What can we take from our experience fighting big tobacco that we can apply to fighting the NRA?

My heart broke again this afternoon when I read that a three-year old in SC died after mistaking a pink, loaded handgun for a toy (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-dies-playing-pink-gun-mistaken-toy-article-1.1256597).

I made the mistake and read some of the comments. The same old, same old. The parents are to blame. They were "irresponsible" gun owners. Any responsible gun owner would NEVER keep a gun where a child could get it. They should be prosecuted, blah, blah, blah. But assuming that the gun was purchased legally, the parents were being responsible, by the NRA's standards, for keeping a gun in their home to protect them from the bogey man and jack-booted government thugs.

Sometimes it seems as if the NRA has such a strangle hold on our public policy and collective psyche that we will never make any headway on this issue. But then I think of the big tobacco battles of the 1990s. Those seemed impossible. I was an idealistic, newly minted, public health advocate back then. I worked with the folks on the front lines of the tobacco wars. It seemed like we would never break the tobacco industry's grip on our nation's health - no matter how many studies were conducted, no matter how many law suits were filed, the tobacco lobby was too strong.

But inch by inch, the American public has begun to reclaim it's health from an industry bent on destroying it. We have regulated the hell out of cigarettes. You can't smoke in most restaurants and clubs anymore. Try lighting up in an airplane. You'll get quite a reception when you land. Smoking cessation counseling is a routine part of primary health care. School health programs preach about the dangers of smoking to kids. We tax and tax cigarettes.

The result? Smoking rates in the U.S. have been dropping consistently from year to year. States such as California have achieved record lows in the rates of adult smoking. They've also see drops in rates of heart disease, lung cancer, and other smoking-related illnesses. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR11-031.aspx

And guess what - we have not BANNED cigarettes!!!! You can't smoke anywhere or anytime you want. It may be uncomfortable or inconvenient for you to suck on that cancer stick, but you can still smoke your life away if you want. But you're not going to be endangering my health or the health of my children any more.

Maybe it's time to revisit the tobacco wars and see what strategies we can adapt to the gun wars. Maybe we start by teaching young children what bullets do to human flesh (who remembers seeing the diseased lung in science class?). Maybe state Attorneys General start prosecuting manufacturers for marketing guns to children (pink guns, really? It's like the fruit-flavored cigarettes they tried to sell in the 90s). Maybe we put more money into public health research into the prevention of gun violence. Maybe a public education campaign like The Truth Campaign (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448237/) to fight the bogus claims of gun safety promoted by the NRA (which is the gun manufacturers' version of the Tobacco Research Institute).

Maybe, just maybe we can save some lives and you'll be able to keep your guns too.

It's time for the gun lobby to find some new arguements

I am SICK AND TIRED of "gun rights" people making straw man arguments about SENSIBLE gun control policies. The latest screeds I've been reading on Facebook and Twitter are using the examples of the decorated navy sniper being shot dead at the gun range by another veteran and the ongoing hostage situation in Alabama in which a Viet Nam veteran killed a bus driver, kidnapped a 5 year old boy and is holding him hostage in an underground bunker as examples of why gun control policies don't work.

I am hearing "gun rights" folks crowing with thinly veiled glee that these tragedies disprove gun control supporters' arguments that only the military and police should be allowed to own guns. See! See! We need our guns to protect us from a dangerous, tyrannical army! See! See! Our military can't be trusted with guns!

Apparently these "gun rights" folks need a vocabulary lesson and a better understanding of chronology. See, these shooters weren't military. They were VETERANS. Miriam Webster's dictionary defines a veteran as a FORMER member of the armed forces. "Former" means "a : coming before in time; b : of, relating to, or occurring in the past." I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp. Let me see if i can explain explain it: someone who is CURRENT military is actually in the armed forces RIGHT NOW. Someone who is FORMER military used to be in the armed forces but isn't anymore.

But would gun control policies have been able to prevent these tragedies? I don't know, but let's suppose for just a minute that we had some serious gun control policies in place. Let's imagine for a moment that we required anyone owning a firearm NOT have a criminal record of firearms abuse (like unlawfully brandishing a firearm or using a firearm to threaten bodily harm to his neighbors) or violence (like beating a dog to death with a metal pipe), then MAYBE the old guy in Alabama may have lost his right to own a gun. Maybe, just maybe, that INNOCENT 5 year old wouldn't be in that bunker right now.

"But he could have just bought a gun at a gun show or from a private seller'" argue the gun lovers. Well, let's imagine that we require that ALL gun sales, private sales and gun shows included, require a background check and that all gun sales be registered with a law enforcement agency. It sure would have made it a hell of a lot harder for the old coot to get a gun.

But then the gun "advocates" bring up the brilliant argument that he could have just gotten a gun on the black market or stolen one. After all - only the good guys obey the law. Seriously guys, you are joking, right? You do see the holes in this logic? Holes big enough to drive a tank-mounted Howitzer through? Following your logic we should throw out the laws about rape, since only non-rapists will obey them. Let's get rid of drunk driving laws because only people who know better than to drink and drive will obey them. And let's forget about making murder illegal since only non-murders will obey them. Seriously guys - you gotta give up the ghost on that argument. It just makes you look ignorant and desperate.

Now back to the killing on the gun range. I won't argue the logic about taking someone with combat-related PTSD to a gun range to unwind and blow off steam. Exposure therapy is a valid way to treat PTSD but I can think of some safer ways to treat it than to hand the patient a loaded weapon - like maybe using blanks or a video simulation. And exposure therapy really should be handled by a licensed psychiatrist in a controlled setting. But second guessing these guys' judgement aside, let's imagine that we had gun laws that required anyone wanting to handle live ammo at a shooting range to present a current and valid license to operate a firearm. And let's imagine that that getting said license is tied to a real-time criminal and mental health background check. Maybe that vet with a diagnosis of PTSD wouldn't have been handed a loaded weapon that he then used to kill the man who was trying to help him. I mean seriously, if my 7 year old daughter has to have a valid fishing license to use her Barbie fishing pole which couldn't even bag a goldfish, is it too much too ask that someone have a valid firearms license before using a weapon that could kill a couple of dozen people?

"Well maybe they would have gone to a empty field to shoot at bottles and the same thing would have happened." Yep. And the rapist will still rape and the thief will still steal. Does that mean that we don't try to stop them? Or do we just keep things as they are until we can't walk out the front door with out stepping over the bodies of those whom you've sacrificed on the alter of the 2nd Amendment?

You guys are right about one thing though. It is time to stand up against tyranny - the tyranny of the gun lobby and the tyranny of the gun nuts who feel that their right to own a weapon of mass destruction out weighs our rights to free speech and our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I will keep posting about gun regulation until we actually regulate guns

I, like millions of people around the globe, was stunned, shocked, angered, and saddened by the unspeakable horror that took place last week in Newtown, CT. A seriously disturbed young man killed his mother then took her Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and her Sig Sauer and Glock handguns to the Sandy Hook Elementary School where he proceeded to slaughter 20 children and six adults who were trying to protect them.

Immediately people took to Facebook to try to understand how this could have happened. The shooter played violent video games. He was autistic. His mother failed to get him appropriate mental health care. People began to talk about how we were going to prevent this from happening again. We should improve school security. We should arm all the teachers. We need better mental health services. We should keep guns away from mentally ill people. Every parent should be armed.

But the ultimate reason that 20 beautiful children will not be singing in the holiday concert or opening presents under the tree next week is because one young man had access to military grade weapons. Plain and simple. To ignore that simple fact is to leave us wide open for the next tragedy - which almost happened this week. A young man in Maryland, inspired by the events in CT, plotted to "break the record" by shooting up his school. Guess what? He had access to multiple weapons in his home. Luckily students reported his threats and the police removed the weapons from his home. That young man is still mentally disturbed but his classmates are now safe because he no longer has access to those weapons. I thank God that the system worked.

Back to CT. The shooter's friends and family knew that the boy had serious mental health issues. They knew he had violent tendencies. They knew there were multiple firearms in the home. Yet nothing was done. Nothing was done because his mother had the right to have multiple military-grade weapons in her home. Nothing was done until 20 beautiful children were slaughtered.

It is time that we get over our slavish obeisance to the NRA and their narrow, anachronistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and start enacting sane gun regulations. The time for talking about gun control is over. It is time to act.

When I have said this to gun owners they say that I my call to regulate the hell out of military-grade weapons and ammunition is a knee-jerk, liberal reaction to an isolated event and that any move to regulate guns should be well thought out and discussed. Folks, public health professionals and victims of gun violence have been researching, evaluating and talking about this issue for over 20 years. 20 YEARS. For all you gun owners out there who don't like what's been put on the table? Well I'm sorry you missed dinner but you can blame your standard bearer, the NRA. The NRA has consistently shut down all discussion of reasonable, sane gun control policies with it's obscenely well funded political machine that feeds on our nation's worst fears and paranoia.

Yes, paranoia. The NRA has you convinced that gun control advocates are trying to take away all your guns. Guess what - we're not. They have you convinced that we want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Guess what - we don't. What we do want is the federal government to be able to regulate a lethal public health hazard in a way that balances personal liberties with public safety. Yes, it's a fine line to walk, but not the slippery slope towards Armageddon that the NRA would have you believe. Did you know that the federal government imposed strict laws governing the ownership of machine guns back in the 1930s? Since those laws were enacted, there have been virtually no deaths from machine guns. And yet we are still one of the most heavily armed nations in the developed world. The 2nd Amendment is still standing strong. Twenty innocent children are not.

It is time for gun owners to stop acting like spoiled, entitled teenagers who don't understand why they can't stay out all night and are angry because mom and dad won't buy them the latest Xbox. The 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to own the newest, coolest, most powerful weapon out there. The 2nd Amendment does not relieve you of the awesome responsibility that goes along with owning a deadly weapon. Be adults. If guns owners and their standard bearers won't take responsibility for protecting the public from their guns, we will. The time is now. Not after the next tragedy.

Retaining Our Humanity

The White House has decided not to release the death photos of Osama Bin Laden. Critics on the airwaves and in Congress are decrying the secrecy and fanning the flames of conspiracy. "How can we be sure he's dead?" they say. Can't we, just this once, believe our Commander in Chief? No? How about believing in Seal Team Six? No?

What will releasing the pictures accomplish? People who do not want to believe this President will not believe any proof that is offered. We could put Bin Laden's body on public display at Ground Zero and still these people wouldn't believe. Unless George W. Bush himself testified that he personally shot Bin Laden, carried his body back to U.S. soil and conducted the DNA analysis, conspiracy theorists and Obama haters will refuse to believe the truth. Can't we just praise the bravery and professionalism of those involved in taking down Bin Laden while honoring our dead?

By not releasing the death photos, Obama is doing his best to protect the safety of our service men and women around the globe and at the same time regaining some of the restraint, dignity, and humanity that our country has lost during our war on terror.

Well done Mr. President and God bless.

A day to celebrate?

I awoke this morning to the news that Osama Bin Laden was dead. An event more than 10 years in the making. I made the mistake of reading the Facebook posts and reading the comments in news articles. I have been struck by the jubilation, the crowing, and the political finger pointing.

Over and over I hear that this should be a day of celebration for the nation. But I cannot celebrate the loss of human life, even if that human is as despicable as Osama Bin Laden. How can I celebrate the death of one man that came at the expense of thousands upon thousands of innocent Afghani and Iraqi women and children and the thousands of brave service men and women from countries around the world.  Can I really celebrate the death of a man, a death that came at the costs of thousands of lives and billions of dollars?

And let's not kid ourselves. His death is not going to make us safer. This is not the same as "cutting the head of the serpent." It's more like killing off the CEO of McDonald's. There may be a little corporate chaos for a few weeks, but don't think for a minute that Mickey D's doesn't have a game plan for just that eventuality. And don't think for a minute that Al Queda didn't have a game plan in place for the inevitable death of Bin Laden.

I do hope that his death brings closure to those who have suffered from his life. I hope that it brings comfort to those who are grieving their losses. I do hope that it mean we can bring our service men and women home. But I don't think it will.

Before I am called unpatriotic or an enemy sympathizer, I'm not saying that his death didn't have to happen. It did. Bin Laden had to die. There was no way he could have been brought to trial to stand justice for his crimes. I just don't have to celebrate his death.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.,

I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

Who's to blame?

I don't know about you, but I'm still reeling from the news of Saturday's shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and death of 6 people at a political rally in Arizona.The finger pointing and fist waving began almost immediately. I am not innocent here. I was one of those people drawing a straight line from Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly's violent gun-filled imagery to the tragedy in Arizona.

But as we learn more about Jared Loughner and his troubled past we learn even less about why he committed this horrific act. The left is arguing it's Sarah Palin's fault for putting the Congresswoman in her crosshairs and for telling her followers "...don't retreat, reload!" The right point to Loughner's reading list (the Communist Manifesto) as evidence that he was a left-wing nut job. We may never know what were Loughner's political influences - if he had any at all. But this doesn't absolve our "thought" leaders from their role in feeding a madman's delusions.

Today Ms. Palin issued a video statement on the shootings absolving herself from any blame for the tragic events. She's right. It's not her fault. She didn't put the gun directly in Loughner's hand. She didn't tell him to hunt down Congresswoman Giffords. There's no proof that Loughner had ever listened to a word that Ms. Palin ever said, or saw her map with the rifle sights over Giffords's name. But she missed the point and the opportunity to show the American public that she is capable of self-reflection and personal responsibility.

Earlier this week Keith Olbermann issued a mea culpa for adding to the political vitriol that has plagued our airwaves and issued a promise to try and tone it down. While I applaud Olbermann's sentiments, I believe that when the election cycle ramps up and sweeps week approaches, his self-aware sentiments will go right out the window.

Pundits like Palin, Olbermann, Glenn Beck are like parents who feed their kid a steady diet of Twinkies and soda and then act shocked when the pediatrician tells them that their kid weighs 200 lbs and has diabetes. Having access to America's airways is a privilege and responsibility. It's time for our pundits and politicians to step up and accept the responsibility that comes with the privilege they've been enjoying for years.

We'll never know why this disturbed man decided to open fire at a busy shopping center. What will be more productive is to try to understand how he was able to do it. How was it that an obviously disturbed individual went without proper mental health care? How was an obviously disturbed individual with a criminal record able to LEGALLY purchase a handgun? But that's for another blog.

For now, I just want to tune out the shrill, ugly voices on the airwaves. I want to ignore the blame game that is going on. I want to pray for those who were injured in this terrible tragedy and for the families of those who lost their lives. And hope that we can all grow up and learn a few lessons in humility and personal responsibility.

I don't mind paying taxes. Really

I get all sorts of cool stuff when I pay taxes. Like roads, free schooling for my kids, money when I retire - even if I don't save up, money when I get laid off from my job, safe workplaces, a healthier environment... And hey, if my taxes help someone else, all the better. I like doing nice things for other people.

But apparently many of my fellow Americans, especially those who are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, do not share the same sentiment. The Bush era tax cuts are set to expire soon. President Obama wants to repeal those tax cuts for those dual income households earning more than a quarter of a million dollars annually. But an emboldened right has vowed to keep every penny of those tax cuts in place.

The Washington Post published a comparison of the Republican and Democratic plans for the Bush era tax cuts. Yikes! Check out that bloat in the millionaires club! Ok, I'm biased. I would still get my tax cuts under the Dem's plan. And I'm not saying the wealthiest of the wealthiest shouldn't get a break. But come on! This is ridiculous!

Consider this:

The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench.

The people are demoralized... The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages... The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.

The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders... thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people.

No, this isn't a rant from a political pundit commenting on the 2010 midterm elections. It's the 1892 party platform of the Populist Party. To all the Tea Party people who wanted to take back our government: Congratulations! The regressive conservative economic policies of the Bush era did take back our government - back to the 1890's.

Yeah, yeah. I know the Populists lost, but their efforts ushered in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century. And guess what, the liberal reforms ushered in during that era weren't all that bad. Some of the reforms enacted as a result of the Progressive Era include the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1916 (I think we can all agree that this is a good one - e. coli is a total downer), the Mann Act or the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (again, I think we can all agree that sex trafficking is bad), and the 19th Amendment (anybody have a problem with me voting????). Ok, the 18th Amendment sucked, but they repealed that one.

And guess what - we survived these reforms! We didn't end up becoming a socialist nation! Children were no longer abused in factories, workers earned a fare wage, etc...

The robber barons of the early 20th century may be gone but we still have staggering disparities in our wealth distribution in this country. What's even more disturbing is that most people don't even realize the incredible gap in our wealth distribution. An analysis of real and perceived wealth distribution was published in Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time, by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely of Harvard and Duke, respectively. Here's a brief summary of their report:

We attempt to insert the desires of “regular” Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to “build a better America” by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups – even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy – desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

Here's the pictoral of the authors' findings:

Can you believe it? The Left and the Right actually agree on something! The wealthy and the poor agree! Women and men agree! So why can't we agree how to make things a little more fair?

So Republicans - stop the fear mongering. Tighten that death grip on those tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, and give the people what they want: a better America.

Let's Talk Plutocracy!

It's been about a month since my last post. I've missed the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, the midterm elections, the A-Rod/Cameron Diaz break up... So what sparked my need to blog?

It relates to a web post that has been circulating that quotes a pamphlet entitled "The Ten Cannots" which was published in 1916 by William J.H. Boetker:

▪ You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

▪ You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

▪ You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

▪ You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

▪ You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

▪ You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

▪ You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

▪ You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

▪ You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.

▪ And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

"The Ten Cannots" have become a rallying cry for libertarians who want to see an end to government intervention into the economy or social issues and the anthem for those railing against President Obama's "socialist" agenda. Everyman for himself. Social Darwinism. Pull yourself up by your own boot straps... You get the picture.

Many who support his view also say that we should trust in the voluntary compassion and the charitable philanthropy of Americans to take care of those in need.

I’d love to trust in the compassion and charity of my fellow man – but I can’t. I can't because there are people out there who fall solidly into the "haves" category (whether they believe they are privileged or not) who take without giving. I can’t because there are people who feel entitled to everything they can get, yet feel no obligation to give back. I can’t because our political system has fostered a plutocracy that is more interested in protecting its wealth than protecting its people. I can't because when I stopped by my local food pantry recently, the shelves were almost bare.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines plutocracy as: 1. government by the wealthy; 2. a controlling class of the wealthy.

The United States has become a plutocracy and is in danger of being consumed by the value system of the wealthiest of the wealthy that got us to this point in history.

Don't think we live in a plutocracy? More than $270 million dollars was spent in the 2010 midterm elections. More than $72 million of that came from just three sources - American Crossroads (aka Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie), Crossroads GPS (also a Rove/Gillespie juggernaut), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average cost of winning a House race in 2010 was $1.09 million, while the average cost of a Senate seat was $8.28 million.

With the Supreme Courts ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, big money will have an even bigger say in who will be running our country. That would be all well and good if these corporations and the individuals who run them had any interest in furthering the cause of our country instead of feathering their own nests.

But don't take my word for it. Read Bill Moyers' October 29, 2010 speech at Boston University. It's a bit long, especially for those who favor sound bite politics, but it is definitely worth the time. Moyers lays out a cogent and powerful argument as to why plutocracy and democracy don't mix.

Sure - pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. I'd be down with that but what if the corporate robber barons have cut off your bootstraps and sent them to China? Leave it to the private sector to grow our economy and take care of our poor? Corporations are sitting on piles of cash reserves yet are not reinvesting in their companies, creating jobs, or stimulating our economy. Instead they are buying back stock and improving the portfolios of their CEOs. Too bad for the little guy who just wants a job so he can provide for his family.

As for relying on the private sector to provide a safety net for those left behind by our failing economy...that's like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. It is the corporate practices of wage regression, overseas outsourcing, and the hoarding of corporate resources that is creating a growing underclass.

But back to our discussion of plutocracy... Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recently called the rise of plutocracy a result of a perfect storm:

The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that’s raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work.

We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy.

As for those of you who believe that you can't help the poor by destroying the rich... Wake up!!! It's not a zero sum game. Ensuring a safety net for the poor does not mean that our economy will collapse. It means that a family may not have to live in the back of their car when Bank of America forecloses on their house because they defaulted on a mortgage that BoA never should have issued in the first place. It means that maybe some children won't go hungry tomorrow. It means that perhaps we can prevent another environmental catastrophe like the BP oil spill. It means we might be able to prevent another workplace catastrophe like the Massey Mine explosion. It means, that maybe, just maybe, some people will be able to pull themselves up from abject poverty to achieve the American Dream.

And for those of you who have taken Boetker's pamphlet to heart, I pray for you and yours that you never find yourself poor, you never find yourself weak, you never find yourself out of work, and never find yourself in need of help. But if you ever do, don't worry, there are still people who believe that:

You will not destroy the rich by helping the poor;

You will not weaken the strong by strengthening the weak; and

You will not pull the wage earner down by lifting the wage payer.

And you know what? Taxes suck, but they pay for stuff. Government regulations are a headache but they save lives. And some people getting government assistance will game the system, whether they are receiving food stamps and section 8 housing or massive corporate bailouts and tax cuts.

But guess what? We live in a civilized society. We’re supposed to take care of each other.

What are you teaching your children?

My oldest daughter is home sick today so my husband took Tess to school (or the Island of the Lord of the Flies as we now call it). Here's his observation of what happened:

... Most of her KTech class were sitting on a couple benches while an aide read to them. There was no room on a bench to sit so she went to sit by herself on the floor. As Tess entered the circle one boy said, "Here's comes a baby!" and the other kids laughed and a couple kids made a few similar comments. Tess made a forced laugh too. The aide did not think it was funny. She was very angry with the kids. She made the boy sit right at her feet, and the other kids immediate started saying to the boy that he was a baby and he would cry. Other kids, girls and boys, started making jokes about being a fat baby, and one boy said something about him being a girl and having "boobs". The aide grew even angrier and scolded the boy strongly, saying "we don't say that kind of thing to our friends", and made him sit at her feet as well. Meanwhile a couple of other kids repeated the word "boobs" and the others laughed.

All this happened within about 60 seconds. The first minute of Tess's day ... and she had been needled and seen other kids needled and heard at least half a dozen hurtful remarks from her peers and seen everyone else laughing at them.

On the plus side, I am glad to see that the aide recognized that the tone the group took with one other was essentially one of harassment and took steps within her power to quell it. And I suppose I can take cold comfort in the fact that Tess is not the only kid being bullied... On the down side, I was sad to see that the kids in my child's class treat each other this way, and I fear that Tess will learn to bully in order to fit in and deflect harassment.

Needless to say, we're pulling her out of that school just as soon as we can get her enrolled elsewhere. We have an appointment at a Catholic school on Tuesday. But I'm torn about taking her out and leaving those other kids in an environment that has let this type of behavior develop. Part of me feels like I need to stick it out and make sure the school develops strong anti-bullying policies and programs. But I have to put my advocate hat aside and take care of my daughter's needs first.

Because this is a private school, I have very little hope that any action on my part would have a significant impact. I talked to another mother who's daughter was bullied there last year. That mother went all the way to the head of the company. Nothing was done and so she pulled her daughter from the school.

I think we need a national effort to teach our children respect - respect for themselves and respect for others. Children who respect themselves are less likely to be bullies and less likely to be bullied by others. I'm realistic. Children will be children and children can be cruel. But we, as adults, should make sure that cruelty is not the accepted norm in our schools.

We can begin by treating each other with a little more respect and serve as examples for our children. I'm not naive. I don't expect us all to just get along. We have different beliefs, backgrounds, etc. We don't have to agree about politics or religion. We don't even have to like each other. But we should treat each other with respect. We should lead by example.

This goes far beyond free speech, religion, politics, or bullying - it's an issue of basic human rights and dignity.

Bullies suck.

Last week I posted about the tragic deaths of three young men as the result of bullying in their schools. They were being bullied for their sexual orientation. I was outraged and saddened but in a distant sort of liberal pinko peacenik sort of way.

Now it's personal. My baby came home from kindergarden yesterday in tears. The reason - bullying. Pint sized bullying. For no particular reason, two little girls in her class have decided that it'll be fun to pick on my daughter. Look at this face - why would you want to make this beautiful face cry?

It started with my daughter being the only girl in her class (there are only 4 girls in her class) not invited to a sleep over. Then it was was the giggling and making faces at her when she walked into the building. Then it was calling her yucky and disgusting and ridiculing everything she says and does. They have figured out that this sweet little girl is a bit on the sensitive side and it's easy to make her miserable and bonus! it's fun.

I've spoken with the teacher who was blissfully unaware that it was going on. When I asked to have a conference with the parents of the other girls I was told it was against school policy and that they would talk to the children and their parents. Not good enough. They need more than a note home. I want these parents to see how their children's behavior is impacting my child. I want to hear from these parents what their plans are for addressing this behavior.

When talking to another mom about this, she shared that her daughter (I'll call her Suzie) was bullied for a good part of last year when she was in kindergarden - so much so that she refuses to take the bus this year. Yes, kids will be kids, but the bullying - especially with girls, seems to be starting earlier and earlier.

We need to start holding our children - even our youngest children, accountable for their words and actions. Bullying, even pint-sized bullying cannot be tolerated. We also need to give our children the skills they need to counter bullying.

And we need to start holding parents, teachers, and administrators accountable as well. If this kind of bullying is tolerated in kindergarden and first grade, just image what terrors these little girls will be by the time they get to high school.

To the parents of these two little mean girls in training: Are you going to tell me you don't see these behaviors in your children? Come on. I can see it in the 5 minutes I spend with your daughters before and after school everyday. Do you think it's cute or cool? Or do you just think that my daughter needs to toughen up? Just wait until it's your child that is the victim of bullying.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bullies aren't born, they're made. It's up to us to stop the cycle of bullying. We don't all have to be friends but we do need to learn to be respectful of each other.

It's about parking spaces, really!

I guess Brooklyn isn't far enough from Ground Zero for some people. On Sunday the Tea Party brought out their best vitriol to protest the building of an Islamic community center in Brooklyn, about 15 miles from Ground Zero. John Kenneth Press, President of the Brooklyn Tea Party stirred up 'patriotic' passions during his speech in which he framed the issue as not one of zoning but making America safe from democracy. These comments opened the door for hate-filled, racist shouts and chanting from the protesters.

Now John Kenneth Press is a nut job - even other Tea Party people think he's nuts. But it highlights the problem with the Tea Party movement. Too many nuts, not enough squirrels to bury them.

November is fast approaching and Tea Party candidates are flooding our airwaves. If you consider yourself a Tea Party supporter, it's on YOU to ask you candidates about what they believe. Are they couching racism and bigotry in terms of "culturalism"? Look past the easy rhetoric of lower taxes, smaller government, etc... and listen to what they are saying about immigration, Islam, and our own President who - just so we're clear on this - is an American, eligible to hold office, and a Christian (not that being a Christian should be a prerequisite for being President of the United States, IMHO).

This rally on Brooklyn should have been about zoning, traffic impact studies, and parking issues. To be fair, that's what the initial debate was all about. Some neighbors felt that the residential street won't be able to handle the additional traffic and parking needs of the community center. Hate should have been left out of it.

Let's do our part to make sure that this November's elections are about REAL issues and leave the politics of hate behind.

Sticks and Stones...

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." It didn't matter how many times my mother told me to repeat those words when some bully was making my life miserable. They didn't work then and they don't work now. Because words hurt.

I haven't posted in awhile. School's back in session and between shuttling between schools, ballet, gymnastics, and tae kwon do, there's not been a lot of energy left over for social outrage. But I'm lucky. In fact, I'm blessed. My kids seem to be as well adjusted as a first grader and kindergartner can be. For now.

Other parents aren't so lucky. For the families of Asher Brown, Tyler Clementi, and Seth Walsh, this school year will not be marked by car pools, report cards, school plays, homecoming games, parent-teacher conferences, or tuition bills. As most of you know by now, these three bright young lives tragically ended in suicide in the past week as a result of bullying at the hands of their "peers." Their crime? Simply being what God made them. Gay.

There were bullies when I went to high school. There were also gay kids, nerds, and kids who just didn't fit in. I've been asking myself why my school didn't have a rash of suicides. I mean really, it was the 80s - even the most well adjusted kid would have considered the big sleep after listening to the Smiths' Hatful of Hollow and The Cure's Pornography a few hundred times.

Maybe it was my generation's faith in our savior, John Hughes, that kept us sane. In movies like Some Kind of Wonderful, Sixteen Candles, and Pretty in Pink he made us believe that it would all be ok. The the social outcast would end up with the popular girl or boy. [side note: Am I the only one who thought that Molly Ringwald was definitely NOT pretty in pink? That dress was hideous!] And in the Breakfast Club he even made us believe, if only for a few minutes, that we could transcend our prejudices and stereotypes and that things would get better.

But things don't get better, do they? Bullies still rule the hallways of our nations' schools. And when those bullies grow up, they go on to get their own radio talk shows. Their hatred and bigotry are cloaked in religion, patriotism, and free speech. It's ok to hate gays because the bible says that homosexuality is a sin. It's ok to hate Muslims because they are out to destroy our country. And it's ok to bully a kid to his death because we all have the right to free speech. Yeah right - free speech. Free for whom? The free speech of a few bigoted, hateful teens cost Asher Brown, Tyler Clementi, and Seth Walsh their lives.

Free speech has become the bully's get-out-of-jail-free card. After all, the Constitution give us all the right to say what we feel, right? Yes it does. But words matter and we should be held accountable for what we say.

For those of us who have children, it is up to us to set the example. Kids aren't born bullies. Bullies are made. Listen to yourself when you start talking politics and religion. How could our words and actions be interpreted by young and impressionable minds? Do we reach out to the quirky kids in our neighborhood? The kids who don't fit in? Do we tell our kid that it's not ok to tease the kid who can't run as fast or hit a baseball, who wears funny clothes, or who is just "weird"? Do we stand up and speak out when we see hatred and injustice in society? If we don't how will our children learn to?

I wish I could tell all the kids out there who are suffering that it gets better - that the geek will find true love and that the bully gets what's coming to him and the mean girl gets hers. But it doesn't always work out that way.

There is hope though. Some people are using their right to free speech to reach out and make things better. Columnist Dan Savage and his husband have started the It Gets Better Project. They and other adults have videotaped messages of hope to kids who are being tormented by bullies.

On their website www.godlovespoetry.com Kevin Cobb and Andres Almeida are taking the hate filled vitriol of the Westboro Baptist Church's website www.godhatesfags.com and turning it into beautiful poetry as a reminder that even in midst of hate and anger, we can find beauty, acceptance, and understanding.

I leave you tonight with a poem from Cobb and Almeida's website.

HATE

makes the heart suffer

love for hatred

cause some to fall.

How shall we commemorate September 11th?

Saturday is September 11th. For many people it will be a day of mourning and remembrance for the friends and family of those who perished in the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and in a nameless field in Pennsylvania. Some will be mourning the loss of nation's innocence. For millions of Americans this September 11th will also mark the end of Ramadan.

Ramadan is the Islamic month of fasting. It's a time of reflection, prayer, and purification for Muslims - not unlike the Lenten season for Catholics, but more badass. We Catholics just have to refrain from meat on Fridays and give up chocolate for 40 days. The end of Ramadan is marked by the Eid ul-Fitr festival in which food is donated to the poor, people put on their best clothes, pray, and visit with families. Throw in some chocolate eggs and jelly beans and it looks just like Easter. And just like Easter, Eid ul-Fitr is celebrated on a lunar calendar which means that the date of the celebration changes each year. By chance, this year Eid ul-Fitr falls on September 11th.

Out of respect, many Islamic centers have decided to tone down Eid ul-Fitr celebrations this year. Unfortunately, one "pastor" in Florida has decide to answer respect with sacrilege. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL is planning to "celebrate" September 11th by burning the Koran. I know - this is just one guy who leads a "church" (man, am I using a lot of quotes to imply derision today) of 40 sheep. But his actions will resonate across the globe. And not in a good way.

I want to applaud General George Petraeus, the World Evangelical Alliance and leaders of other faiths for urging Jones to cancel the burning. Even Glenn Beck thinks it's a bad idea! Unfortunately Jones isn't listening to reason. Jones has a constitutional right to burn the Koran on September 11th. I pray to God he doesn't. If he does, I plan to offer my own, quiet counter protest. I will offer up a prayer for those who lost their lives on September 11th. I will then, in honor of Eid ul-Fitr, bring an offering of food to my local Islamic center, along with a letter saying that not all Americans are filled with hatred towards Muslims.

Care to join me?

In defense of Sarah Palin (no really, I'm totally serious)

No - I'm not getting addled in my old age. If you read yesterday's post, I mentioned the Vanity Fair article profiling Sarah Palin. The article portrays her as a money grubbing, paranoid, egomaniac. But can't the same be said about 99.99% of politicians out there (at least the money grubbing, egomaniac part)? Then I read the subtext. The author, Michael Joseph Gross, chooses to focus a number traits, behaviors, and incidents that are unique to women.

Gross talks about hairstylists coming to her hotel room. Are we supposed to infer that she is a vain woman, spending inordinate amounts of time on her hair and make-up? Well - many men spend time with their stylists before and event. Remember the uproar about Bill Clinton's haircut on Air Force One?

The author also talks about her mood swings:

"On the 2008 campaign trail, one close aide recalls, it was practically impossible to persuade Palin to take a moment to thank the kitchen workers at fund-raising dinners. During the campaign, Palin lashed out at the slightest provocation, sometimes screaming at staff members and throwing objects. Witnessing such behavior, one aide asked Todd Palin if it was typical of his wife. He answered, “You just got to let her go through it… Half the stuff that comes out of her mouth she doesn’t even mean.” When a campaign aide gingerly asked Todd whether Sarah should consider taking psychiatric medication to control her moods, Todd responded that she “just needed to run and work out more.” Her anger kept boiling over, however, and eventually the fits of rage came every day. Then, just as suddenly, her temper would be gone. Palin would apologize and promise to be nicer. Within hours, she would be screaming again."

Is he implying that PMS may be clouding her judgement? Are women just too temperamental to hold high office? One source for the article stated,

"...she “does not understand math or accounting—she only knows buzzwords, like ‘balanced budget’"

Sounds a lot like that old meme, "girls can't do math." The article goes on to highlight how Sarah Palin trots our her children as props on the campaign trail. Well, don't all politicians (male and female) do the same???? The criticism of her extreme spending of campaign funds for clothes paint her as a shallow clothes horse with a shoe fetish. Well - the same can be said of some male candidates. And I don't hear too much about male candidates' choice of 'intimates' yet Gross feels the need to specify that Palin bought Spanx girdles on while on the campaign trail. Now honestly, what self-respecting woman over 35 doesn't go out of the house without her Spanx?

What about the following passage? Does anyone else see the double standard?

"...There’s a general consensus in town that, at least since the start of the 2008 campaign, Todd has been shouldering the bulk of the parenting and that Sarah’s relationship with her children has grown more distant... An aide overheard conversations between Sarah and Todd in which Sarah tried to make a self-serving argument sound selfless, holding that the campaign was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, one that she could not deny the children. “I don’t care what it costs,” she said. “I want them here.” Although the couple hired a nanny to help the children with their homework, little homework got done."

Do we question a male candidate's decision to bring his children on the campaign trail? Do we question it when the wife of a male candidate takes on the majority of parenting responsibilities? Does the fact that she works and needs help to take care of her family make her a bad mother? That'll be news for the millions of mothers who work hard to support their families and have to call on their partners, family, and childcare providers for help. Now if you want to question her parenting, let's talk about her decision to name her kids Tripp and Trig.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Michael Gross defends his article and said that it does not have a sexist bias. He is simply highlighting that Sarah Palin has two personas - public and private. No - really???? A public figure with a private life? I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya! A two-faced politician??? Heresy!

Yesterday I called on parents to raise their daughters to think for themselves, speak with their own voices, and to become our future leaders. Today I'm calling on them to raise their sons to value women on the basis of their intellects, honesty, and values - not on the basis of what society now sees to be "acceptable" roles and behaviors for women. Teach by example. When criticizing a woman's behavior, whether in the workplace or a social setting, don't call her a bitch. Use the same terms you'd use for a man - aggressive, self-serving, cutthroat, etc... Don't refer to her as "emotional" (code word for hormonal) if she just has a bad temper. And realize that when women do get angry, sometimes we have a darn good reason for being so. Teach your sons (and daughters for that matter) to judge women by the same standards that they judge men.

Don't get me wrong - I still think Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy and completely unqualified to hold public office, but for reasons other than she's got a nasty temper and she likes her 4-inch heels.

A Palin/Beck Presidency??? Happy birthday to me.

I don't know which is worse - waking up this morning to find that I am suddenly 41 or waking up this morning to learn that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are both scheduled to appear, together, in Alaska to make speeches on September 11th. Hmmm, do I smell a presidential size announcement coming?

Which is scarier - a Beck/Palin ticket or a Palin/Beck ticket? Beck is already hearing voices and if you believe the recent Vanity Fair article, Ms. Palin doesn't seem to be far behind seem to be riding on the same crazy train. In case you missed the article. it's got something for everyone. For Palin haters, it paints her as a vain, emotionally unbalanced, paranoid, money-hungry harpy with a sense of entitlement that is matched only by her sense of self-importance. For Sarah Palin supporters, it reads as a hatchet job that was written by the biased liberal media that is just out to put down a good woman. What is true is that Sarah Palin was grossly under qualified to be either President or Vice President of the United States. At least in her 2008 bid for VP, her lack of qualifications were mitigated by Senator McCain experience. I am going to have nightmares if she and Beck team up.

I know many women liked seeing another woman getting the nod for the #2 spot on the 2008 Republican ticket, but honestly, is she the best the party could come up with? Democrats too haven't done a stellar job at finding qualified women for higher office. I know they have to be out there.

So I'm calling on all you moms and dads of daughters out there to step up and start grooming our girls for leadership. I don't care about your politics. Teach your girls to think critically about what they are learning. Teach them to read the newspaper. Broaden their horizons - and yours at the same time. If you only read the Washington Post try turning on FOX News for a little while and if your primary source of news is from Fox - try giving your ears a little break and turn on NPR - and LISTEN to the other side for awhile. I mean really listen. Teach your daughters to use their voices in class. Teach your daughters to stand up for what they believe in. Teach your daughters that they can make a difference. Teach them that math isn't hard. Teach your daughters to respect themselves and to respect others. Teach them to be self-sufficient. Teach them how to be strong yet flexible. Teach them to THINK!

They may come to share your beliefs or they may follow a different path, but at least you'll know it's their path and they came by it honestly. And maybe, just maybe, we'll have a female candidate for President whom we may not all agree with but we can all respect.

I'd like to buy the world a Koch and keep it company...

Oh wait, they've already bought me - or at least they've tried to. I just finished reading Jane Mayer's New Yorker article on the gazillionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David. The article outlines how the Koch brothers have bankrolled the Tea Party movement and have been using their millions to twist the political process to better serve their corporate greed.

If you're unfamiliar with the Koch brothers, here's a quick summary from Mayer's article. The Koch fortune comes from oil refineries, ownership in companies such as Brawny paper towels, Dixie Cups, Georgia Pacific lumber, and Lycra, to name a few. Koch Industries is the second largest private company in the U.S. The Koch brothers are major donors to such charities as the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute and The Smithsonian. David Koch is known as one of the biggest philanthropists in New York City. The Kochs sound like good people, non?

But look a little deeper into their "philanthropic" activities and you begin to see a different story. The Kochs have used their vast (to put it mildly) personal fortunes to bankroll political action committees, "think tanks," and citizen action groups to further their corporate interests. One of the Koch's pet projects is the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. You may have heard of AfP - they're the ones bankrolling the Tea Party movement. So much for a grassroots effort free from special interest groups and corporate influence.

Now the Kochs have a constitutional right to put their money where ever they want - but let's at least have some transparency. According to Mayer's article, Koch spokespeople deny the involvement of the Kochs in the Tea Party movement. "But what about George Soros?" my conservative friends may ask. Yes, George Soros has given disgusting amounts of money to liberal causes and pledged his personal fortune to defeat George W. Bush. But at least he was up front about it. If you're going to try an buy and election, just own it.

Another reason I don't have as big a problem with Soros throwing his money around is that he generally gives money to organizations and causes that are not going to better his bottom line. You may disagree with some of the things he supports (that Millennium Project to end extreme poverty in Africa is evil, pure evil, I tell ya!) but he's not making money off it.

But the Kochs have given millions of dollars to organizations that oppose environmental regulation and support lower taxes for industry. Again, the Kochs are well within their rights. But come on - tell me there isn't a conflict of interest when George Mason University, a publicly funded university, accepts millions of dollars to host an institution that is controlled by the Koch family. Want a clearer connection between the Kochs and GMU? The Mercatus Center at GMU was founded by Richard Fink who heads Koch Industries' lobby efforts, is the president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, director of the Fred C. and MaryR. Koch Foundation, and co-founder (with David Koch) of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. But what's the harm in such close collaborations between corporate wealth and so-called academic endeavors. Well...to quote Mayer's article, again,

"The Wall Street Journal has called the Mercatus Center “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of,” and noted that fourteen of the twenty-three regulations that President George W. Bush placed on a “hit list” had been suggested first by Mercatus scholars. Fink told the paper that the Kochs have “other means of fighting [their] battles,” and that the Mercatus Center does not actively promote the company’s private interests. But Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas, who specializes in environmental issues, told me that “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the E.P.A., and Mercatus has constantly hammered on the agency.” An environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center called it “a means of laundering economic aims.” The lawyer explained the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders."

Yep - perfectly within their 1st amendment rights. The groups sponsored by the Kochs have decried global warming and acid rain as myths. Of course, Koch Industries has been named as one of the biggest air polluters in the States. My favorite example of the Koch's philanthropic endeavors is the millions of dollars they have given to cancer research. They gave so much money that in 2004, then President Bush named David Koch to the National Cancer Advisory Board for the National Cancer Institute. At the same time, Koch Industries has been lobbying the EPA to declare that formaldehyde does not cause cancer - despite the fact that scientists have known for years that formaldehyde causes cancer! Did I mention that Koch Industries is a major producer of formaldehyde?

I could go on and on, but I've got to go assess the damage the kids have done to the house while I wrote this. But let's take a stand and say "NO" to corporate control of our political system. Write, call, send carrier pigeons to your elected officials asking for serious campaign reform (that means for George Soros too). Let's demand transparency in our political action committees and think tanks. In other words, SHOW US THE MONEY! If I'm going to be bought by corporate interests, I at least I want to know who's doing the bidding.