Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union
I'm just curious to hear everyone's reaction to the President's speech. I know there are political junkies out there who watched it or at least read the transcript, so let's hear what you think ...
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Political Pendulum, in MA?
To everyone's surprise, the special election tomorrow in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate is actually competitive. You don't get more "blue" than MA, and there hasn't been a republican Senator from there in over 30 years. Moreover, Ted Kenedy's seat has been controlled by that family since 1953. In the election, you have Martha Coakley as the dem nominee, who is the current Attorney General. On the R side, you have Scott Brown, a col. in the MA National Guard and a virtually unknown state legislator.
The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.
So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.
Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."
So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?
The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.
So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.
Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."
So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Story of Taylor Pugh and His Beautiful Breck Hair
I know this one isn't as politically charged as most posts on here are, but this has bothered me since I heard about it a day or two ago. I figured there would be some pretty good opinions on here.
I'm sure by now we've all heard of little Taylor and formed our opinons in one direction or another. Let me first make my side very clear: Rules are put forth for a reason. Even if you don't like them we must still obey them. In this case, Taylor is enrolled at a public school in Balch Springs, TX. (East of Dallas) Public schools are very clear about their code of conduct and dress codes. In fact, they send home a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of every year with each child. There's also all the required paperwork for the new year. Most of which is duplicate info from the year before. In our school district, I have to sign several forms stating that my children and I agree with and will obey said conduct and dress codes. The same can be said for other districts we've been in in years past. It's all pretty much the same.
Before I go any further with this, I have an anecdote that I think is very relevant to this issue. When we first relocated here in 2007, I was thrilled when I finished gathering all the school supplies and spent as little as I did. Then I saw, way down at the very bottom of my list in teeny tiny print, KISD is a standardized dress district. Uniforms. I had no idea that I needed uniforms. Khaki/navy/white polos or oxfords with khaki or navy pants/shorts/skirts/capris, tennis shoes and belts for grades 3-5. Ok, no big deal. All the major stores carry these specific items, so I got 5 sets of uniforms for each of the 2 school-age kids I had in school at that time. (Now it's 3 kids. Pants are the hardest to recycle from kid to kid, but the uniforms really do make mornings go pretty smoothly as far as dressing goes. BUT, I'm stuck buying 2 sets of clothes: Uniforms and regular street clothes for when they aren't at school. That gets pretty costly.)
Last Friday the temperature didn't get above about 28 degrees. For us here in Texas, that's arctic. I bundled the girls and even put them in thick, fuzzy, hot pink socks. They wouldn't be outside that day, but I can't stand the thought of them not being prepared in case they have to go out. Apparently my oldest daughter's teacher did a sock inspection. She made all the kids in Lilly's class take their shoes off and then checked their socks. At first I didn't think much of it. Maybe Mrs. Dockery was just being thoughtful by making sure everyone was prepared for the weather. Then Lilly told me that Mrs. Dockery said she couldn't wear those socks anymore. SAY WHAT?! I always hit the dollar bins when I'm at Target and get the girls those fun sock. (Hello Kitty, Disney princesses, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.) I figure they're stuck in those boring uniforms, so I might as well do what I can to brighten things up a little. They wear these socks all the time. When they're in skirts or pants, it doesn't matter. I've never had anyone in 2 years say anything about their freaking socks. There are other kids that do the same. Naturally I can't find my student handbook the one time I need it, so I called the school Monday. Sure enough they're only allowed to wear solid white, tan or navy socks. The lady in the office had to look it up because even she didn't know what the policy is on that. Then she admitted that it's asinine, especially if the kids are in pants, which they are because it's winter. SOCKS!
Well, now I know the rule, and my kids are stuck in plain white socks from now on. It's pretty simple. I'm not so much a conformist as I am a choose-your-battles kind of girl. Socks are pretty insignificant in this case.
Back to poor Taylor. First of all, Taylor's parent(s), Delton and Elizabeth Pugh, filled out the paperwork like mine. They agreed to all the guidelines set by the school board. Second, Taylor's in Pre-K. It's not mandated, so, in my opinion, he's really more like a guest at school. Yes, the school is still liable for him. Yes, they still have to take care of him. But that doesn't mean he's exempt from following the rules. He's 4, so it's not Taylor making the decision to keep his hair long. Elizabeth claims "he likes it like that" and "he'll cry if [they] cut it." Delton says, "I don't see why I should be required to hold my child down against his will and cut his hair." If that's the case, maybe I should reconsider the next time my 5 year old wants to go out in the backyard to hunt for rollie polies while in the buff. I mean, it always makes her cry when I tell her she has to keep her clothes on. Besides, she really wants to do it.*
Taylor has been in ISS (in school suspension) since November because of his hair. He sits alone in the library with a teacher's aide all day. His parents have flat out refused to cut his hair, and he's aware that he's in trouble because of it. He even says that he misses his friends.
I blame the school (Floyd ES) almost as much as I blame Delton and Elizabeth. Floyd has the right to enforce the rules that the Pugh's agreed to. However, keeping him in ISS for 2 months is ridiculous. (Perhaps the Pughs should consider taking him out of school if they don't want to cut his hair.) Elizabeth even goes on to say she'll continue to fight it.
What kind of message is that sending to Taylor? He's entitled? The rules don't apply to him? Isn't that what's wrong with a lot of today's society? The only thing Taylor is entitled to in this case is an education. By not cutting his hair, his parents are doing him a great disservice by infringing on it. I'm sure the aide is doing a great job with him, but where are the social skills he should be learning by participating in the environment in which he's intended? I understand that social skills can be learned without being in school, but that's part of the curriculum. All 3 of my kids went through Pre-K, and it was a wonderful experience for each of them. I feel badly for Taylor because his experience should've been the opposite of what it is now.
The Pughs were offered a compromise. Cut Taylor's hair above the ears and collar or keep it in a braid. They refused even that stating that a braid will make his scalp bleed. Instead, they put it in a neat ponytail. OK, I'll give them that one....kinda. Floyd made it pretty clear, but they still wouldn't do what was asked.
This will get me jumped from all angles, but I'm really not trying to be judgemental. And I'm saying it anyway. You can look at Delton and Elizabeth and see that they either haven't grown up or haven't conformed to societal norms themselves. So I guess it stands to reason that they wouldn't see the harm in keeping his hair long. There IS no harm in keeping his hair long except for the fact that they agreed to follow the dress code. If that's their excuse then maybe this should be mine: "I'm really not a fan of uniforms, so maybe I'll start sending my kids in their regular clothes. I understand the district's reasoning behind that decision, but I don't agree with it." Really, I won't challenge it because that's just stupid and a waste of time because I already agreed to it. (And I've already spent all that money on uniforms!)
I understand that we're allowed certain things based on religious and/or cultural beliefs. (I'm sure they'll use this as a cultural issue since they have until 18JAN to cut Taylor's hair or conform to the compromise the school district offered. That's just my prediction, so don't get bent out of shape.) The army has very strict regulations regarding this very thing, but some soldiers are allotted various allowances for things based on the same criteria. But we rarely hear about it. You're given a set of rules/standards, and you're expected to abide by it.
I know Taylor's too young to understand or be affected by any of this now. If this is the precedent the Pugh's are setting now, what will it be like in 8 or 10 years? What will the excuse be when he can't play football because he's failing? Or when he gets into a fight at school? Maybe he didn't throw the first punch, but he should still suffer the consequences already in place for such a violation.
It's not just the Pugh's, I know. Their time will fade and someone else will take over. It just seems like this is setting the stage for other things to become the norm. It's very unsettling.
* I'm aware that hair and going outside without clothes each have their own set of consequences. The idea is that you can't let a kid do whatever they want. They also need to understand why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVbuNg1s2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7kYoE9rXA
I'm sure by now we've all heard of little Taylor and formed our opinons in one direction or another. Let me first make my side very clear: Rules are put forth for a reason. Even if you don't like them we must still obey them. In this case, Taylor is enrolled at a public school in Balch Springs, TX. (East of Dallas) Public schools are very clear about their code of conduct and dress codes. In fact, they send home a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of every year with each child. There's also all the required paperwork for the new year. Most of which is duplicate info from the year before. In our school district, I have to sign several forms stating that my children and I agree with and will obey said conduct and dress codes. The same can be said for other districts we've been in in years past. It's all pretty much the same.
Before I go any further with this, I have an anecdote that I think is very relevant to this issue. When we first relocated here in 2007, I was thrilled when I finished gathering all the school supplies and spent as little as I did. Then I saw, way down at the very bottom of my list in teeny tiny print, KISD is a standardized dress district. Uniforms. I had no idea that I needed uniforms. Khaki/navy/white polos or oxfords with khaki or navy pants/shorts/skirts/capris, tennis shoes and belts for grades 3-5. Ok, no big deal. All the major stores carry these specific items, so I got 5 sets of uniforms for each of the 2 school-age kids I had in school at that time. (Now it's 3 kids. Pants are the hardest to recycle from kid to kid, but the uniforms really do make mornings go pretty smoothly as far as dressing goes. BUT, I'm stuck buying 2 sets of clothes: Uniforms and regular street clothes for when they aren't at school. That gets pretty costly.)
Last Friday the temperature didn't get above about 28 degrees. For us here in Texas, that's arctic. I bundled the girls and even put them in thick, fuzzy, hot pink socks. They wouldn't be outside that day, but I can't stand the thought of them not being prepared in case they have to go out. Apparently my oldest daughter's teacher did a sock inspection. She made all the kids in Lilly's class take their shoes off and then checked their socks. At first I didn't think much of it. Maybe Mrs. Dockery was just being thoughtful by making sure everyone was prepared for the weather. Then Lilly told me that Mrs. Dockery said she couldn't wear those socks anymore. SAY WHAT?! I always hit the dollar bins when I'm at Target and get the girls those fun sock. (Hello Kitty, Disney princesses, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.) I figure they're stuck in those boring uniforms, so I might as well do what I can to brighten things up a little. They wear these socks all the time. When they're in skirts or pants, it doesn't matter. I've never had anyone in 2 years say anything about their freaking socks. There are other kids that do the same. Naturally I can't find my student handbook the one time I need it, so I called the school Monday. Sure enough they're only allowed to wear solid white, tan or navy socks. The lady in the office had to look it up because even she didn't know what the policy is on that. Then she admitted that it's asinine, especially if the kids are in pants, which they are because it's winter. SOCKS!
Well, now I know the rule, and my kids are stuck in plain white socks from now on. It's pretty simple. I'm not so much a conformist as I am a choose-your-battles kind of girl. Socks are pretty insignificant in this case.
Back to poor Taylor. First of all, Taylor's parent(s), Delton and Elizabeth Pugh, filled out the paperwork like mine. They agreed to all the guidelines set by the school board. Second, Taylor's in Pre-K. It's not mandated, so, in my opinion, he's really more like a guest at school. Yes, the school is still liable for him. Yes, they still have to take care of him. But that doesn't mean he's exempt from following the rules. He's 4, so it's not Taylor making the decision to keep his hair long. Elizabeth claims "he likes it like that" and "he'll cry if [they] cut it." Delton says, "I don't see why I should be required to hold my child down against his will and cut his hair." If that's the case, maybe I should reconsider the next time my 5 year old wants to go out in the backyard to hunt for rollie polies while in the buff. I mean, it always makes her cry when I tell her she has to keep her clothes on. Besides, she really wants to do it.*
Taylor has been in ISS (in school suspension) since November because of his hair. He sits alone in the library with a teacher's aide all day. His parents have flat out refused to cut his hair, and he's aware that he's in trouble because of it. He even says that he misses his friends.
I blame the school (Floyd ES) almost as much as I blame Delton and Elizabeth. Floyd has the right to enforce the rules that the Pugh's agreed to. However, keeping him in ISS for 2 months is ridiculous. (Perhaps the Pughs should consider taking him out of school if they don't want to cut his hair.) Elizabeth even goes on to say she'll continue to fight it.
What kind of message is that sending to Taylor? He's entitled? The rules don't apply to him? Isn't that what's wrong with a lot of today's society? The only thing Taylor is entitled to in this case is an education. By not cutting his hair, his parents are doing him a great disservice by infringing on it. I'm sure the aide is doing a great job with him, but where are the social skills he should be learning by participating in the environment in which he's intended? I understand that social skills can be learned without being in school, but that's part of the curriculum. All 3 of my kids went through Pre-K, and it was a wonderful experience for each of them. I feel badly for Taylor because his experience should've been the opposite of what it is now.
The Pughs were offered a compromise. Cut Taylor's hair above the ears and collar or keep it in a braid. They refused even that stating that a braid will make his scalp bleed. Instead, they put it in a neat ponytail. OK, I'll give them that one....kinda. Floyd made it pretty clear, but they still wouldn't do what was asked.
This will get me jumped from all angles, but I'm really not trying to be judgemental. And I'm saying it anyway. You can look at Delton and Elizabeth and see that they either haven't grown up or haven't conformed to societal norms themselves. So I guess it stands to reason that they wouldn't see the harm in keeping his hair long. There IS no harm in keeping his hair long except for the fact that they agreed to follow the dress code. If that's their excuse then maybe this should be mine: "I'm really not a fan of uniforms, so maybe I'll start sending my kids in their regular clothes. I understand the district's reasoning behind that decision, but I don't agree with it." Really, I won't challenge it because that's just stupid and a waste of time because I already agreed to it. (And I've already spent all that money on uniforms!)
I understand that we're allowed certain things based on religious and/or cultural beliefs. (I'm sure they'll use this as a cultural issue since they have until 18JAN to cut Taylor's hair or conform to the compromise the school district offered. That's just my prediction, so don't get bent out of shape.) The army has very strict regulations regarding this very thing, but some soldiers are allotted various allowances for things based on the same criteria. But we rarely hear about it. You're given a set of rules/standards, and you're expected to abide by it.
I know Taylor's too young to understand or be affected by any of this now. If this is the precedent the Pugh's are setting now, what will it be like in 8 or 10 years? What will the excuse be when he can't play football because he's failing? Or when he gets into a fight at school? Maybe he didn't throw the first punch, but he should still suffer the consequences already in place for such a violation.
It's not just the Pugh's, I know. Their time will fade and someone else will take over. It just seems like this is setting the stage for other things to become the norm. It's very unsettling.
* I'm aware that hair and going outside without clothes each have their own set of consequences. The idea is that you can't let a kid do whatever they want. They also need to understand why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVbuNg1s2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7kYoE9rXA
Monday, January 11, 2010
Another Healthcare Post...more of a dream....
DISCLAIMER: I am speaking of what I think will happen with our healthcare system at the current pace...not necessarily what this bill leads some to believe will happen.
I am working hard to provide for my family by working full time while taking a boat load of classes, volunteering, researching, and studying for the MCAT. All this in the hopes that 8+ years from today I will be able to replace someone's knee, or treat a small child with chemo. I don't care if this current bill does not have a public option; it is the governments foot in the door. The government doesn't make their influence in programs smaller as time passes.
I feel that I do not have a responsibility to help anyone I don't want to help once I am finally Dr. Jones. Equal access to healthcare? Yea right. I am currently unable to have the house that I consider most comfortable. Should that be the responsibility of my neighbor? Absolutely not. Some people may say they are not parallels of each other. Why not? The materials to build a house cost money, and someone needs to pay for the materials. If I am unable to afford them, why should I feel entitled to access them? Healthcare costs money: research, materials, bedding, buildings, education, marketing, and lots lots more. Why should we think that universal access to healthcare is possible, or in any way self sustainable? Why should it be compulsory for me to sew someone up when they come in my office door? If I am able to have access to government programs like housing, healthcare, food, and all living requirements, why would I work for anything? If I make $5,000 more than what a specific program requires, would I be tempted to make $5,000 less next year to ensure eligibility for those programs?
I'm rambling. My point:
When I am Dr. Jones, I will do my best to provide the best healthcare to my patients. I will study new procedures, diseases, and medications. When someone comes in the door, I will be as prepared as I am able. I will do this in the hopes of running a successful business. One that is rewarding to me in every way. I want financial comfort for my family, and it seems AWESOME that I can achieve that by helping dozens of people each and every day. If someone comes to me and says they cannot afford it, I will help them anyways. Not because the government makes me, but because I have put myself in a financial position to make those decisions, and because I would not be able to sleep that night if I sent someone away.
Is it just me, or is this the only way to keep everything we consider American? To continue the advancements in the medical field. Lets say we have 20 million people who TRULY can't afford health insurance. I believe we are a little below a million doctors in the United States. I think my payroll could allow for 30 free patients per year. The amount of unpaid insurance claims will be higher than that.
Is it possible to revert that far back from where we are as a country? This applies to every industry and service, but is not in hopes of encouraging free-riders.
Don't try to make it compulsory, lets just be good people!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Choosing to be Selfish: Abortion
The more time I spend with my precious daughter, Amy, the stronger my feelings become against abortion. She has blessed my life beyond imagination, and it becomes increasingly difficult for me to comprehend how so many would rather kill their unborn child before being "inconvenienced" by an unexpected addition. What saddens me more is that there are so many who adamantly defend a woman's "right to choose" (by the way, where is that in the constitution?) over the defenseless unborn's right to life. The way I see it, the woman already made her choice the moment she decided to have unprotected sex, but the equation of choices changes when a child is conceived.
I ran across a powerful James E. Faust (a pro-life democrat) talk tonight that I wanted to share on the subject. He told a story about Mother Teresa, a deserving Peace Prize winner, that touched me. Here is a snippet from the 1995 talk, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil"
I ran across a powerful James E. Faust (a pro-life democrat) talk tonight that I wanted to share on the subject. He told a story about Mother Teresa, a deserving Peace Prize winner, that touched me. Here is a snippet from the 1995 talk, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
