I want it to be just like this!!! Green roof, open to the outdoors, full of human and animal life, inspiring in its design and as an educational tool . . . thank you architect Renzo Piano, this museum looks like a real gift! I can't WAIT until I get to see it myself!!! Want to know more? Visit the NPR link to hear more about it, see more photos, and take a virtual tour.



NPR, All Things Considered, September 25, 2008 · A building heralded as the greenest museum in the world opens Saturday in San Francisco. The California Academy of Sciences features a living green roof with native plants, insulation made from recycled blue jeans and a large canopy of solar energy panels.

Italian architect Renzo Piano tucked the building into the hills of Golden Gate Park — in both form and function, the museum fits into the natural world surrounding it.

Teeming With Life

The California Academy of Sciences is not your typical museum experience, says Chris Andrews, who runs the academy's public programs. There are no dark halls or long corridors here; its walls are made almost entirely of glass, and it's possible to see from one side of the building to the other from almost any point on the museum's first floor. Even the aquariums in the coral reef exhibition on the lower level are illuminated by sunlight.

"When natural sunlight hits an exhibit of living animals, it brings a tank alive in the way nothing else can," Andrews says.

The building is teeming with life, from the aquarium exhibits below to the green roof above. Standing on the only square of the living roof that isn't covered with plants, Andrews says the sloped design plays off the seven hills of San Francisco.

When Golden Gate Park was developed some 125 years ago, the city covered sand dunes with plants not native to San Francisco. Ironically, the academy's roof is the one spot in the park that has 100 percent native plants; it is already becoming a research center for local universities . . .

Standing before a re-created Pacific Ocean tide pool at the academy, Chris Andrews says this museum — with its environmentally green building and its living creatures — is meant to encourage people to take care of the Earth.

A visit to the museum is not a "strictly didactic learning experience," he says, it's "a more emotional experience."

Thanks NPR!

Disappointing . . .

I'm concerned about some parallels I can make between Sara Palin's inarticulate interviews and other people I would NOT want in my White House.





I'm clearly not alone, here's what Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist with the Washington Post, is saying about her discomfort with Palin representing the Republican party.

How do we know any of it is true?

My real concern as of late is ensuring that I have the best and most accurate information available to me. I've decided that the best approach to this is to do the following:
- Listen to multiple media sources, including international sources
- Check with non partisan sites which fact check and list public records such as:
- factcheck.org
- taxpolicycenter.org
- votesmart.org
- Read, read, read everything I can squeeze into a day, especially nonfiction texts by experts and peer reviewed research articles. Want to know what I'm reading right now?
- Understanding Social Welfare Policy by R. Dolgoff & D. Feldstein (2007)
- Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Tom Friedman (2008)
- American Social Welfare Policy (5th ed.) by H. Karger & D. Stoesz (2006)

After the first presidential debate I found this fact check breakdown really helpful. For comparison, here's another debate fact check from NPR.

I'll keep you up to date on what I'm learning!

Both Sides of the Aisle

Understanding the $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout

The issue of our current economic crisis is very complicated. I've attached several interviews from the NPR program Fresh Air, which helped to clarify the back ground and details of our current financial crisis for me.

Fresh Air from WHYY, September 17, 2008 - Was 'Adult Supervision' Needed On Wall Street? The bankruptcy of financial services giant Lehman Brothers and the 500-point drop in the stock market on Sept. 15 have sent shock waves through the financial community. Law professor Michael Greenberger discusses the potential ramifications of the recent turmoil.

Fresh Air from WHYY, September 23, 2008 - The Wall Street Bailout: A Conflict Of Interest? With the markets in flux and a massive government rescue package in the works, New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson looks into potential conflicts of interest in the nearly $700 billion deal.

Fresh Air from WHYY, September 11, 2008 · Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University and a retired Army colonel, discusses his new book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. He argues that pragmatic realism has always been the core of American foreign policy, and current politicians would do well to remember that. Andrew J. Bacevich rejects the notion that America possesses a unique tradition of 'liberation.'