Todd Akin and His Mission from God

By now we're all aware of Missouri Congressional Representative and Senate hopeful Todd Akin's inflammatory comment about women rarely becoming pregnant as a result of a 'legitimate' rape.  Several others have already posted (ranted) about the insensitivity, ignorance, and sheer idiocy of that statement, and, since I have nothing new to add to that particular discussion, I'm content to let their words stand in regards to how I feel about the whole thing.

One detail caught my eye, however, that has received much less attention, and I think it needs to be highlighted.  The New York Times ran an article two days ago entitled, "A Politician Whose Faith is Central to His Persistence."  It describes Mr. Akin's Evangelical Christianity, as well as his desire to return America to its "Judeo-Christian roots."

Putting aside for the moment the fact that America has never been a theocracy, nor should it ever be, I personally get interested whenever a politician tries to legislate according to his or her "Christian" values.  What are the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Akin embraces and believes we should all pattern our lives around?

The best way I could think to answer this question was to look at his voting record.*  I'll confess that I stopped after reviewing the last two years because frankly, the House votes on a lot of bills, and I don't have days to spend on this.  I think his record over the last two years should be sufficient to extrapolate Mr. Akin's values from his votes.

We all know how Mr. Akin feels about abortion, so I'm sure it comes as no surprise that he consistently voted against everything that included any provision for abortion or any support for any entity that might somehow be related to an abortion provider (i.e. if it had Planned Parenthood anywhere in the text of the bill, Mr. Akin voted against it, even if it was for something like breast cancer screening.)  The overreaching aside, I'm willing to consider the rights of the not-yet-born to be a legitimate Christian concern.  Whether those rights are absolute and always override the rights of the mother is still a matter of debate, and something I have absolutely no intention of tackling in this post or on this blog.  But trying to protect those who are unable to defend or even speak for themselves, yeah, I'll agree that that's a value I recognize as Christian.

Except Mr. Akin's concern for the not-yet-born seems to disappear once the mother makes the decision not to abort.  He voted against HR 3470, Infant Mortality Pilot Programs.  What this bill did was identify areas within the United States that had unusually high infant mortality rates, and provide funding for those communities to better support pregnant women and new mothers, to improve the health of mother and child alike, as well as reduce the odds of preventable miscarriage.  Keep in mind that this bill was in no way connected to Obamacare.  Yet Mr. Akin's Christian values didn't inspire him to support these efforts.

He also consistently voted against everything to do with Obamacare, because he doesn't believe the government should be involved with health care at all.  Caring for the sick is not a priority, according to his Christian values.

Mr. Akin voted against H Amdt 1127, which would have repealed indefinite military detention provisions.  People suspected of terrorism can sit in military prisons--without charge and without trial--forever, as far as he's concerned.

Fiscal responsibility is a big concern of Mr. Akin's.  It's also a big concern of mine.  I believe the government is going to have to realize that it can't have everything it wants, and is going to have to make some hard decisions about what it can and can't afford.  So does Mr. Akin.  Let's look at what choices he made, based on his strong faith and desire to legislatively recognize the Creator God.

Despite the deficit, small businesses should be entitled to hefty tax breaks.  Individuals, however, should suck it up and lose the payroll tax holiday, pay more income tax on their social security benefits, have unemployment benefits reduced, and lose all federal assistance to stay in their homes.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense should get every penny they asked for, but funding should be reduced for the United Institute of Peace, and food assistance to low-income families and children should be reduced or eliminated.

And federal funding should be prohibited for the financing of presidential elections and National Public Radio, but allowed for NASCAR sponsorship.  (Seriously, H Amdt 92.  I wouldn't dare make something like this up!)

When I think about what a Christian is called to do, I think about Matthew 25:31-40:

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. ³⁴Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? ³⁸And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” ⁴⁰And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (NRSV)

To me, that is what a Christian looks like.  Someone who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked (social programs to help people make ends meet).  Someone who welcomes the stranger (sane immigration policies).  Someone who takes care of the sick (health care).  Someone who visits those in prison (recognition that even those who wish to do us harm are human beings, and deserving of the respect and courtesy they would never dream of giving us).  Jesus never made a distinction between the 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving' poor.  Jesus certainly never identified the mark of the righteous as those with the strongest military, but rather emphasized the role of peace in God's kingdom.

I don't have a problem with Todd Akin voting according to his interpretation of Christian values; I have a problem with Todd Akin and others like him defining for the world what Christian values are, and using his warped voting record to do so.

It seems to me that there are two types of Christians in America today: the care-for-the-poor-and-needy-because-that's-what-Jesus-taught-and-did type of Christian, and the you'd-better-live-according-to-a-strict-moral-code-that-I'll-define-for-you-or-else-you're-going-to-burn-in-hell type of Christian.  I'm in the first category, and I'm happy to report that I'm not alone here.  But Todd Akin is in the second category, and he has a lot of company there, too.  Unfortunately, they get all the media attention.  Their voices are louder than ours, so they're defining for everyone who isn't in either category what Christians believe and value.  That is unacceptable.

I'm not suggesting a screaming match, because a) I don't think that would do any good, and b) that kind of infighting would seriously damage the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.  But I am asking that some of you other social-justice-oriented Christians make yourself known, and let it be known that the Todd Akins of the world don't speak for all Christians.  There are other voices out there; let yours be heard.

*I used VoteSmart.org to see Mr. Akin's voting history.

Good vs. Evil

I really didn't want to go here.  I really didn't want to get into the whole Chick-Fil-A thing.  I really wanted to just join Jen Hatmaker in her wonderful-sounding basement, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.

But I can't.  Because I'm tired of all the vitriol and venomous accusations.  And I'm particularly tired of one side (pick whichever one you want--both are equally guilty) assigning motives to the actions of the other.

Chick-Fil-A uses some of its profits to support organizations that oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Personally, I disagree with the aims of those organizations; given the fact that we do not live in a theocracy (nor do I want to, even as a faithful Christian), I cannot see any legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples that right.  The Jim Henson Company also disagrees with the aims of those organizations, and they decided to end their partnership with Chick-Fil-A and donate the proceeds they'd enjoyed from that partnership to GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

All of that is fine.  Chick-Fil-A can use their profits as they see fit, and so can the Jim Henson Company.  And both can choose to partner with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.  Or not to partner.  They have that right.

But the owners of Chick-Fil-A have been described as hateful, evil bigots who only want to deny rights to those who don't believe as they do, and are trying to use their money to establish theocratic rule in this country.  I don't think that's fair, and it certainly isn't supported by facts.

Yes, they hold to a 'biblical' definition of marriage (though that claim itself is dubious, given the fact that there are many definitions of marriage in the bible, many of which are not considered acceptable in this day and age.  But that's a whole other post.)  Yes, they support organizations that work to make their accepted definition of marriage the only legal definition of marriage.  But that's not all they support.

Let's look first at the partnership with the Jim Henson Company.  The Jim Henson Company has never masqueraded as a biblically conservative company.  As they proudly stated on their Facebook page, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years."  Their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness was not hidden from Chick-Fil-A, yet Chick-Fil-A still chose to enter into a business partnership with them.  Yes, they stood to benefit financially, but if they were willing to compromise their principles for the sake of profits, then they'd be open on Sundays, so I dismiss that as their primary motivation.  Basically, despite the difference in politics, Chick-Fil-A wanted to be affiliated with the values that the Jim Henson Company stood for.  How does that fit in with their image as hateful, evil bigots out to mold the world into their own narrow conservative image?

I also know that they donate a sizable amount of money to the Public Broadcasting Service.  How do I know this?  Because between the shows my kids watch on PBS they are subjected to a few non-commercial commercials for Chick-Fil-A (as well as Earth's Best Baby Food--since when are there commercials on PBS??!!).  If you haven't watched the children's programming on PBS recently, let me assure you that it's not advocating conservative Christian values to the sippy-cup set.  Those shows advocate the same diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance that the Jim Henson Company does.  Yet Chick-Fil-A believes enough in their mission to give them lots of money, despite their different politics.

Chick-Fil-A also funds college scholarships, foster homes, summer camp programs, youth leadership programs domestically and abroad, as well as marriage preparation, enrichment, and crisis intervention programs.

I don't agree with everything they choose to do with their profits, but they're clearly not the hate-mongering bigots they're accused of being.

Neither the right nor the left are all good or all evil.  Can we please stop assigning motives that make it easier to dehumanize each other?  If you don't like how Chick-Fil-A spends their money, they by all means exercise your right to boycott.  But don't demonize them, or the people who support them.  They don't deserve it, any more than you do.

Dear Real Estate Industry

You're mad at us, I know.  I can tell by the tone of the e-mail our realtor sent to my husband in response to our announcing that we're withdrawing our offer on the house we looked at last month.  Our realtor suggested (though never actually stated) that we were being unreasonable, and attempted to shame us into changing our mind by assuming that we were withdrawing our offer because we were not actually qualified for a mortgage and have "strung along the seller and the bank" all this time.

Here's the thing.  This house was a short sale.  It's been on the market for a year, and in that time has dropped its price by nearly $100K.  Even with that, the house was still overpriced, and we offered $15K less than the current asking price (a number which we still think is generous, considering that the house will need about $50K worth of repairs in the next five years).  But before we made the formal offer, we asked our realtor to find out from the seller if they would be willing to consider a low-ball offer, because we didn't want to waste anybody's time.  We were told to make the offer, and they would consider it.

This is my third time buying a home.  I've sold three already.  In every case, the initial offer was either accepted, countered, or rejected pretty quickly, and any acceptance was contingent upon the buyer securing their financing.  Yes, our offer was slightly higher than our pre-approval, but our mortgage broker didn't think that should be much of a problem and told us that once we had an accepted P&S he'd get to work at formally processing our mortgage for the entire amount.  He was operating under the same assumption I was: first comes the offer, then the acceptance, then the financing.  That's the way real estate transactions have worked for a long time, excepting some transactions where the sellers state up front that proof of funding must accompany all offers (this transaction was not advertised as such).

Our offer gave the sellers and their bank two weeks to approve our offer.  The sellers did their part in a day.  Their bank let the offer expire with no action.  We only found this out after we called our realtor on the day it was to expire to ask for an update.  He had nothing, because he hadn't been following up.  Acknowledging that those two weeks included Christmas, we extended the deadline on our offer until the middle of January.  This time our realtor called us on his own initiative the day the offer was to expire, to tell us that the bank hadn't done anything yet but that the sellers had hired an attorney to try to move things along.  The attorney called us a little while later and gave us a more detailed update: the bank wouldn't accept our offer until they'd appointed a negotiator, which he was optimistic would happen the following week.  After that, things should move much more quickly.  We decided not to formally extend the deadline of our offer, which gave us the option of pulling the plug at any time, or letting it ride and moving forward with it should the bank accept our offer later.  For the time being, we decided to let it ride.

A week later we got another call from the seller's attorney.  The bank still hadn't appointed a negotiator.  They needed more information before they would do so, and it could still be a few weeks.  An e-mail from our realtor informed us that some of what bank required was proof of financing and an addendum to the P&S stating that we would close within 60 days of approval.

We were fed up.  After failing to simply accept or decline an offer for a month and missing two contractual deadlines, the bank was demanding we guarantee a quick closing that would hinder our ability to fully inspect and assess the property, plus demanding proof of financing up front?  The whole thing reminded my husband of the scene in Empire Strikes Back when Darth Vader tells Lando Calrissian, "I am altering the deal.  Pray I don't alter it any further." 

Our realtor was offended at our offense, and informed us that "the bank is and has been working in a timely fashion...it is corporate America and procedure."

Well, corporate America, you have stated your terms, and we choose not to accept them.  Like Lando Calrissian, we believe this deal is getting worse and worse all the time, so we're getting out while we still can.

I don't care if you're mad at me, Real Estate Industry.  It's a sad day when a seller has to hire an attorney to get the bank to act on processing an already-approved short-sale.  It's an even sadder day when a buyer trusts the seller's attorney more than she trusts her own real estate agent.

I believe in honor, diligence, and good faith adherence to contractual obligations.  We have shown that.  So have the actual sellers of the house.  Real Estate Industry, you have not.  Your attempts to shame us have failed, because we cannot be shamed by an entity that itself has none.  Send us back the deposit we made in good faith, and go play your games with someone else.  If the game can only be played by your rules, then we choose not to play.  Despite what you may think and what you may want, we actually do have that option.

Have a nice day, and may the Force be with you.

What Do the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?

There have been a lot of snarky articles written about the Occupy Wall Street protesters (and their clones in cities across the United States), characterizing them as freeloaders, lazy college drop-outs, bored trust fund kids, unemployed people who would rather complain than work, etc.  Most of my research is done online, so I can read the readers' comments on most of the articles about the Occupiers.  Most of those comments are even snarkier than the articles.  A popular way to discredit the protesters is to point out that they don't have a unified message, a platform, or specific goals that can be addressed.

Full disclosure: I am not one of the protesters.  I do not speak for them.  I've not discussed with any of them what their goals or objectives are.  I do support them, and I'm doing so by publicizing what I can about them and, occasionally, dropping off a load of blankets, sleeping bags, and other needed supplies to the Occupy Boston crowd in Dewey Square.

I do not have a profile on the We Are the 99% webpage, but I am the 99%.  And this is why I'm supporting the protesters.

Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released a report about income disparity between 1979 and 2007.  The New York Times sums up the report's findings this way:  Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% of earners saw an increase of 275% in their after-tax incomes.  The next 19% (or the remainder of the top 20%) saw an increase of 65% of after-tax income.  The next 60% saw an increase of just under 40%, and the bottom 20% saw an increase of just 18%.

Remember, we're not talking about overall wealth growth, so the argument that wealth begets wealth doesn't apply here.  This is a strict after-tax income-to-income comparison.  Yes, things like capital gains are included, but that only applies if an asset is sold.  The value of assets that one continues to own such as a house or investment portfolios is not included.  Things like Social Security payments are included in these numbers.

Looking at Table A-1 from the CBO Report, the real dollar increases are as follows (earnings include wages, capital gains, and 'Transfers' such as Social Security, and after federal taxes are deducted):

Someone earning $15,411 in 1979 was earning $18,979 in 2007, an increase of $3,568.
Someone earning $22,851 in 1979 was earning $29,769 in 2007, an increase of $6,918.
Someone earning $30,341 in 1979 was earning $42,202 in 2007, an increase of $11,861.
Someone earning $51,613 in 1979 was earning $81,135 in 2007, an increase of $29,522.
And someone in the top 1%, earning $115,965 in 1979 was earning $252,607 in 2007, an increase of $136,642.

One might argue that the higher-paying jobs increased in complexity more than the lower-paying jobs, thus justifying a greater increase in salary over the years.  That is a valid point.  But consider the following information as well:

• Cost of a new house
• 1979 - $58,100
• 2007 - $308,775
• 431% increase
• Average rent for a two-bedroom apartment
• 1979 - $280
• 2007 - $1,368
• 389% increase
• Cost of a loaf of bread
• 1979 - $.35
• 2007 - $1.25
• 257% increase
• Cost of a gallon of gasoline
• 1979 - $.86
• 2007 - $2.80
• 226% increase
• Cost of a dozen eggs
• 1979 - $.85
• 2007 - $1.75
• 106% increase
• Cost of a gallon of milk
• 1979 - $1.62
• 2007 - $3.27
• 102% increase

Let's take home ownership out of the equation for the moment.  Let's assume someone is paying the average rent, buying 15 gallons of gasoline each week, and is buying one loaf of bread, one dozen eggs, and one gallon of milk each week.  In 1979, that person would be paying $4,112 each year for those necessities, leaving the lowest earners $11,299 for utilities, car payments, other food, etc.  Not luxurious, or even particularly comfortable, but reasonable.  In 2007 those same necessities cost $18,926, leaving the lowest earners only $53 per year for all their other needs.  That's just not right.

While some of the protesters may want perfect income equality, most of us are only trying to have a chance.  We can't do that if incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living.  The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the three unalienable rights of [hu]man[ity].  Americans are not guaranteed a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, and I believe in hard work and personal responsibility.  Safety nets should be in place to prevent starvation and depravity, but not ensure comfort.  But in the last thirty years, hard work and personal responsibility are no longer enough to achieve 'happiness' (or, as I define the term in this context, the 'American Dream').  To list 'pursuit of happiness' as an unalienable right must mean that the achievement of said happiness is possible for ordinary people willing to put in the effort, and right now it's not.

I realize that the world is changing, and we are now in a 'knowledge economy.'  Presumably that means knowledge is the key to success.  The logical course then seems to be to prioritize higher education: i.e. if you want to succeed, go to college and get a degree.  In 1979 the average in-state tuition (including room and board) for a state school was $2,327 for the academic year.  In 2007 that same year's worth of tuition, room, and board cost $13,589, an increase of 484%.  Families in the bottom 99% can't save the money to pay for their kids' college education, and the kids who borrow the money won't earn enough at their non-top-1% jobs to be able to pay those loans back.  The American Dream has become a pipe dream.

What do the Occupy Wall Street protesters want?  They want people to realize what is going on.  They want people to realize that many of us are following the same rules as the much-vaunted 'Greatest Generation' followed, but the game has changed, and following those rules will no longer earn you the comfortable, middle-class lives our grandparents lived.  Following those rules now earns you a house with an underwater mortgage, a job that demands annual pay-cuts while the company is declaring record profits, the risk of having that job taken away from you at any moment, fewer (if any) health and retirement benefits, and ever-growing credit card debt just to keep food on your table.

The protesters are not politicians.  They don't have a platform.  They don't have a neat three-point plan.  They don't have the answers.  And they're not supposed to.  No one elected them to get or keep the country on the right track.  They are protesting the fact that the people who were elected to do so by and large owe their political power to the corporate and special interests who funded their campaigns, and it's those corporate and special interests that they're representing.  The protesters are not trying to 'hurt' banks or corporations or politicians.  They are trying to get banks and corporations and politicians to be accountable for their actions, and if that accountability is interpreted as 'hurt,' then I'd say there's definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.

There's something wrong when those who are elected to represent the people can only make it to election day with the help of the rich and powerful.

There's something wrong when banks give oversized mortgages to underqualified borrowers, and sell securities backed by those mortgages as good investments, and also sell - as good investments - credit default swaps betting that those mortgages will fail.

There's something wrong when CEOs make decisions that cost thousands of people their jobs, cause millions of people to lose money on investments, and get paid multimillions of dollars as a severance package for a job poorly done.

There's something wrong when banks and corporations make mistakes and receive taxpayer-funded bailouts, but when individuals make mistakes they're told to suck it up, and are accused of being greedy, lazy, and irresponsible.

There's something wrong when interest rates punish those who behave responsibly and live within their means, but reward those who finance their spending and risky investments with other people's money.

And there's something terribly wrong when Americans look at other Americans who are exercising their rights and, more importantly, fulfilling their civic duty to question the actions of their leaders, and call them lazy, stupid, spoiled, freeloaders, etc.

It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job.  It's a depression when you lose yours.  If you're not part of that top 1%, just wait: your depression will come.  The numbers have proven that it's just a matter of time.

You are the 99%, whether you like it or not.

All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

When I first heard about the protesters on Wall Street a few weeks ago, I didn't have much optimism for their success.  Based on the YouTube videos that were circulating, I saw a crowd of mostly twenty-somethings protesting corporate greed with some recording every minor police altercation in an attempt to claim police brutality.  I agreed with their general ideas--there are few in this country who aren't angry about corporate greed--but I didn't believe they could accomplish anything (and I didn't see any real police brutality in those early videos, either).  I wasn't sure what they were trying to accomplish.  I wasn't sure they knew what they were trying to accomplish.  My husband believed (and I agreed) that nothing would change because too many people are too comfortable with the status quo.  In order for revolution to happen, there needs to be a critical mass of people who are willing to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the change they wish to see.  Most 'revolutionaries' today seem to be willing to 'like' a Facebook page dedicated to their cause, and maybe copy and paste a status update that they agree with, and that's it.

But now I'm not so sure.  The protests are growing, spreading, and appear to have broken the media blackout.  (I regularly read the Wall Street Journal Online, plus use the news and weather app on my phone which draws from a variety of outlets, and I didn't know anything about the protests until another blog I follow posted one of those YouTube videos three or four days after the protests began.  Now the WSJ Online is providing regular updates on its homepage.)  Additionally, the protesters have begun to focus their message.  The First Official Release From Occupy Wall Street articulates some of their specific grievances, and they are working on a List of Demands.

Now they're getting more organized, focused, and specific.  Their grievances basically amount to calling out the government for allowing large corporations to dictate US economic policy in such a way that it benefits 1% of the population at the expense of the other 99% (this is my interpretation and summary, not a statement from their document; I encourage you to follow the links above and read their statements for yourself).  And it's not just that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; it's that the poor are getting poorer because the rich are usurping power from our supposedly democratic government, drowning out the voices of the majority of the population with the money our elected representatives need for reelection, and changing the rules to benefit themselves while causing harm and injustice to everyone else.  I don't necessarily agree with all their grievances, but there is definitely enough common ground there for me to hope for their success.

But what about the concern that too many people are too comfortable with the status quo to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?  I'm beginning to realize that people are more uncomfortable than I'd realized.  I knew things were rough; my own family is struggling to make ends meet after a prolonged period of unemployment and underemployment, and I have no idea how we're going to pay down the debt we accumulated during that time.  But I hadn't realized just how many people have already lost not only their fortunes, but their hope of ever rebuilding them.  Honor isn't what it once was, however there is enough anger against large corporations and the super-wealthy that aiding in the effort to stop filling their coffers with the hard work and sacrifices borne by the rest of us will gain honor, not lose it.  And if you've already lost everything and have no hope of ever getting it back under the current system, why not pledge your life to trying to make things better?  If the current system doesn't care about your life or well being (and it doesn't), what have you really got to lose?

Americans are sold a bill of goods.  We're taught that if you study hard, work hard, maybe even serve your country in the military, you can make something of yourself.  You can live the American Dream.  Instead we're seeing college graduates who did what they were supposed to do saddled with impossible debt loads and unable to find the jobs that were supposed to be worth that investment.  We're seeing people who have worked hard at their jobs all their lives taking pay cut after pay cut, until finally ending up unemployed and unemployable because their entire industry is virtually gone, losing their houses, their health insurance, and, eventually, their health.  We're seeing veterans ignored and forgotten once they take off their uniform (and sometimes before they've taken it off).  There are a lot of people represented in that 99% who are being screwed over by the 1%.  Rather than try to tell you their stories, I'm going to let some of them speak for themselves.

The following is only a small sampling from 'We Are the 99 Percent.'  Please go to that website and see why people are protesting on Wall Street (and elsewhere in the US), especially if you tend to believe that things aren't all that bad, and people who are complaining should just suck it up, stop slacking off, and work harder.

* I’d never been unemployed, until the company I worked for tanked a month ago. Up until then, I was living paycheck to paycheck, sharing a small apartment with my elderly, unemployed mother, making just enough to pay rent, grocery bills and medical insurance. Now we have no jobs, no savings, no health care and no furniture in our apartment; we sold almost everything we had to pay for food and rent. We both have extensive medical problems and are wondering how we’re going to pay for the medications we need to keep functioning. I don’t want sympathy, or handouts. I want a job, affordable rent and the restoration of the “American Dream.”  I AM THE 99%!!!

* I have a master’s degree from a top university and $75,000 in student loan debt. I have applied to jobs all over the country but I can’t even get an interview. My mom lost her job in 2010 and hasn’t been able to find anything since. I don’t know what we will do when her unemployment runs out. I’ve given up all hope in having a future. I am the 99%!

* I am educated, hard working and responsible. I am employed full time and have been for all of adult life. And yet I struggle each month to pay my bills, to feed my dog, to keep gas in my car. I dream of grad school, of a job in social services or ministry to make this world better than I found it. And yet, I am trapped. I am chained to my mortgage, to my unsellable home, to my mediocre job, to my city. Sometimes I feel a failure to be part of the first generation that will not exceed the accomplishments of the last and yet everyone I know works so hard. Just to get by. Our priorities have gone so astray in this country. We have lost sight of the importance of community and equality. Of justice and forgiveness. Of generosity and faith. Of democracy and hope. We got lazy and distracted and entitled and we didn’t realize that a few people have been making greedy decisions that would and do negatively affect the lives of the many. It’s time to wake up. To pay attention. To stop worshiping the dollar and start worshiping each other again. All of us. Together, being the change. My name is Emily Wheeland and I am one paycheck away from homelessness. I am the 99 percent.

* Single mother. Living with my parents, who own a small business and are barely scraping by themselves. Neither has health insurance or savings. My grandparents have spent their savings on medications. My daughter’s father joined the military to get a degree in a field he doesn’t want to study in, because it offers job security. He is stationed overseas for 2 years and is missing his daughter growing up…she asks for him almost every day, if she will see him soon. She won’t, not because he can’t get leave from work, but because we can’t afford tickets. We stay married for health insurance and assistance with my college. I have $15k in medical debt (collections) and terrible credit. He owns my car and we live off of his child support while I am in school. My parents provide free childcare so I can go to school. EVERYTHING I have—roof over my head, financial aid for my classes, my car and financial security, are all due to someone else’s generosity. I am grateful and scared. When will I be able to support myself so I can feel safe? Will this degree be worth it? I can’t tell my daughter she can be anything she wants to be. I can’t even guarantee she will have clean air to breathe or a school that isn’t underfunded and understaffed. WE ARE THE 99%!!!

* I’m 50 years old. I am one of the lucky ones! I’ve worked since I was 16, I’m a decorated US Military Vet. I’m well educated and work in the IT field and haven’t had a raise in five years. My wife is a school teacher who has lost $5000.00 of her salary due to budget cuts. Wells Fargo started foreclosure proceedings after we missed a payment, they would not talk to us until they successfully foreclosed on our home, then socked us with legal fees and refinanced making us upside down on our mortgage. To make ends meet, I’ve had to take a better paying job out of state, leaving my wife and child (a foster care adoption) in our home we cannot sell and cannot rent. I’ve been tuned down for insurance even though I’m healthy. I’m looking for a 2nd job so I can move off of my friend’s couch because with my wife and my combined salary I can’t afford a cheap efficiency apartment. WE ARE DOING WELL! WE ARE THE 99%

In a land where everyone is equal, the stories of the people above should not be true.  But they are.  The needs of the 99% are not equal to the wants of the 1%, and rather than majority rule, the 1% is calling the shots.  Why does my husband pay more in personal income taxes than the multinational corporation he works for pays in corporate income tax?  Why do banks make risky investments and get bailed out with public money when those investments fail, but individuals with pension funds that believed the banks about the safety of those investments have to accept their losses and start over from scratch?  Why was the man in line in front of me at the pharmacy last week told that they couldn't fill his valid prescription from his physician because it wasn't on the 'approved' list from his insurance company, and it would take three days for them to get authorization?  When he told the pharmacist that he couldn't wait three days for this medication, he was told to call his doctor and see if he could be prescribed something else.

According to the Supreme Court, corporations are 'persons' just like anyone else.  All persons are equal, but apparently some persons are more equal than others.

Michael Moore and American Values

Last week the Guardian published an excerpt of Michael Moore's new book, Here Comes Trouble.

Full disclosure: I have not read this book.  I have not seen any of Michael Moore's movies.  I'm not boycotting them or purposely avoiding them; I simply haven't gotten around to it, and they're not high enough on my to-do list to put much effort into seeking them out.  If any of them happen to cross my path at a time that's convenient for me, I'll be happy to watch them.

I do know who Michael Moore is, I'm familiar with most of his projects of the last ten years, and I know he has a reputation for being somewhat one-sided.  Good for him.

All that said, I was absolutely appalled and sickened when I read the excerpt of his book in the Guardian, in which he detailed the threats and attempts on his life after his 2003 Oscar speech, and later the release of his movie Fahrenheit 9/11.

In case you didn't click on the link and read the account for yourself, here are some highlights:

• Upon returning home from the Oscars, he found a waist-high pile of manure (about three truckloads worth) in his driveway blocking access to his house, as well as signs nailed to the trees on his property threatening his safety and well-being if he didn't move.
• Not only did he receive mountains of hate-mail expressing people's desire for his death and/or poor health, but he also had people leaving threatening messages on his answering machine.
• So many people came to his house to threaten him that he had to hire a private security company, because the local police were overwhelmed.
• An assassination attempt with a knife was made when he was an invited speaker at an event (thwarted by his private security).
• A cup of scalding coffee was thrown in his face by a random man walking past him on the street (thwarted by his private security--his private security agent took it in the face instead).
• Another random person passing by lunged at him with a sharpened pencil, stabbing the hand of the private security agent.

I know a lot of people were angered by Moore's Oscar speech and disagreed with the opinions expressed in Fahrenheit 9/11, but I don't want to believe that my fellow Americans feel that the appropriate response to a citizen exercising his right to free speech is harassment, vandalism, threats, and murder.  Sadly, I have no reason to doubt Moore's story.

Is this who we are as a country?  Let's put aside for the moment that the charges he made against then-President George W. Bush in his Oscar speech were dead-on correct.  We did invade Iraq for fictitious reasons.  But that's not the point.  Let's pretend for a moment that Moore was wrong about everything.  Let's pretend there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Bush's presidency was achieved legitimately.  Let's pretend that Saddam Hussein masterminded the events of September 11, 2001 and had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction hiding in Iraq.  Let's pretend all that is true, and Moore still said what he said at the Oscars, and still made Fahrenheit 9/11.  As an American, he has that right.

I'm disgusted that people who claim to support our troops "fighting for freedom and democracy" in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will so violently reject freedom and democracy when it's practiced in their own country.  Americans have the right to have their own opinions and express them publicly, even when those opinions question the motives, methods, and abilities of their leaders.  Americans do not have the right to vandalize someone else's private property, trespass on someone else's private property, or threaten the life, health or safety of another person.  If these are the democratic values we're trying to spread around the world, then the world is right to mock and reject us.  This is not how civilized people treat each other.

I like the ideals that my country is based on, but I don't like the reality we live in.  I don't like the tyranny of the majority, the groupthink ignorance of our history, or the increasing class wars between the "educated elite" and "real Americans" (as if education and a nuanced understanding of the shades of grey that make up the world are somehow antithetical to America).  I don't like that our government follows the version of the Golden Rule that reads, "He who has the gold makes the rules."  And I don't like that, in practice, we consider discipline and self-restraint as weaknesses, and emotionally-charged recklessness and instant gratification evidence of strength and commitment.

And based on reputation alone, I don't particularly like Michael Moore.  But I respect his right to his opinion, I respect his right to express it publicly, and I appreciate his attempts to make people think critically about what's going on.  If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't watch his movies (you can suck it up and deal with it if he takes 30 seconds of a 3 hour and 30 minute awards show to spring his opinion on you).  And as an American citizen, I wish to apologize to him.  I can't speak on behalf of all Americans, but on my own behalf, I apologize.  I never sent you hate mail, I never threatened you in person or over the telephone, I never accosted you, and I certainly never threatened your life or safety, but I'm sorry you had to experience all those things.  You should never have had to go through that for the sin of expressing your opinion.  I'm sure if I ever get around to watching your movies, I'll find plenty I disagree with you about, but the most I would ever do would be to publish a blog post highlighting what I disagreed with and why.  I'm sure you won't begrudge me my right to publicly express my opinion, just as I don't begrudge you your right to publicly express yours.

As for the rest of America, please try to understand that freedom and democracy means accepting that people have a right to question their government's leaders and actions without risk of harm or retribution, and that doing so is not un-American, as many of you claim, but rather is a very important aspect of being an American.

Let's Blame the Immigrants!

The US economy is in the crapper, everyone's feeling the squeeze, so of course it's time for the next round of "Let's Blame Immigrants for All Our Problems!"

The following post has been making the rounds on Facebook (again):  SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree. 

Let's look at this piece by piece.

As far as I can tell, the claim that you get 12 years of hard labor for crossing illegally into North Korea is based on two American journalists who received that sentence in 2009 for "illegal entry and 'hostile acts.'"  What were the 'hostile acts' they committed against North Korea?  That government never specified, but convicted them anyway.  (I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the two journalists were reporting on the trafficking of women.)  In any case the two journalists were pardoned and deported two months later when former President Bill Clinton visited that country and requested their release.  In the last couple of years, four Americans have been arrested and convicted of illegal entry, and all four have been pardoned and released.  Most recently, in April of last year, an American was accused of illegal entry and 'an unspecified hostile act' (he was a Christian missionary).  He was sentenced to eight years of hard labor, but also received a pardon and deportation.

 It's difficult finding news about Afghan shootings that don't involve US soldiers and/or the Taliban, but I did find something claiming that the penalty for resisting arrest in Afghanistan is being shot.  The only story I could find about the shooting of migrant workers illegally crossing the Afghan border involved Afghan migrant workers sneaking across the border out of Afghanistan into Iran, where they were shot.

The two Americans who just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border actually got three years for crossing the border, and five years for 'spying for the United States.'  They are also political tools for the Iranians to highlight the alleged mistreatment of Iranians in US prisons, and most likely will be released as bargaining chips for something else the Iranians want.

Those are the facts regarding those three countries.  Now the obvious question: DO WE REALLY WANT TO PATTERN LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AFTER NORTH KOREA, AFGHANISTAN, AND IRAN???!!!  Are these countries we wish to emulate?  If so, then why are two of them part of the so-called (by us) Axis of Evil?  And Afghanistan?  Talk to any American vet who's been over there, and ask him if he was there fighting so that we could be more like them.  I dare you to.  And if you've posted this quote on Facebook, or supported someone who did, don't try to claim now that no one is saying those countries are better.  That's exactly what you're saying when you state or support such comparisons.

As for the welcome wagon that is supposedly waiting just this side of the border handing out free housing, health care, jobs, education, et al to the sneaking illegal immigrants--um, really?  What jobs?  Below-minimum wage under-the-table jobs where they're little more than slaves, constantly living under the threat of deportation if they complain?  Or maybe you're referring to those who tried the indentured servant route, and are now working in sweatshops or brothels?  Or maybe you're talking about the migrant workers who do back-breaking work at the fruit farms of Georgia for minimum wage plus performance bonuses, which sometimes earn them upwards of $20 per hour.  Yeah, them.  When Georgia recently passed a new law designed to drive out the illegals, farmers were unable to hire enough local legal workers to do the work, even though Georgia's unemployment rate is over 10%.  More Americans would rather collect unemployment that work at Federally-approved pay levels with the potential of earning nearly three times that rate, if their performance warrants it.  When crops were rotting in the fields because there weren't enough workers to harvest them, the farmers hired probationers, a group of people who usually have a very difficult time finding work.  Most of the probationers quit, and the very few who stayed weren't nearly as productive as the illegal immigrants who had done that work before them.  Crops are still rotting in the fields.  There is no special employment plan for illegal immigrants at the expense of American citizens.


Who's just handing out drivers' licenses?  I've been licensed in four states, and all four times I had to provide a birth certificate and/or a Social Security card and/or a US passport (plus several other documents to prove residency).  It's true that some illegal immigrants may be forging or buying stolen identification papers in order to get their licenses, but that's not the same as just being handed the licenses.  Oh yes, and those licenses obtained with forged or stolen documents?  Those allow the illegal immigrants to work at legitimate jobs where they pay taxes that benefit all Americans, including Social Security and Medicare, which, because of their phony SSNs, illegal immigrants will never benefit from.


Qualifying for food stamps varies from state to state, but I believe income verification and proof of identity are universally required.  And I also wonder--whether a person's here illegally or not, do we really want people starving to death within our borders?  What does that say about our national values?


The only free housing I'm aware of in the United States are homeless shelters, and the only ones envious of people living in homeless shelters are the people living on the streets because there's no room available in those shelters.  And those people aren't likely to be reposting anti-immigration rhetoric on Facebook while they wait for a bed to become available.


There is definitely no free health care here.  Most people without health care, whether they're illegal immigrants or American citizens, don't go to the doctor until it's such an emergency that they have to go to the emergency room, where they have to be treated regardless of ability to pay.  Doctors and hospitals charge a much higher rate to the uninsured than their 'negotiated' rates with the health care providers, and that virtually guarantees that individuals without insurance won't be able to pay for the emergency services they received.  This isn't an immigration problem; it's a health care problem.


I've already addressed housing, and I'm not sure what child care benefits the post is referring to.  Exemptions for children in the tax code?  They're paying taxes, and they have children.  I don't think that children here illegally are any cheaper to care for than those with American citizenship, and the important point to remember here, again, is that they're paying taxes.

The belief that illegal immigrants receive free education can be attributed to two things.  One is the K-12 public school system, in which case the assertion is true.  It's also true that each of those illegal students is responsible for money going to their school system, thanks to the prevalence of attendance-based funding formulas.  If you want to see a school system tank, yank out all the undocumented students, and see what's left for the citizens in that district.   The other possible source for this belief is the controversy over allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition for state-run colleges and universities.  I know of one person in Massachusetts who has repeatedly lamented the fact that she has to pay for her kids to go to college, while the illegals get in for free.  In truth, the program (at least in Massachusetts) is that all Massachusetts students who attend a Massachusetts community college and graduate with a 3.0 or higher GPA can enroll at UMass Amherst and have the in-state tuition waived (though they'd still be on the hook for the $10K in additional fees per year).  The controversy stems from the fact that most of the community colleges aren't very diligent at determining the residency of their students, so out-of-state students and illegal immigrants might slip in, too.  (Granite Staters and Mexicans together at UMass--oh the horror of it all!!!)  The people who are complaining about having to pay aren't sending their kids through community college and expecting them to make the grade; that's why they have to pay, not because illegal immigrants (and New Hampshire residents) are hogging all the free tuition.  There is no free tuition.

I have to claim complete ignorance on the tax-free business for seven years.  My husband and I have set up our own company, and I don't remember seeing any exemption in the corporate rules that said if we could prove illegal status, we wouldn't have to pay corporate income tax.

Some of these claims that I don't know about may be because they're holdovers from the Canadian, UK, Australian, or even Indian versions of this electronic rant.  It's been circulated in all those countries.  Sorry folks, you're not that original.

And as a final note, I've noticed that there are a quite a few Christians getting behind this post, usually the same ones who use the bible as justification for denying marriage to gay couples.  Please take out your bibles and read Leviticus 19:33-34 (it's just a little bit past that verse you love so much that proclaims that a man lying with another man is an abomination): "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.  The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."  If you're going to demand biblical authority for the laws of this land, then start with this one.  The treatment of the alien is mentioned far more often than homosexuality, and much less ambiguously.


There are real problems facing this nation, but blaming illegal immigrants for them won't solve anything.  I don't know if it's accurate or not, but a number I've seen invoked is $113 billion being spent on illegal immigrants.  $113 billion seems like a big scary number.  But our total national debt is over $14 trillion (and rising), and that $113 billion is less than one percent of that.  Now, I'm a big fan of 'every little bit helps,' but I'd be willing to bet that illegal immigrants contribute much more than $113 billion to the US economy.  So let's stop with the hate and the blame, and take a hard look at they systemic failures that got us here.  And then let's figure out what we can do about it, rather than just point to people we don't like and make them our scapegoat.


And if you want to repost something because you agree, please check the facts first, rather than continuing to spread misinformation that detracts from finding real solutions.

Reality TV and Justice

Through an unusual twist of fate which doesn't need to be explained here, last Thursday I found myself stuck in a room for about an hour with nothing to do but watch a TV that was tuned to CNN Headline News.  Given the circumstances that had me in that room to begin with, it would have been inappropriate for me to change the channel.

Last Thursday was the second day after the Casey Anthony verdict, a media circus I'd gone to great lengths to avoid.  Specifically, at the time I was in that room, the judge was hearing arguments about whether or not the names of the jurors should be made public.

I know a lot of people feel pretty strongly that Casey Anthony should have been found guilty of murdering her daughter Caylee.  Alan Dershowitz wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (click here to read it) that explained why the outcome was what it was, and a couple of the jurors have publicly stated that as much as they wanted to find her guilty, the prosecution just didn't provide enough evidence to justify that verdict.

Most of the posts I've seen on Facebook, however, as well as comments on online news articles and interviews with 'random people on the street,' suggest that many people are angry about the verdict, believing that Casey Anthony got away with murder.  That's all well and good; people are entitled to voice their opinions, and that's what Faceook, message boards, and interviews are for.

But can we trust people to leave it at voicing their opinions on social media sites, or when asked by a roving reporter?

According to my forced TV-watching, at least one juror had expressed "very serious security concerns" to the judge, and most of the jurors had communicated to him that they wished to be left alone, to keep their privacy.  A juror's family had already reported being stalked by someone angry about the case, and the judge read one comment which involved the writer's wish to "filet the jury, pour salt on them, and feed their legs to a piranha."

The attorneys for the media argued that it's in the public's interest to know who these jurors are, and if there are credible security concerns, the jurors can and should be protected.  The judge feels that these jurors were compelled to come and do their civic duty, and shouldn't have the added burden of an unwanted spotlight being shined on them, recognizing that there is a real risk that people might take out their anger on these jurors.

I find myself torn on this issue.  On the one hand, I agree that there is a danger in making jury anonymity the norm.  As many psychological studies have proven, people get more reckless, less responsible, and sometimes just plain mean when their actions are divorced from their identity.  (Think about how many obnoxious comments you've read on a message board by someone named "RighteousDude447" or something like that.  How many obnoxious comments are posted by someone who puts their actual name?  If you are one who comments regularly, do you do it under your own name?  If not, would having to put your real name change what you would say or how you would say it?)  I don't know that we want to try defendants in front of a jury of RighteousDude447s.  A defendant in this country is entitled to be tried before a jury of his or her peers, and those peers are representative of the community the defendant is a part of as well as the community that has been wronged.  Any one of us could end up as a defendant, rightly or wrongly, and we must rely on the representatives of our community to decide the rightness or wrongness of the charges against us.  The jurors must then take responsibility for their judgment for or against one of their own back to the community which they represent.  Keeping their identities secret means they don't have to take responsibility for their decision.  I agree with the media lawyers' argument that this could cause the American public to lose faith in the judicial system.

That's the argument for revealing the jurors' identities.

Here's my argument against.

We are no longer a civil enough society to expect restraint and self-control from ourselves.  While most people wouldn't get violent against these jurors, there are enough people who would that we must err on the side of caution.  Even without the risk of physical violence, there are enough people who would verbally assault the jurors that I feel their requests for anonymity must be respected.

We are no longer a society that accepts representation.  We want our own voices heard and heeded.  Even as many of us do everything we can to avoid jury duty ourselves, we watch the trial on TV as though it were American Idol, or maybe Survivor.  Or we don't watch it at all, we just listen to the daily soundbites as our news, and we expect Casey Anthony's guilt to be clear and obvious, and we expect the verdict to be what we think it should be, without considering the very specific mandate given to the actual jurors, and the requirements that must be met in order for the verdict to be guilty. And when the jurors do other than what we want them to do, we blame them.  Some of us are willing to hear why, but many of us are too busy reveling in our righteous indignation to be bothered with the facts and the subtleties.  It's not for the sake of the public's trust in the judicial system that people want the names of the jurors released; it's for the entertainment value.  It's as though we're angry about an unexpected plot twist, and we want to take it out on the stars of this new reality TV drama.  But this isn't reality TV; it's reality.  It's life.  It's the judicial system in action, unfortunately confused with shows like Law & Order (and its many spin-offs) which are entertainment.  I read an article recently that reported something like only 12% of high school seniors in the United States can correctly identify the three branches of our government.*  Yet not even knowing that much about the judicial system, hoards of angry people are declaring that Caylee Anthony has been denied justice, and some of those angry hoards hold the jurors personally responsible, with one online article calling them the twelve stupidest people walking in America today.  Would you want to be publicly known as one of the jurors who acquitted Casey Anthony?  I know I wouldn't.

If privacy is respected, the jurors can still choose to come forward.  One that I'm aware of already has, and has given an interview, with her name attached, to ABC.  Two more have spoken to the press under the condition of anonymity.  And yet another one has offered to give the whole, inside story of the proceedings to whomever will pay him $50,000.  That's entertainment, folks.

In time this will all die down, and no one will care about the jurors anymore.  You could say it's just a short-term problem; fifteen minutes of fame only last fifteen minutes, after all.  But some people don't want even fifteen minutes in the spotlight, or they aren't cut out for it, and, with the possible exception of the guy who's willing to sell his story, none of these jurors sought it out.  I'm reminded of Robert O'Donnell, the paramedic who rescued "Baby Jessica" from the well in 1987.  He was just an ordinary guy doing his job, but unlike most rescues by paramedics, this one came with instant nationwide fame.  Very quickly he was forgotten, but his fifteen minutes in the spotlight affected him in unhealthy ways.  A few years later his marriage broke up.  He was accused of abusing prescription drugs, and his career was over.  In 1995, at the age of 37, he took his own life.  Those who knew him insist that his downfall was caused by the media attention surrounding that rescue.  He wasn't equipped to handle the spotlight.  And that was before the internet, and he was known for something indisputably positive.  Can we honestly say that all the jurors on the Casey Anthony trial will handle it better?  Judges and lawyers know the risks of a high profile case, and choose to participate in them for their own reasons (hopefully a sense that justice must prevail, but I'm sure the money's pretty good, too).  Jurors aren't given a choice.

Getting people to show up for jury duty is hard enough.  Lost time at work, childcare issues, sometimes such heavy restrictions on your movements and conversations that your closest relationships suffer...do we really want to add the risk that you will be publicly burned in effigy by RighteousDude447 and thousands others like him?  He might think it's like reality TV, but it could be your life we're talking about here.

*  If you weren't in that 12%, the three branches of our government are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.