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.

Reasons I hate Missouri

I've been in and out of the state of Missouri for most of my life. As a child I lived in northern California but every summer we took a road trip to Missouri to visit family. It was educational enough to make me never want to live here but alas, I live here now.

I first moved to Missouri around the age of 20. Remained a resident for about 10 years before returning to California with my then boyfriend who later became my husband. Divorcing him led to my return to Missouri about 6 years ago. I really want to return to the state of my birth and there are several reasons why, but I'll name 10.

1) This place is called the "Show-me State" and that tells you something of the limited views here. If you have to see everything to believe it that leaves a large path open for blatant ignorance.

2) Strangely enough, the insistence of being shown things doesn't apply to religion. People freely believe in the Bible without having to see proof of anything. While I am a believer in God, I do not take the Bible literally. These "show-me" people want to see to believe everything -except- God.

3) These same church-going believers are typically the biggest hypocrites you could ever meet. I personally know several people who will cut you off if you don't attend church regularly. People here seem to think attending church means they are automatically better. Sitting in a pew on Sundays means you can drink, do drugs, be just damned nasty to others and it is all wiped clean by sitting in an uncomfortable seat on Sunday and listen to a preacher telling you how you -should- behave.

4) Places of business are either closed or open at a ridiculously later hour on Sundays, presumably because everyone is in church worshiping.

5) People here seem completely clueless about the facts of the world, yet, they insist on voting. I have never seen so many worthless attack ads that are extremely effective. People here do not insist on a candidate touting his/her merits and instead vote for the person who spits the best venom.

6) Racism! OMG! I can still see segregation here and the attitude that a brown person is automatically inferior is very alive and well here...even among people who befriend people of other races. There is a very strong and putrid subtle racism here and it applies to ALL minority groups. I've heard horrible things said about Jews. An Asian friend has had people's children pull their eyes tight and say, "ching, chong, ching..." to him. I have personally had rednecks explain to me how slavery eventually benefitted blacks because how else would we have gotten here...presuming all black people want to live in America.

7) The knee-jerk practice to ignore, object to or avoid everything from either coast just because "We don't want to be like them..." However, at the same time every fashion trend or fad that comes through, people here latch on and hold tight. While people here want the fads, they ignore real knowledge like city planning and economic development plans.

8) The pseudo-religious piety of rejecting things just because it -appears- to be against the Bible...sex being the main thing. People here preach how wrong it is to have pre-marital sex but everyone here seems to have plenty of pre-marital sex. Granted, many people do this but Midwesterners seem to have made this an art.

9) Speaking of art, this pseudo-religious piety also determines what art exhibits come here. I take great offense with people who can't deal with the naked human form presented artistically. A friend recently had to unpost an ad for an art exhibit because it presented a naked man with a peacock feather covering his genitals. It was art, not porn.

10) As for porn...having lived in San Francisco where porn is called "adult entertainment," I was totally stunned to see places offering adult entertainment were sleazy. But that's how people here view adult entertainment...rather disappointing, really.

Basically, I hate Missouri more so because of the people and culture, rather than the location. The weather sucks too but I could deal with the weather if the people weren't so annoying.

This is just racist!

I have to ask myself who came up with this idea for a campaign promotion? This is pure racism.

I worked for years as a journalist and I did learn something great during that time -- when you scream something, explain why this is so. I have to ask and answer "the next question."

While I find it hard to believe that anyone would not see why this quote is racist, I have to understand that some people don't or won't. I can't assume people know why this is an insult. I shall explain it clearly.

The 'o' in the word "boy" has been replaced with a major symbol of Pres. Obama's campaign. The 'o' in the word "job" has been replaced with the Presidential symbol. Finally, the last bit says "Trump 2012," meaning vote for Donald Trump in the next presidential election. So, some would say where is the racism?'

In short the ad says Pres. Obama is a "boy," and Donald Trump is a man, therefore we should send this man to do what this boy could not...be president. Now, anyone living in American has to know that calling an African American man a "boy" is an insult from way back. African American men have been insulted with this comment for so long I find it amazing if a person said he/she didn't know it's an insult. Pres. Obama has been a man for quite some time and calling him a boy is a racist statement pure and simple.

The second part of this racism is the total assumption that Donald Trump, a white man, can automatically do better than this "boy," a black man. Racists through America's history have always presumed that skin color is automatically a marker of superiority. This ad makes Obama a "boy" just because of color and Donald Trump a man simply because he is white. The ad lectures us on this point.

This advertisement is just disgusting. It ignores the accomplishments of Pres. Obama and focuses on issues that shouldn't be part of a presidential campaign. People accuse minority people of "playing the race card" but in this case, that IS the race card. I'm amazed and disgusted that that phrase would be used to promote Donald Trump.

I do NOT believe Donald Trump is a racist. I think the people who created this ad most likely are using racism to promote Trump. It's a weak argument and could backfire. I hope it backfires.

I realize Obama has not been a perfect president. NO person is perfect but I do believe he is trying and working to make this country better. I am not a Bush fan but I think somewhere in that head of his, he felt he was doing the same.

One part of me wants others to see this and be just as angry and disgusted as I am. Another part of me wants this to disappear and for people to argue in favor of a presidential candidate that is actually running and without using racist slogans.

E-Tax and the metro

Today is the vote on the earnings tax for both Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo. This subject has caused much debate and with good reasons. If it is repealed, according to supporters, the city will have to cut fire and police to balance the budget. Our other taxes will be raised too because about half of the earnings taxes come from people who only work in KC metro, they don't live here.

Looking at the pie-charts, the e-tax makes up a significant part of the budgets for both cities. So why is this such a debate? How come this is even a vote? Why is there such a debate? How come the citizens of Kansas City (don't know about St. Louis, I don't live there and no ads from there have been shown here...none I know of anyway), considering cutting off this tax?

First, I DO think this tax will pass. With commercials show how "outsiders" are supporting this tax and how police and fire will be cut, along with ambulance services, they are literally terrifying people into voting for this tax. I've seen quite a few commercials saying vote "yes" to keep KC Alive. In fact, that is the slogan, Keep KC Alive...as if repealing the earnings tax will kill the city. Hmmmmm....let's take a closer look at that one. What is keeping KC alive vs. sending businesses and residents away?

I have never heard of any city that is thriving having a school district that is deathly ill. KCMO school district lost accreditation in 1999. I personally know several people who left the city for the sake of their child's education. Many parents who remain in Kansas City work to send their children to charter or private schools. Can you blame them? No one wants to send their child to a school district for 13 years only to receive a degree that is only good to wipe their butts. The district just got accreditation, although probationary, this month. Unfortunately, it only barely had it returned. I believe the district made 4 our of 11 needed goals in order to get even probationary accreditation. How many children graduated with garbage degrees before today?

The city also allows blight to thrive in certain areas because "those people" caused the problems. This statement is in reference to a conversation I had today with a co-worker and I must admit, it lowered my opinion of her. To blame the average neighbor or the neighborhood for the decline of a shopping mall/center is not only short-sighted, it can also be racist. After looking up information on Bannister Mall, I discovered the mall's death was due to a variety of causes, not the least of which being competition and "white flight."

The Bannister Mall atrium, pictured above, was an awesome place to sit and enjoy food court food. I really enjoyed that mall, the movies, the food court and the many fantastic shops. the picture above is the results of many years of neglect and the fact that the building was not fully secured once closed. Vandals had a great time at the mall...before and after it shut down.

Instead of a logical conversation discussing the complex reasons for why a once thriving mall could sputter to its death and finally be demolished and basically become a dirt pile, I got accusations directed at the mall's neighbors. I was really shocked to hear this person, whom I consider intelligent, telling me that Bannister Mall died because young people in the area systematically destroyed the mall with theft and violence. Uh...where were the police? My response also included the observation that -every- city in the nation has teens who misbehave and/or do violence. I also quoted something I had been told since I was a child...my mom would whip my butt or the police would. Problem with KC is that the police doesn't take over the whipping duties when the parents fail. Instead, the city allows an entire neighborhood to fall apart and then blames that decay on a few bad apples...YES...I said a FEW!

There are malls in plenty of low-income areas. They are probably not the best malls in the world, but they are there. Ignoring the addition of 6 more malls to the area, including several that are more modern, vibrant and better advertised, is just short-sighted. That kind of competition would hurt even a thriving mall. When Bannister Mall owners ignored the competition, never upgraded, didn't manage to keep anchor stores and eventually just allowed the entire place to fall apart, blaming a few bad elements is just crap. This person wasn't hearing/listening to my points and instead fixated on the erroneous belief that bad people in the neighborhood caused the destruction of an entire mall. This wasn't just ignorance but also racism. It's easy to blame "those people" for anything bad and never give "those people" credit for anything good. It's even easier to say the city is not to blame for ignoring an entire neighborhood while pouring money into an area where no one lives. That brings me to Power & Light District and downtown.

Kansas City's down town has been dead for years...as dead as Bannister Mall is now. The city decided to revitalize downtown. One of the arguments made by this person was that downtown was revitalized...not quite true. The P&L District has been plagued by lawsuits over a dress code that seems to discriminate against African Americans to weird rules about parking. Restaurants there have failed and now the city claims it needs money to continue funding the district. Citizens were promised the P&L District would be -helping- the city funds, not draining. P&L isn't really the place for me but it seems like while KC gripes about needing more and more money, it isn't really offering much in return.

In the end...I'm certain the e-tax will pass. Despite the failing school district, the failed "money-generating" projects and the pit that used to be Bannister Mall, money-sucking P&L District, the sucks to be you for living in a shitty neighborhood attitude. BTW, the only construction in the Bannister Mall area for probably 20 years has been the moving of a city fire station. Even Wal-Mart closed in the area, the following day the company opened a brand new store in a different part of KC. Why didn't our city "leaders," what a joke, make Wal-Mart do something, ANY thing with Hyper-Mart, the mega-store that is now sitting, vacant and contributing to the blight?

The biggest reason I oppose the e-tax is simple...the soccer stadium that was to replace the mall went to Kansas instead with developers citing the e-tax as the reason for the move. Therefore, I pay extra to live/work in KC while city leaders tell me sucks to be for living near a mall it allowed to die and then made no efforts to rid this area of blight. I voted no with good reason.

Better to have loved and lost...

Love...

We have all heard that saying before...It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Think about that for a moment. What's better about it?

I prefer the saying in the photo, better he/she is gone than to have spent your entire life with this selfish psycho who is hell bent on draining anything good from your life. It can be that bad but our society likes to believe both sides are equally wrong. Yes, I blogged about that previously but it's just such an annoying truth I had to say that again. It is possible that one person in a relationship can ruin the relationship. People are not always equally at fault when a marriage dies.

That saying is in my head, on my mind because that is what my co-worker said to me. In the future, if anyone says that to me, my response will be quick and to the point...NO, it's not better. What do you think it better about it? Broken love can create a bitter person who hurts other. Broken love or a broken heart can create a person so afraid of being hurt again that he/she will never love again...by choice. A broken heart, according to some, can even lead to death so who was the idiot who came up with that saying, "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." It was Lord Alfred Tennyson, who is probably rolling in his grave from how we have mutilated his quote. The quote was not meant to soothe people with a broken heart but an obituary. There is a great difference between losing a loved one to death than having that person walk out on you perfectly healthy. This quote has not only been taken out of context, it has mutated into a meaning that was not meant for the quote in the first place.

Limitless and Trainspotting

I find it interesting how similar these films are. Both are about drug addiction, both end in a manner where the main character seems to have benefited from his journey into addiction. Both main characters take a journey to become clean so why is it that one film makes you wish you had the drug and the other film makes you glad you didn't. Also, Limitless makes you believe the lead character is actually better and going to be successful. In Trainspotting, I was left with the belief that the lead character was not being totally truthful with himself. I was certain he would relapse back into drug usage. But why not the other guy? It was the same type of ending and both were technically still addicts at the end of each film. I firmly believe once an addict, you always have that tendency to go back to that crutch.

Without giving away too much, in Limitless the lead character is a slacker, going no where. He takes a pill that activates his brain basically making him smarter. He is able to do a lot just because his brain is working faster and better...then the side effects kick in. The Trainspotting addicts know they are a mess. They have no delusions of grandeur. They suffer the ill effects of heroin addiction. Our "hero" in Limitless has similar problems with his side effects, including the possibility of death if he stops taking the drug.

I think the appeal of Limitless is that the movie is a fantasy. We all wish we could take a pill that will make us remarkably smart. Most of us would deal with the side effects to be able to use our brains to become wealthy and powerful. Unlike the poor saps in Trainspotting, the guy in Limitless looks great, has a fantastic home, millions of dollars and most of all...respect. This is pretty far from reality, regardless of how so many are looking up to various drug addled celebrities.

In the end, I enjoyed both films for various reasons. I think Trainspotting is the more gritty, realistic film about drug addiction but it got slammed for promoting drug use. If anything, Limitless is the film promoting drug use without consequences. I'm amazed that Limitless is totally escaping being called a film that promotes drug use. Maybe because the drug he used encouraged him to fit into society rather than hang on the fringes, maybe that's what makes it acceptable. Having a stunning pair of blue eyes helps a lot too. Not many women are drooling over Obi-Wan looking like he needs a fix.

Blame, taxes and Ferraro

A conversation I was having with a co-worker last week reminded me of why I don't discuss my failed marriage with very many others. Our society has come to an erroneous conclusion that when a relationship dies, both parties involved are equally at fault. Blame is applied to each person equally because, I've decided, people hearing the reasons for the break-up do not want the chore of deciding who is/was wrong. It's a pattern of thought the courts takes also.

More and more states, probably all by now, have "no fault" divorce. This means that the jerk-wad in a marriage doesn't have to face the errors of his/her ways during the divorce process. The person filing for divorce simply gets to claim the marriage is broken and can't be fixed. That person, male or female, does not have to say who broke the marriage, therefore a person who cheated, spent all the money, beat the other, etc., does not get punished by the courts for being morally wrong to the other. The courts have turned a blind eye to immorality in a marriage in order to expedite the divorce process. While this is good for the courts, it's bad for the innocent spouse and society.

The ripple effect of "no fault" divorce is that people in general actually believe both sides in a divorce are equally at fault for the divorce. I know from personal experience that this is just wrong. My ex cheated, abandoned the family and hid money during the marriage. We went to marriage counseling...he attended but never implemented the advice. If the situation wasn't focused on him, he wasn't interested in giving it a try.

When I speak of my bad relationship, I get comments like, "love is blind..." or "you had to know how he was before you married him..." I seriously protest that blanket statement. Love may be blind but it's not deaf, dumb and stupid too. Also, if everyone knew all the bad habits of their future spouse, most marriages would never happen. Those statements simply blame the person for the divorce when in fact, that person has no clue what the marriage was like.

My ex suffers from clinical depression. Since I took my vows seriously, I stayed with him, supporting him through his mental illness only for him to walk out on me when I needed him by my side. The "sucks to be you..." attitude I get from others tells me that they really have no clue what it is like to live with a person with mental disease. Depression is like walking through waist deep mud with a 150 pound weight tied to your feet. I would dread seeing this man I loved because I already knew anything I did was not going to pull him out of this oppressive sadness. What I didn't realize was that once he claimed to be over his depression, his attitude was all about self-satisfaction and therefore, that's what he sought. I didn't matter, standing by his side didn't matter, our son didn't matter either. He only cared about pleasuring himself and that's what he did. People who think divorce is about both sides being equally at fault really isn't paying attention to real life situations. Nothing is equal when it comes to love and war. If I had known that fantastic first date going to see Apollo 13 would move to a marriage with a man who refused to do anything with me at all, I never would have married him.

Taxes

The vote on the earnings tax here in Kansas City is set for April 5. Once again I find great disgust with this city. Advertisements are playing to people's fears instead of logic. I realize many political campaigns do this but I was lucky enough to NOT grow up in an area where this is common. I am even more disgusted by the ads questioning who is paying for the ads supporting the elimination of the earnings tax. Those ads play to the Kansas Citians' fears of people not from the city. I thought I imagined this when I first moved here but now I realize locals really do have a serious aversion to non-locals. This explains a lot.

This aversion to others must come from some historical basis but I have no idea what that basis is but it creates a problem. Kansas City seems to want tourists' money but not the tourists. It touts itself as being a destination place in the Midwest but at the same time doesn't really do much to promote reasons for a tourist come come here. Even while living here, there are events I have no idea are in town until the news says this is the last day. Kansas City is considered one of the birthplaces of Jazz...you wouldn't know it if you came here. 18th and Vine was allowed to horribly deteriorate, it's better now in part from a film crew that needed sets for a movie. Still, nothing is done to promote that district either locally or as a tourist destination.

Advertisements say the earnings tax is 40% of the city budget. Well, with or without that earnings tax, KC has problems. Businesses are leaving and so are people. The city's school district isn't even accredited, why would anyone want to raise a family here if their children can't get a decent education? On top of a bad education, you are paying extra from your paycheck just to live here and get that education. The city sputtering into a suburb and the so-called leaders seem to be clueless as to change that path.

Geraldine Ferraro

I remember when this woman became the first serious candidate for vice president. I was proud to see this happen but I was also painfully aware that many felt it wasn't "time" for a woman. It was time for a black man. Yes...at that time, I heard many say that and the black man they said it was time for was/is Jesse Jackson. Still, Ferraro was on the ticket, which lost by a landslide. She got some of the blame...some tax issues...but in all reality it was probably due to a combination of her taxes and Mondale's lack of charisma. Throw in the fact they were up against that Republican wet-dream Ronald Reagan and they never stood a chance. Still, I admired this woman for having the guts to take this leap into history. She will be missed.

What am I paying for?

Kansas City charges a 1% city tax to live and/or work in this city. If you wonder where I'm going with this one, just read the title. What is this paying for?

Opponents of his tax are fighting the tax with an upcoming vote to repeal the tax. I have to admit, I haven't studied this issue as much as I should but I have to ask that question...what is the money paying for?

The city has advertisements out saying it is 40% of the city budget and pays for police, fire and ambulance services. People will die if we repeal the tax. The world will basically end if this tax is stopped. I guess the sky will fall also. Other cities that don't have such a tax manage to survive. Kansas City has this tax and the ugly truth is KC is dying a slow death. Not to mention using scare tactics is not the best way to get people to support spending money. We all know that the city will find an alternative way to tax us that will make up the balance of the money it will lose.

When you speak to locals here, even they criticize the city. Something a co-worker said just yesterday was that St. Louis has everything downtown and KC is the opposite of that. The real ugly truth is KC is rapidly becoming a suburb. People are leaving this city for a variety of reasons and moving to where the culture/action exists because it's not in KC.

With a tax such as this, many businesses have left the city. Why pay extra to have a business in a city with several vacant buildings, no downtown culture/life and a City Council that seems to be lost? A great example of lost business is the proposed soccer stadium. City leaders said the stadium was to come to KCMO, it didn't. One reason the project was moved to Kansas is the city tax here in Kansas City, MO. The city is losing residents and businesses because of this tax so honestly, how much good can this tax be?

San Francisco vs. Kansas City, with a bit of James Franco on the side

I love the city of my birth...San Francisco, Ca. There are a number of reasons for this, I used to think it was just because I was born there. However, many people are born places and hate the city/town of their origin. Being born in SF has nothing to do with my love of the city...it's just a fringe benefit. Not may people can make the claim of being born in the City by the Bay. The hospital where I was born isn't even there anymore, thank you George Lucas. Hey, George...another MAJOR reason to prefer SF over KC! Simply put, SF is known around the world. Most people have no idea where Kansas City is even located.

What I can't ignore is that San Francisco had a huge influence on this "Blue Girl" who finds herself in a Red State. One of the significant things I have found is my constant need to defend my love of SF because people here only hear KC bashing. OK...I admit it, I DON'T like Kansas City. In fact, I would say it is pretty close to hate, not simple dislike. When I say this, the next question is, "Why are you here? Why don't you move back?" Personal reasons brought me here; finances keep me here. The longer answer is most of my family is here and being a single mom, I can use as much family support as possible. However, if my family lived in Alaska then that's where I would be now. My move to KC wasn't because I love the Midwest.

Still, there are nice things about Kansas City. The photo is a picture of Crown Center Plaza, a rather nice Christmas photo. Hallmark is headquartered here so one would expect the city would be especially decked out for the holidays...any holiday. But there is the issue, huh...Kansas City doesn't DO much of anything to promote anything. As a result, I think Kansas City works very hard to kill its own appeal. Hallmark is a huge corporation that is known around the world. I wonder how many people know it is headquartered in Kansas City. I wonder how many locals know this fact. Not promoting Hallmark is one way KC shoots itself in the foot. That festering wound will not heal any time soon.

Folgers Coffee is scheduled to shut down its plant located in downtown KC. If you want to hear about something I love about Kansas City...it is the wonderful smell of fresh coffee that fills the air of downtown, especially on cold mornings. While I applaud the efforts of average citizens to save this landmark and 180 jobs, I am critical of city leaders who appear to do NOTHING in trying to build up this city. Maybe they are working behind the scenes but I seriously doubt that. This city has a long history of selfish politicians and corruption, AKA The Pendergast Machine. What is more troubling than anything is how many Kansas Citians know nothing of Mr. Pendergast, another reason to NOT like KC...the citizens' ignorance of their own city's history. When I mention these facts, I am told these things happen everywhere...uh, no they don't. In fact, saying it happens everywhere is a sign of ignorance, isolation and apathy.

I have many more reasons to say why I don't like KC but I'd rather talk about James Franco now.

First, it takes A LOT of confidence for a man to dress up like Marilyn Monroe for a huge television event. It's even more impressive that if you look at the make up job on his face, he is STILL very attractive. Not many men can do drag and remain attractive. Yes...looking at the arms, shoulders and lack of breasts...uh...he's NOT a pretty woman. But...looking at his face, he's a pretty man.

I know he is being slammed hard for the Oscar hosting. Anne seems to be skating by with less criticism. I even have to say James seemed a bit stiff and there was zero chemistry between the two. However, no slam to Ms. Hathaway...but...James is a PhD candidate and had to leave immediately following the show to return to school. He actually had a class early the next morning and he made it there on time, still wearing his tuxedo pants. Since my mom is also a PhD candidate, I have witnessed the work it takes...and she's not even going to Yale as Mr. Franco is. Did anyone think just -maybe- the man is a bit distracted by school work. This is a big step for the man who obviously wants more for his life than pretending to be someone else on film. Since he is studying English, I have a bigger soft spot for him. He's hot, talented, driven, educated and looks good in a dress...what more can you ask for?

Did you hear what I said? or...Shut up and LISTEN!

I was having what I thought to be a conversation about weight problems with a co-worker when I realized I was becoming really angry with every word spoken. I could not figure out what it was about this conversation that was getting my panties into a bunch. Let me say this first, I don't get angry easily. I tend to be a pretty easy-going person. I love debating issues but only if there is mutual respect. BINGO!

I didn't realize the issue until my drive home. There was nothing mutually respectful in our conversation. When I think back to the conversation, I realize this woman who I believed to be the typical "nice lady" was regularly speaking over me without really paying attention to my points, opinions and comments.

Example...I said weight loss is a more complicated situation than just eating less or following a plan. Her comment was that "anyone" can lose weight if they just stick to a weight loss plan. I disagree. Her comment ignores genetics, psychology, outside factors and a host of other influences on the average person's appetite. People eat for reasons that may or may not include hunger and her comments ignore that also.

I am a heavier person, call me fat if you like, it's what I am, therefore I took this woman's comments rather personally. Her opinions were simple...if you follow ANY dieting plan you WILL lose weight.

My argument was more complex. I agreed that following a plan would yield weight loss but there are several mitigating circumstances that should be considered, not the least of which being is the plan sustainable. That comment was the only one that seemed to shut her up. A person can live on bread and water but that person will never thrive on such a meager diet. You will lose weight, but once you begin eating normally, the weight will return and bring along friends, therefore her theory has a huge failure flaw. What is the point of losing weight if you will simply re-gain?

As I said, differences of opinions are fine, lack of respect is what gets me charged up. This woman consistently disregarded all my statements about weight loss and health to maintain her dictate that anyone can lose if they just follow a plan. If it were that simple, dieting wouldn't be a multi-million dollar business. The most confusing thing about this woman is that she is fat also. That left me with a rather harsh opinion of her...just because she has failed diet plans for lack of discipline, she presumes that everyone other fat person is fat for the same reasons.

That blanket view is simply not true. Some people, like myself, have medical issues that contribute to weight gain. Others can not exercise due to physical injury. Others really have eating disorders. For some people, losing weight isn't a very important thing. Weight is an extremely personal issue. Saying that your personal reasons for being fat or not being able to lose weight is a rather arrogant point of view. Each individual has their individual issues and even if you don't agree, respect should be given. I have strong opinions but I definitely don't disregard other opinions in favor of mine. As the saying goes, everyone has one...I just wanted this woman to shut up, listen, consider the information and have a discussion. Instead, I got to hear how her opinion was right and my opinion was excuses...whatever chicky-girl.