Everyone is offering their two cents on the numerous Democratic candidates for President (not counting Republicans at all no matter what opinions they have).  Near as I can tell these are the points of view:

1.       My candidate is the only one because------

2.       I like---------but I’ll vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination.

3.       If ------------is not nominated, I won’t vote.

4.       I’ll vote for whoever but I’ll be crossing my fingers and holding my breath because it’s so distasteful.

5.       We need a solid, middle-of-the-road Democrat to beat Trump.

6.       We need a progressive/Socialist candidate in order to have a real change.

7.       The only qualification is that they can beat Trump.

Here is my one cent:

There are, of course, variations of all of the above.  Mayor Pete gets the LBGTQ voters; Bernie gets the healthcare above all vote; and Elizabeth gets the it’s-past-time-for-a-woman vote.

I agree with 2, 6 and 7.  I am way more to the left than most which means none of these would be my ideal President, but I’m realistic and not expecting my ideal.  I thought I was being realistic when I believed that there was no way that Current Occupant could have won, so I do have to alter my perception of reality I suppose.  I just fervently hope that reality in 2021 no longer includes Current Occupant.

There’s something to like about all the Democratic candidates.  For me, there is more to like about Warren and Buttigieg.  I like Sanders but both he and Biden are older than me.  That’s old.  I don’t think any of the others have any real chance.  I’m not actively supporting anyone until the primary (not like my great riches are going to make a difference). 

Another blogger, my friend Tom Strait, says he is not a Democrat but Independent.  I’m not a true blue Democrat either—but I would never ever, even on a dare, even for the Messiah if he finally came and ran for President as a Republican, vote for a Republican.  As long as we have a 2-party system, Democrat is the best choice.  When I was a child in New York City, there were a lot of Socialist and even Communists running for various offices.  If there are any today, they are extremely low profile. 

I AM actively supporting Lisa Ring for Congress and implore everyone in Congressional District 1 do the same.  The Current Representative is a clone of Current Occupant.  Even in Georgia, we can do better!

Post Mortem---or Pre Natal?

 

I now know what it’s like, in a relatively small way, to be a candidate for office.  I was in last place in the recent Special Election for GA House District 176 with 144 votes.  Bad:  last place.  Good: 144 people voted for ME!  My expectation was never to win, so I’m not disappointed.  Not happy that another person calling herself a Democrat got more votes than me, but not surprised that two Republicans now face a runoff.  This part of Georgia is and has been solidly red for a long time.  As Stacey Abrams said in 2013(above picture, in Jesup, GA) we must stand up and speak out!  The future is looking brighter, and I am proud to have been a small part of the effort.

What’s it like being a candidate?  I only did it in my spare time, but an upcoming election is like being in a bubble all the time.  A moving bubble.  Attending meetings, making phone calls and canvassing.  No matter where you are, you are always on stage, whether it’s your Facebook presence or going the grocery store.  Again, I did it in a small way, but I think of others like Stacey Abrams, Lisa Ring and AOC who have put their hearts, souls and bodies into what they believe in.  What a monumental sacrifice of self!  They are examples of three of the current group of powerful women who are changing the country.  Also examples of the potential of politics in the name of positive change as opposed to Republican self-serving greed for both money and power. 

What’s it like being a Democratic candidate on Facebook?  It’s being on the receiving end of massive amounts of hate.  I knew it was out there, but generally it wasn’t directed towards me.  This time it was—even though the haters had never met me and knew nothing about me.  Other than that I am a Democrat.  I can’t even imagine what it is like to be AOC and a self-identified Democratic Socialist.  Personally, being called a “baby-killer” and “Communist Muslim” doesn’t hurt; being told to “leave the state” (or the country) or to “drop dead” is meaningless.  I quickly deleted all the obscenities (there were quite a few).  It’s never been about me; I know who I am.  Those who know me also know who I am. 

This should make us all aware of what we’re up against.  A society that has allowed hate speech to blossom and facts to die on the vine.  When the “leader of the free world” can freely lie and be applauded, where our respected news outlets are called “fake news” anything goes!  Our new House of Representatives is the light IN (not at the end of) the tunnel allowing us to see the path ahead. 

To “my 144” (and the others who would have voted for me if they were in my District) I applaud your support and courage!  This is just the beginning!

August 16, 2014, A Sad Day in Waycross, GA

 

 

Today was a memorable day.  I was called a  “****ing idiot” on Facebook for the first time!  This, amazingly enough, was on a thread about the accidental shooting death of a child in Waycross.  You can probably guess what the argument was about.

If you agree with the name caller, you probably think I just blindly follow the “liberal agenda” and want to disarm the honest citizens that have loaded guns in their homes to defend themselves.  Further, you believe that if children are taught the safe use of weapons, they are protected.  In addition, if children are armed, they also can protect themselves.  The logical question is what are both adults and children protecting themselves from.

Scientific studies have agreed that the National Rifle Association’s number of “2.5 million” defensive shootings per year is an extravagant myth.  I’ll acknowledge that I haven’t read all the scientific studies, but I can cite two:  one from the National Journal of Epidemiology and another from the Violence Policy Center.  Both agree that the presence of a gun in the home correlates clearly with an increase in the number of both homicides and suicides.  The VPC states that the annual average of “self-protective behaviors involving firearms” is approximately 67,740.  This study used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice.  The VPC also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” compared with 8,275 criminal gun homicides in the same year, “not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings”.  And this:  the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.  Another agreement in this line of scientific research: “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home”.

I remember an early lesson in creative writing:  if a gun makes an appearance in the course of the story, it must be used at some point.  For me, that is analogous to having a gun in the home; it will be used.  And guns do kill people.  Handguns were created for that purpose.

I have also read a lengthy New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=print.  Its main tenet is that accidental shootings of children occur twice as often as recorded because of variations in classification in different jurisdictions.  In addition to actual available data, the huge lobby of the NRA publicizes its own data discounting the numbers and offering up their own.  The New York Times compiled their own study in 5 states: California, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio and Minnesota.  In the first four, they identified roughly twice as many accidental killings corresponding to the federal data.  In Minnesota, there were 50% more. 

Other interesting data:  60% of accidental firearm deaths involved handguns instead of long guns; and that percentage grows to 85% in children under 6.  Also, while most deaths are with older children, the third most common age is 3, and more than half of the self-inflicted shootings involve children 5 and under.  Very enlightening to me was an experimental study published in 2001 in the journal Pediatrics.  Researchers watched through a one-way mirror as boys ages 8-12 (in pairs) were left alone in examination room at a clinic in Atlanta.  An inoperative .38 caliber handgun was concealed in a cabinet drawer.  Within 15 minutes, ¾ of the 64 children involved in the study had found the gun.  2/3 of the boys handled the gun, 1/3 pulled the trigger and one child (following the NRAs directive to children) went to tell an adult about the gun.  This boy was ridiculed by his peers.  In addition, 90% of the boys said they had had gun safety education.  Dr. Kellerman, co-author of the study and dean at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences stated “Why, if we have childproof aspirin bottles, don’t we have childproof guns?”

Actually, the technology for childproof, or “smart guns” does exist, but the enormous lobbying power of the NRA has ensured that will never happen.  In fact, the lobbying power of the NRA controls everything about guns in this country and even repetitive mass shootings do not weaken their message.

I am positive my feelings and beliefs on this issue are not political in nature, but human and maternal.  There was a loaded gun in my home when my son was a child.  Of course, he knew guns were dangerous and that he shouldn’t touch it; he was an unusually smart kid.  However, first and foremost he was a kid.  Kids can be impulsive and boys are drawn to guns (shooters and victims are overwhelmingly male).  You can’t watch a boy ages 10-14 all the time; there will be the opportunity to seek out the forbidden.  I remember the feeling of terror that something like that could or would happen; the gun was not in the house for very long. 

I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but how can a parent even think of taking the risk of losing a child?  Things happen, not everything is preventable—but this one is.  Our children will always be at risk with bikes, skates, cars and even computers.  There is a minimum age for legally driving; most parents don’t want their young children behind the wheel of a car.  But an amazing number of people put guns in the hands of children as young as 3 or leave the guns where a toddler can pick it up. 

We all have different ideas and styles of parenting, but one thing stands alone and is universal throughout nature:  a parent’s primary job is to protect a child until he or she is old enough to do a fair job of it on their own.  To say that believing this is threatening the rights of all good, honest, god-fearing American citizens—is to say that there is something terribly wrong in the United States of America.

 

 

 

A SAD DAY IN WAYCROSS, GEORGIA -- August 16, 2014

 

Today was a memorable day.  I was called a  “****ing idiot” on Facebook for the first time!  This, amazingly enough, was on a thread about the accidental shooting death of a child in Waycross.  You can probably guess what the argument was about.

If you agree with the name caller, you probably think I just blindly follow the “liberal agenda” and want to disarm the honest citizens that have loaded guns in their homes to defend themselves.  Further, you believe that if children are taught the safe use of weapons, they are protected.  In addition, if children are armed, they also can protect themselves.  The logical question is what are both adults and children protecting themselves from.

Scientific studies have agreed that the National Rifle Association’s number of “2.5 million” defensive shootings per year is an extravagant myth.  I’ll acknowledge that I haven’t read all the scientific studies, but I can cite two:  one from the National Journal of Epidemiology and another from the Violence Policy Center.  Both agree that the presence of a gun in the home correlates clearly with an increase in the number of both homicides and suicides.  The VPC states that the annual average of “self-protective behaviors involving firearms” is approximately 67,740.  This study used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice.  The VPC also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” compared with 8,275 criminal gun homicides in the same year, “not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings”.  And this:  the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.  Another agreement in this line of scientific research: “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home”.

I remember an early lesson in creative writing:  if a gun makes an appearance in the course of the story, it must be used at some point.  For me, that is analogous to having a gun in the home; it will be used.  And guns do kill people.  Handguns were created for that purpose.

I have also read a lengthy New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=print.  Its main tenet is that accidental shootings of children occur twice as often as recorded because of variations in classification in different jurisdictions.  In addition to actual available data, the huge lobby of the NRA publicizes its own data discounting the numbers and offering up their own.  The New York Times compiled their own study in 5 states: California, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio and Minnesota.  In the first four, they identified roughly twice as many accidental killings corresponding to the federal data.  In Minnesota, there were 50% more. 

Other interesting data:  60% of accidental firearm deaths involved handguns instead of long guns; and that percentage grows to 85% in children under 6.  Also, while most deaths are with older children, the third most common age is 3, and more than half of the self-inflicted shootings involve children 5 and under.  Very enlightening to me was an experimental study published in 2001 in the journal Pediatrics.  Researchers watched through a one-way mirror as boys ages 8-12 (in pairs) were left alone in examination room at a clinic in Atlanta.  An inoperative .38 caliber handgun was concealed in a cabinet drawer.  Within 15 minutes, ¾ of the 64 children involved in the study had found the gun.  2/3 of the boys handled the gun, 1/3 pulled the trigger and one child (following the NRAs directive to children) went to tell an adult about the gun.  This boy was ridiculed by his peers.  In addition, 90% of the boys said they had had gun safety education.  Dr. Kellerman, co-author of the study and dean at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences stated “Why, if we have childproof aspirin bottles, don’t we have childproof guns?”

Actually, the technology for childproof, or “smart guns” does exist, but the enormous lobbying power of the NRA has ensured that will never happen.  In fact, the lobbying power of the NRA controls everything about guns in this country and even repetitive mass shootings do not weaken their message.

I am positive my feelings and beliefs on this issue are not political in nature, but human and maternal.  There was a loaded gun in my home when my son was a child.  Of course, he knew guns were dangerous and that he shouldn’t touch it; he was an unusually smart kid.  However, first and foremost he was a kid.  Kids can be impulsive and boys are drawn to guns (shooters and victims are overwhelmingly male).  You can’t watch a boy ages 10-14 all the time; there will be the opportunity to seek out the forbidden.  I remember the feeling of terror that something like that could or would happen; the gun was not in the house for very long. 

I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but how can a parent even think of taking the risk of losing a child?  Things happen, not everything is preventable—but this one is.  Our children will always be at risk with bikes, skates, cars and even computers.  There is a minimum age for legally driving; most parents don’t want their young children behind the wheel of a car.  But an amazing number of people put guns in the hands of children as young as 3 or leave the guns where a toddler can pick it up. 

We all have different ideas and styles of parenting, but one thing stands alone and is universal throughout nature:  a parent’s primary job is to protect a child until he or she is old enough to do a fair job of it on their own.  To say that believing this is threatening the rights of all good, honest, god-fearing American citizens—is to say that there is something terribly wrong in the United States of America.

 

 

 

A SAD DAY IN WAYCROSS, GEORGIA--August 16. 2014

 

 

Today was a memorable day.  I was called a  “****ing idiot” on Facebook for the first time!  This, amazingly enough, was on a thread about the accidental shooting death of a child in Waycross.  You can probably guess what the argument was about.

If you agree with the name caller, you probably think I just blindly follow the “liberal agenda” and want to disarm the honest citizens that have loaded guns in their homes to defend themselves.  Further, you believe that if children are taught the safe use of weapons, they are protected.  In addition, if children are armed, they also can protect themselves.  The logical question is what are both adults and children protecting themselves from.

Scientific studies have agreed that the National Rifle Association’s number of “2.5 million” defensive shootings per year is an extravagant myth.  I’ll acknowledge that I haven’t read all the scientific studies, but I can cite two:  one from the National Journal of Epidemiology and another from the Violence Policy Center.  Both agree that the presence of a gun in the home correlates clearly with an increase in the number of both homicides and suicides.  The VPC states that the annual average of “self-protective behaviors involving firearms” is approximately 67,740.  This study used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice.  The VPC also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” compared with 8,275 criminal gun homicides in the same year, “not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings”.  And this:  the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.  Another agreement in this line of scientific research: “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home”.

I remember an early lesson in creative writing:  if a gun makes an appearance in the course of the story, it must be used at some point.  For me, that is analogous to having a gun in the home; it will be used.  And guns do kill people.  Handguns were created for that purpose.

I have also read a lengthy New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=print.  Its main tenet is that accidental shootings of children occur twice as often as recorded because of variations in classification in different jurisdictions.  In addition to actual available data, the huge lobby of the NRA publicizes its own data discounting the numbers and offering up their own.  The New York Times compiled their own study in 5 states: California, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio and Minnesota.  In the first four, they identified roughly twice as many accidental killings corresponding to the federal data.  In Minnesota, there were 50% more. 

Other interesting data:  60% of accidental firearm deaths involved handguns instead of long guns; and that percentage grows to 85% in children under 6.  Also, while most deaths are with older children, the third most common age is 3, and more than half of the self-inflicted shootings involve children 5 and under.  Very enlightening to me was an experimental study published in 2001 in the journal Pediatrics.  Researchers watched through a one-way mirror as boys ages 8-12 (in pairs) were left alone in examination room at a clinic in Atlanta.  An inoperative .38 caliber handgun was concealed in a cabinet drawer.  Within 15 minutes, ¾ of the 64 children involved in the study had found the gun.  2/3 of the boys handled the gun, 1/3 pulled the trigger and one child (following the NRAs directive to children) went to tell an adult about the gun.  This boy was ridiculed by his peers.  In addition, 90% of the boys said they had had gun safety education.  Dr. Kellerman, co-author of the study and dean at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences stated “Why, if we have childproof aspirin bottles, don’t we have childproof guns?”

Actually, the technology for childproof, or “smart guns” does exist, but the enormous lobbying power of the NRA has ensured that will never happen.  In fact, the lobbying power of the NRA controls everything about guns in this country and even repetitive mass shootings do not weaken their message.

I am positive my feelings and beliefs on this issue are not political in nature, but human and maternal.  There was a loaded gun in my home when my son was a child.  Of course, he knew guns were dangerous and that he shouldn’t touch it; he was an unusually smart kid.  However, first and foremost he was a kid.  Kids can be impulsive and boys are drawn to guns (shooters and victims are overwhelmingly male).  You can’t watch a boy ages 10-14 all the time; there will be the opportunity to seek out the forbidden.  I remember the feeling of terror that something like that could or would happen; the gun was not in the house for very long. 

I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but how can a parent even think of taking the risk of losing a child?  Things happen, not everything is preventable—but this one is.  Our children will always be at risk with bikes, skates, cars and even computers.  There is a minimum age for legally driving; most parents don’t want their young children behind the wheel of a car.  But an amazing number of people put guns in the hands of children as young as 3 or leave the guns where a toddler can pick it up. 

We all have different ideas and styles of parenting, but one thing stands alone and is universal throughout nature:  a parent’s primary job is to protect a child until he or she is old enough to do a fair job of it on their own.  To say that believing this is threatening the rights of all good, honest, god-fearing American citizens—is to say that there is something terribly wrong in the United States of America.