The Soccer Mom Vote

Gerald Ford (1913-2006)

Subtitle:  Withdraw the Troops

Alright now, confess.  How many of you knew anything about Gerald Ford before all the recent coverage of his life, following his death?  I know that I knew very little about the man.  Of course, the basics are taught in school:  "Gerald Rudolph Ford, born July 14, 1913, was our 38th President from 1974 to 1977.  He was also our 40th Vice-President.  He was the first person appointed to the vice presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment, after Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace.   Upon succession to the presidency, Ford became the only person to hold that office without having been elected either president or vice president. Prior to becoming vice president, he served for over eight years as the Republican Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. Aged 93 at the time of his death, Ford was the longest-lived U.S. president.  His administration oversaw the withdrawal of American forces from the Vietnam War and he came under immense criticism for granting a full pardon to his good friend Richard Nixon (all facts recited here drawn from Wikipedia)."

From all accounts, Gerald Ford was a rarity in the White House.  A president who was honest, respectable and had the best interests of the country at heart. He put his duty to country first, before all else in his life. In assessing his time as president, The New York Times stated that Ford "judged, correctly, that his primary mission was to quiet national passions inflamed by war and Watergate—to end, as he put it, 'our long national nightmare'—and in so doing to restore a measure of respect to the presidency itself."  I think he achieved those goals and then some.  And now, our current president has managed to reverse all the good Gerald Ford endeavored to do. 

By now, you've all heard that in an interview two years ago with Bob Woodward, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war.  He went on to say, "I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war. I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [Vice President Dick] Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq."  Cheney was Ford's chief of staff, and Rumsfeld also was defense secretary in the Ford administration - they were cronies from way back so this was a HUGE admission for Ford. 

In an interview of his own, Woodward said, "He made it very clear that he did not agree with the reasons President Bush laid out for the war, namely the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or that there was some obligation that the United States or the president had to expand democracy." Ford said:  "They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

Additionally, the current President Bush has long defended the Iraq war as part of a larger plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.  Ford disapproved of that strategy too, according to the interview in the Post.  "I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security," Ford told Woodward.

So what does this have to do with the subtitle of my post (withdraw the troops)?  The point I'm trying to make, is that while I am just a simple working mom, there are other more educated, more sophisticated, more people "in the know" of the political machine, that agree with me.  That this war, this act of revenge G.W. was taking on the man who tried to kill his father, is wrong and has been wrong from the beginning.  It is an immoral and illegal war.   And our men and women are dying for nothing. 

And they are dying rapidly.  Reference these numbers: 

American deaths since the war began on 3/19/03:  2,998 (last casualty reported 12/30)

American deaths since our "mission accomplished" 5/1/03:  2,861

American deaths since capture of Saddam 12/13/03:  2,532

American deaths since "handover of power" 6/29/04:  2,130

American deaths since Iraq's first election 1/31/05:  1,561

Total wounded:  22,235.  These include soldiers maimed and crippled for life.  Many lost their limbs, their sight, their hearing.  "Wounded" doesn't even begin to describe how their lives have changed and how much they have lost. 

Bob Herbert of the New York Times said, 'There is something agonizingly tragic about soldiers dying in a war that has already been lost." 

To those who would call me unpatriotic (or worse), I remind you.  Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism.  And I'm not alone in these beliefs.

Recently, in response to the Iraq Study Group report, Sen. George Smith (a Republican no less) said "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day.  That is absurd.  It may even be criminal.  I cannot support that anymore." 

The report itself states "The level of violence is high and growing.  There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement.  Pessimism is pervasive." 

Sen. John McCain once wrote about the Vietnam war "It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay.  No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolves as war.  If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone."

So what now?  Bob Herbert said "What is needed now are leaders with the courage to insist, perhaps a the risk of their reputations and careers, that it is wrong to continue sending fresh bodies after those already lost, to continue asking young, healthy American troops to head into the combat zone, perhaps for their third or fourth tour, to fight in a war the public no longer supports."  Men who put their country's interests first.  Men like Gerald Ford.

More than a New Year's Resolution

Ironically, I wrote my New Year’s resolution almost three months ago. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was just shy of ten days from finding out I was pregnant with number 2 and suffering the loss of a recent miscarriage. I didn’t know what lay ahead when I decided I wanted to make a change in my life.

Change, I did.

As 2006 begins to close I find myself stuck in several ruts. Work, home, marriage, parenting. Each of these institutions do not equate boredom on their own, nor do they have to emit fumes of dissatisfaction. But we all take time around the end of the year to look back, plan ahead, and make a change and I'm realizing these things need a drastic change.

I started reading the book, “The Beginner's Guide to Changing the World.” It’s a good read filled with religious philosophy, historical facts, and a trip to Tibet. It’s full of those questions that prod me to reconsider my own thinking at home. Am I learning more about the world about me? Am I aware of what consequences our actions as a country create? Do I just feel strongly about a topic or am I informed and challenged and willing to actually do something?

In my reflection I found a lifetime of considering, discussing, nodding and writing while pondering The Big Issues. I always tend to reflect on The Big Topics this time of the year (Is there a God? If so why would Jesus be the only gate open and isn’t that just a bit silly? And what about all those people in Nepal and Tibet and India that have a religion of peace and compassion and love never hurting even an ant?) but I find that I pass up issues that I may actually have the option to do something about. (Stem cell research? Partial Birth Abortions?) Instead, I dig my head in to my daily routine and feel good about the times I ponder these thoughts.

It’s time to make a difference. Most New Year’s resolutions are filled with the “I”. “I will lose ten pounds.” “I want to save money.” “I want to get a promotion.” And, perhaps, these things can benefit others (Hubby would find me so hot at 30 pounds less! Family will have more money if I get paid more!) they are, in fact, mostly local and self withstanding goals only. I need to work on a more global level. I want to make a bigger change. Not just in my pants size but in the world around me, locally, as well as the bigger picture. I want to write my Congressman. I want to actually know who my Congressman is (having just moved to a new location, I honestly couldn’t say who my representatives are. I think I’ll start there.)

What changes do you plan to make? What things have you been pondering lately that you are ready to put “out there?” I’d love to hear from you because honestly, I’ve never kept a New Year’s Resolution to date. This one, I’d like to make my Lifelong Resolution.

*I was also inspired by Elaine's post as well as her write up about it on her blog.

Introduction and a little about cars

I was going to just jump in with my first post but since all the cool kids are leading with introductions, I figured I might as well do the same. You can read my basic profile here but there are only a few things you really need to know about me:

I don’t like to read or write long posts.

I think I’m funny, but am often not (humor me).

I believe social activism is the only way our kids will have a world to live in that doesn’t suck and yet, I’m often fearful to participate in any form of visible social activism.

I think doing things like buying organic, cloth diapering, extended breastfeeding, baby wearing, selectively vaccinating my kids, voting with your dollars and living sustainable lives are examples of social activism AND they’re not likely to get you arrested (much).

I have no idea what to write about here.

I am deeply in awe of the women Nicole has managed to gather for this site and just hope I am half as interesting as the rest of the team.

I’m sure I’ve failed to share something deeply important but in light of the first item on the list above, I’ll simply add my first post below and carry on with my evening.  Hopefully I'll come up with a new topic by the 27th of next month, but it may just be some more random babble about trying not to get arrested for indecent exposure.  Enjoy!

===============================================================

How a movie made me want to change the world

We just saw Who Killed the Electric Car and I spent most of the film curled up in a fetal position trying not to vomit or cry.  It’s deeply disturbing, deeply infuriating and makes you want to throw things at all the people who acted in the death.  At the very end when I actually started cursing at my television and brushing tears from my eyes, they gave us hope.  Basically, they showed us the amazing work being done today by common, every day citizens.   They also introduced us to the work being done by some very uncommon, totally amazing, brilliant scientists named Iris and Stanford Ovshinsky.  And they gave us direction to make change.  Once we get some money set aside, we are so getting ourselves a Prius and modifying it to a Plug-In.

This is one of those movies that changes your life and makes you want participate in social activism, even if all you do is trick out your car to create no emission for about 60 miles a charge.  And since the average American citizen only drives an average of 34 miles a day, that my friend, is a huge environmental impact. 

Next up?  An Inconvenient Truth.  Anyone seen either one?  Anyone feel motivated to step up for your kids?  Tell me.  Tell me how you'll do it.  I need to know.  We’re buzzing with ideas over here.  We’re ready to change the world.  And that?  That’s an excellent way to start our new year.

Boycott “Boycott France” (Un Vandale Parle)

I have lowered myself to a new level: vandalism. You read right. Me: Proper, ethical, occasionally self-righteous, scaredy-cat me. A vandal. I can’t believe it either. It just… happened.

I was leaning on my parents’ Infiniti (conservative black with audacious gold trim) listening to my stepfather generously praising me on the lovely Thanksgiving weekend, complimenting me and my children, saying his sweet goodbyes, and before I knew it, a la Homer Simpson,  I was watching his mouth move but I couldn’t hear a word he was saying. I was too busy listening to my own internal dialogue and staring at the damned “Boycott France” bumper sticker at the lower left of his rear window. I am only 5 feet tall. It was right in my face. Staring me down, tempting me, daring me to do it.

I have always hated that bumper sticker. I see it on cars all over my own liberal city, and I just cringe. “Who are these idiots?” I think to myself. “Who are the jerks that would spread such a ludicrous idea?” Oh. They are apparently members of my own family, that’s who. One of them at least is the same loving old man who swoops up my children and spoils them with generosity, who dotes on my mother, who loves me.

Still, I couldn’t help myself. I leaned across the car, feigned interest in what he was saying (recalling his rants of praise for Fox news and George Dubya to fuel my fire) and in between smiling and nodding, I peeled that hateful piece of propaganda off his window. Right under his unsuspecting nose. It almost came clean off save for one rectangular piece of stick-em.

God! It felt shamefully good. I was inexcusably pleased with myself. I’m an asshole, that’s what I am. I defaced someone else’s personal property. I had no right to do that. I do not condone that kind of behavior. Uhr, I didn’t think I did…

But let’s move beyond my (minor?) sin, shall we? Let’s explore the aggravation that pushed me to do it: the stupid bumper sticker.

Boycott France. Why? Because the French are cowards? Because they are rude? Because they are snobs? Puhleeze. Because they refuse to speak English to tourists in their own country? Because the French government, past or present administrations, did not or does not govern to your approval? Because they don’t rush to war or support American efforts the way you think they should? Freedom Fries?  Si vous plait.

As I am determined to abandon previous habits of mine (don’t want to jump on just any old bandwagon), I decided to research this issue further. And honestly, what I learned surprised me. 

My Google search of “boycott France” turned up several web sites I expected: www.billoreilly.com, places to buy t-shirts or teddy bears or bumper stickers, all decorated with anti-French sentiment, lists of French companies you can boycott so as not to support their evil empire…

The site I wasn’t expecting was this one: www.boycottfrance.com is sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the American Jewish Congress. Their site claims to be "the central repository of information about anti-Semitism in France from the Dreyfuss affair to the present day." It outlines their discontent with Jacques Chirac and details anti-Semitic activities in France that have been, according to the American Jewish Congress, all but condoned by the French government. While I was well aware of the anti-Semitic activity in France (at least what is reported by NPR), I honestly had no idea that the American Jewish Congress would have turned up in such a Google search, much less that they would own that domain name. I read their site and they seem to me to be very well-intentioned.

So I am conflicted to say the least. Do I see a need for action? Certainly. Would I like to see an end to anti-Semitism in France? Of course. In France and anywhere else it exists. Given my recent findings, have I changed my mind? Do I support the damned bumper sticker? No. Absolutely not. And here’s why: That slogan is too far gone.

At this point, “Boycott France” (regardless of whether it’s fair) is now associated with staunch conservatism and it has more to do with a disgust for the French than any desire to stop anti-Semitism. It is driven by negativity and only spreads ignorance and a loathing for foreigners. It furthers a disdain for an entire group of people simply because of where they live, because of where they were born, because they speak a certain language. That’s bigotry. It’s ignorant and I absolutely do not support it. As much as I hate to admit it, I’d sooner support an effort of vandalism to remove these bumper stickers across my fair city.

If you don’t approve of the French administration, DO something. Get involved in something that will make a difference. What can you do?

• Write. Write a letter. Write lots of letters. Write to your congressman. Write to your senator. Write to your newspaper. Write to Mr. Bush. Write to Jacques Chirac. Tell them what you think.
• Boycott. Go ahead and boycott if you want to. Do I see value in the idea of a boycott, economically, politically? Sure I do. It’s just that I don’t think the “Boycott France” bumper stickers are accomplishing anything remotely related to what the goals of an actual boycott would be. You can boycott a product or boycott a company, but not a country. Not a people.  If you want to boycott, quit talking about it and do it. Research the products you’re buying. There are plenty of web sites out there that list French products and companies for your boycotting pleasure. Research well, mind you. Some of these sites seem to be full of crap. But I’m guessing there are some legitimate and well-intentioned sites to be found with this information.
  
  According to the U.S. Department of State, “Principal French exports to the United States are aircraft and engines, beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, cosmetics, and luxury products.” If you don’t like what’s going on in France and you’d like to make a difference, look at the beverages you’re drinking. Consider the airline tickets, electronics, cosmetics, or luxury products you buy. If you don’t want to support French companies, don’t buy those products.
  
  For what it’s worth, the American Jewish Congress actually states that they do not currently support a boycott of French products. And I am guessing that they have absolutely no connection with the mass marketing of bumper stickers like the one I rebelliously liberated from my stepfather’s window. They say: "We are not calling for a boycott right now. Our goal is to inform the public of the anti-Semitic attacks in France, and the inadequate response from the French Government. We urge people to write letters to consulates and ambassadors. We encourage people to discuss the situation openly. Should the attacks continue to spiral out of control without proper response from the French government, we will reevaluate our recommendation."

• Finally, pay attention. Listen to the news. Support the unbiased media, the media that reports the facts without spinning their own propaganda. Do not tolerate those that lean right or left to push their own ideas. Write them letters. Stop listening; stop reading when they twist the facts. According to Media Matters for America, there was no truth to Bill O'Reilly's claim that an American boycott of French products has made an impact on the French economy.

And here’s what NOT to do: Don’t spend money on propaganda that does nothing more than advocate a bad idea. Those bumper stickers advocate hatred for a group of people you don’t even know. More than likely, the French citizens are just like you. They have kids and husbands and wives and jobs. They’re probably just as disappointed as you are in their own government and the state of things.

It’s a bunch of maird. Dump the sticker.

The most wonderful time of the year

Merry Christmas eve!

What?  Don't look so surprised.  I'm not about to cheat myself out of the fun of Christmas even though I don't believe in God.

Nor do I take offense if you wish me a Merry Christmas.  I might even say it first, though after living in such melting pots as Washington DC and New York for a decade, I'll probably say "Happy Holidays".

I've posted on my personal site recently about how our heathen status is very much the anomaly here in the Denver suburbs.  And while, before moving here, I never thought it would come up, it actually has - more often than I could have ever guessed.

We have a Christmas tree.  We hang stockings.  We watch the Christmas specials on TV.  We have ornaments - handed down from my non-religious family - that depict the Nativity.  I want our girls to learn about the traditional Christmas story - the birth of Jesus.  Not because I intend to teach it as historical fact, but as one of the central themes of the holiday - one that many Christmas carols beautifully describe.

This season is an opportune time to teach our children about the commonalities between us all, regardless of our personal beliefs.  That kindness and acceptance are universal, regardless of the religious symbols present - or not - in someone's home.  And that regardless of how we seek to answer the persistent questions about the world around us, there is always room for amazement and wonder.

Opening up a can of holy worms...

My first topic of discussion in this forum is a sensitive one and one that I usually try to avoid on my personal blog. And, just like a can of biscuits left in the back seat of a hot car, if I attempt to poke at it and dance around the subject, I could end up making a gooey mess of myself. And, yet, somehow I must jump in, pull that label off the can and press into the seam of the matter—the real pressure points for me—to ever get to the buttery goodness inside. Right?

OK, so putting all really gross food analogies aside, (deep breath) here goes...

I grew up in a very small church in my hometown--population two traffic lights. I am still a member of this church denomination today, although I have had times of questioning which religion best fits with my beliefs. Our church has been embroiled in a major controversy between the national church and the head church in Europe over the consecration of a gay bishop. Have I narrowed this down enough yet for you to figure it out?

But, my church denomination is really not important because these issues are being discussed in most of the major Christian religions currently. It is more about trying to understand the generations before me and also about deciding whether certain political actions taken by my church’s governing body are, in fact, something that now puts a label on me if I remain a member of said church.

If you read my introduction to this forum, you know that I’m right in the middle, politically speaking. I tend to vote more conservatively. However, when it comes to social issues, I lean more to the left. This does not fit with most of the older generation of my family, as well as my church family. There are times I find myself cringing at their comments because I find something they say so utterly unacceptable.

Recently, I sat through a series of meetings discussing the whole same-sex unions/gay bishop consecration issue being decided in our national church. I live in Texas, a supremely red state. My church is known for filling the pews more with those 65 and older, than it is for attracting the young crowd. But, even with those facts in place, the events that unfolded on this particular evening shocked me.

Our new minister had just finished a long and rather rambling discussion of the current issues in front of our national church, and how he feels those issues will impact our church, as well as our connection with our church roots in Europe. At the end of the speech, he asked for questions. After more than an hour of sitting, I heard the rustling of everyone shifting in their chairs, and knew that something big was coming. Then, someone just asked the question most everyone there wanted to know—would our new minister support a decision by the national church to allow gay unions in our church or openly gay people to be ordained? Or would he follow our Bishop and the “old church” in forbidding such actions.

The new minister, now on the spot, basically said that he’d support our Bishop in this matter and the old church, and that he did not feel gay unions were to be recognized in a church at this time. But, before the words were out of his mouth completely, the room burst into applause. A few older men behind me even yelled out, “YEAH!” as if they were watching a football game and cheering for a great play made by their team.

My jaw dropped, as did my heart. I had recently become more involved at church and had started to make friends, even with some of the older crowd. I felt like I was witnessing something very disturbing and wrong. And, as the applause jolted me and my heart began to race, I looked up at our new young minister—who is only a year or so younger than me in age and has children the same age as my own. His face fell too, and he immediately and forcefully said back to the cheering crowd, “Let me finish, please! I will not condone same sex unions in this church, but I would lay my own LIFE DOWN if I allow a homosexual person to ever be run out of this church or be treated with anything but love and compassion here.”

As he said this, I heard a silence fall and then a few claps and words of approval, not so surprisingly from a few of the other younger families present. And, then my eyes met his and I could see in his the same disappointment and surprise that I felt as well. These dear people who give so much to their community and genuinely have wonderful and loving hearts, had in one moment shook everything that I believed in.

I came home and told my husband, who said the scene would have bothered him as well. When I could not get it out of my head, I emailed my minister. And, this is some of what I said. It describes very clearly how I feel on this subject

“…I know that people have strong viewpoints on gays in church, and I knew that coming in to the meeting. I guess I do not. I am not sure why this upset me in the way it did, but it really did.

Am I a liberal? Well, not really. Politically speaking, I find myself right in the middle. Personally speaking, I'm very conservative and so is my husband. But, none of that should really matter when I am in church. Right? That's not what church is about is it?

And, maybe that is why the uproarious applause to your first statement about gay marriage bothered me. You see, I am not someone who knows every passage of the Bible. I grew up in a small town church that was too small to even have an organized Sunday School.

So, I find myself learning much more as an adult about the foundation of our church and its beliefs. But, whether I can quote the Bible or not, I am a Christian all the same. I may not fully know the passage where it says that being gay is an abomination of the Lord, but I do know that the Lord asks that we not judge others. I know that church is about love and acceptance. It's about reaching your hand out to another person, no matter what they believe or what sort of sinner they are, and holding it in prayer and thanksgiving--because we are all sinners. And, what I believe is that it is not my place to judge whether or not two gay people are more worthy of God's love than I am. We all sin. We're all very blessed to have God's love. Period.

I don't know why I am writing you this, except that when everyone cheered for the "no gay unions" part of what you said, I saw a surprised look on your face that seemed to match my own. And your response was so touching to me, because it is exactly what I believe. Church is about loving others. And, that's what our focus should be.

My minister replied back with a really supportive email and enthusiastically asked if he could share my letter with the vestry of our church, because he said he felt it really reflected the feelings of a lot of our generation in a way that they might understand. I was honored and glad that I spoke out. But, it really doesn’t change a lot. He also told me he’d been told later that the applause was more because people were just glad that someone took a clear stance—and didn’t dance around or avoiding the subject as the higher ups in our church have done for so many years now.

This sort of rhetorical dance-around is present in responses by the international church body to the recent actions of our national church to begin making provisions for developing public blessings for same sex unions:

“We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. Such a process of study and reflection needs to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. This call for continuing study does not imply approval of such proposals.”
Excerpt from the Lambeth Commission’s “Windsor Report”

My church is still in a state of controversy and flux, and I find myself more torn than ever. Our Bishop has said if the national church approves same sex unions, which would be in open defiance of the old church in Europe, we will split from it and remain connected to our European roots. Because that is what the overwhelming majority of his church congregations believe and want to continue to follow. Should this happen, I don’t know what I would do.

Some, when faced with this stance by their church, might quickly separated themselves and find a denomination that better mirrors their own beliefs. But, is that the answer really? There are so many things about my church that reflect what I strongly believe Christianity embodies. Is it better to walk away in protest over one policy for which I disagree, or stay and work to make things better? Or is the issue at hand such a huge one in terms of human rights that I should refuse to accept this discrimination? Am I being weak in staying? What do you think? And, if given the same situation, what would YOU do?

Late Bloomer

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Tamara and I am a late political bloomer.

I wasn’t always a liberal. I admit it. At first I thought I was a Republican. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… It’s just not me. If you note my confessional tone, it’s not so much that I feel guilty for having voted Republican. I know lots of intelligent, well-informed voters who identify with the Republican Party. My confession has more to do with the fact that I was, well, following the crowd.

The first time I ever voted was in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race. I was 19. Here’s the confession part: I voted for Clayton Williams. If you haven’t guessed, I would not vote for this man today. But let’s not get distracted; Clayton Williams is not the issue. Whether he was deserving of my vote in 1990 is beside the point. My stomach turns on this issue primarily because I knew so precious little about him when I cast my ballot. It had not occurred to me to do my own research, talk to more people, or go to the library. (Those were the days when you went to the library.)

I believe this kind of lemming-like parade through political existence happens far more often than any of us would like to admit. At 19 years old, old enough to know better, I was one of those lemmings. I simply jumped on the bandwagon that carried the respectable authority figures in my family and inner circle at the time. And I continued to do that until I was well into my mid-twenties. Sure, I was young and immature, but that’s no excuse. (On many levels, I remain very, very juvenile. I still laugh uncontrollably, for example, when someone falls down. Sorry, I can’t help it.)

The rest of my voting record reads much like a coming of age story, where the person coming of age starts out greener than Kermit the Frog, though not nearly as politically savvy. Too often, I failed to question the candidates, the issues, and most of all myself. But, I eventually came to my senses.

By the 1996 presidential election, I was 25 years old. I had a college degree, was in the work force, had traveled a very good bit of the U.S., Europe, and Mexico, had gotten married, then separated, and was just a little bit of legal work shy of divorce. I was coming into my own. I voted for Clinton in that election and although I’m not pleased with everything he did, I stand by my vote. And I’m happy to say I stand by every vote since then. I have found myself, politically.

A strange way, I suppose, but with this, I introduce myself: a late bloomer, a belated Liberal, a tardy cross-examiner of the U.S. political system. I’m getting involved here in hopes of questioning myself. I’d like to question you. If you have any good sense, you’ll question me. And I hope we spur others on to question each other so maybe we can get a little closer to ridding this place of lemmings...

Colleen, you ignorant slut

When Nicole invited me to participate in this site I wasn't sure if I should accept. My views on most things are pretty liberal but I don't generally go around discussing how I feel about topical issues with other people. Sure, my husband and I engage in interesting political and social banter from time to time, but other than that I haven't entered into critical discourse with anyone else since my high school and college days. And back then I preferred the dramatic arts to the technical art of debate (Swaying my preference was, of course, the drama crowd. Man, those kids knew how to party.). Nevertheless, I told Nicole I'd take a shot at this to see what develops. As a work-from-home mom, my adult conversation opportunities are somewhat limited so I jump at the chance to write, read and talk about things that don't involve Ariel, Elmo, or Dora.

As my profile states, I'm a liberal who was raised by staunch conservatives. I've often wondered how I came to hold the views I do when I spent my life surrounded by Catholic doctrine and strict military parents. Was it because my father's job as an Army officer moved us around the country and into other parts of the world? Was it because those travels allowed me to meet and befriend people of different nationalities and races? Was it because I had a gay best friend in high school who opened my eyes to other lifestyles and put a kind and loving face on homosexuality for me? Or was it the free spirit with which I was born that pushed me to respectfully question the beliefs my parents tried to bestow on me? It's probably a combination of all those things. But as a busy full-time mother and part-time consultant, with very little free time on my hands, the thing thing that holds me back from sharing my views more openly with others is ignorance. I don't mean that in a negative way. I think in our hectic society we're all ignorant about something or other. I openly admit that I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't have depth of knowledge on any one issue.

One of the goals I hope to accomplish here at The Soccer Mom Vote is to learn more about interesting, topical issues and then share with you what I've learned. As I research and discuss these issues, I encourage your input. My plan isn’t to make you agree with me. Hardly. My purpose is to make us all think just a little more critically. And if in doing that I’m able to generate some discussion then the experience becomes that much more interesting and worthwhile.

The first issue I’ll tackle is federally-funded stem cell research. In my current, narrow view on this topic I believe our government should fund this research. There appears to be evidence that research results will potentially help treat, and possibly cure, debilitating illnesses in addition to damage caused by various traumas. I’ve discussed this issue briefly with my uber-conservative mother and, not surprisingly, she doesn't agree with me. She comes down hard on the side of the Catholic Church on this (and every other!) issue. And although I love her too much to launch into a relationship-ending argument with her over this, I am going to educate myself about it so I can at least feel more solidly grounded in my belief.

I hope you'll join me back here at The Soccer Mom Vote on the 18th of each month. On January 18th I'll be discussing my findings and feelings about the stem cell research debate. If you have comments or opinions about this topic that you'd like to share now I’d love to hear them.

The right to health

When I first heard about The Soccer Mom Vote, I was intrigued, but mentally decided that I wouldn't be a good candidate to write over here.  I tend to describe myself as apolitical, because I have strong feelings about certain issues but have not made up my mind about others, and because I avoid party affiliations. 

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my voice might be an important one to share.  I'm sure I am not the only voter in this country who doesn't define herself squarely in one party or another but is still passionate about social, environmental, and political concerns.  So this forum will be my soapbox -- or better yet, my sounding board, where we can discuss and relate and share and learn from one another.  I am thrilled at this opportunity.

I have a personal interest in a fair and equitable healthcare system for the United States, due to a rare disease that requires me to receive an exorbitantly expensive treatment once a month.  For life.  A treatment which I literally could not afford without my health insurance. 

But I am one of the fortunate ones in this country.  I have excellent insurance, partially subsidized by my employer, and a plan that covers me and my family.  We are able to choose our providers to a large extent.  We do not have to worry about referrals.  We have not been refused treatment.  We do not have a lifetime cap on costs which would require us to switch insurance companies and possibly be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions.

Many, many individuals and families in the United States are not so fortunate. 

Sometimes people have to "float" without coverage for days, weeks, or months before their new coverage kicks in.  They must hope and pray that they will not get sick enough to require treatment, or that they will not suffer from an accident or injury that will require hospitalization.

Or families can be denied health insurance altogether.

Sometimes emergency rooms refuse treatment to individuals because the doctors don't think a patient's insurance will sufficiently cover their services.  People have to sell off all their worldly possessions to pay for medical treatment, or must incur serious debt to pay off medical bills. 

And heart-breakingly, insurance sometimes doe not cover treatment even in the most desperate of circumstances.

You might have assumed that many of the United States' uninsured are the poor and/or unemployed citizens and residents of this country.  But there are some sobering statistics about America's healthcare system and who exactly are the nation's uninsured.  In a fascinating article on this subject, Dr. Mike Magee of "Health Politics"* breaks down the numbers:

There are approximately 290 million U.S. citizens, [of which] 244 million, or 84%, have health insurance, and approximately 46 million, or 16%, are uninsured.

[The] 46 million number pertaining to the uninsured is somewhat misleading... First, it includes only those without insurance for 12 months. If you count all who went without for at least 1 month in 2005, the number jumps to 64 million uninsured. Second, it says nothing about quality of the insurance. And as insurers and employers are rushing to embrace consumer-directed health plans with high deductibles and health savings accounts, the risk of losing it all is rising for the American family. Third, the number doesn’t include an estimated 7 to 10 million illegal immigrants who function in the U.S. under the radar screen, arriving at the nation’s emergency rooms when they’re sick and desperate.

So many people and families without insurance.  Avoiding the doctor's office or hospital until they are close to death's door, and then wondering how they will foot the bill.  Worrying about family members who suffer through illness and injury untreated.

And the issues faced by individuals and families that DO have insurance are still too numerous to count.  For most Americans, health insurance is inextricably tied to one's employment.  It is not designed to be portable as individuals move from one job to another.  So a person losing his job often suffers a double whammy: loss of income due to unemployment and loss of insurance due to the severing of their healthcare. 

America's health care system is reactive rather than proactive.  It's not uncommon for emergency rooms to treat the heart attack victim repeatedly, rather than implement wellness visits to ensure that the individual is following a recommended dietary and exercise regimen.  Proactive health management can address glaring problems in the community such as poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and mental health screening to detect depression and other issues before they become a crisis -- but it's still not widely utilized or accepted.

Conditions for medical professionals impact the quality of healthcare provided.  An ongoing nursing shortage in this country has left the nation's nursing core overworked and burned out, and subject to leaving the profession to find a less demanding career.  Medical malpractice costs have crippled physicians and affected insurance costs. 

Workers everywhere struggle with not having enough sick leave or family leave.  Many hourly wage earners get no sick days, so they must carefully weigh the impact of a day's wages lost against going to work while they are under the weather.  If they work, they run the risk of infecting others, but if they don't work they lose that valuable paycheck. 

Even salaried workers with benefits struggle with having enough sick leave.  New moms who have just returned to work (after a too short maternity leave) must often take unpaid days off when sick, or work through illnesses -- their meager leave is often used to stay home with their sick children.

Our healthcare crisis is is a huge and complex problem, and I'm not sure any one person has all the answers.  Some people believe that universal healthcare is the answer, pointing to the successes of a single healthcare system as implemented in other countries.  Detractors of this approach say that universal healthcare can exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots, because those with access to resources can bypass the regular system and pay for their own high-quality care. 

I am still trying to understand all the complexities of this problem, as well as potential solutions.  However, it helps if we all can be informed consumers of healthcare and work toward bringing about a better solution for the nation.

Some good sources of information on this subject:

Families USA is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that strives to achieve better healthcare. It addresses issues regarding the uninsured, prescription drugs, and Medicaid.

Patient Advocacy Resources: this site includes an online guide for patients and their families, which tells consumers what they need to know from their doctors about their health, including lists of questions people should ask before surgery and regular check-ups. Also explains the rights people have as patients and as human beings.

Universal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN) is a nationwide network that promotes comprehensive health care for all through education, strategy development and advocacy.

The American Medical Student Association's page on Universal Health Care features a number of resources, including a helpful overview of health policy.

Read.  Become informed.  Come back and discuss.

Sunk to a new low...or risen to a new high?

In May 2005, my family and I moved from the New York metro area to the Denver suburbs.

We used to live in a two-bedroom condo in a high-rise apartment building with a panoramic view of Manhattan.  Now we live in a tract house with more space than I can fill up and a view of the gulch behind us. (Where snakes reside when they're not slithering into my garage.)

I used to work as a project manager for a record company in Manhattan, with my own office on the 23rd floor and Indian food for lunch every day.  Now I chase my children, eat leftover macaroni and cheese, and type-type-type at my laptop, hoping that somebody out there likes what they're reading.  (I'm addicted to Sitemeter just like everyone else.)

I used to leave maintenance requests at the front desk.  Now I call exterminators, heating and air conditioning specialists, garage door repairmen, and ask door-to-door meat salesmen to please stop opening boxes of steak because I'm not interested.  (All of which took place within the past two weeks.)

I used to ride the bus and the subway.  Now I drive an SUV.  'Nuff said. (But so does everyone else in Colorado.)

Given the evidence presented above, I'm afraid I can't escape the truth:  I have become a soccer mom. (Even though my girls don't play and neither do I.)

My new identity has taken time for me to accept.  Blogging has aided me in the process; it's always good to get your thoughts and feelings out instead of letting them stew inside you, and it's even better when you discover that you aren't the only one thinking and feeling that way.

But much of the time, I've felt like a sell-out.  Like I was meant for more than this soccer mom gig, and that despite the trappings of apparent success (big house, big cars, cute clothes on my kids), I had failed nonetheless.

Writing on the web has slowly diminished those unfair accusations I've leveled at myself.  I'm one of thousands of suburban moms in my small corner of the world.  While I don't aspire to the presidency of the PTA, I can find other ways to make a difference in what's important to me.  The web gives us a voice that is louder and reaches farther than any we've ever had before.  And sites like this one are giving moms everywhere an opportunity to be heard.

Tell it like it is.  We're not all the same - we have different backgrounds, different experiences, different views.  Let's make sure that we're heard, and let's learn from one another along the way.