It's been a few months, but it's come up again. Governor LePage, in a town hall meeting at Oxford Hills High School, said that funding for the Maine Public Broadcasting Network is a form of corporate welfare that the state can no longer afford. This isn't the first time he has tried to cut funding to MPBN, as he attempted to cut $4 million during the last year, which represent total funding for two years. “Why should I pay welfare to a company?” he said. “It’s that simple. I need that money to pay welfare. I need the (money) to make sure some elderly don’t freeze. Quite frankly, ma’am, I think that’s more important.”
While I don't disagree with his sentiment about paying LIHEAP funds, he's being disengenious, at best. As he typically does, he is passing this off as an either/or scenario. It is not, especially when his new budget proposal contains about $38 million worth of tax cuts and new spending. Also, let's look at the numbers. We are talking about a total of $1.7 million. This equals $1.30 per person. This isn't a tax increase of $1.30, this is a continuation of all of us paying $1.30. This is, litterally, pocket change.
Now, let's take a look at the "corporate welfare" portion of the comment made by Governor LePage. According to the dictionary, corporate welfare is financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies, given by the government to profit-making companies, especially large corporations. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't LePage just sign into law LD 1735, which provides sales tax exemptions to bus companies? I'm not arguing against giving tax breaks to companies, if they are directly tied to the creation of new, well paying jobs, as they are intended to do, but isn't that corporate welfare? I mean, that fits the exact definition of corporate welfare.
I'm not sure how public broadcasting has become considered a Liberal media outlet, but that is often the idea put forward by many on the right side of the aisle. Now, if you want to hear things from a perspective of one side or the other, it isn't going to happen with public broadcasting. I've heard a lot of people complain that they often cut away to hear press conferences from the White House. Well, this actually makes sense. Don't we want to hear about what is going on, no matter who inhabits 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Yes, you hear from President Obama often, but that is because he is the President. When George W Bush was President, they did the same thing. Democrats listen to public radio, and watch public television, and so do Republicans. This isn't, and shouldn't be a partisan issue.
I'm sure this isn't going to pass, much like it didn't the last time, but I'm anxious to hear what others have to say about it. Again, this isn't something that is bankrupting the state. It costs us less than a cup of coffee a year, and provides educational programming for young and old alike. Personally, I love being able to enjoy the Maine High School basketball tournament every year, as well as getting Maine news on my ride home from work every day. I think this fight is old and tired, and not one worth bringing up every year, but I'm not sure Governor LePage cares. I'm pretty sure he gets his marching orders from a higher power, and he'll continue to do their bidding. I'm just saying...
Friday, March 16, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Let's try something different, like tell the truth, mmmkay?
In a shocking development, Rush Limbaugh has a dirty mouth. I know, I know, nobody saw that coming. But seriously, what Rush said regarding Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student that testified in front of Congress, was vile. Now others are following suit, claiming that Miss Fluke testified because she can't afford to buy birth control pills for "all of the sex she is having". If he were saying this about my daughter, I'd be livid, that much is for certain. But, what is really bothersome to me here is that those that Rush, and those echoing his sentiments have the whole story wrong. Sandra Fluke wasn't there to testify on her own behalf, she was there speaking for others. Don't believe me? Here is the transcript...
"Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you."
I know that was long, but I wanted to include everything, so that people could see that she didn't go to speak about how her many sexual excapades were doing damage to her wallet. If a person wants to argue that birth control shouldn't be mandated, fine, argue your point. However, don't lie. Don't make up stories and don't belittle a woman you know nothing about. I applaud those advertisers and stations that have dropped Limbaugh's program, and I hope more continue to do the same. We, as a nation, need to stop this nonsense of name calling and lie telling to get "our side" heard, or our point across. The majority of the people in this country are moderate, leaning slightly to either side. Let's stop letting the loudest among us make all the decisions and headlines. I'm just saying...
"Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you."
I know that was long, but I wanted to include everything, so that people could see that she didn't go to speak about how her many sexual excapades were doing damage to her wallet. If a person wants to argue that birth control shouldn't be mandated, fine, argue your point. However, don't lie. Don't make up stories and don't belittle a woman you know nothing about. I applaud those advertisers and stations that have dropped Limbaugh's program, and I hope more continue to do the same. We, as a nation, need to stop this nonsense of name calling and lie telling to get "our side" heard, or our point across. The majority of the people in this country are moderate, leaning slightly to either side. Let's stop letting the loudest among us make all the decisions and headlines. I'm just saying...
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Birth control? We're talking about birth control?
Birth control? We're talking about birth control? Not the economy, not how to grow the economy, we're talking about birth control?!
See what I just did there? I took the now famous quote from former NBA star Allen Iverson about practice and made it topical. Good stuff right there! But seriously, that's what we are spending all of our time and energy on right now? Every political talk show is going on and on about the evils of birth control, and legislators are scheming up ways to eliminate it from the menu of what insurance companies provide. Really? Something like 98% of women have used at least one form of birth control, however, it is suddenly a horrible thing that needs to be destroyed?! What are we doing here? This country faces real problems, and this is simply not one of them.
To be honest, I think I know what is happening. See, President Obama has seen his approval rating climb. Unemployment figures are getting better all the time. The economy may actually be getting better. Instead of suggesting that maybe the president is doing something right, it is much easier to create a huge distraction, so people forget about the improving numbers for Obama. I mean, that has to be it, right? How in the hell are contraceptions all of a sudden the devil?! They have been in use dating back to the Egyptians in 1850 BC. It's not like it's some new, radical thing. Also, have you noticed that the people leading the charge against contraception are religious leaders and men? If memory serves, these are the same people that don't use birth control, so what are they getting all huffy about?
I've got an idea. Why don't we demonize women, in an election year! Why don't we let women decide what is best for their bodies, and let couples properly plan their families. If we are serious about protecting individual liberties, we need to start in the bedroom, and we need to start now. I'm just saying...
See what I just did there? I took the now famous quote from former NBA star Allen Iverson about practice and made it topical. Good stuff right there! But seriously, that's what we are spending all of our time and energy on right now? Every political talk show is going on and on about the evils of birth control, and legislators are scheming up ways to eliminate it from the menu of what insurance companies provide. Really? Something like 98% of women have used at least one form of birth control, however, it is suddenly a horrible thing that needs to be destroyed?! What are we doing here? This country faces real problems, and this is simply not one of them.
To be honest, I think I know what is happening. See, President Obama has seen his approval rating climb. Unemployment figures are getting better all the time. The economy may actually be getting better. Instead of suggesting that maybe the president is doing something right, it is much easier to create a huge distraction, so people forget about the improving numbers for Obama. I mean, that has to be it, right? How in the hell are contraceptions all of a sudden the devil?! They have been in use dating back to the Egyptians in 1850 BC. It's not like it's some new, radical thing. Also, have you noticed that the people leading the charge against contraception are religious leaders and men? If memory serves, these are the same people that don't use birth control, so what are they getting all huffy about?
I've got an idea. Why don't we demonize women, in an election year! Why don't we let women decide what is best for their bodies, and let couples properly plan their families. If we are serious about protecting individual liberties, we need to start in the bedroom, and we need to start now. I'm just saying...
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I've asked this before, and apparently I now know the answer. No, we can't all just get along...
I long for a day where we can stop calling each other names, stop fighting with people that don't act like us or look like us. I really wish that we could all just get along. I mean, what harm could come out of a civilized nation? How nice would it be to just relax and enjoy every day, instead of seeking out the next person to argue with? Call me crazy, but I think we have it in us. Sure, it wouldn't be easy, nothing worth doing ever is, but it sure does beat the alternative. Below are just a few of the things we are fighting over right now.
As many of you have surely heard, the Obama administration, as part of the Affordable Care Act, is requiring all employers, including Catholic universities and hospitals, to cover contraception in their employees health care plan. This has Conservative leaders screaming that President Obama is stepping all over religious liberties. Now, I'm not one to talk about religion, that can be a touchy subject for many people. That being said, I'm sorry, I'm not buying into the whole President Obama is anti-religion nonsense. This mandate doesn't force anyone, not a single person, to actually use the birth control, or other contraceptive methods, it simply requires the employer to offer it up to its employees. For example, if you are a Catholic, and you feel that it is against your religion to use birth control (which many Catholics do use birth control, despite the cries coming from the Right), you are not required to use it. Conversely, if you are not a Catholic, and you are working for a Catholic university, you will be given the opportunity to receive birth control through your health care plan. Nobody is stepping on your religious beliefs. If you don't believe in taking a birth control pill, you still don't have to. That is left completely up to you. This isn't even about religion. This is about a women's right to choose what she would like to do.
Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in the state of California, opening the door to allowing same sex marriage in the Golden State. This could be an interesting development, following in the footsteps of New York, where same sex marriage is now legal. The question of same sex marriage will be on the ballot here in Maine this November, and many feel that it will pass this time around, even if only by a small margin. This, also, has turned into a religious battle. My argument is this. Not everybody is religious, but everybody has the right to get married. The first amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another. That seems pretty clear to me that one view of religion doesn't reign supreme over any other, including that of someone who doesn't practice a religion. We can't pick and choose when a religion should apply to all people, it doesn't work that way. If two people love each other, and want to commit to each other, then who am I to tell them no. Let's do the right there here, what should have been done a long time ago.
There is a budget battle brewing up in Augusta, and if Governor LePage is in charge, it will surely get ugly. Republican and Democratic legislators came to an agreement early this morning on a budget that would get us through the end of fiscal year 2012, avoiding major cuts to DHHS, which could have affected many elderly, young and poor people across the state, as well as many related agencies that provide much needed programs for people of all walks of life. However, I'm sure Governor LePage won't find this compromise acceptable, as he has already stated that he will veto anything that doesn't look exactly how he wants things. The Appropriations Committee did what they were sent to Augusta to do, make difficult decisions, but come to a resolution. Let's hope Governor LePage does what he was sent to Augusta to do as well, and not just throw another temper tantrum.
These are just a few cases of people fighting against each other. I know that we all want what is best at the end of the day, and I also realize that we have different visions as to what actually is best. That being said, I think we all need to take a deep breath and relax. Yelling, screaming, swearing and name calling are not productive. I'm just saying...
As many of you have surely heard, the Obama administration, as part of the Affordable Care Act, is requiring all employers, including Catholic universities and hospitals, to cover contraception in their employees health care plan. This has Conservative leaders screaming that President Obama is stepping all over religious liberties. Now, I'm not one to talk about religion, that can be a touchy subject for many people. That being said, I'm sorry, I'm not buying into the whole President Obama is anti-religion nonsense. This mandate doesn't force anyone, not a single person, to actually use the birth control, or other contraceptive methods, it simply requires the employer to offer it up to its employees. For example, if you are a Catholic, and you feel that it is against your religion to use birth control (which many Catholics do use birth control, despite the cries coming from the Right), you are not required to use it. Conversely, if you are not a Catholic, and you are working for a Catholic university, you will be given the opportunity to receive birth control through your health care plan. Nobody is stepping on your religious beliefs. If you don't believe in taking a birth control pill, you still don't have to. That is left completely up to you. This isn't even about religion. This is about a women's right to choose what she would like to do.
Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in the state of California, opening the door to allowing same sex marriage in the Golden State. This could be an interesting development, following in the footsteps of New York, where same sex marriage is now legal. The question of same sex marriage will be on the ballot here in Maine this November, and many feel that it will pass this time around, even if only by a small margin. This, also, has turned into a religious battle. My argument is this. Not everybody is religious, but everybody has the right to get married. The first amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another. That seems pretty clear to me that one view of religion doesn't reign supreme over any other, including that of someone who doesn't practice a religion. We can't pick and choose when a religion should apply to all people, it doesn't work that way. If two people love each other, and want to commit to each other, then who am I to tell them no. Let's do the right there here, what should have been done a long time ago.
There is a budget battle brewing up in Augusta, and if Governor LePage is in charge, it will surely get ugly. Republican and Democratic legislators came to an agreement early this morning on a budget that would get us through the end of fiscal year 2012, avoiding major cuts to DHHS, which could have affected many elderly, young and poor people across the state, as well as many related agencies that provide much needed programs for people of all walks of life. However, I'm sure Governor LePage won't find this compromise acceptable, as he has already stated that he will veto anything that doesn't look exactly how he wants things. The Appropriations Committee did what they were sent to Augusta to do, make difficult decisions, but come to a resolution. Let's hope Governor LePage does what he was sent to Augusta to do as well, and not just throw another temper tantrum.
These are just a few cases of people fighting against each other. I know that we all want what is best at the end of the day, and I also realize that we have different visions as to what actually is best. That being said, I think we all need to take a deep breath and relax. Yelling, screaming, swearing and name calling are not productive. I'm just saying...
Thursday, January 5, 2012
New year, new me, and this time, I mean it. No, seriously...
I know, I know, we all say the same crap every year. X, Y and Z are my resolutions, and I am totally sticking to them this year. I'm going to the gym every day, or I'm not drinking at all this year. We do this to ourselves every year. I'm no different. I've given things up, sworn things off, and told myself I would do this and that, and it would last for a week, maybe two, and I'd be right back to the old Mark again in no time at all. Well, this year is different. Wait, before you say what you are thinking, and I know what you are thinking, I really mean it this time. See, this year is a little different.
As many of you know, Nichole and I lead very busy lives. We are involved in as much as we can get our hands on. Politics, sports, work and everything in between are fair game to us. We love being on the go. For example, I'm writing this while simultaneously preparing for an audit, at the office, at 7:30 at night, while Nichole is hanging out with her little sister (Nichole is a big sister as part of Big Brothers Big Sisters). There is no such thing as downtime to us, and we prefer it that way. Well, this year is going to be even worse, or better, depending on how you view things. See, we have dubbed 2012 as the year of MSH. What is MSH you ask? Make Shit Happen.
We work hard, play hard, and get every ounce out of life. That said, we continue to want more. I have always been a hard worker that is seldom heard from. I have always kept to myself at work, and just did my thing and chugged along. Well, no more. There are many changes happening at my office, and I'm going to be involved in every aspect of everything that happens going forward. I'm not only going to be the first to volunteer for things, I'm going to kick ass at it as well. I want to get more involved in the community, more involved in the workplace, and more involved with my family. I want to go to bed every evening absolutely exhausted from an amazing day of making shit happen.
See, when I was growing up, I dreamed of becoming the next Larry Bird. I was going to play professional basketball for the Boston Celtics, and I was going to be living the dream. Well, things didn't work out quite like that, but just because I'm not dropping 24 points a night and grabbing 10 rebounds, doesn't mean I'm not capable of living the dream. If I continue to push myself and work my tail off, I will be able to accomplish even more than I dreamed of. There are things I can do to make myself a better father, a better husband, and a better professional, and that is just what I plan on doing. Watch out world, I'm taking over. 2012 will be the year of MSH, I'm just saying...
As many of you know, Nichole and I lead very busy lives. We are involved in as much as we can get our hands on. Politics, sports, work and everything in between are fair game to us. We love being on the go. For example, I'm writing this while simultaneously preparing for an audit, at the office, at 7:30 at night, while Nichole is hanging out with her little sister (Nichole is a big sister as part of Big Brothers Big Sisters). There is no such thing as downtime to us, and we prefer it that way. Well, this year is going to be even worse, or better, depending on how you view things. See, we have dubbed 2012 as the year of MSH. What is MSH you ask? Make Shit Happen.
We work hard, play hard, and get every ounce out of life. That said, we continue to want more. I have always been a hard worker that is seldom heard from. I have always kept to myself at work, and just did my thing and chugged along. Well, no more. There are many changes happening at my office, and I'm going to be involved in every aspect of everything that happens going forward. I'm not only going to be the first to volunteer for things, I'm going to kick ass at it as well. I want to get more involved in the community, more involved in the workplace, and more involved with my family. I want to go to bed every evening absolutely exhausted from an amazing day of making shit happen.
See, when I was growing up, I dreamed of becoming the next Larry Bird. I was going to play professional basketball for the Boston Celtics, and I was going to be living the dream. Well, things didn't work out quite like that, but just because I'm not dropping 24 points a night and grabbing 10 rebounds, doesn't mean I'm not capable of living the dream. If I continue to push myself and work my tail off, I will be able to accomplish even more than I dreamed of. There are things I can do to make myself a better father, a better husband, and a better professional, and that is just what I plan on doing. Watch out world, I'm taking over. 2012 will be the year of MSH, I'm just saying...
Friday, December 16, 2011
My Time Questioning Her Time At Wal-Mart...
I'm sure most of you, if not all, have seen it by now. The blog post by "CollegeConservative" about welfare abuse. For those that haven't, it's right here. First of all, I can't take anyone seriously if the advertisement on their page is referencing www.commieobama.com. President Obama is not a communist. President Bush wasn't Hitler. Look, you can dislike their politics, but leave the stupid comparisons to evil people alone. You lose all credibility right off the bat. Anyways, I saw the link to the blog post showing up in my Facebook feeds like crazy the other day. I had to read it to find out what everyone was talking about. Well, what I read was, in my opinion, a steaming pile of human excrement. Basically, "college conservative" is painting people that use food stamps or other forms of State and Federal aid as a freeloading "Welfare Queen". Hold on a minute, what?
First of all, I'm not going to suggest, not for a minute, that abuse is not happening. Anyone who denies that people are abusing the welfare system is kidding themselves. That said, abuse is happening everywhere, by people of all walks of life. This isn't just being done by the poorest among us, it is absolutely happening among wealthy people as well. People will always find a way to screw the system. What angers me more than anything else on this subject, though, is how so many people paint with a broad brush. I understand that abuse upsets people, I do. However, it is completely inaccurate to suggest that abuse is widespread or that everyone receiving aid is a "freeloader" or that they are "lazy".
Let's look at some of the information that College Conservative puts forward as facts. She claims to have worked at the Scarborough Wal-Mart for the summers of 2010 and 2011. She says that, in that time, she "witnessed generations of families all relying on the state to buy food and other items". Again, perhaps this is true, to an extent, but she casually observed this while scanning items at the checkout counter over the course of two summers? Generations of families? Really? This, again, seems like a pretty broad accusation. Did she know the families personally? Did they shop together, therefore she assumed they were families? To me, too many questions to assume she saw "generations" of families relying on the state.
People ignored her while they talked on their iPhone. First of all, people of all stripes do this everywhere. It happens at the drive thru, the bank and toll booths. It's annoying, no matter who you are. However, she loses me when she starts using numbers. "For those of you keeping score at home, an iPhone is at least $200, and requires a data package of at least $25 a month. If a person can spend $25+ a month so they can watch YouTube 24/7, I don’t see why they can’t spend that money on food," she says. Perhaps the phone is a hand-me-down from mom and dad. Perhaps they don't have a data plan that allows them to "watch YouTube 24/7". Perhaps they didn't pay $200 for the phone, and got a refurbished version for considerably less, much like I did. Again, alot of assumptions here, and to quote my high school Botany teacher, you know what happens when you assume, right?
She ridicules people for using TANF benefits to purchase things such as Kit Kat bars, beer and a slip and slide, then goes on to say that there are no restrictions on what TANF benefits can be used for. So, where is the abuse? Were they all great choices for uses of the funds? Not necessarily, but who are we to judge. If a person wants to waste benefits they are eligible for, and go without something that could be more beneficial, that is their choice. If you have a problem with the system, fix that, don't ridicule the individual for doing what they have every right to do.
Extravagant purchases made with food stamps, such as steaks, lobsters and giant birthday cakes. Again, if the system is set up in such a way that this is acceptable, then the people following the rules aren't the problem. If a person wants to use $60 in food stamps to purchase lobster, and then has nothing else to show for it, that is their choice. Sure, it may not be a smart move on their part, but who am I to judge. As for birthday cakes, perhaps that is because they have a child having a birthday, and they can't do much for them, but they can at least get them a cake. Why is that so wrong? Are poor children not allowed to have a birthday cake?
The hot dog vendor that purchases all of his supplies (hot dogs, buns, condiments, etc) using food stamps is an interesting case. If this is true, that's not cool. If this is true, I would agree, this is wrong. However, I'd need more information first, before accusing him of any wrongdoing. This is another case of jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. If he is breaking the rules, kick him off the system. If what he is doing is well within the current guidelines, be mad all you want, but it is legit.
The issue of entitlement is absolutely a problem, and one I won't argue with her about. That said, it's not just by benefit recipients. There are people all around us, both rich, poor and middle class that walk around like their shit doesn't stink. Nobody is entitled to anything. We must work for it. If we hit a bump in the road, and we need assistance in one form or another, then so be it, there is a safety net in place for just that reason. It can hit any of us at any time. I've been there before. You have to swallow your pride and accept reality, and it isn't always easy. There is no reason to feel like you are above anyone else, no matter what the reason.
Maine does have a large chunk of the population receiving benefits, and again, I'm certain that there is abuse happening within the system. That said, suggesting that people that are on welfare assistance are lazy freeloaders is not only wrong, but it's insulting. If we feel that there is a problem with how the system works, then we need to focus on that, not by attacking people that are already down on their luck. Until we walk a mile in their shoes we have absolutely no right to suggest we know anything about them or their situation. If we spent more time figuring out how to get these people back to work and earning a paycheck, and less time demonizing them, we would all be much further ahead. Until then, pieces like the one from College Conservative do nothing but incite anger and class warfare, and that is not helpful. I'm just saying...
First of all, I'm not going to suggest, not for a minute, that abuse is not happening. Anyone who denies that people are abusing the welfare system is kidding themselves. That said, abuse is happening everywhere, by people of all walks of life. This isn't just being done by the poorest among us, it is absolutely happening among wealthy people as well. People will always find a way to screw the system. What angers me more than anything else on this subject, though, is how so many people paint with a broad brush. I understand that abuse upsets people, I do. However, it is completely inaccurate to suggest that abuse is widespread or that everyone receiving aid is a "freeloader" or that they are "lazy".
Let's look at some of the information that College Conservative puts forward as facts. She claims to have worked at the Scarborough Wal-Mart for the summers of 2010 and 2011. She says that, in that time, she "witnessed generations of families all relying on the state to buy food and other items". Again, perhaps this is true, to an extent, but she casually observed this while scanning items at the checkout counter over the course of two summers? Generations of families? Really? This, again, seems like a pretty broad accusation. Did she know the families personally? Did they shop together, therefore she assumed they were families? To me, too many questions to assume she saw "generations" of families relying on the state.
People ignored her while they talked on their iPhone. First of all, people of all stripes do this everywhere. It happens at the drive thru, the bank and toll booths. It's annoying, no matter who you are. However, she loses me when she starts using numbers. "For those of you keeping score at home, an iPhone is at least $200, and requires a data package of at least $25 a month. If a person can spend $25+ a month so they can watch YouTube 24/7, I don’t see why they can’t spend that money on food," she says. Perhaps the phone is a hand-me-down from mom and dad. Perhaps they don't have a data plan that allows them to "watch YouTube 24/7". Perhaps they didn't pay $200 for the phone, and got a refurbished version for considerably less, much like I did. Again, alot of assumptions here, and to quote my high school Botany teacher, you know what happens when you assume, right?
She ridicules people for using TANF benefits to purchase things such as Kit Kat bars, beer and a slip and slide, then goes on to say that there are no restrictions on what TANF benefits can be used for. So, where is the abuse? Were they all great choices for uses of the funds? Not necessarily, but who are we to judge. If a person wants to waste benefits they are eligible for, and go without something that could be more beneficial, that is their choice. If you have a problem with the system, fix that, don't ridicule the individual for doing what they have every right to do.
Extravagant purchases made with food stamps, such as steaks, lobsters and giant birthday cakes. Again, if the system is set up in such a way that this is acceptable, then the people following the rules aren't the problem. If a person wants to use $60 in food stamps to purchase lobster, and then has nothing else to show for it, that is their choice. Sure, it may not be a smart move on their part, but who am I to judge. As for birthday cakes, perhaps that is because they have a child having a birthday, and they can't do much for them, but they can at least get them a cake. Why is that so wrong? Are poor children not allowed to have a birthday cake?
The hot dog vendor that purchases all of his supplies (hot dogs, buns, condiments, etc) using food stamps is an interesting case. If this is true, that's not cool. If this is true, I would agree, this is wrong. However, I'd need more information first, before accusing him of any wrongdoing. This is another case of jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. If he is breaking the rules, kick him off the system. If what he is doing is well within the current guidelines, be mad all you want, but it is legit.
The issue of entitlement is absolutely a problem, and one I won't argue with her about. That said, it's not just by benefit recipients. There are people all around us, both rich, poor and middle class that walk around like their shit doesn't stink. Nobody is entitled to anything. We must work for it. If we hit a bump in the road, and we need assistance in one form or another, then so be it, there is a safety net in place for just that reason. It can hit any of us at any time. I've been there before. You have to swallow your pride and accept reality, and it isn't always easy. There is no reason to feel like you are above anyone else, no matter what the reason.
Maine does have a large chunk of the population receiving benefits, and again, I'm certain that there is abuse happening within the system. That said, suggesting that people that are on welfare assistance are lazy freeloaders is not only wrong, but it's insulting. If we feel that there is a problem with how the system works, then we need to focus on that, not by attacking people that are already down on their luck. Until we walk a mile in their shoes we have absolutely no right to suggest we know anything about them or their situation. If we spent more time figuring out how to get these people back to work and earning a paycheck, and less time demonizing them, we would all be much further ahead. Until then, pieces like the one from College Conservative do nothing but incite anger and class warfare, and that is not helpful. I'm just saying...
Friday, November 18, 2011
Right idea, wrong approach...
Occupy Wall Street. I'm sure you've heard about it by now. Heck, it has spread all over this country, even all over the world. What is it? What do they stand for? Who is leading the charge? What are they hoping the outcome will be? While the movement may only be two months old, there are still so many questions remaining. Let's see if I can touch upon a few of them, and give my impressions of the movement.
First of all, what is Occupy Wall Street? Conceptually, I think it is great. I see OWS as a movement of people fed up with politics as usual. This country has shifted from the land of opportunity to the land of haves and have nots. We continue to see the gap between wealthy and poor grow wider and people are rightfully upset about this. Now, before you accuse me of hating rich people or spewing class warfare, stop, I don't begrudge someone for having money. If they have worked hard and earned their money, good for them! What I am tired of, however, is the loopholes the rich are given at the expense of us in the middle class. People with money are able to influence those on Capital Hill to help them out even more, while people like me are only able to see my bank account get bigger by picking up a 3rd, 4th or 5th job. I do not want to be given anything, I want to work for it. Like I said, I'm not mad at you for your successes in life, I applaud you. That said, I'm tired of paying more in taxes so you can get a break.
Like I said before, conceptually this idea is fantastic. However, I'm not sure we should be mad at those on Wall Street. While I feel many of them may be immoral people, they haven't broken any laws. They are operating under the current set of laws, whether we like them or not. That said, our anger should be directed toward our elected officials past and present in Washington DC. They are the ones who make the rules. They are the ones that continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. They are the ones who have a lower approval rating than the Kardashians for gods sake. We should be occupying DC, and reminding Congress that they work for all of us, not just a select few.
I recently tried to explain to my 9 year old daughter what they were doing as we drove by Lincoln Park in Portland, where the Occupy Maine group is camping out. She had a hard time understanding it all, and rightfully so, she is only 9, but her first comment was, why camp out? I couldn't answer this question. I don't really know. I mean, I get that in order to occupy an area you need to set up shop. I get it. However, I think it is a bad way to protest. We have the most powerful form of protesting, our vote. If we are unhappy with how things are going, we can go to the ballot box and vote for people who will do right for the people. If the new batch of politicians can't do what is right, we can vote them out and start over. However, in order to make this work we have to stop worrying about party affiliation and insist that no matter what you call yourself, a Democrat or a Republican, you need to look out for everyone, not just those that give you the most in bribes.
Every good movement needs leadership. While I appreciate their attempt to keep this open to more people, it's hard to not have a central person to be the face of the movement. What's worse, is now it is starting to spin out of control. With no real leadership to speak of, and occupiers intentionally getting arrested to make some point, this movement will fall flat on its face. Again, I want to rally behind them, but I simply cannot. In order to turn things around and make this movement become a legitimate force, like the Tea Party did, it needs individuals to stand up and proclaim its purpose and goals. It needs someone to whip the occupiers into shape and lead them in a positive direction. You can claim that you are peacefully protesting until you are blue in the face, but with every arrest, every riot, every person that smashes a window, you lose more and more credibility.
In all honesty, I'm losing hope for the Occupy Wall Street movement. I'm hopeful that the concept can live on, but I think the movement itself is losing any steam it may have once had. If there is truly a large percentage, say 99%, that is pissed off with politics as usual, then we need to hit the ballot boxes next November and send a message to the politicians in Washington. If they aren't going to do what is best for all of us, we need to send them home so someone else will. That is how you get a point across. Stop trashing parks and blocking bridges. All that is going to do is disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with this, and that isn't acceptable. If you want to be taken seriously, do the right thing and make change, don't site around and bitch about it. I'm just saying...
First of all, what is Occupy Wall Street? Conceptually, I think it is great. I see OWS as a movement of people fed up with politics as usual. This country has shifted from the land of opportunity to the land of haves and have nots. We continue to see the gap between wealthy and poor grow wider and people are rightfully upset about this. Now, before you accuse me of hating rich people or spewing class warfare, stop, I don't begrudge someone for having money. If they have worked hard and earned their money, good for them! What I am tired of, however, is the loopholes the rich are given at the expense of us in the middle class. People with money are able to influence those on Capital Hill to help them out even more, while people like me are only able to see my bank account get bigger by picking up a 3rd, 4th or 5th job. I do not want to be given anything, I want to work for it. Like I said, I'm not mad at you for your successes in life, I applaud you. That said, I'm tired of paying more in taxes so you can get a break.
Like I said before, conceptually this idea is fantastic. However, I'm not sure we should be mad at those on Wall Street. While I feel many of them may be immoral people, they haven't broken any laws. They are operating under the current set of laws, whether we like them or not. That said, our anger should be directed toward our elected officials past and present in Washington DC. They are the ones who make the rules. They are the ones that continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. They are the ones who have a lower approval rating than the Kardashians for gods sake. We should be occupying DC, and reminding Congress that they work for all of us, not just a select few.
I recently tried to explain to my 9 year old daughter what they were doing as we drove by Lincoln Park in Portland, where the Occupy Maine group is camping out. She had a hard time understanding it all, and rightfully so, she is only 9, but her first comment was, why camp out? I couldn't answer this question. I don't really know. I mean, I get that in order to occupy an area you need to set up shop. I get it. However, I think it is a bad way to protest. We have the most powerful form of protesting, our vote. If we are unhappy with how things are going, we can go to the ballot box and vote for people who will do right for the people. If the new batch of politicians can't do what is right, we can vote them out and start over. However, in order to make this work we have to stop worrying about party affiliation and insist that no matter what you call yourself, a Democrat or a Republican, you need to look out for everyone, not just those that give you the most in bribes.
Every good movement needs leadership. While I appreciate their attempt to keep this open to more people, it's hard to not have a central person to be the face of the movement. What's worse, is now it is starting to spin out of control. With no real leadership to speak of, and occupiers intentionally getting arrested to make some point, this movement will fall flat on its face. Again, I want to rally behind them, but I simply cannot. In order to turn things around and make this movement become a legitimate force, like the Tea Party did, it needs individuals to stand up and proclaim its purpose and goals. It needs someone to whip the occupiers into shape and lead them in a positive direction. You can claim that you are peacefully protesting until you are blue in the face, but with every arrest, every riot, every person that smashes a window, you lose more and more credibility.
In all honesty, I'm losing hope for the Occupy Wall Street movement. I'm hopeful that the concept can live on, but I think the movement itself is losing any steam it may have once had. If there is truly a large percentage, say 99%, that is pissed off with politics as usual, then we need to hit the ballot boxes next November and send a message to the politicians in Washington. If they aren't going to do what is best for all of us, we need to send them home so someone else will. That is how you get a point across. Stop trashing parks and blocking bridges. All that is going to do is disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with this, and that isn't acceptable. If you want to be taken seriously, do the right thing and make change, don't site around and bitch about it. I'm just saying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
