Stealth Trumpers

The world is an odd place. In a sane world if you like something or someone, you'd shout that from the rooftops and proudly embrace such a thing. Not so with Trump. No, I'm not calling him Pres. Trump. To me, he's just Trump or 45. Anyway...

Loving or even liking something means admitting that without a disclaimer. I love chocolate. I have no issues saying this. I own my love of chocolate and I don't care if you like chocolate or not. It's not my job to convince you to love chocolate too. Taking a leap from the chocolate, I've noticed that many Trumpers feel a deep need to constantly add a disclaimer when professing their approval of Trump.

A great example of this would be a recent comment from a coworker. She admitted she didn't vote at all. She said she didn't like political debates. She explained that no one likes everything about everyone and that she didn't agree with everything Trump says or does. However, she likes what he is doing because he is "getting things done." What things? Apparently she is referring to insulting other countries and world leaders, name calling and all the personality traits most people would consider vile. I got the impression she feels Trump's behavior and hostility prove he's a man who won't take crap from others who are giving America crap.

Another person I recently spoke with said Trump was putting America first and honoring God. Asking him "How?" never got an answer, but this man instead insisted that Trump is superior to Obama. He also suggested I am a 'heathen' because I quoted the Bible regarding how to treat a guest in your land after he said toss out the 'illegals'. I also asked him to show me the Bible verse that said grabbing women's genitals was OK. He replied that the women wanted Trump to grab them.

While all that is disturbing on its own, what is more troubling is these two clearly see the flaws, but are more interested in defending and protecting Trump. They refuse to hold him accountable for anything. They have an attitude that the ends justify the means so whatever Trump does is fine as long as they get the end result they desire. But at the same time, they hedge their support with qualifiers.

"I don't agree with everything he says."

"I only watch what he does. I don't pay attention to everything he says."

"He didn't mean that the way you are taking it."

"You just hate him, that's why you think he can't do anything good."


The qualifiers serves many purposes but one thing they do is attempt to derail your argument.

You say, "Trump is saying people come from sh*thole countries." They say, "He didn't mean it that way." You get derailed into an argument about what Trump actually meant, which is pointless. We have to go by what he says, not what that person claims he meant.

Instead of heading down that pointless road, stick with your point and ask the hard questions, not what they think he meant.

Ultimately, if a person likes Trump, he/she should be able to say so proudly, right. Scream it from the rooftops just as I would proclaim my love of chocolate. However, they instead offer this talk salad of misdirection to derail anything you say about Trump while hedging their on arguments of support. Don't eat the talk salad. Stick to your point and you will learn a lot more about the person making excuses for the 71-year-old POTUS who should be able to speak clearly for himself.

Steep Climb Ahead

I have tried to blog about this administration so many times and just as I have thoughts formed, something happens that derails the entire blog. It has been a rough week for me just sitting here up to my neck in "red" watching the events churning out from the White House. The consensus today is, Trump loyalists love what has happened, Trump opponents are up in arms, or at the very least concerned. I'm more than concerned when I see activity that could be unconstitutional, specifically the Muslim ban, which has been blocked for now. They can try and put "lipstick on that pig" but that's what the executive order was, a ban on Muslims.

I strongly support the ACLU's efforts to halt this action by Trump. What saddens me is that it appears Trump will not listen to reason or even compromise to work with those with different opinions. He tends to call those with a different opinion his "enemies." That's a problem by itself. We are NOT enemies just for having a different opinion. We are all Americans who deserve a voice. That voice is also protected by the Constitution.

But despite this mess from D.C., I also believe the comments from Robert Reich are correct. He recently posted on Facebook a conversation with a Republican friend who confirmed what I already suspected. Republicans will allow Trump to do as he pleases to further their own agenda -- tax reform, repealing Obamacare, deregulation and any other pet projects. Once Trump "goes too far" they will impeach him and put Pence in his place because they "like Pence." The silence from senate Republicans in the light of the mess of Trump's first week seems to support what Reich's conversation says. It's all very troubling that Republicans are willing to allow so much damage to this country to further their agenda instead of actually working with Democrats to improve our country.

It is not a wonder that people have taken to the streets in protest. More protests are planned and I am encouraged by the Women's March. I support any peaceful protests, including the March for Life, although I am staunchly Pro-Choice and think the Pro-Life movement needs some serious refocusing. Despite all this, I am hopeful that protests will move our country in a better direction and I hope that shift happens quickly. Right now, it appears our Democracy is dangling by a thread. Repairing the damage being inflicted right now will be a long, steep and ugly climb.

Trump's Appeal, My Opinion

I realize I haven't blogged much this election cycle. It's not for lack of interest. It's because I've been profoundly baffled by the popularity of Trump. I have pondered and wondered why seemingly intelligent people have come out of the woodwork to not just support Trump, but to be entrenched in their support of Trump. What is his appeal? I've asked and I don't get many answers so I'm left to ponder on my own and I think I have a reason. Most Trump people fear change that would give minorities an advantage in this country more than they fear Trump having no plan to actually "Make America Great Again." What other reason is there to ignore his many transgressions, refusal to be transparent and lack of experience? Evan evangelical Christians are dismissing Trump's bad behavior, turning hypocrite, to support Trump. Here's why I think this is the case.

The U.S. Census has shown a continued decrease in the number of white people in America. In 2008, whites were 79.80 percent of the population, despite that, Obama still won the white house. In 2010, whites made up about 69% of the U.S. population. That's a steep drop. In 2012 whites made up 63%. In 2013, whites were at 62%. There is a clear drop in the number of whites in America. But just because someone is white, does not mean they are Republican or they will vote "red." Among that 62% are Liberals, meaning that clear "red" vote is reduced even more. Of course there are some minorities who vote "red" but let's be honest, there aren't many. Even FOXNews admits that is a steep hill to climb for Trump.

So, with white people at just 62% of the population six years ago, this being a steady drop since 2008, it's safe to guess that the white population continues to drop. Factor in that some whites are Liberal and always vote Democratic or Third Party and some Republicans have turned their backs on the Republican Party for a variety of reasons. That "noose" on white, evangelical, working class Republicans is tightening and they already feel left out. Trump is an effort to protect what they hold dear and give the Republican Party establishment the "middle finger." Hillary Clinton could be anyone. The love of Trump is fueled by people hearing what they want to hear, desperately grasping this and rejecting Clinton as a person who will continue to ignore their needs, hence the Confederate Flag.

To me, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism. It represents slavery to me and when I see a white person with this flag, I immediately think that person is racist. However, my opinion of the flag matters little because many white Americans feel the flag represents rebellion. If so, these Trump supporters are rebelling and I don't think it's about Hillary at all. I think it's about their own party. This would explain why supporters completely ignore things in Trump they never would accept from Pres. Obama or any other candidate. This is why evangelicals can look at nude photos of Melania and call it art while they said it was indecent for Michelle Obama to wear a sleeveless dress. The truth is, these people are angry at Republicans, not Democrats, not Hillary. Ask one of them why they hate Hillary and people will mention emails, she's "crooked" or Benghazi. Press them on these and they really have no substance behind the accusations. Then ask them about Congress, which is controlled by Republicans.

Trump is a symptom of a very broken political party.

Millennials Need A Lesson On Real Life

At the risk of pissing off the most entitled group of voters and coming across as an "crabby old woman," I have to say this, Millennials need a lesson on real life. If I'm wrong, correct me, but this is my impression of the younger generation.

These people grew up getting "participation trophies" and now they feel the simple act of participating in anything means they should be rewarded. While this is viewed as harmless and possibly a good thing when you play a sport, it translates to something horribly bad in politics. The ugly truth about society is people win and people lose and most of us end up losing at some time in life. How we deal with the loss is very revealing and these people seem to short-circuit when they don't get their way or their participation trophy. That's called real life.

When I was in high school, I joined our tennis team. I loved playing tennis and every year the teams got rankings according to wins/losses. One year, we were tied for third place and it all came down to one match. My sister was playing and doing OK, not fantastic. The entire team knew she had to win or we would be tied for third. The whole team sat on the bench with clenched fists, hanging on every point. My sister remained calm and her opponent missed a point, got angry, threw a tantrum and this breakdown led to my sister winning the match. That win cleared our bench and we celebrated, not because the other team lost, but because we won. It was not simply handed to us. It was hard work. Millennials don't appreciate the super sweet taste of such a moment because their "wins" have been handed to them. If we had won third place and looked over to see the team we beat getting a trophy just for showing up, that would have deflated our victory enormously. Victory is sweet, defeat can be bitter. Millennials haven't tasted the bitterness of loss, until now.

Many Millennials wanted Bernie Sanders to be the nominee. Well, he is not and that's just a bitter pill to swallow. Say the Democratic selection was rigged. Perhaps it was. Should I be outraged? Maybe, but I'm not. The DNC is a private organization and after working most of my life I know life is not fair and neither are most selection processes. Better qualified people are passed by every day for multiple reasons. That's the unfortunate nature of human beings.

But when I felt defeat, unlike Millennials, I got up, dusted myself off, reorganized and fought another day. It seems to me that Millennials are so entrenched in wanting their way that they reject Hillary as the nominee and plan to throw a tantrum, just as that tennis player did years ago against my sister. That girls tantrum led to her loss. Millennials' tantrums could lead to a Hillary loss and Trump win.

Millennials need to ask themselves how many of Trump's policies do they like. Do they want a Supreme Court slanted against everything Bernie stood for? Do they want a president with the temperament of a spoiled brat? Do they want a man in the White House who feels women exist for his personal sexual pleasure and really, do we want a president who is empowering racists and divisiveness in the country?

I know people speak of the "lesser of two evils" but honestly, I do not see Hillary as evil. She is establishment and whatever corruption she has participated in was in existence before she was nominated. One could criticize everyone in both parties for the corruption because all, Democrats and Republicans, have willingly participated...including Trump. He's too rich to have clean hands when it comes to corruption. Therefore, if Millennials hate the system so much, they need to stop waiting for their "participation trophy" and get up and work for real change. If they aren't willing to do that, then they have no leg to stand on and complain.

Get Out And Vote...ESPECIALLY If You Are A Minority

Most days, after listening to the comedy morning show on the radio, I switch over to talk radio. I do this usually because I just want to hear people discussing the issues of the day. Usually it's mildly amusing or just interesting. This 'Blue Girl' also sometimes gets an insight into most of the local 'Red People'. In most cases, I just think something is interesting. In other cases I think those people are insane to think a particular way. But then there are days like today when I become livid and really need to vent. So, what happened? "Encouragement." I put that in quotes and I realize it sounds odd but there are reasons I shall explain.

Let me explain that the radio show has said many times most working there are white people. However, they do have an African American man working there too. He seems to be the "go to guy" for anything "black" they want to discuss. That's an issue but possibly for another day. So, the two hosts were discussing voting and if the debate has swayed anyone. They asked the resident black guy who he planned to vote for and his answer was that he had never voted. He then explained the reason is because he is uneducated about politics and and didn't want to vote just because "someone told me who to vote for." I expected the hosts to encourage him to get educated because voting is super important. Instead, they encouraged him to NOT vote until the day he magically decides to educate himself. They enthusiastically encouraged him to NOT vote and my reaction was simple....

This went on for several minutes with the two white hosts complimenting the black guy for not voting and encouraging him to take his time to self-educate for voting in the future. He's 26, has never voted and has been interviewed regarding police shootings and being racially profiled in this area. But they encouraged him to take his time getting politically educated and voting. Yup, reference the stunned stare again.

First off, if this were a young, white person, I doubt they would have applauded him not voting. I have never heard older white people advising younger white people to not vote. I've witnessed white parents, especially middle class and rich white parents, actively teach their children to go out and vote If they are Republican, they are rather happy to hear black people say they do not vote so this advice from the two white hosts didn't just trouble me, it made me angry.White people encouraging a black man to stay ignorant should anger everyone.

Second, how in the world does a member of a minority group allow members of a dominant group encourage him to not vote? As a black man living in Kansas, he is subject to an entirely different life reality than two middle-class white people. They have the luxury of ignoring voting, ignoring racial profiling and basically taking their time to get educated. They have a little thing called 'white privilege' that helps them through life. He does not. Let me add that both the hosts are not only educated about the issues and candidates but they are both registered to vote and plan to vote even though they dislike the major candidates. So, the 'good white folk' will vote while telling the black guy it's best he does not. Am I missing something?

Black people fought and died for the right to vote. There is a man who has been endorsed by the Klan running for president. Trump has encouraged violence against black people at his rallies. Unarmed black men are being shot by police. The racial divide in this country seems to be widening and this black man is taking the advice of two middle-class white people who plan on voting that he should not vote and remain uneducated. I was rather disgusted by the entire situation.

I have to ask myself, what did this man's parents teach him, if anything, about voting? He's 26 and never voted because he's not informed? He's not informed because he chooses not to be informed and that baffles me. At 18 I was not only informed, I was registered and anxious to vote.

The bottom line is, if this guy (and anyone else) is too lazy to educate himself enough to vote, then sit down, shut up and embrace things like racial profiling. You just told those working to implement such things that it's not important enough for you to care. You don't vote so they, the powers that be, can put laws on the books to keep you in your place. As a black man, they definitely have a place for you to be and that's usually in jail or the grave. He needs to stop being lazy, get educated, get registered and vote. There is no excuse to not be educated on issues and candidates today. Information is spoon fed to us through the Internet. If this guy isn't educated, it's because he's lazy, nothing more. If he doesn't care enough to vote, he needs to stop getting on the air to complain about his life in America as a black man.

'Silent' White Trump Supporters Are Worse Than The Racists

Donald Trump asked this question several weeks ago. I'm not sure exactly who he was asking. I believe he was speaking to a mostly white crowd in a mostly white neighborhood. But the question was presented, it's valid. I have no intentions of answering him as a representative of anyone but myself but as an African American, I think I can voice an opinion.

What do I have to lose? I'd ask Mr. Trump what do I have to gain by voting for him? I'm not asking for free college. I have two college diplomas. I'm not asking for money from a social program. I earn enough to not qualify for programs like Food Stamps. I'm not asking for a way to get a home loan. I already own my home. I really am not asking the government for anything. I'm listening to what Trump has to offer the African American community and so far I haven't seen him offer anything. Trump's entire campaign to all voters can be summed up in a simple sentiment: Your lives all suck. You should try something different and new. I'm something different and new. Only I can fix this mess and all my opponents suck.

Trump offers no concrete plans for how he will fix anything. He is offering angry people an empty solution to what they hate.

Speaking of angry people, I can't ignore the fact that Trump is basically in bed with every racist organization in this country. How can any self-respecting African American (or any other member of a minority race, GBLTQ, or faith other than conservative Christian) can support Trump when he clearly has no issues with the disgusting views many of his supporters have. There is a simple reason he doesn't denounce them. They are votes in his pocket while the others are questionable at best. His outreach efforts to black churches/communities are for those white people who don't wish to be called "racist" for supporting Trump. This group, in many ways, are worse than the people who openly wear their racism on their sleeves.

The reason the silent people are worse is because they stand to reap the benefits of any and everything the racists do by sitting back and pretending to agree with the racism. I've witnessed personally how racists will "test the waters" with racist jokes/comments. If other white people keep silent, that racist steps up the attacks, usually while professing to not be a racist and claiming to have "plenty of black friends, but..." Their "black friends" are what they describe as "the good ones" or these black people "know how to behave."

Years ago, when I was in college and relatively new to his "Red State," a white friend mentioned a party she wanted to attend. The party was at a pool hall and she was inviting the friend group. She then looked at me and said she wasn't sure if I wanted to go because she had never seen any black people there before. The comment gave me pause but being very naive to racism when I arrived here, I didn't think much about her comment. After all, black people could go to the pool hall when she wasn't there, right. I didn't give it much thought, until the subject kept coming up. The party was a few weeks away and she kept bringing up the issue until one day she said she had spoken to her friend, the host of the party, and he said I could attend...IF I didn't cause any problems and I couldn't demand what kind of music was played. He wasn't going to play any Rap, etc. It was only then that my "friend" gave me the time and location of the party. I didn't attend.

The reason I didn't go to the party was simple. I knew I was not welcome there, would not be welcomed and if I had gone, I would have been watched and expected to "behave." I may have been subjected to snide, racist remarks. I may have been subjected to physical attack. I think I definitely would have been questioned about whether or not I was at the right place. My friend was rather upset with me that I did not attend and asked me why. I told her what I said here, that it was clear her friend did not what a black person attending. She claimed not to understand but I think she understood perfectly. White people know which of their white friends are racist but they hope their black friends can't see this. We can see better than you realize. If you remain silent while your white racist friend spouts things you claim to disagree with, you are part of the problem and no better than those who sat quietly benefiting from the horrors of Nazi Germany when Jews were murdered and their belongings distributed to others.

That party was basically a junior version of a Trump rally for me. White people who most likely are not racist, tolerate and to a certain degree, accept the deplorable racists in their midst to get the benefit of their candidate winning office. This has been a common thing in the Republican Party and the reason I think most black people avoid voting for that party, even if that black person is a Conservative. Republicans turn a blind eye to the horrible racists while telling black people they wish to help us. FYI, you can't pull me into a hug with one arm and cradle the KKK with the other.

But non-racists whites have the luxury of ignoring the racists and remaining silently complicit in the vitriol being spat. They like Trump and they have the luxury of ignoring the insults Trump throws. These are the white people, like my friend from long ago, who will invite their "African American friends" to a Trump rally and vouch for their behavior to their racist friends. That promotes that black person to "one of the good ones who knows how to behave."

Given the choice, just like long ago, I'm not going to that party. What do I have to lose? My peace of mind in knowing that the person I'm standing near is not going to spout some racist remark and then grin in my face if I show a sign of pain. Racists exist, Trump has shown me that clearly. Like roaches in the dark, they have crawled out in force to feast upon the debris Trump is tossing around. But there is no point to exposing Trump. He has been exposed. What needs to be done is building up Hillary Clinton and building trust in her. Is that possible? I hope so because if Trump is elected, everyone who is not complicit with white racists will have a very rough four years. Trump will have a huge debt to pay to this ilk and owe nothing to people like myself. It's a terrifying thought.

I"m still Blue

Yes, it has been a long, long while since I posted anything on this blog. Perhaps I should remain silent but if anyone is paying attention, politics in America seems to have gone off it's rocker. Never in a million years would I have believed Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination. Nor did I ever believe Hillary Clinton would win the nomination from Democrats. What I really am stunned by is the massive amounts of hatred for both candidates. Well, I'll say this, maybe both deserve some hatred but only one deserves to be feared.

The things Trump has said, done and encouraged during this campaign are not only NOT presidential, they are dangerous. Telling followers to punch people in the face because they disagree, is not presidential. Making fun of the handicapped is not presidential. Showing zero concern or emotion for a fallen Muslim soldier and claiming that creating jobs is your sacrifice, is not presidential. A man who cares nothing for the death of one soldier will not care any more for the deaths of hundreds or sending thousands into harms way. His followers claim the terrible things Trump says is merely "sarcasm." I think they need to research the word.

As for Hillary, I don't say she is perfect but I will say she is no worse than any male politician. What she is accused of, and perhaps she has done it all, is no greater sin than any man who has held powerful offices. I don't mean just in America but all over the world. To me, Hillary is your typical politician, which means she is predictable to a certain degree. I have no worries that she will unleash nukes on another country just because she's pissed off at them.

I am with her and I agree with Obama. Trump is not the working people's champion. He has simply used fear and manipulation to rally up bigots, racists and others who have irrational fears. Other Republicans are party faithfuls who I believe can't understand what is happening to the values of the party. Inciting hatred has become the core of the Republicans when it used to be a fringe element. I think these types have been a growing cancer in the Republican movement for a long time. Now, it has metastasized. Only time will tell if other Republicans will agree to the proper treatment to rid itself of the growing menace. Right now, it seem to be spreading. 

This "Blue Girl" has terribly neglected this blog, NOT because I am not interested in politics anymore. The reason is simple...comparing California to Missouri can be a lesson in depression for me. These parts of the U.S. are so different I'm amazed we are int he same country at all. But such things are common in the U.S.

While people in Missouri have no problems with killing "pest animals," Californians seen to want to co-exist with creatures who may make them dinner.

I was lucky enough to have a vacation to my home area; the San Francisco Bay Area. If I'm honest, I have to say I was about 75 miles away but made the drive there just because I love San Francisco so much. It was worth the tired muscles and aggravation with traffic and more than anything, this visit highlighted many differences I have forgotten.

1. The exposure to so many different cultures and languages! Just going to Alcatraz, I heard people speaking Chinese and Spanish. I rarely hear other languages spoken in KC. Also, the guide on Alcatraz asked where everyone was from. The countries mentioned included New Zealand, China, Singapore, Ireland and Australia. People from all around the planet come to my little city.
2. The food choices! I have a severe food allergy and people -really- pay attention to that. Not only are there tons of food choices, most were healthy! I love seafood and to get it so fresh was terrific! I missed that a lot.
3. SO...MUCH...TO...DO!!! In an effort to do as much as possible without causing an involuntary death, I hit several sites. There was more to do than I had energy to do! The America's Cup race was going on also. I didn't attend that but I got to see the New Zealand boat zip by. It was amazing!
4. Weather! Fog calms me and I just like being in such a weather system. Perhaps that's nutty but I really like fog and we rarely have that here. Fog hits the Bay Area pretty much daily.
5. Attitudes! Many people I met in the San Francisco area are very open to various differences in people. The judgment and closed minds I've encountered here; I didn't have that issue there. However, I will acknowledge that growing up there my mindset fits there more than here. It's just a fact.

In the end, I like San Francisco. Even with what many call flaws (and many are...high rents, homeless people, general filth on some streets), the diversity and openness make it a place I will always love. But for now, I'm stuck on the Plains in a "Red State" marveling at the differences. 

The home stretch

We are down to the wire for this election and I keep seeing predictions that Obama may win. I really hope that doesn't make people stay home and believe it's all a done deal. It never is, especially when the polls show the election is "neck and neck."

It's clear to anyone paying attention that I am for Obama. I am not saying he is perfect. I'm not saying he has all the solutions. I'm not even saying I like all that he has done. However, what I am saying is that I would pick Obama over anyone like Romney, and for very specific reasons. Romney does not represent enough of what I either agree with or support.

I have been a Democrat my entire life and I don't see that fact changing, ever. The Democrats are far from perfect but Republicans who tell me to take care of myself, then make things harder for me while lining their own pockets with my tax money really annoy me. I just don't understand how anyone with limited financial assets thinks a Republican cares. Of course, I know many support Republican agendas because of the abortion debate.

I am Pro-Choice and have been for a long time. When I hear Todd Akin talk about "legitimate rape" or Paul Ryan comment that rape is another form of conception, I find that disturbing. I think it's easy for some men to disregard the damage caused by rape. To say that woman should carry and raise a child from her rapist is just horrible. I understand that these candidates claim to care for the unborn child but honestly, why aren't they doing something to help unwanted children in this world instead of forcing women to have more?

Summing this election season up is simple...I'm sick to death of the attack ads here in Missouri...ALL attack ads. I guess because we have been "painted red" for this election, this is probably why there are precious few ads from Obama here. Why throw good money into a red pit when you are blue. I guess the really amazing this is how much people here seem to really hate Obama. Uh...really?

The last politician I honestly hated was Ronald Reagan. Yes...I really hated him. The disclaimer on that one is I was about 18 and pissed off because my veteran's benefits were eliminated. I had been told much of my teen years that as long as I stayed in school, I could get a government check because my father had served in the military. He died in his early 30s and therefore could not collect his own benefits so they were passed to his children...as long as we stayed in school I would receive checks until the age of 24. I was cut off at 18 and Ronny made a comment that the benefits were for the vets, NOT their children. It sounds good in a sound bite or commercial but in reality, they just cut off a bunch of children like myself. That set me on a firm path of being "blue."

So...very soon the election will be resolved and frankly, I'll be happy normal television will be back on the air. I hope Obama wins, that's no secret, but I must add this...Obama won 2 out of the 3 debates. If he loses the election, I really have to wonder what people are thinking. As I write this, an Obama ad aired. I just realized, his ad is the ONLY political ad I've seen that was not an attack ad. That should be a great reason to vote for him but alas, I know the people of Muzzarah love their attack ads. People here easily swallow that spoon-fed bile and love it...truly sad!

The Missouri race for the Senate

Claire McCaskill

Todd Akin

I haven't posted here much lately, mostly because I'm avoiding writing nothing but negative things. Still, I am about to do a bit of venting just to vent about the Missouri Senate race.

Anyone paying attention (and that's a questionable number) knows that Claire McCaskill is in a race against Todd Akin for the Missouri Senate seat. McCaskill is the incumbent and Akin is trying to take her seat. My disgust with this race began with comments from Akin. In an interview, Akin made a comment about rape. According to him, if it's a "legitimate rape," the female body can "shut down" pregnancy. He made this comment in an effort to support his opinions on denying women the commonly called "morning after pill." Akin is profoundly pro-life to the point of supporting denying abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Easy for him since he would not be the one carrying this child.

Akin, of course, "apologized" for the legitimate rape comment after getting harsh criticism. Members of his own party asked him to drop out of the race...he did not. The apology was bogus too since the man only claimed to has "misspoken." Uh...really? He totally opposes abortion in every case so it's not a far cry to believe he honestly believes a woman who gets pregnant from rape was not actually raped and therefore should have the child that was conceived.

Now, here come the attack ads...a common, typical and disgustingly natural part of Missouri politics. Neither candidate really touts their own achievements and instead the ads fixate on the flaws of the opponent. I've seen this practice ever since I moved to Missouri and I'm more profoundly disgusted that it works so well. The ad could be full of lies but if it hits a nerve, that candidate will win. Voters are left to make political choices based on how nasty the ads are. I have witnessed candidates who do not go negative get not just defeated but squashed in elections here. Did I mention that this is disgusting?

Akin may win by saying McCaskill is in Obama's back pocket. McCaskill may win by saying Akin really believes women won't get pregnant from rape. Will either ever say -I- did this or that to make this state a better place? I think that gets thrown in as an afterthought once in a while but the primary focus is to point a finger at the opponent and say, "That person SUCKS!" The saddest bit about this is...the candidate who screams "you SUCK!" the loudest is usually the winner.

McCaskill isn't perfect but I could never support a man who refuses to believe a raped woman who gets pregnant was not actually raped.

Todd Akin...another reason to dislike Missouri

Republican Congressman from Missouri Todd Akin said that women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape." While everyone is screaming and yelling about this comment, why hasn't anyone officially defined the words so we know where we all stand on the outrage.

According to the online American Heritage Dictionary, the word "legitimate" means "authentic or genuine," as in, a legitimate complaint. The word "rape" means, "the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse" Definitions wipe away assumptions. So Akin is saying if the rape is really rape, a woman won't get pregnant. Keep in mind this discussion was about legal abortion for women impregnated through rape.

I wish the reporter had asked Akin a harder question like, what evidence does he know of that causes a woman to "shut down" her body to prevent pregnancy? I, thankfully, have never been raped but I did go through 7 years of fertility treatments. If there were a switch to turn on the ability to become pregnant, my fertility specialists didn't know about it.

Some politicians disagree with abortion under any circumstances but most are smart enough to NOT refer to rape as being legitimate or not. Most will not say something so stupid as a woman can prevent pregnancy if the sperm is delivered into her body by force. Uh...really? How? In the end, Akin is blaming the woman for the pregnancy through rape...oh...but it wasn't a real rape because women don't get pregnant unless they enjoy the act that got them pregnant. This is how I interpreted Akin's comments and the comments are disgusting. What is more disturbing is he is leading the race in Missouri. That just makes me want to hurl.

Commercials in Missouri have said that Akin thinks student loans are like a cancer. That isn't getting much press time but we have a short list of two things he thinks that make me never want to vote for him. As much as I hate paying my loans back (they never seem to go away), I would never have gotten a degree without the loans. Many share this boat with me.

Unfortunately, if he wins, I will not be surprised. Akin knows this state and I would bet money many agree with him. It's an old, ugly belief that he just voiced. It's completely incorrect but being wrong isn't a factor here. People who believe this will believe it, although quietly, no matter what evidence is presented.

Romney/Ryan...when did I join the GOP?

I must admit that I have not followed the Presidential Race closely. I have already cast my lot, so to speak, I am an Obama supporter. However, somehow, the GOP seems to think either I can be swayed or that I am really a Republican in disguise. I have been getting emails from the GOP, quite regularly, talking about the horrors of Obama. Interesting...the only thing I ponder is how the GOP ever got my email address in the first place.

I have been a member of the Democratic Party for more than a decade. I take pride in the items I receive from the Party. I have gotten autographed photos from the President and his family. Items from the First Lady and all sorts of requests for money. I expect the money requests, am surprises and happy to get everything else. I would love to attend a convention one day and yet...the GOP keeps sending me emails. My SPAM filter is just not very good.

When I think of the Republican ticket, I am profoundly not impressed. Romney bothers me and Ryan gives me great pause.

It seems that Romney loves living the life of a rich man but wants to hide details of that wealth...like his tax returns.

Ryan on the other hand, seems to believe this country is actually a theocracy and not a democracy. That is super troubling. The pair together look good on a ticket but as someone once said to me, "Details baby, details!"

Barney Frank married? What about the age difference?

Maybe I am weird...OK...many think I am weird but my first thought when I read that Barney Frank had married his longtime partner was, "I thought Barney Frank was dead." A bit more reading and I realized I was thinking of the wrong person completely. Then I thought about their age difference, Frank is 72 and his partner is 42. That can be a stretch for many but apparently, these two look happy and now Frank gets to be a real part of history...a first...the first Congressman to enter a same-sex marriage. OK...good for them both and congratulations. This is kind of a big deal and I'm sure many see it as one of the signs of the coming apocolypse. I think that's a bit over blown and a bigger worry may be how they deal with such a large age difference. Still, what matters to most people is the fact that they are both male.

My personal truth is, I have neglected this blog for very specific reasons. When I think of how different politically Missouri is from California is is very depressing. Tolerance is not a common feeling here and judgment runs rampant, especially about homosexuality. I think that's just sad. I am profoundly tired of hearing "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." So this marriage automatically becomes a first step towards impending doom. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong but my opinion is, it's not my problem so why worry?

Don't you want to be rich?

I was talking with a co-worker about the Presidential election and she decidedly said she supports Mitt Romney in the upcoming election. I was not completely surprised by the support but I was surprised by her reasoning...she believes he will share with us all the secrets for how to become rich like him. WOW! She honestly feels that having a rich president will create an environment in our nation where we all will become rich. People who think like this are allowed to vote? Where was her logic in thinking this? Almost every president we have had has been wealthy. That wealth has not trickled down to me and my bank account proves that fact.

Another co-worker made a profound comment that this lady disregarded...Romney made much of his money by hurting poor people, not by helping pull them up to his level. My comment support this other co-worker's opinions and I added that I have never experienced a wealthy person working to help poor people become wealthy. Neither argument mattered to this lady because her focus was/is that Romney would help us all become rich. Again...I say WOW!

What I have noticed about the anti-Obama people is the fact that they refuse to accept that Obama did anything well...including that bit about Obama getting Osama. As much as I did not like Bush, I acknowledge that following 9/11 he did rise to the occasion of presenting a positive American image. Bush made mistakes and I don't agree with his political stance but I also acknowledge that he did do some things well. The anti-Obama crowd seem to be really angry that he won...legitimately...and that he may win again. I say get over it!

Obama won the last election legitimately. There was no re-count or halting of a re-count. There was no error in counting and the people wanted him to be president. Some may feel he sucks now but I would disagree. I think President Obama did what he could with the mess he inherited. Saying he just blames Bush is short-sighted. All presidents inherit the good and bad from the previous president. I would say Bush inherited some pretty good stuff from Clinton, yet, it seems Republicans don't want to slap him with any blame for the mess he passed on to Obama.

Another troubling thing is the decidedly racist twist to many anti-Obama people. If Obama is really that awful, why resort to racist comments to criticize him. Shouldn't his "bad record" be enough, or do anti-Obama people have to remind everyone that Obama is a black guy and generally speaking good white folk in our country don't like black people. Racism is the last resort of uneducated and desperate people...they may also just be racists too.

I am in no way saying Obama is perfect but I DO approve of his job, for the most part. I didn't approve of everything Clinton did and the running joke in the African American community is Clinton was actually the first "black" president. Still, I have to wonder if Obama were a white guy, I bet the only thing he would have to say to win the next election is, "I got Osama."

Is justice for Trayvon blind?

I have been casually watching the Trayvon Martin case and what bits and pieces I know, I find it troubling. While I am automatically drawn to the side of Trayvon, I do want to be impartial in viewing the facts of the case. However, those facts seem murky in some areas, crystal clear in others.

The clear fact is a 17-year-old African American male walking on a public street was shot dead while going home. He was "armed" with Skittles and an iced tea. Trayvon wore a hoodie that obscured his face. Another fact is George Zimmerman is the shooter and claimed self-defense in this matter. He called 9-1-1 before pursuing Trayvon. Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and I believe that's where the story gets murky. What happened after Trayvon turned and said, "Why are you following me?"

As an African American female and mother to an African American son, I have a lot of sympathy for the mother of Trayvon. I think I have so much sympathy that I am certain I could not serve on a jury if Zimmerman went to trial. However, the bottom line is...there would be no self-defense claim if Zimmerman had stayed in his home. Why is it self-defense for a person who pursued another and not self-defense for a person to confront a pursuer? If we put race, physical size, etc., aside and just ask ourselves the question, "Would I feel threatened walking on a dark street and a man began following me?" I know I would. Turning to confront that person may be the only option to some, running may be the option for others but my gut tells me Zimmerman would have chased. After all, the 9-1-1 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon and he did that anyway. If Trayvon ran, I am sure Zimmerman would have chased. Honestly, I don't know if running actually happened or not but the fact is...Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is NOT facing charges of murder.

I have heard stories that there is proof that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Again, Zimmerman was following him and I bet Trayvon felt threatened. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground, again, Trayvon most likely felt threatened and last time I heard a few punches and getting knocked down does not merit the death penalty. Add the twist of race to this and it takes me back to something personal I experienced in the past few weeks...justice is anything BUT blind.

Looking at the photos of both Trayvon and George, many assumptions have been made. African American males are scary and dangerous...especially when you can't see that person's face. People who appear to be white get automatic trust and many other benefits simply from race. It is not fair, it is obviously wrong but it is a fact of life in this world. We may never know what really happened that night but right now I think Trayvon is not getting justice. If George were black and Trayvon were white, I suspect George would be in jail right now...but I'm just making a guess.

Are Republicans seriously going to nominate Newt for the presidency? I just had to ask that question. Isn't the same person who touted family values but has cheated on 2 of his 3 wives? He has regularly had extramarital affairs but wanted Clinton impeached for doing the same. This man for president? I guess this is a long way for me to say I don't like Newt so I'm not inclined to itemize why. Instead, I tend to wonder why people who like him want me to itemize my reasons for not liking him. There is no need...hypocrisy is enough.

I do, however, like Pres. Obama and feel his State of the Union address was quite good. Not simply because it was him delivering a message but because his assessment that he inherited a mess is just truthful. Expecting him to fix everything while simultaneously various factions work diligently to prevent his success is just silly. I think Obama did a lot of good, could have done more if Congress had worked with him. No one is perfect but with someone like Newt as an alternative, I know who will get my vote in the coming election.

 

The troubled KC district

Literally in a few hours the Kansas City Missouri school district will officially lose it's accreditation and the state is poised to take over. This district has not met minimum standards for accreditation for about 20 years. I think the district has been given adequate opportunity to fix itself. Personally, I think 20 years is too long to allow this district to flounder along producing under-educated youth.

The Kansas City mayor's plan to allow the city to take over is being considered but frankly, he should probably step aside. Kansas City itself has a long, ugly history of political corruption and I think the district needs fresh blood and a fresh view. However, the mayor sitting back and doing nothing could be political suicide and I'm sure he wants to be re-elected. But something that Mayor Sly James can not control is the fact that a failed school district is probably the death-rattle for a city.

A successful city with a failed school district may exist but I think they are about as easy to find as a living, healthy do-do bird. I have never seen or even heard of a healthy city with a failed school district. I would call the district "failing" but 20 years of never meeting standards means it has failed. The district has failed hundreds of families, yet, it continues to ask for chances to improve. Improvement can only happen at this stage by overhauling the leaders of the district. If that means chopping up KCMO school district and absorbing it into the surrounding districts, so be it! The children getting substandard educations deserve better.

The district also must contend with a high profile criminal case. A man who worked at district schools has confessed to sodomizing a young boy. News reports say the man was accused years ago by another young boy of inappropriate touching and kissing. The child's mother said the school officials did not believe her or her son. The sad issue is...the district should probably expect lawsuits from this situation. So on top of losing accreditation, lawsuits may be on the way, not only from substandard educations but from exposing youths to a man who admits he attacked young boys.

Saying the district is troubled is an understatement. Having confidence that the state can do better may be wishful thinking but honestly, how much worse can the district become? Something drastic is desperately needed.

Mayor wants to run KC school...good idea?

I wrote about the Kansas City Missouri School District back in the mid-1990s. At that time, efforts were moving ahead to remove the federal funding granted to help desegregate the district. A CBS 60 Minutes report did a lot to move that effort forward and it finally happened in 1999. A chronology of these events is posted by the University of Missouri -- Kansas City.

Years later, the Kansas City School District lost it's accreditation and several students have graduated from this district knowing they have a degree from a district without accreditation. What exactly does that mean?

According to Definitions.net, "accreditation is the act of granting credit or recognition (especially with respect to educational institution that maintains suitable standards)." Therefore, if a school is not accredited, it does not meet various standards that have been determined to be needed in a quality educational institution. Logic would dictate that many students graduating from the KCMO district have a degree that is basically worthless. This fact, I believe, is why the state allows students attending an unaccredited district to transfer to surrounding accredited districts. After all, KCMO district meets only 3 out of 14 standards needed for accreditation. What parent would want their child continuing education in such a district?

Now, that a state take over of the district is pending, Kansas City Mayor Sly James wants to take over the district. Is this a good idea? One part of me says, "What could be worse than the status quo?" Another part of me says, "Doesn't the mayor have enough problems just running the city? He can't even keep is own son in check."

Well, part of James' proposed plan would eliminate the school board and give him the power to appoint the top executive and various other key persons to run the district. James is pushing that this is an attempt at local control to prevent the district from being broken up and absorbed by surrounding districts or being taken over by the state.

After following the mess that is the KCMO school district for more than a decade, I seriously feel something drastic needs to be done. A dying school district means a dying city. No one wants their child in a district without accreditation...well...no parent with sense and a desire for their child to achieve in life.

I am not entirely on board with the mayor's plan but I do feel something major is needed. Come Jan. 1, 2012, those changes will arrive and hopefully, real education can happen in Kansas City schools.

9/11 remembered...

Ten years after that tragic morning, I still remember vividly what I was doing when the country was attacked. I was asleep, soundly, when the phone rang. I answered and it was my then husband calling to ask me what was going on. He had heard frantic news reports but no one had actually said what happened. I turned on the TV and saw one of the twin towers smoking and just in time to see the second plane hit. I was stunned, shocked and disturbed. I didn't believe it even though I had just witnessed this happen.

Later that same day, my then husband and I signed paperwork to purchase our first home. It was a major day in my life on multiple levels.

I had the unique experience of seeing Ground Zero some years after the event. The visit was preceded by a happy event...the wedding of a couple friends.

This morning, 10 years later, that man who called me is married to someone else and instead of remembering this historic day together he is visiting with our son. I have a new home that I purchased by myself and I have weathered plenty of storms to find myself sitting here. There has been a lot of change in my life over the past 10 years.

Something I realized while these events unrolled was this...America is no longer the untouchable land we once were. Many countries have been bombed or felt the sting of terrorist attacks. We now must add our country to this unenviable list. I know there are people who feel America deserved the attack. At the risk of sounding like bleeding heart liberal, I don't believe any country "deserves" an attack. But I do hope that in the end, America will hesitate before taking actions in other countries that do not invite our interference. I also realize there are people who will hate us no matter what but we can not let radical elements mutate us into them.

Rest in peace all victims of terror attacks and to the people who create, plan and carry out such attacks...karma is a bitch, just ask Osama bin Laden.

This is just disgusting...Man rapes unconscious woman

I recently posted various reasons of why I hate Kansas City. Compared to this news article, my other reasons are rather trivial. Maybe this sort of thing happens everywhere but I have to say that the reaction of the public in the area is what is really disgusting. NO one stopped to help this woman. OH...correction...one woman helped her. Other people just passed by. Horrible to think a woman who passes out in this city had better hope someone will care enough to help.

How can anyone as human beings not notice a man raping an unconscious woman at 11 am on a busy street. Troot Ave. in Kansas City is a very well-traveled street...4 lanes wide and runs parallel to other major streets. Unfortunately it has also been called a sort of "dividing line" for the city with more financially stable/affluent people on one side and more financially strapped, sometimes less educated people on the other.

The people of this city either didn't see this happening (even though it was on the sidewalk and not hidden in an alley) or they didn't notice. People in cars are usually paying attention to the road, not the happenings on sidewalks. I can understand drivers not noticing. However, what about other pedestrians?

The woman in question was walking, felt light-headed (temperatures were extremely hot that day), she sat on the the sidewalk and passed out. This dredge of society took the opportunity to attack a helpless woman. He was allegedly in the process of raping the woman when another woman intervened. The man was caught by police with his zipper open and claiming all he did was touch the woman's leg. The woman who was attacked said she did not know what happened, however, the woman who came to her aid said she saw the entire incident.

My first thought was, how come no other pedestrians helped? A man having sex on a sidewalk with an unconscious woman (btw, he said he thought she was dead). How can you NOT do or say something? Even dialing 9-11 is better than walking by and doing nothing. This should be on "What would you do?" but it's such an absurd senario that most people wouldn't believe others would do nothing. This incident makes me wonder just how "civilized" we think we are.