America – A Nation of Pussies??

June 11, 2009

Since when did America become the Land of the Free, Home of the Cowards?  At what point did we decide our system of Justice was completely substandard and not to be trusted?  And why is it that our so-called elected leaders are leading the retreat into cowardice?

I’m speaking of people such as Chicago state Senator Marlin Stutzman (R), Oklahoma state Senator Randy Brogdon (R), former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) , and Lawmakers of all political parties in Oklahoma, South Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, and California, who are all protesting the idea of bringing some of the 240 people currently being detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Gitmo).

These “detainees” (not Prisoners) are people who may or may not have done anything to be imprisoned for.  As far as I know, the people being held there have not been charged with anything despite being held for years — which is why they are called detainees.  Such was the case for the recently released Mohammed El Gharani, who was held at Gitmo for more than 7 years, from the time he was a teenager in 2001, and freed just this week when it was evident that he had done nothing wrong, nothing more than attending his church when it was raided by Pakistani soldiers.

I’m sure that some of these detainees are certainly dangerous criminals who must be brought to justice, and ALL of them must be held to American standards of justice since it was the United States who are holding them because they were captured for specific reasons.  We already have over 350 terrorists in federal U.S. prisons now, and none of them have escaped.  According to data provided by Traci L. Billingsley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped, period.*

Tell me, politicians, what are you afraid of?  Why are you so worried about housing and trying these people?  Do you seriously think that they’ll get off on a “technicality,” or that they will be paroled and set free to wander around our country?  Do you really think that, in the unlikely event that a convicted terrorist does actually escape, there won’t be a mob of Salt-Of-The-Earth Americans tracking that person down before any damage can be done?  After what the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 did on 9/11, there is no way that true terrorists can feel comfortable carrying out an attack against our beloved country on our own soil … but you seem to think we’re all a bunch of pussies who can’t handle really bad guys.  Why are you being such fear-mongerers, as if we’re little kids whom you don’t trust to cross the street?

Seems to me we’ve done a pretty good job for the past 200 years or so.  Are you sure you want to start wimping out now?  If so, then you don’t represent me, or the country I love.  If you are really such a coward, then you should prepare to be fired come next election cycle.

Doctors, Abortion, Violence, and YOU

June 1, 2009

I was listening to the news reports about Dr. George Tiller, a physician who was murdered in his Lutheran Church.   I was trying to find out what kind of doctor he was … everywhere I looked this morning, all I’ve heard/read is that he’s an “abortionist” or an “abortion doctor.”  Funny, I’ve never seen anyone go to medical school to major in abortions — in fact, I don’t think a degree in that particular specialty actually exists anywhere.

Why are these doctors called abortion doctors?  These are physicians, many of them Ob/Gyns, some general practitioners who can perform surgeries.  These are doctors who care about the health of women.  No one is “pro-abortion.”  People just have different THEORIES about when life starts, and when life is viable (which varies individually from pregnancy to pregnancy).  I am certainly not pro-abortion, but neither am I strictly anti-abortion in any situation, and I think most people in the U.S. share this view with me.

The abortion debate is not something I can morally get involved with on either side, because in my mind it is an individual circumstance, a decision that can only be made on a case-by-case basis.  I don’t think abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but neither would I favor passing sweeping laws that deny this procedure to anyone.  What I am in favor of is education, giving all possible options to people, and easy access to birth control, including in high schools and colleges.

On a religious level, while I consider myself a Christian, I believe that I am completely unqualified to pass final moral judgement on anyone.  That is up to God, not to any mortal.  It seems to me that the only extremists who can become doctor-murdering terrorists on this level are religious fanatics who have no idea what Jesus died on the cross for, or who don’t read the bible except for certain passages over and over that are taken out of context of the whole message of the bible.

Why is it that the anti-abortion extremists aren’t all over condemning Scott Reoder, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller?  After all, a life was taken, and isn’t every life precious?  Isn’t every life sacred and worth protecting, in their minds?  Are they just saying the only lives that are worth anything are that of the unborn?  One argument of extremists is that an abortion could be killing the next Beethoven.  Well, what if the doctor these people just murdered were to discover the cure for cancer if they had not been killed?  What if the work they are doing inspires the next Ghandi?  It’s not just the potential of the unborn babies people should worry about, it’s the potential of the already-born and living human beings, who can continue to contribute great things to the world even when they’re in their 80’s or 90’s or later.

Okay, I could go on, but I have to do homework — finals this week.  My trip back to college as an old lady will be in a later blog.    The message I wanted to leave here today is that the murder of this doctor should horrify everyone, and anyone who commits or plans to commit this type of act should be treated no differently from any other crazy fundamentalist terrorist who murders or plans to commit murder in the name of their religion.

Prop 8 in California Headed to U.S. Supreme Court

Why I hope the injunction against Prop 8 FAILS

Yes, you read it right. Yesterday the California supreme court upheld Prop 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage. This was expected, but still very disappointing. Since that happened, I’ve heard that 2 attorneys are going to take this issue to the federal supreme courts to try to get Prop 8 overturned, and they are going to ask for a temporary injunction against Prop 8 until the issue is resolved in the higher courts. After giving it some thought, this idea bothers me, and if it goes the way I think it might should it be granted, it would probably be a setback for gay marriage in California.

[ Support equal marriage? Support this organization!! http://couragecampaign.org/ ]

There is a slim chance that the federal courts would allow the injunction and an even slimmer chance that they would overturn Prop 8* … the attorneys are raising the 14th amendment, specifically section 1 (Wikipedia has an excellent treatise on this). Even though it’s apparent to me that gay marriage fits perfectly into the spirit of the 14th amendment, the structure of the supreme court as it is now may shy away from the legality of Prop 8. It would be great if they overturn it, but I think an injunction would make things worse.

I thought about this from my perspective, and what I would do if I couldn’t get married, and then a window of time appeared where I could get married. What would I do? I would more than likely seize that opportunity and get married while I could. If there is a temporary injunction against Prop 8, people will run out and get married out of FEAR that they won’t be able to do so in the future, and that’s no way to commit your life to someone. Say the injunction is allowed, and then months down the road the supreme court says they’re not overturning Prop 8. Either my marriage will be annulled, or it will be valid, pending some point in the future, just as those 18,000 or so couples who got married before Prop 8 passed. The difference is, though, that those 18,000 couples were not acting out of fear, but of love, like any of us heteros say we do. There was a possible time limit for them depending on the outcome, but there wasn’t the pressure that there would be if an injunction was allowed.

What happens when people get into a “shotgun marriage”? They don’t really do so well. I would rather the issue was settled, either by the supreme court or by a new ballot measure next year, or both. Putting in a window when people have to feel pressured to get married only endangers the strength of the family unit as people get married for the wrong reasons.

I do feel that California’s Prop 8 was an illegal ballot measure, one that should have gone through the legislature instead of the voters, and I really hope that people will recognize that this is a civil rights issue that is properly protected under the 14th amendment. I also think it’s funny that Iowa is now a more progressive state than California.

Time to write a new ballot measure in CA for 2010 — please support this cause, and banish the despicable act of legalized discrimination forever!
http://couragecampaign.org/ <<—— contribute to end Prop 8

* The reason there is such a slim chance that the U.S. supreme court would overturn Prop 8 is because of this:

Federal law
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation’s federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
(source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)

Jesus Had Two Dads, Why Can't I?

Raining and Snowing with Hail – oh my!

22 March 2009

It’s a blustery day, as has been forecast all this week.  It’s windy with showers, and the snow level is expected to get down to 3,000 feet or so (I’m at about 2400 ft).  A few minutes ago I went outside and was surprised to see rain, snow, and hail all coming down at the same time!  This is something I’ve never seen or heard of before, although I’m sure it’s not the first time it’s ever happened.

So what do you call that?  Anyone know if there’s a term for this?  Any amateur (or professional) meteorologists or climatologists out there who want to enlighten me?

* NOTICE *

March 05, 2008
 by Heidi

I apologize for the lengthy silence in the past week or two. I was away in Arizona with my husband for an annual business meeting, and I did not have the equipment nor the opportunity to submit any articles.

Hopefully I will be able to sit down and write something substantial before the weekend, as I continually come up with new ideas to share. This is a busy week for me at home, and I am also dealing with some medical issues that I hope will be resolved soon — nothing serious, just painful!

Thank you as always for visiting our page and reading, as well as leaving your comments and involving yourself in our discussions. We should be getting back into the swing of things soon, and there have been a number of exciting political, social, and newsworthy developments in the past week to talk about here.

The Obamanator

February 3, 2008
by Heidi

As one of the wenches who lives in California, I feel qualified to compare Senator Obama to our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnold Who?

Most people heard about California’s governor-debacle of 2003, where former Democratic Governor Gray Davis was overwhelmingly recalled and a gubernatorial race with 135 candidates (which included individuals such as child actor Gary Coleman and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt) took place. Ultimately, as you may know, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger won the race. I’m glad he won; I voted for him, not because I was a Republican (I wasn’t), but because he was a Republican married to a Kennedy (JFK’s niece), which I thought would bring great balance to the state.

It was reported that before he was voted into office, Schwarzenegger dove into educating himself about the position in order to become proficient and avoid blunders from not knowing enough about being a Governor. Although he had considered getting into politics for some time and had been engaged with former presidents and even various governors from around the country, his decision would not be made without being absolutely sure and without the blessing of his wife, Maria Shriver.

Schwarzenegger enjoyed fantastic popularity during his first couple of years in office. However, he hit a huge political stumbling block in 2005 when he called for special elections, and found that even the Governator could not shake entrenched political interests.

Schwarzenegger called the election to allow voters to decide on propositions regarding teacher tenure requirements (Proposition 74), the use of union dues for political campaign contributions (Proposition 75), state budgetary spending limits (Proposition 76), and redistricting (Proposition 77). … The four propositions that made it to the ballot eventually came to be known as Governor Schwarzenegger’s Reform Agenda. The Governor claimed his agenda would clear the way for correction of the problems he was elected to solve.

(Source: Wikipedia.com)

When these propositions were being argued in the media and on commercials everywhere here (a reported 300 million dollars in advertising spent on both sides combined!), I remember reading through the propositions and liking them. It made sense to me, for example, that union members should have a voice individually as to how their dues are spent, and I didn’t like the idea of giving money and not being able to control how that money is politically spent (prop 75). In fact, I liked ALL the propositions, designed to reduce spending using common sense. However, the opposition (mostly unions) fought hard with ads showing poor teachers and sad firefighters to tug the heartstrings of the public, and with the failure of the Governor’s reforms, it became obvious to me that most people don’t actually read the propositions. If they had an understanding of the facts, I think Californians would have overwhelmingly passed all four of those propositions.

Enter Obama, Stage Left

Make no mistake, I would be very happy if Barack Obama becomes President. But my worries are not with his heart and his intentions, but with the apparent innocence and naïveté he seems to have with respect to the Presidency and the enormous fights he will face there. He is definitely not a “left-wing liberal” as I’ve seen him portrayed by some not very politically aware, but I can already see people boxing him (and his family) in as a socialist, probably the same ignorant people who still think he’s a Muslim and that his middle name has some kind of jihadist significance. I can already see the “Republican base” planning ways to thwart his best intentions, just because he’s from the other side of the aisle, if nothing else. This isn’t news; it happens on both sides, dirty tricks from both Democrats and Republicans, which is why I subscribe to neither.

But how will a fresh, young, idealistic, inexperienced President deal with these attempts to dethrone him? Will he be distracted by the attacks, just as he was distracted by those from Bill Clinton — someone from his own party? Will he spend the first two or more years of his office constantly defending himself and learning how to bring two parties in congress together, something that even Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn’t do? And remember, it’s not just two parties, it’s also the ’special interests’ and ‘lobbyists’ — the ones who have a lot of money and don’t consider America as special as their own corporate interests.

These are the questions I have about Barack Obama, questions that I do NOT have about Hillary Clinton. I already know that Clinton has balls. I already know that both Clintons have had a ton of experience with these kinds of things since their days in Arkansas. Hillary Clinton will not be distracted by the attack dogs; Hillary Clinton will not need to spend the first year or two learning the ropes and figuring out how to deal with partisan issues; Hillary Clinton may have her faults, as all people do, but I believe in this election that it is important to be ready from day one, and to hit the ground running.

The Dream Ticket

The more I think about it as objectively as I can, the more convinced I become that the best President on Day One will be Hillary Clinton. [If you believe that the war in Iraq should continue indefinitely, by the way, you should plan to vote Republican. I believe the war there should end as soon as possible, which is why I cannot vote for any of the Republicans.] However, as I’ve stated before, I do think that Barack Obama will make a wonderful President, just as we believe JFK was;* but I believe that Hillary Clinton is needed right now. She has clout and muscle and will not be intimidated in the face of a crisis that is certain to come for the next President.

If you happened to watch the Democratic Debate on CNN this past Thursday (01/31/08), you probably saw the reaction of the huge audience when Wolf Blitzer suggested the idea of the two candidates on stage being a “Dream Ticket.” This prompted a cheer from me as I was sitting in my chair watching, because last year I had emailed both Clinton and Obama with that very suggestion. In my mind, the competence of President Clinton partnered with the enthusiastic idealism of Vice President Obama will both heal the country and prepare the current Senator from Illinois to be the most inspirational JFK-like President of this century for the following election cycle.

The Audacity of Supporting Hillary

Finally, I have been pretty disgusted by the vitriolic remarks by many Obama supporters against Hillary Clinton. If you are an Obama supporter, then you must agree with his message to bring the country together. I say that if you are an Obama supporter and you make vicious remarks about either of the Clintons, then you do not deserve to be an Obama supporter… you should instead sign up with Willard Romney’s campaign.

Most of the horrible anti-Hillary remarks I hear on television come from Republicans, and most of the horrible anti-Hillary remarks I read on the internet come from Obama supporters. Certainly I expect all nasty remarks from Republicans, but how can Obama supporters, who ostensibly want to help bring the country together, spit out such ignorant and often baseless attacks against someone who is simply a more politically mature (and female) version of Barack Obama?

I think our country is better than that, just as Obama says. For the most part, Senator Obama has been very gentlemanly in this campaign, and has not spit out the hate against the Clintons that some of his supporters have. I hope that Senator Obama would encourage ALL of his supporters to move above the gutter and grasp his vision of a better America, starting with bringing supporters of both campaigns together with their common goals for the country. If we do this, we will evolve beyond the disgusting politics of the past and look ahead to a new kind of politics that focuses on common dreams instead of petty differences. That is the audacity of hope.

/ / /

* Note: As beloved and admired as John F. Kennedy was, as cherished as his life is in our memories and stories that have been passed from generation to generation, we must not forget that it also took JFK a little while to get into the Presidential groove, and he had four times more congressional experience (13 years) than Barack Obama (3 years). Kennedy’s early challenges came with the Bay of Pigs invasion, failing to correctly do what was needed to depose Fidel Castro, and with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which resulted from Kennedy’s inexperience when it came to diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union (and also from his failures with the Bay of Pigs). Thankfully, these two frightening crises did not result in nuclear war as they could have, but they are certainly considerations when comparing Barack Obama with Jack Kennedy.

About the Authors: The Story of the 2 Wenches

About the Authors

Cindy and Heidi have been best friends since the 8th grade, and over the years have shared each other’s successes and storms. Life’s experiences and adventures have given them the ability to pass on their views to you. They hope to spark intelligent discussions and provide advice and empathy to those who need it.

Heidi is on the west coast, in Southern California, and Cindy is on the east coast, in Delaware. They have had very different upbringings and some opposing opinions, but they find through their strong friendship that they are able to respect each other’s differences and discuss them without judging or fighting. They both believe that the world would be a better place if everyone could be like this!

Topics

Cindy’s interests include cats (and other animals), politics, books, movies, television, relationships, social issues, and hotbutton discussions.

Heidi’s interests include politics, social issues, education, family, books, movies, psychology, and people in general.

Look for our writing here, and feel free to comment and engage in discussions!