Politics, Parenting, and Other Hazardous Pastimes

Fare Thee Well...HazPas!

2007-06-10T18:22:00.000-05:00

After a semi-successful test-run, wrought with the problems inherent in learning a new medium, I am pleased to announce the launch of my new blog: Pondering in Purple.

I will still cover autism and politics, however I will be adding elements of “life as I know it,” a stronger emphasis on my field(s) of choice (business, writing, science fiction and fantasy, ect.), with more variety, more regularity, and more fun. I’m still going to take blogging seriously, but I endeavor to demonstrate in my blog this pursuit I have of a more balanced and more fulfilling life. After all, "a life that isn't multi-faceted, like a fine jewel, isn't complete. A life that isn't complete won't be joyful and fulfilling."

“Pondering the myriad layers of life through my own purple lens,” is my theme. I hope you come calling and I hope you enjoy what you find.

Until then, here's a farewell gift:

BTW, for now I intend to keep HazPas for archival purposes. However, if in the future such a one finds this blog and desires this address, please let me know. If such a one comes along, I'd be willing to delete this blog to free up the space.

People Pushes

2007-02-25T15:05:00.000-06:00

Why? to push the wall
when the wall won't move
People move, play and laugh
try again and share
people are everywhere
Why? to push the wall
when the wall won't move
Walls to scale, walls to climb
walls to knock, knock about
walls won't keep me out
Why? to push the wall
when the wall won't move
People, a friend for me to have
to play and to push
to love and to squish
Why? to push the wall
when the wall won't move
To build a door through
to the people, I see
I prefer the people, please.

Okay, so poetry isn't really my thing. I dabble, but have never learned enough of the rules to do very well at it. Yet, when emotions bubble over with nowhere to go... I guess it doesn't really matter how well you do, as long as you do.

This particular poem, of course, takes context to make sense. And, to make it worse, the context is at least two-fold. Wall pushes are a therapy tool to help individuals with special sensory needs get the hard input they need. My son, Willy, never really liked wall pushes. He prefers people pushes, because he's actually interacting with someone as he gets this special form of input. Much better all the way around (though not nearly as independent). That's the simple layer. The other layer is, of course, frustration. Frustration with people erecting barriers for children with autism that serve no purpose other than to insulate them (the erectors) from their own fears. And...well, there's more to it than that, but I forebear. Obviously a poem can't be very good if you feel the need to explain it.

However, this post serves another function. After me initial bout of explosive frustration I felt the need to let those who might care know that I'm going to find another blog host. That seems the best solution to me. Ideally, I'd like to find one that can suck this blog dry and carry the posts to the other one. However, that may not be possible. We'll see.

But, after all, I'm not exactly the quitting sort. I'm far too stubborn. But, nor am I the sort to put up with needless frustrations. It's all a process. I guess I'll just have to see where it leads me... and how many readers are willing to follow.

Bad Blogger

2007-02-24T19:04:00.000-06:00

Sorry, folks. I tried fixing...or at least reporting the problem, and I couldn't even do that. Just a myriad of circles that didn't even touch on this particular problem with no means of reporting their screw-up.

Blogging without an identity seems completely pointless to me. I'm going to mull over the decision for a week, look for a fix, but if nothing comes of it I will delete my blog March 4th.

Psychological Reflections, Part 1

2007-02-23T22:37:00.000-06:00

In Conflict

Back when my baby (now 4) was born, I had some serious bouts with gall stones. It was very painful...worse than labor because it came back. Anything, anything to avoid surgery, I took a draught of sarsaparilla as a homeopathic remedy. And it worked. Unfortunately, the best source of sarsaparilla I could find was a liquid extract that's combined with burdock. The flavor is a nasty bit of bitterness. Nasty to the point of postponing dosages until the pain of the gall stone attack is severe. Nasty, nasty.

The psychology course I just took was much like that sarsaparilla/burdock concotion. Good for me, yes, but nasty going down. First things first, I earned my A. I was doiling for a while there (meaning I was hovering around a low A-, which is dangerous territory), but I hunkered down and brought it up to a low A. Yay me. No, really, I'm enthused.

*sigh*

Perhaps it's just the timing. At home, we were having struggles on a different psychological front. The boys' autism therapy is an intensive in-home behavioral therapy, with a psychologist as the lead. To say the least, we do not see eye to eye...on so many things. One of those things is Ben. Ben, my baby, is not yet in therapy. Thus, he roams about the house playing as he pleases...as kids do. For some, this is a problem. Ben likes to play with therapy toys, he likes to scribble with pens that are left in his reach, and *gasp* he likes to climb on furniture and counters. So, our own therapists call CPS.

Each time, the accusation is unsubstantiated. But...I'm on first-name-basis with the CPS social worker. Good: I can go to her when we need bureaucratic help; she's on "our" side, meaning that she's aware of our struggles, our efforts, and is rootin' for our success because we're NOT neglectful or abusive. Bad: We're being accused of criminal neglect by therapists who are working with our boys in our own home. This started full-swing when the lead psychologist was changed to the current individual. Coincidence? Hmm. And...the last straw was when one of these therapists (against regulations?) called the cops. Nobody is quite sure why. The cops weren't even sure. But they came, they saw, they noted, and they left. The cops were fine, and we've got nothing to hide, but that's going too far.

Now, I just want to take a break and point out that I don't have a problem with either CPS or the cops. They both have an unfortunately necessary job. However, aside from the invasiveness of it all -- which again, we've got nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me -- there's the citizenry aspects. These people are paid by my property taxes. They do have a job to do. That job is to help those children (and for the cops, everyone) who needs it. If they're coming here, how many other unnecessary tasks are they doing? They both have limited resources, how much of those resources are being wasted because someone's either vindictive or covering their butt? This worries me a great deal. Did some little child not get the help he or she needed, because CPS had to come to my house? Did some family lack help, because the cops were over here? I see this waste of resources as a problem.

*sigh*

So, I admit my mind wasn't happy-go-lucky on the side of psychology during this course. I've had more bad run-ins with psychologists than I've had good. Now, the good ones have been outstandingly wonderful, but still... I admit there's the possibility that I wasn't as open-minded as I should have been. However, I would also say, in my defense, that I try to look at each area of interest through a critically thinking mind. This means, I try to remain open to the possibility, but I also reserve my right to skepticism. This is all well and good when applied to psuedopsychology, but apply it to the real thing... It's strange that some people seem to see critical thinking as a challenge to their authority, especially when a (small) portion of their class is about the ideal of using critical thinking. Then again, that my teacher felt I challenged her authority was my perception; I grant it may not have been accurate.

Anywho...we didn't get off on the right foot. And my asking questions (in class) and getting, "That is beyond the scope of this class" in return didn't help. Damn, those words annoy me. The response on the tip of my tongue, which my respect for authority refuses to let loose, is, "So? Answer the question anyway." Besides, I mentioned neurodiversity and, with some few exceptions, that builds a barrier between psychologists and myself.

Despite this wrong-footed-ness, I did learn quite a bit. My previous psychology class was all Freudian and limited and gross, and most of my personal experience and knowledge of psychology pertains to "abnormal" psychology. (Just a side-note: Considering the statistics of how prevalent "abnormal" psychology is, can it really be that "ab"normal? Hmm.) So, there was definitely room for the gaining of knowledge, which I usually enjoy.

One of the things I learned about psychology is that the level of agreement I thought there was on the validity of certain psychological claims (perceived due to my own limited experience) was much over-stated. Freudian psychology, behavioral psychology, and medicinal psychology are NOT perceived as 100% on the dot right even by other psychologists. Color me shocked! (Perhaps a grayish shade of purple with some orangey tones?)

To quote Psychology Wiki:

In terms of modern science, we have also passed through many different perspectives in the brief history of Psychology. Psychoanalysis, Behaviourism, Humanism, Cognitive Psychology and now Biopsychology and Imaging paradigms have often replaced one another as the dominant viewpoint. Whilst they often compliment one another, it cannot be denied that there is sometimes considerable conflict between the opposing viewpoints, and they certainly compete, in terms of funding if not in terms of content.

Genuine surprise. The front that behavioral, biopsychological, and psychoanalytical psychologists put up seems so...united, insurmountable, and damned-sure. By rejecting that surety (and thus aspects of those disciplines), I do not have to reject psychology altogether. Whodathunkit?

Amongst the theories, possibilities, and differences, I found myself a psychological life-boat. And tomorrow, I'll tell you what it is...

*this is Stephanie, not Mark*
:-P to Blogger

Cottonelle, Stress, and Blogger

2007-02-23T02:51:00.000-06:00

Public Service Announcement: Do NOT use Cottonelle toilet paper!!! Especially if it has ripples.

The stuff backed up both our toilets, cost us $60 in drain cleaning supplies, and one of our toilets is still unusable. Worse thing...when I went into the hardware store the second time in the same day to buy the really heavy-duty acidic drain cleaner (the stuff I use for the floor drain for my washer) the helper named the toilet paper brand. Obviously, it's not merely our toilets that are fussy.

This has merely added to our stress. Therapy has been a problem, but we're working on that. Classes, of course. And life in general. I swear, I have no immune system left to fight off this lovely sinus infection I'm getting.

And...to top it off, Blogger Beta is now the only blogger available, and since I didn't want yet another e-mail account :-P, I tried to sign in under Mark's account. Now I'm gone, erased, vanished, assimilated into Mark's identity. Ironic that marriage didn't do that, but Blogger could. Still waiting on a fix. But...if you're wondering...it's still me. Mark wouldn't complain so publicly.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2007-02-05T21:54:00.000-06:00

DIRTY TEXAS POLITICS: PART TWO

UPDATES TO THE BORDER PATROL CASE

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

All audio files pertaining to this Border Patrol update are archived at Euphoric Reality. They are interviews with Congressman Ted Poe and investigative journalist Dr. Jerome Corsi as conducted by Houston & Dallas radio talk show hosts Edd Hendee and Pat Gray for KSEV and KVEC radio.

Quite a lot has been developing over the past two weeks, since GTB published a list of highly suspicious inconsistencies in the prosecution's case against Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos. Namely, the prosecution's case is unraveling. And none too soon, since both agents have been incarcerated in federal prisons since the first week of January, one in Ohio and the other in Mississippi, far from loved ones.

Before we get into the details of new evidence recently come to light, I need to submit a correction to my previous coverage, and an update.

CORRECTION: First, I cited the irregularity of the court being unable to finish the transcripts for the case in the six months since the trial. (Usually, transcripts are completed within a matter of days.) In fact, it has not been six months since the trial, but six months since the sentencing. It has actually been 11 months since the trial was completed in March of 2006. During that time frame, the court's reason for the unfinished court transcripts has been that "the court transcriptionist has been sick." I submit to you that after 11 months of "illness" - so ill as to make moving one's fingers feebly across a keyboard impossible - someone needs to get that poor transcriptionist a doctor!

UPDATE: I had previously reported that Congressman Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, had failed to subpoena documents concerning the case, and refused to hold a hearing to review the case, which was within his purview. I noted that Michael McCaul is a former employee of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Since then, McCaul has made public statements in Houston, TX, that under the auspices of his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations he repeatedly (four times) requested to review the documents concerning the case, and for months, he was stonewalled. He said he trusted his fellow Republicans, including the DHS-IG Richard Skinner and the DHS chief Michael Chertoff when they gave him every assurance that he would be provided with the trial documentation. He admits he made a mistake to trust them, when he sent letters instead of issuing a subpoena.

Unfortunately, now that McCaul is no longer chairman of that committee it is too late. After the Democrats took control in January, he’s been told by Richard Skinner, the Inspector General: “You’re not the chairman anymore. You’re in the minority. You’ll have to get the information through an FOIA request.”

Meanwhile, the feds have continued to stonewall a group of concerned U.S. Congressmen who have repeatedly requested the documentation surrounding the case. Below is audio of Congressman Ted Poe, citing the delay tactics and the unprecedented behavior of US Attorney Johnny Sutton. As well, Poe has already submitted an emergency FOIA request.

Poe expressed concern that he is not sure the jury in the Ramos and Compean case got all the information the government had concerning the relevant facts of the case.

"When the government does backroom deals with criminals, like this habitual drug offender from Mexico, the public, and especially the defendants, have an absolute right to know what the deal was and how it came about," he said. "Maybe the jury heard it, and maybe the jury didn't hear it, but we will find out."

Many of the factual aspects of the case are now being disputed by investigators, including the ballistics investigation into the weapons fired and the round subsequently extracted from the left buttocks and right groin of the drug smuggler by a U.S. Army doctor.

"For all we know," Poe commented, "the drug smuggler seemed to be pointing back at the Border Patrol agents with what could have been something in his hand based on the ballistics reports I am seeing. U.S. Attorney (Johnny) Sutton says the guy was shot in the buttocks. Well, now we find out that that isn't exactly accurate. The guy was shot from 'cheek-to-cheek,' or maybe from the side of his left buttocks to his right groin. There's a big difference in those two statements. You don't have to be a ballistics expert to understand that the body was turned if the bullet went from one cheek to the other cheek, or from the left cheek to the right groin."

Poe repeated that his office was determined to get to the bottom of these investigative questions. "In the big scheme of things, let's assume that the Border Patrol agents violated policy. Assume they didn't file a report even though the law says that they were only required to file an oral report to the supervisor," he asked. "There was no requirement in this instance that they file a written report. Okay, let's discipline the Border Patrol agents, you bet. Let's give them three-day's suspension like the rules call for."

Poe questioned the judgment of U.S. Attorney Sutton, asking "why does the federal government here have a choice to prosecute a guy bringing in a million dollars worth of drugs or prosecute Border Patrol agents who were doing their job, yet the government chose to prosecute the Border Patrol? "Why is the federal government spending so many federal taxpayer resources prosecuting federal Border Patrol agents trying to stop drug smugglers, especially when it means making deals with drug offenders?" he continued. "That's the bigger question in my mind."

Poe agreed the prosecution would put a chilling effect on other Border Patrol agents.

"That's a war zone on the Texas-Mexico border," he said. "It's an undeclared war that's taking place. You have aggressive Border Patrol agents like Ramos and Compean, who are protecting the country, and yet they are vilified and prosecuted by our own government. The next time you have a similar situation with a different Border Patrol agent, the Border Patrol agent will hesitate before they put their life or their career in danger."

Poe called the Ramos and Compean case "the best news drug dealers have ever heard."

Additionally, it is noted that White House press secretary Tony Snow has repeatedly dismissed questions surrounding the Border Patrol case and has said several times that if one were to "read the transcripts", one would see that the agents were properly charged and convicted. According to Tony Snow (read The White House), the Border Patrol agents were "the bad guys". However, since then, it has become obvious that Tony Snow has himself not read the court transcripts for one very simple reason - they do not exist! Tony Snow was bluffing!

Furthermore, Tony Snow and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) have both said that the "legal system has worked" in this case, as will the appellate process. That's all well and good, except that the process is broken! Did you know that the defense attorneys cannot file an appeal until they have all the facts of the case in hand? That includes the non-existent court transcripts. The Border Patrol agents, currently incarcerated, are being denied their right to an appeal, because the Western Texas court refuses to complete the court transcripts!

Below I list seven major inconsistencies (in addition to the ones already documented in our previous coverage) in the tainted case U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton crafted against the Border Patrol agents. Dr. Jerome Corsi, the author of Unfit For Command, has done some deep investigative work on this case and has presented his factual findings in a series of articles published by World Net Daily. I understand that some readers typically dismiss WND coverage as being "too conservative", but I challenge anyone to read the findings and try to find holes in Corsi's investigation. I haven't found any yet.

Audio of a local radio interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi is included in an .mp3 file below.

1. Johnny Sutton has claimed over and over, both in public statements and in his infamous fact sheet, that the drug smuggler was unarmed. Sutton has failed to prove that, yet continues to assert it as a fact of the case. It is NOT! Nor is it reasonable to believe a life-long criminal over two law enforcement officers, especially when the criminal is contradicted by statements from his own family, and by the known behavior of smugglers in the area. It is not reasonable.

2. Sutton has claimed that the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, could not be tied to the van full of $1 million worth of dope. He also has said that the BP agents were unable to identify him.

Sutton told WND "there was no way we could prosecute" Aldrete-Davila.

"Ramos and Compean could not identify him," he said. "We found no fingerprints on the van, and he managed to escape, even though he had been shot in the behind by the agents."

Nevertheless, Sutton's office was able to track down Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and convince him to return to the U.S. to testify against Ramos and Compean. The bullet was removed from the smuggler's buttocks by a military physician in the U.S. so it could be introduced as evidence in the agents' trial.

How then, was Sutton able to later locate Aldrete-Davila in Mexico to offer him an immunity deal? If the drug smuggler could not be tied to the crime of smuggling drugs, how then could he be tied to the shooting incident with the BP agents?

3. Sutton claimed in court that BP agent Ramos was guilty of shooting Aldrete-Davila in the buttock. However, the ballistics analysis has been flagged as inconclusive, and contrary to Sutton's statements does not prove that the bullet came from Ramos' weapon.

WND: So, Compean shot 14 times and missed everybody, but Ramos shot one time and hit the drug dealer in the buttocks?

Sutton: That's correct.

WND: Is Ramos that much better a shot than Compean?

Sutton: Ramos is a marksman.

The results of the ballistics tests were reported in a letter written by Joseph J. J. Correa, a Criminalist IV with the Texas DPS El Paso Laboratory, March 18, 2005, and addressed to Brian D. Carter of DHS in El Paso.

The letter states Correa examined one fired copper-jacketed bullet presented to him by Carter on March 17, 2005. The letter identifies the victim shot by the bullet as "Osvaldo Aldrete."

In the letter, Correa notes that he was asked to determine the manufacture of the firearm that fired the submitted bullet.

Correa could not positively identify Ramos's weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:

The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.

Despite the impossibility of identifying the weapon the bullet was fired from - it could've been any number of pistols from FOUR major arms manufacturers - DHS agent Christopher Sanchez lied under oath in an affidavit filed by DHS March 15, 2005, with the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas. Special agent Christopher R. Sanchez swore the following:

Ballistics testing confirms a government-issued weapon belonging to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos, a 96D Beretta .40 caliber automatic pistol, serial number BER067069M, fired a bullet (a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson jacketed hollow point) which hit the victim in the left buttocks while he was attempting to flee to Mexico.

4. Sutton repeatedly has said there was no evidence at the scene that would have permitted his office to investigate, find, and prosecute Aldrete-Davila. He has also repeatedly claimed that no fingerprints were found inside the van. I noted in our previous coverage that that was highly unlikely - even impossible. Now, a DHS memo reveals that eleven fingerprints were found inside the van. The memo also documents that no fingerprint search was conducted on the vehicle until a full month after the Feb. 17, 2005, incident! That indicates no serious effort on Sutton's part to identify the driver of the van (thus identifying the criminal) and as well, highlights egregious mishandling of the chain of evidence.

5. Sutton cannot keep his own lies straight. He has recently stated that a Mexican lawyer brought Aldrete-Davila forward, without revealing the drug smuggler's identity, but would not cooperate until immunity had been granted. However, according to Sutton's own previous statements, Aldrete-Davila was identified by his family and life-long friend BP agent Rene Sanchez.

DHS investigative memos make clear that Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez in Wilcox, Ariz., identified Aldrete-Davila only days after the Feb. 17, 2005 incident, obtaining his information through family connections. Sanchez grew up with Aldrete-Davila in Mexico.

The information about Aldrete-Davila's identity was then passed on by Sanchez to DHS special agent Christopher Sanchez, who went to Mexico and found Aldrete-Davila.

This Christopher Sanchez is the same DHS special agent the DHS memo on the fingerprints says received the videotape of the El Paso Police Department fingerprint search on the drug smuggler's abandoned vehicle.

6. Sutton has claimed that Compean and Ramos attempted to "cover-up" the fact that they discharged their weapons and has made a big deal out of the fact that they policed their spent shell casings and filed fraudulent paperwork. However, that is not true. There were at least five BP agents on the scene that day, and all of them knew of the shooting. As well, Compean and Ramos made a verbal report to their supervisor. They did not file a written report.

7. The latest reports coming out of West Texas are that the agents actually present during the shooting incident do not match the agents presented by Sutton to the court as witnesses. I will update this allegation further as more information becomes available.

Finally, this week, despite the total lack of a court transcript, some long-awaited incident reports regarding the case were delivered to Congress but have been classified secret from the general public. The Congressional Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investment and Oversight obtained the report after submitting an emergency Freedom of Information Act request for the documents.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, said he will not review the classified documents until they are made available to the public. Poe expects a redacted version will be made available.

Lastly, if you are touched by the plight of these agents and would like to do something to help, a labor union, the National Border Patrol Council, is soliciting donations on its website.

All donations that are designated for Agents Ramos and Compean will be used to fund their legal defense and assist their families in their hour of need. Donations to the fund can be made by check payable to 'BPA Legal Defense & Relief Fund.' Checks should be mailed to: BPA Legal Defense & Relief Fund, P.O. Box 47208, Tampa, FL 33647.

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders syndicate. It was started by Euphoric Reality to educate the public about the vulnerabilities of our open borders during an age of global terrorism and the resultant threat to our national security and sovereignty. If you are concerned about the lapses in our national security and the socio-economic burden of unchecked illegal immigration, join our blog syndicate. Send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Not Up to Much

2007-01-27T02:56:00.000-06:00

While I've been trying to figure a way to streamline my study process while retaining my grades, thus freeing up some time for other activities during those terms (like this one) that I'm taking two excelerated classes, I haven't been doing much else. Which is why I haven't thought of anything worth posting on, at least nothing that's not homework related.

However, I do occasionally need some down-time, and video games fill that need. It's got to be simple and easy to leave (which doesn't include the compulsive factor), so I can get in and out between assignments/tasks/annoying paragraphs. After besting my own time a dozen or so times on Minesweeper, I decided to try the site my kids are loving.

And I found this...

***Sorry, the annoying game is gone. There is a link below. As to the why, I recommend this site for a clue.***

A bigger (accurately sized) version is available here. There's lots more games there, and they're all free. Maybe they decided to fill the spot Yahoo! charged itself out of. :-p

Psst. There's a WAR Going on...

2007-01-12T00:23:00.000-06:00

A bi-partisan study group recommends we talk to Iran and Syria -- make them our friends, garner their cooperation. And yet, we find our own already-established allegiances questionable and unsure in this unstable region.

Is Pakistan our friend?

Perhaps this is a major victory for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Perhaps some real enemies have been stopped, eliminated, before they could wreak more havoc. But, as the tenuous situation unfolds, I have to ask: Can we trust the Pakistani government? Or, are they harboring the Taliban?

All governments are made of individuals. If the Pakistani government is harboring the Taliban, I suspect it is a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...or however that cliche goes. I doubt the entire Pakistani government is intentionally deceiving both us and the Afghani government. And yet... I find it hard to believe that the entire government is innocent here, either.

I'll put it to you this way. Our government doesn't necessary work cooperatively with the drug lords on our southern border, but they do give them a bit of a thumbs up when they tell our troops they cannot fire on invaders in our own backyard. Our government is responsible for the militant infiltrators, whether they work cooperatively with them or not. In this same sense, the Pakistani government is responsible for the Taliban infiltrators, whether they work cooperatively with them or not.

With that parallel in mind, I would say that Karzai's frustration and accusations are completely understandable. I'm none too happy with our own government's near-cooperative lack-of-effort; having your neighbor and supposed friend making empty promises when you're in the middle of an acknowledged war has got to be all that and more.

More disturbing still is the lack of national attention this is getting. Mostly, I just skim head-lines. As frequent readers know, I'm neither a newshound, nor someone with an excess of time on my hands. So, I find it incredibly frustrating that I have to search around and hunt for news about an on-going war we're in. I mean, really...that's just idiotic. (Maybe one of these days I'll have to figure out that whole RS thing...or whatever it is...the news line services.)

So, while Rice and Gates are supporting the President in his futile bid to build up to nothing in Iraq, we have a major battle in Afghanistan that's apparently too unimportant for their time. So, I've got to ask...shouldn't supporting the troops, which our President claims to do, mean supporting the troops in both wars?

Political gas?

2007-01-10T22:50:00.000-06:00

Probably. But still, Bush actually apologized!!! No, wait. That's an exaggeration. He took responsibility, that's it. I'm thinking, "DUH!!!"

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.

Yeah, well, we knew that. Thank you, so much, for the clarification. *rolls eyes*

He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi
government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an
unimaginable scale."

Yeah, and I agree with that. However, I wonder if he realizes that many people don't care any more. Now, that doesn't say much for American empathy/apathy...but, again, we pretty much knew that.

The only encouraging thing about all this...

But he offered a concession to Congress — the establishment of a bipartisan working group to formalize regular consultations on Iraq. He said he was open to future exchanges and better ideas.

Now, does he mean it? Will it work? I don't know. And, I doubt it. Frankly, I don't trust the new Congress any more than I trust the old Congress, or the President for that matter. Their all smarmy, schmucky, and corrupted by their own affluence-at-the-expense-of-our-nation thinking.
:-P

Mostly, it's just politics as usual. Bored now.

Classes Starting

2007-01-09T16:57:00.000-06:00

Though the official start date for my classes this term isn't until tomorrow, I've already started working on my assignments. Ah, the luxury of on-line learning!

What I've discovered is that, while I may be more motivated to learn the material in my business class, the work-load there is significantly lighter than for my psychology class. The good news, however, is that the material for my current psychology is almost completely different from the material I studied in my previous college psychology class (back when I was in high school). I'm glad I won't be bored.

Still, I wish the business class was the 4 credit class and psychology was the 3 credit class, but I don't control that, obviously. Still, it's not that I'm not interested in psychology (okay, so Freud and Jung make me want to pull out my hair, but really...psychology is way more than them), it's just that business is my major and I'm a little tired of all the general education classes that keep repeating the same material over and over again -- here's how you study, here's how you think critically, here's how you research... On and on it goes. I've "learned" critical thinking three times, already, with a fourth on the way, just in this degree program, and I haven't even taken my Critical Thinking class yet. Granted, critical thinking is important; I know and respect that. But, is all this repetition really necessary?

Anyway, I'm actually learning aspects of psychology that I didn't know...like that Maslow was a humanist, and that it wasn't (from the way the textbook describes it) intended to be an alternative to religion/spirituality. Interesting stuff. But, even though school has started, I haven't forgotten my resolutions, and blogging is on there. And that's somewhere between Love/Belonging and Self-Actualization.

Exclusive Guard the Borders Blogburst

2007-01-08T20:48:00.000-06:00

By Heidi Thiess at Euphoric Reality

The incursion into U.S. territory last week by “Mexican gunmen” was not a chance confrontation between the Arizona National Guard and untrained illegal immigrants, but a deliberate “perimeter probe” by an infantry-trained, uniformed Mexican force, officials say.

Euphoric Reality has learned in exclusive interviews with high-ranking sources within both the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol that the incident the mainstream media calls a “standoff” was in reality a military-style operation, carried out by a unit of Mexican troops dressed in military uniforms, flak jackets, and armed with AK-47s in an apparent operation to probe the border defenses and test the limits of the National Guard troops. Using easily recognizable infantry movement tactics (such as arm and hand signals and flanking maneuvers), the Mexican unit deliberately moved in a military formation across the border from Mexico, while under surveillance by the National Guard and Border Patrol.

As the hostile force moved north over several hours, deeper into Arizona, National Guardsmen wearing night vision goggles were able to ascertain that the approaching gunmen were indeed uniformed (including PAGST helmets) and heavily armed. When the Mexican unit came within approximately 100 yards of the EIT site, the Guardsmen repositioned themselves in order to maintain surveillance and tactical advantage. They observed the Mexican unit sweep through the EIT site, and then rapidly withdraw back into Mexico. No shots were fired by either the Mexican gunmen or the Guardsmen. Border Patrol was on the scene within minutes of the Mexican unit's withdrawal.

The Guardsmen, through an Arizona Border Patrol official, confirmed that the incident appeared to be an intelligence-gathering exercise designed to ascertain what the National Guard's response would be to certain tactics. It is not an isolated incident, and many such probes have been reported by the Guardsmen assigned to the area. Though no shots were fired during this particular incident, shots have been fired near and in the vicinity of the soldiers at the EIT site in other situations, though not at the soldiers themselves. It is not clear from the uniforms if the Mexican soldiers were official Mexican federales or mercenaries hired by the drug cartels.

Since then, follow-on news reports have included statements from the Border Patrol that no shots were fired. This was confirmed today by Major Paul Aguirre, a Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for the Arizona National Guard. Rumors have circulated that the Guardsmen were not armed, and thus unable to defend themselves - and that is not the case. Both Major Aguirre and Rob Daniels, a Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Arizona Border Patrol, state that all Guardsmen assigned to EITs are armed, specifically with M16s and sometimes a sidearm. As well, there have been some contradictory news reports that stated the gunmen came "within yards" of the Guardsmen, while other reports state that the gunmen were approximately 100 yards away. Mr. Daniels clarified that the gunmen came as close as 100 yards to the Guardsmen. He also stated that the Guardsmen did not "retreat" but tactically repositioned themselves to maintain surveillance of the group of armed men while simultaneously radioing for Border Patrol agents. He asserted that the Guardsmen had followed their protocols perfectly, and that their services were invaluable to the Border Patrol agents.

The Myth of Troops Bringing Law Enforcement to the Border

National Guard soldiers on the border are volunteers deployed by the federal government for Operation Jump Start. They are not mandated to perform law enforcement activities and, in fact, are prohibited from doing so under a misinterpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act while federally deployed. They are assigned to the border mission for the sole purpose of supporting the Border Patrol - mostly performing administrative, engineering, and maintenance duties that free up Border Patrol agents for border enforcement.

The ramifications of this incident hitting the public awareness are significant. There are incidents on the record of specially-trained military commandos attacking Border Patrol agents, and videos in existence of uniformed Mexicans, deep in American territory, angrily confronting Arizona Minutemen volunteers. Hundreds of armed incursions have been documented by the Border Patrol. In one year, June 2005 until June 2006, over 250 armed assaults have been reported by Border Patrol agents, and several agents have been killed.

Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, has gone on the record to dismiss reports of armed incursions by a uniformed military force as "navigational mistakes", claiming that the Mexican soldiers were "lost.” However, Chertoff offered no explanation as to why these “lost troops” fired on American agents. The Mexican government claims that uniformed military soldiers coming from Mexico are actually American soldiers disguised as Mexican soldiers. Furthermore, when confronted with the possibility that Mexican commandos called Los Zetas, trained by U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg to support the Drug War, have defected from the military and now work as mercenaries for the drug cartels, Mexican officials have worked very hard to debunk such evidence. In an official report presented to the U.S. on behalf of the Mexican Office of Inter-Intelligence Affairs, Mexico claimed that “the Zeta army, or syndicate, is no more real than the [mystical] crying lady of Puebla.”

Yet, contrary to Mexican denials, Los Zetas do exist, and the U.S. Border Patrol is very familiar with them. In a June 2006 investigative news piece by News Channel 5 in Texas, Zetas discussed their training and murderous missions. They also issued a warning:

“These two members of the Zeta army also have a warning for American law enforcement: They are here, with cells operating in Roma, Rio Grande City and Mission - and more are coming. ‘It is not a lie,’ Zeta-2 said. ‘They need to check good, because it is true.’"

Los Zetas: Guns Gone Bad

During the 1990s, U.S. Army Special Forces trained a number of Mexican federal agents and army units in special warfare tactics as part of an effort to aid the struggling Mexican government in the Drug War involving the violent drug cartels of northern Mexico. It's been said that "the training was remedial in nature, and did not exceed international peace time law of NATO forces training foreign combat forces in tactical warfare." Lest we worry about the operational proficiency of such mercenaries, Wikipedia has this un-attributed entry:

“The training lasted a mere three months in the sweltering North Carolina heat. In total, 300 Mexican agents and army officers participated in the summer long exercise. Years later, unsealed documents revealed that the training proved to be no more than an extended boot camp. "It was more a media and propaganda effort then it was for actual tactical training that could be used in combat," one of the US Special Forces Officers that participated in the effort stated. "They brought them [sic] boys here, and most of them could fire a gun already, so we just showed them a lot of video of Special Forces training from the early 70's. We were not about to teach or display tactics that make Special Forces what they are. That's why when I read that these boys that are 'Zetas' were Special Forces trained, I almost wet myself with laughter.’”

What the Zetas may lack in professional specialized training, they make up for in ruthless and savage violence. Last year, Times Magazine exposed much of the brutality in an article called Brutal New Drug Gangs Are Terrorizing The U.S.-Mexico Border, and added further information about the identity of Los Zetas.

"According to Mexican officials, Lazcano was a clean-cut Mexican army recruit from the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz when he was picked a decade ago to be part of the highly trained Airborne Special Forces Group. The unit was sent to the eastern border to battle drug trafficking. But in the late 1990s, Lazcano and more than 30 other members of the special forces began working for drug lord Osiel Cardenas, head of the Matamoros-based Gulf cartel, which at the time controlled almost one-third of the Mexican drug trade."

Official Mexican propaganda notwithstanding, it can be safely assumed that the Zetas are a paramilitary force that has made regular incursions over our border in sometimes heavily-armed assaults. Whether they are actual Mexican federales or uniformed mercenaries in the employ of the drug cartels remains to be seen. Perhaps a small clue to the uniforms is found in last year's News Channel Five investigative report:

“‘The municipal police, the state police, the ministerial police, the police of the state,’ Zeta-1 said. ‘The soldiers and the federal preventive police. The military on the border. They are bought by the Zetas.’ The Zeta's tools even include uniforms given by the police themselves.”

Regardless of who the uniformed soldiers are, or who commands them, what is paramount is that our southern border security is breached by foreign troops on an increasingly aggressive basis. While our National Guard troops are effectively hamstrung by political restrictions, foreign military soldiers press the advantage. Border Patrol agents have already given their lives in a heroic effort to guard our border, and it is only a matter of time before we lose American soldiers. Is that what it will take for our government to finally take the matter of border security seriously? This is no longer a matter of local civilian law enforcement; it is a matter of national security. For politicians, no matter their affiliation, to play partisan games with our national safety and security, is a betrayal of their constituents' trust, and the constitutional duties of their office.

Kit Jarrell also contributed to this report.

_____________________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Nesting Instinct

2007-01-05T11:20:00.000-06:00

With all three of my pregnancies I got rather sick. Morning sickness remained throughout my pregnancies and sapped me of my strength. When I was pregnant with my oldest, Willy, it was the worse. For several months we couldn't understand why I tended to feel somewhat better outside our apartment, and worse in our living room. During the visit of a friend of ours, it clicked in Mark's mind that there must be something in the living room that was aggrivating my condition.

My mother-in-law gave us a couch...but not just any couch. This couch had been in Mark's sister's basement and, as far as this sister knew, the couch was being thrown away...unbeknownest to her, or us, it was being "thrown away" into our living room. Mark was in a manic phase, and had a male companion to help, so when they investigated the couch and found a strange, pink mold...they tore it apart piece by piece and threw it out the window into the alley. They did transport it to the dump after that, but initially they threw it out the window. Slowly, I recovered from the drain and was able to "nest" our apartment in preparations for our arriving child.

With each child, despite the weakness brought about by severe morning sickness (that wasn't all because of the couch), I would "nest." For those unfamiliar with the concept, it's like spring cleaning...and then some.

No, I'm not dwelling on this because I'm pregnant. I'm dwelling on this because birth is not the only form of creation in which I partake. As those who've read my resolutions for this year are aware, I'm committing (or re-committing) myself to some major creative projects which are going to be long-term and are going to require a lot of thought, energy and devotion. And it just occurred to me...I go through that same "nesting" process prior to such projects.

At first, I thought of it as productive procrastination. Besides, the house needed to be clean anyway and it's much easier to work on said projects with my desk and writing table unearthed from the rubble of the paper volcanoes that go off every December. But, as I'm exhausted and rather loopy from lack of sleep (because I didn't take HistoryMike's advice!) my mind started dwelling on previous endeavors. My successes, my failures, and my processes...and my procrastination, which truly is a problem for me. However, I also realized that before I truly committed myself to a consuming creative project, I would always clean first. Kind of like wiping the slate before beginning anew.

Perhaps it's just the sleep-debt, but then again...my post-clean writing sessions tend to be rather productive, with a high degree of committment. Could I have stumbled upon some sort of insight into how my mind/body ticks? Then again, maybe I should just go to bed.

Please excuse any gross violations of the English language that may or may not be present here. I'm serious about the sleep-debt...I owe myself big time!

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Me

2007-01-03T21:05:00.000-06:00

Well, I've been tagged by Reverse_Vampyr, and so here they are:

5 Things You Don't Know About Me

I've tried to read Moby Dick three (maybe 4) times, and have never gotten past page 50; and yet, I can usually read a 1000+ page fantasy epic in three days despite my other obligations.
I'm one of those annoying people who talk during the movie (albeit quietly)...and, when I'm at home, I get near-hysterically involved in the story. After nearly nine years of marriage, my husband has finally stopped asking, "Are you okay?"
If I were offered the chance to trade my current existence for the butt-kicking life-style of a Buffy/Sydney type bad-guy-beating martial artist, I would have to seriously consider it. Which I find rather disturbing...but, how cool would that be!?!
I haven't weighed less than 200 lbs. since my first son was born. I'm neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with this, but perhaps surprisingly so, it's not the reason I don't like my picture taken...I just always seem to be between facial expressions when the image is actually captured and it looks very odd.
The third short story I ever completed was a pornographic revenge story that involved the unanesthetized removal of certain portions of a man's genitalia, which I sent to my uncle who was in prison for revision. He told me it wasn't anatomically possible, but aside from the actual removal and subsequent force-feeding...I know the positioning works.

Now, who should I send it to?

I'll start with Small Town Girl at Lisa for President.

Then, I'll include Milemastersarah of The Nefariouspoo of Sarah.

I'd love to learn more about McEwen of Whitterer on Autism.

I'll pass it along to my husband, Mark, of Lazy Mormon.

And, we'll see if David from A Republic, if you can keep it... is willing to play along too.

2007 New Year's Resolutions...

2007-01-01T11:23:00.000-06:00

I've never been good at these things. Either I make an unrealistic resolution, like write an entire novel in a year, or I make a resolution that's out of my own control. Like, get my novel published.

So, when I first came up with this year's resolution, i.e. publish two short pieces in 2007, it seemed like a bad idea. So, I came up with something that's completely within my control (barring no personal tragedies occur) and something that doesn't seem too unrealistic. It's in parts...

Part 1: Submit two short pieces (either fiction or
nonfiction) a month.

Part 2: Find and do a write-up of at least one voter education site a week for my VOID project.
Part 3: Write up a complete, workable chapter-by-chapter synopsis for my fiction novel.

Part 4: Write up a complete, workable chapter-by-chapter outline for
my nonfiction book.

Part 5: Maintain my family obligations, my 4.0 GPA, my VOID
participation, and my blog while accomplishing the above.

So, does this seem realistic, considering what Part 5 has proven to entail? Or, am I setting myself up for failure once again? Do you think I can manage my time that well? Or is there more to it than time-management and motivation?

I don't know, but I do want to try. Advice would be appreciated.

What is Autism -- In Conclusion

2006-12-31T06:13:00.000-06:00

Why Neurodiversity

Technically it's tomorrow, though I haven't slept yet. My head's rattling, full of thoughts, so I'm just going to get it down and hopefully my head will be quiet. In order to do this right, I have to get very personal and it might not seem to make sense at first, but I guarantee, I'm getting to it.

I was a "good" child. I did well in school, got good grades, worked hard at a variety of small-scale jobs, and was generally obedient. That's why it surprised everyone when I called my house, talked to my brother, and told him, "I'm going to Milwaukee. The car [my dad's car] is at the supermarket. I'm at the bus station and I've got to catch my bus. I love you all." *click*

I don't even think Mark thought I'd go through with it, though he at least got a warning. You see, I lived in southern Minnesota at the time, and Mark was going to college in Milwaukee. Had my father had his way, he'd have driven out there and dragged me back. But, I was eighteen. Still going to high school and still living at home, but eighteen nonetheless. Luckily, it was winter break so I didn't miss any school.

All told, I believe I was gone for a week. When I came back, Mark and I were engaged. I asked him, because he had this pesky rule about knowing someone for five full months first...and I'm not very patient. He said 'yes,' which was mainly a technicality, because we'd been talking about it for quite awhile. This was December 1997, and by March 1998 we were married.

A lot of people were against this. Not Hatfield and McCoy style, but against it nonetheless. You see, Mark was ten years older than me, hadn't "accomplished" anything, i.e. he wasn't established in a career (and still isn't), and *gasp* he had a diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. So, me being the good little girl who had so much to look forward to... It wasn't the right match.

However, I'm also stubborn. I follow my heart. My heart belong to Mark. And if that meant flipping off everyone in both our families... Luckily it didn't come to that. We had our small wedding, despite our families' "better judgement" and we were together. We were poor. We're still poor. And...I don't regret it for a moment.

It's been nine years since I made that grandiose decision in the middle of a Greyhound bus...lets get married, soon! I've come to realize some of those seemingly friendly words of warning held something sinister beneath them. That notion that I was throwing my life away by marrying Mark was not just my father's silly thoughts...those same thoughts were going through the heads of some of his family too. That's a scary thought for me. It really is. While out of the mouth comes, "You can do anything you set your mind to," while at the same time de-valuing him because he had a mental illness...it makes me shudder. It makes me hurt. And it still hurts and humiliates my husband. And that just pisses me off.

I recently learned that one of these "well-meaning" people actually prayed that I would miscarry our first child together, and that when Willy was diagnosed with autism that this prayer was somehow justified. I just found this out. And, it's a good thing. Because, had I known then... Sometimes my tongue gets away with things it shouldn't. It can be sharp as a sword, thrusting true and deep. There's always fall-out, though, so I try to keep it under control. Had I known, I would not have made any attempt to keep it under control. Even now, it's hard.

Why neurodiversity? Why do I value my children, neither despite nor because of their autism, but simply because of them? Why do I value my husband, neither despite nor because of his bi-polar disorder, but simply because of him? Why do I find it so easy to slough off the words of the "experts" and embrace what I know is true in my heart?

The answer is simple. My heart didn't steer me wrong when I got on that bus. It isn't steering me wrong now. I define autism as a human difference, not a neurological/psychological disorder, because I know that disorder is a means of de-valuing human beings much to the detriment of the world. My husband is a very intelligent, talented man...but something inside him is shattered, broken and all that talent and all that intelligence is stuck, trapped by hurtful words and deeds that have broken him down bit by bit over long periods of time. I will happily spend a lifetime helping my husband recover and fly; but I will NOT let my children be cast aside and trampled upon like their father. I couldn't save Mark that horrible injustice, however much I wish I could, but I will save my children from it.

I've seen prejudice in many forms. I've seen many people broken and shattered upon the terrible word, and all that this word entails. I don't like prejudice. I don't like it in any form. And, I truly believe fighting one form of prejudice is fighting all forms of prejudice...just a little bit at a time. This is a worthy fight. It's worthy of my energy and my passion. It's worthy of my drive. It's a superior fight to the fight against autism. I don't want to fight my kids; I want to help them. One of the ways I intend to help them is to pave a way for them, and their father, that is as free of prejudice as I can possibly manage. This, for me, is the fight for neurodiversity -- accepting those who are neurologically different, diverse as we are to accept all other diversity, with love, compassion, understanding and accomodation.

If my way of defining and describing autism seems different than you've ever heard or seen before: GOOD!!! I'm not alone in this, but I am willing to be a voice that gets the attention of those who haven't seen it. I'm eager to be a voice that gets some little bit of attention, better for my children to make their way in this world in their own time. Better for my husband to make his way in this world in his own time. So, yeah, I see things a little differently than many. I certainly see things differently than the medical professionals who deem themselves "experts" of something they interact with strictly in a trial basis. I see autism up close, every day, times three. I live autism, and I'm glad.

My family is neurodiverse and I have absolutely no regrets.

(P.S. If any of y'all want me to do a similar series that is neurodiversity-specific in the near future, just let me know.)

What is Autism -- Part 5

2006-12-30T16:08:00.000-06:00

What Autism is NOT

Sometimes it helps to express what one does believe, and sometimes it helps to express what one does NOT believe. If you express both together, then you're more likely to be communicating effectively. For autism, I feel it is very important for me to communicate effectively, because the fate of my children is wrapped up in how others perceive autism to be. That is overcomeable, but the difficulties one must overcome when one is autistic -- mainly attaining enough shared context to interact well -- is enough, the battle for acceptance and understanding is extra weight. It is this weight I hope to bear for my children, at least as much as I can.

1) Autism is NOT a disease.

Perhaps that goes without saying, but now I've said it. I've never heard
of anyone excluding an autistic individual because they were "diseased" or
"contagious," which is good, because they're not. I don't want anyone to start either.

2) Autism is NOT a demonic possession.

This, unfortunately, does not go without saying. People believe it, and children die because of it. This isn't the only story I've seen of it, but it is the closest to home. Why people are so ready to believe that their autistic child is possessed by demons, that the demons are the source of their autism? How someone could justify sitting on the chest of a child for two hours, suffocating the child, and calling it God's help "through prayer"...this I do not understand.

I pray for my children all the time: I fold my arms, bow my head, open my heart to the Lord, and fill my head or my lips with the words of my thanksgiving, my supplication, and my praise. I hold my children in my lap while I pray; I hold their hands as they lie in bed as we pray together; I put my hands on their heads while I pray when they're sick; but I never sit on them to pray or use prayer as an attack on their personhood. And, un-Christian though it is, if someone were to call my children demons to my face, I'd have to seriously consider punching them in the snout; I probably wouldn't do it, but I'd have to seriously consider it.

3) Autism is NOT a death sentence.

I do have to amend this one slightly, autism is not a death sentence any more than being human is a death sentence. Autistic people will die, just like the rest of us; however, they won't die faster or more painfully because they are autistic (exceptions for idiot parents who kill their child, or allow others to kill their child...simply because the child is autistic). There is nothing especially fatal about autism. Treating autism like death...I don't get it. I try, I do, because it's so damn common, but I don't get it.

4) Autism is NOT a cage.

Okay, so this one... Parent's sometimes express their own need to rescue their child from autism, to get the child out of autism, that their child is somehow trapped in autism, like a cage. This I understand. I can understand why it seems that way. For a while I even shared this notion of autism trapping the more interactive child beneath its weight, but then I really started seeing my children for who they were. One of the things all four of my boys share is the tendency to laugh out loud at something that seems like nothing. Brandon and Willy are able to articulate the humor they experience, even when they're unable to "share the joke." However, Alex...Alex is the most "profoundly" autistic person in our home, and he is also the most genuinely happy, joyful person I've ever met. Sometimes, it seems very selfish of me to want to help him to learn to interact with this world full of sharp edges, complications, hate and prejudice. Sometimes, however, I feel that if Alex could bring whatever he sees into this world that we can share it, then the world would be so much the better for all of us. Alex is not trapped.

5) Autism is NOT an affliction.

Prague Twin, a friend who's been following me throughout this series, has already reached this conclusion. He's already come to understand this. And I thank him for that most excellent compliment. Autism is a difference, a state of being that we're unfamiliar with, unless we try to understand. But, it's not an affliction. If Alex were afflicted with his "most profound" autism, would he be so happy? If Ben, my baby, was afflicted with autism, would he get so much joy from simply being himself? If Willy was afflicted with autism, would he be so proud of his accomplishments, those that are not despite, but because of his autism? I don't think so. I've seen many autistic children. I've seen videos of autistic children. They all have the "temper tantrum" moments. But, you know what? So do "normal" children. My ten-year old, "normal" step-son still throws the occasional temper tantrum. He also experiences joy and happiness. Autism doesn't afflict, but the prejudiced attitude with which some would treat autistic individuals does.

6) Autism is NOT curable.

And that's what it comes down to. Autism is a state of being, part of the person, and thus incurable. Would you cure someone of blackness? Would you cure someone of blue eyes? Would you cure someone of being more math smart than word smart? Would you cure someone of being athletic? Would you cure someone of being clumsy? Or of being a "nerd?"

Or, better yet, to use David's example, would you spend hours and hours each day to cure someone of their blindness? Or, would you spend those hours teaching them how to cope with their blindness, and interact with the world despite their blindness, and through their blindness? I choose the latter. I would rather help my children be who they are and interact with the world, then to change who they are so they are somehow more "worthy" to interact with the world.

Now, think back for a moment to the diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV) that I shared with you. You will find a list of traits, with a need for at least some of them to be found to be autistic. They don't know why, or how these traits come about, they simply know an individual is autistic because those traits are there. It reminds me of "flu-like symptoms." Flu-like symptoms means you're sick, right? So many illnesses and medical conditions involve "flu-like symptoms." And yet, the most memorable time I had "flu-like symptoms" was two weeks after my wedding. I felt terrible. I was sick to my stomach, throwing up, achy and tired.

I was pregnant!

From those flu-like symptoms, I gave birth to a wonderful son I named Willy...and my life will never be the same, and I will never, never, never regret it.

Tomorrow I will post the final segment of my series, What is Autism -- Part 6, Why Neurodiversity.

What is Autism -- Part 4

2006-12-29T20:49:00.000-06:00

Sensory Integration Disorder

A student and a teacher are walking down the hall. The teacher's hand rests gently on the student's shoulder, exerting a little pressure to guide the student in the direction he/she should go.

Nothing unusual here, right? It happens just about every day in nearly every school all across the United States. But, wait...

The child flinches away, shouting, "Ow! You're hurting me!"

"No, I'm not," the teacher says. The teacher reaches out for the child, who nearly bumped into another student.

Is the teacher right? Did the teacher hurt the child? The teacher was, after all, gentle, using a light touch and a little pressure. The teacher didn't do anything wrong (unless, of course, there's a no touching policy).

Perhaps, like the teacher, you would assume the child is lying to get attention, being belligerent, or over-reacting. However, if that child has sensory integration disorder, then it is distinctly possible that the child's body registered this light, gentle touch as painful.

Most of us have heard the journalistic axiom of conflicting witnesses: If there are five people at a car crash, and you interview all five people, you're going to get five different, potentially conflicting descriptions of what happened. The reason for this is that each individual perceives the world through their own unique set of senses. That perception is then processed by our individual brains, translated -- however our brains do it -- into memories, and recalled and expressed at a later time. No two people perceive exactly the same thing. And yet, it's a very human tendency to assume that everyone else experiences the world exactly as you do. But, in truth, we each experience the world differently; individuals who function through the lens of sensory integration disorder can experience this world very differently than normal.

Does it hurt to brush your teeth? Normal response: Only if you're brushing too hard. But, is that true? For those of us who experience pain when brushing our teeth, myself and my children included, is it the force involved...or the sensitivity of our mouths? Does it hurt to get your hair or finger nails cut? Again, only if you're doing it wrong, unless...

It can be difficult to imagine how someone else experiences the world. To put yourself in their perceptions. It takes effort and understanding, but it is possible. First, you have to ask questions. One thing I found when I started asking these questions was that how experienced the world, how my senses perceived daily living tasks was, in some instances, very different from normal. Understanding what normal is, and where you yourself deviate from that normality, helps to understand others who deviate from that normality in different ways. The more you probe about what normal is, the more likely you are to find ways in which you deviate from that normality. However, individuals with sensory integration disorder experiences many more abnormalities, usually to a greater extreme.

For instance, Brandon, Willy and even Alex love to play in the ball pits. You know the type...plastic balls, trapped in a cage-like netting with padding around it. Usually it's like a mini swimming pool, big enough for little kids to nearly drown in...if you could drown in balls. My older boys absolutely love playing in these contraptions. However, Ben abhors them! At the first scratch of plastic ball against plastic ball, Ben screams. He continues to scream as long as he can hear the sound. It literally hurts his ears.

They each have their sensitivities. Willy, for instance, cannot stand the fan in the bathroom. He'll put his hands over his ears and say, "Turn it off! Turn it off!" Alex is more sensitive to touch. The sharp angles of a pencil in his hands is painful to him. A hug, at the wrong moment, can hurt. He fluctuates back and forth between needing lots and lots and lots of touch, to needing no touch at all. Ben doesn't like wearing clothing. Alex can't stand pudding or jello or anything mushy in his mouth. The list goes on and on, different for each child.

This is sensory integration disorder, also known as sensory integration dysfunction, or simply SID. It's supposedly co-morbid with autism, and yet I've never met an autistic individual who doesn't have some "abnormal" sensory issues. While I recognize and emphasize that this is not a scientific sampling by any means, it does give me cause to wonder. Is the context issue that I find so prevalent when looking closely at autism related to these sensory perception differences? I think so. Jumping to conclusions? Perhaps. But, considering the kind of research that would tell us hasn't been done...conclusions without scientifically established fact is all I have.

This is why I feel it is important to take a look at sensory integration disorder when you look at autism. There is something that, at the very least, ties them together more frequently than you find in normal circumstances. Someone can experience sensory integration disorder without autism, but the chances of someone with autism NOT experiencing sensory integration disorder seems rather small to me. In that, they have a link that isn't, to my knowledge, established with anything else.

***There is a link to autism and mental retardation, however I think this link is presumptive, and arrogantly so, based more on the fact that an individual who doesn't relate with/understand the context of the tests involved are not going to score well than on a lack of innate intelligence.***

So, sensory integration disorder. What senses are involved? Let’s count them: tactile, visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, pain, proprioception, and vestibular. Two of these may seem odd to you. Proprioception is one's awareness of space; where one's body is in space, movement, posture and pressure are all matters affected by proprioception. Vestibular refers to a particular part of the ear that acts as a balancer. Balance and equilibrium are both affected by perceptions derived from the vestibular system in the body, which works hand in hand with proprioception, and all our "regular" senses to help us interpret our environment. If any one of these senses are sending you "faulty" information, i.e. information that doesn't jive with the perceptions of others, then you're going to react to the world differently that those others do.

It is difficult to cope with certain things through such a lens, however there's also a lot of homeopathic-type things that can be done, and easily so, to compensate for these differences. Understanding and properly applying this veritable smorgasbord of sensory regulation techniques can dramatically improve the quality of life of the individual and their connection to the world. By helping them to better understand our context by alleviating some of the ways they suffer from our environmental norms, we can help attain a shared context that allows such individuals to participate more fully in this world we share.

If you are a parent of a child with autism, my first and foremost suggestion is to contact an occupational therapist, with a strong prefer for one trained to work with "disabled" children. Such a therapist is likely to know about sensory integration disorder, and is likely to know how to counter-act it...or, will at least be able to get you started. Another great resource is a book called The Out-of-Sync Child, which can tell you much more than I can in a single post. The sequel, The Out-of-Sync Child has Fun is also a great resource for regulation ideas.

So, what is regulation? Generically, it's common enough, but when you're talking about sensory regulation it means to help the individual obtain a sense of peace with his/her body. For my boys, this usually means two things: 1) Lots of pressure, 2) lots of movement. Pressure via hugs, bear hugs, squishes (hugs with pillows), crashes (jumping and flopping on furniture, pillows), and hug vests (spandex-like vests that "hug" the child). It can also mean, weighted blankets, weights on ankles or wrists, or weighted vests. It can be tugs-of-war, carrying heavy things like a gallon of milk or a laundry box full of toys. It can be a variety of things. Giving their muscles the full-on sensation they need...that's the essentials of it. And motion, that's swinging, and spinning, and bouncing. Anything to jar the "faulty" norm they have established and re-establish a "better" norm that helps them interact with our context better.

Remember how Alex is non-verbal? When Alex is fully regulated (rare), he can talk in sentences. Something about his norm seems to disconnect his mouth from his brain. We don't quite understand it yet, but there are times when Alex can talk. This is the powerful connection that sensory integration disorder, and more importantly sensory regulation, has to autism and overcoming the challenge that autism presents to the individual and those around him/her.

Now, back to that last pesky section in the diagnostic criteria for autism (DSM-IV). The "apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals" (emphasis mine) do actually have a function. They help autistic individuals regulate themselves so that they can interact with their surroundings, they help order a seemingly chaotic world (the autistic's perspective) into something that has enough order to interact with, and they help provide an individual struggling with "distorted" perceptions make sense of seemingly non-sensical world. If you want to deny the individual these routines and rituals because they're not "normal," then I highly suggest you have something else in place to serve the function they served -- which requires understanding the function they serve. Those "stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms," which I called stimming, are forms of sensory regulation, which is why it's called self-stimulation. Again, word of warning, if you would deny them this, you better replace it with something else. Many people advocate taking specific actions to "normalize" autistic individuals, without taking into account the needs those individuals are trying to meet. If you don't meet those needs, which are, in fact, needs, then you are hurting the autistic individuals, not "normalizing" them.

Now, I opened this with an anecdote, and I want to tell you a little bit more about that. One day last year I was going into my children's school for an IEP for one of my younger children, and I passed Willy in the hall. Since my presence at the school can "shake his world," I tried to be unobtrusive and pass by unnoticed. However, I saw the teacher gently guiding Willy to his next class, a pull-out class, and heard the exclamation, "Ow! You're hurting me!"

The teacher said, "No, I'm not, Willy." And I had to stop. I had to speak. It's just the way I am.

"Actually, [name withheld], you probably are." With her permission, I demonstrated on her how she was holding Willy. Her fingertips pushed gently on the muscle of Willy's shoulder, barely touching him. But, that ungrounded pressure, coming seemingly out of nowhere (to Willy) was painful, because it was out of context with what he recognized of his surroundings. I showed her a more appropriate form of touch, with her palm on that same muscle, and her fingers wrapped over his shoulder, with a lot more pressure (almost "too hard") and sent them on their way. As Willy made it to his class, he said, "That feels much better," in his typically melodramatic way.

Being sensory smart can make a world of difference when trying to align two different perceptions into one cohesive, productive exchange. And to me, that's what this is all about. It's not about getting them on our page, but getting to the point where we can both read what's on each other's pages and interact accordingly.

Coming soon (maybe before I even go to bed) will be What is Autism -- Part 5, What Autism is NOT.

Sorry -- Again!

2006-12-28T08:25:00.000-06:00

I'm still not well. My throat is swelling closer and closer to shut and I have to go in to the doctor. Yesterday just slipped by. Hopefully today I'll put up a post (this one doesn't count) or two. We'll see. They say if it's strep they can help, if not probably not, but my regular doctor's booked and I have to go to Urgent Care. So, wish me luck! I'll be sure to take along a book since it'll just be me for a change.

Hopefully I'll be able to put up the post this afternoon/evening...when I can breathe!

What is Autism -- Part 3

2006-12-26T10:40:00.000-06:00

Behavioral Patterns

The third and final main area of criteria for an autism diagnosis is, according to the DSM-IV: "restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:"

(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

This has always been the most difficult of the three sections to interpret. I'm not exactly sure why, other than the tendency to separate it out seems excessive to me. But, separate it they do, so shall I.

This would be, roughly translated, what Mark and I call compulsion. In context, my cigarettes are addictive; Mark's video games are compulsive. I am addicted to the nicotine, and thus I smoke. Mark's video games are a compulsion. They are not physically addictive, but he does feel compelled to play them. The compulsion vs. addiction is the context I use to explain this particular aspect of autism.

Compulsion or obsession, as it may seem, for a particular subject matter, or a particular sub-set of a particular subject matter is a noticeable trait, but it's difficult to decipher. Many people exhibit this trait to varying degrees and why autistics are singled out for this...I don't well understand. Then again, both my husband and I exhibit autistic traits, and this may be an area that is just "normal" to us, because we've lived it our entire lives.

"(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus"

For Willy, this used to be his trains. He loved Thomas the Train. He was getting a present...he wanted a train. He watched a video...it should be Thomas. If it was books, then it was books about Thomas. He loved Thomas the Train. We had two hollow pumpkins, the cheap plastic pumpkin buckets you take trick-or-treating. They were both filled to the brim with trains. Willy first learned pretend play by re-enacting a crash from a video, and embellishing from there. Willy would play with them every day. He would set potty-training goals, with a new train as his prize. He'd sneak them off to school with him whenever he could. He'd talk about his trains, what they were doing or what he wanted to do with them, at every opportunity. And, at night, he'd take up one or two buckets of train and spread them across his bed, falling asleep right on top of them. He loved his trains.

For Alex, this obsession/compulsion is videos. VeggieTales videos are preferred, but not necessary. He loves the credits at the end of the videos. He gets really excited in anticipation of those credits, and if you turn them off before they're done...he cries and carries on over the injustice of it all. He's gotten better about that last part, but it's all very relative. The first word Alex ever spelled is v-i-d-e-o. It's still the word that he spells the most. (Yes, he's non-verbal, and yet he spells. Go figure.) The first meaningful phrase he ever spoke was "watch bye...watch bye..." He wanted to watch the credits again. And, saying it like that, he got to watch the credits again. This fixation on moving words and letters has gone on to other things. He now really likes sing-along-videos. The ones with the words scrolling on the bottom. And, with the advent of DVDs, we can now put the closed captioning on and there you go -- the perfect treat for Alex. Computers are also great for this. Alex can watch me type and have a blast at it.

Ben is a different type of child altogether. Ben, he likes stuffed animals. They're all Winnie the Pooh, even when they're not, but that doesn't seem to matter. He also likes boxes. This, I think, is my fault. When he was a baby, I lined our laundry basket with blankets and could carry Ben, sound asleep, between upstairs and downstairs to be wherever I needed to be. Of course, I held him as much as I could, but Ben liked to be in his basket and, with two needy big brothers, the basket was convenient. Now, three and a half years later, Ben still likes that same basket...though it's full of clothes as often as not. He also likes the box that is filled with stuffed animals. He likes to climb in the box and sit on the stuffed animals, playing with a few choice friends -- who are all Winnie the Pooh even though none of them are.

Is any of this what they mean? I don't really know. I've heard people talk about students with autism who will only talk about Pokeman. I've heard parents talk about children with autism who are absolutely fascinated with lights. It all plays into the same things, as I see it. Autistic individuals experience things from their own context, and those things that bridge easily for the individual take on a special place...whether it's trains, videos, stuffed animals, Pokeman, or lights...if they can get a reaction from us they're golden and the fixation holds meaning that transcends beyond the limits of a single context.

"(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals"

Anyone see the movie "Rainman?" This is the first thing I think of when I see these words. My kids don't have that. They don't do that. At all. Ever. Never. Nothing like it. Okay, but take it out of that context...

For the longest time I had to take my children shopping just about every time I went. For this time I went to exactly two different stores. I went to Pick N' Save. I went to Target. There was no deviation, because deviation was bad. Pick N' Save and Target were the friendliest stores for my family, because they were the least annoying/irritating atmospheres. Wal-Mart was the worst. At Wal-Mart I could not walk down the aisle without the kids being able to reach both shelves, grabbing as they went. All the other stores were either too bright, too noisy, too flashy, too bumpy, or too...something. So, we went to two different stores. And each store involved a single different path. Other than that, we went to take Daddy to work, or pick him up. There were three acceptable paths. Any deviations, and there was screaming. We went out to eat...there was screaming. We went to the park...there was screaming. The screaming usually stopped once we got there, but Alex in particular would fuss until we got there, just because he didn't know where we were going. Words didn't help. It wasn't until he saw the destination and the car actually stopped that he knew, okay, this is okay, we can go here.

So, for my kids, it's less about day to day routines, as overall patterns. There are some day to day routines, like me putting the boys to bed, that tend to be inflexible. If I'm available, I put the boys to bed. But, at least it's gotten to the point where they won't often wake me up to put them to bed. There are others, but again, less dramatic. That driving thing...it's still occasionally an issue. Though, less now because they don't have to go shopping with me any more.

"(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)"

Stimming. This is called stimming. And, I object to its presence in this portion of the diagnostic criteria, because it's in there without an explanation. Do they understand these behaviors have an explanation? Do they care? I don't know, because they don't say. These "motor mannerisms" are called, by the autistic community, stimming, short for self-stimulation. They relate to Sensory Integration Disorder and I will delve into more detail in my next post.

However, I just want to assert that all my boys stim, and all autistics I've ever interacted with stim, and this is an area where accommodation and understanding, imo, has to trump normalizing. A little blip about stimming is not enough; and this is one of the reasons I really don't think there's enough understanding of autism in the medical community.

If this sounds kind of like a childish nyah, I'm fine with that.

"(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects"

This to me, again, relates back to the overall lacking of shared context. How do you discern what about something is important? Without a shared answer to that question, there's no real way to determine whether the focus is preoccupation or proper occupation.

Consider this for a moment: A man in the work place, 1955, notices that the woman working the phone has a nice butt, nice breasts, and wiggles attractively when she walks. How does she do her job? Who cares! She's attractive!

Is this a preoccupation with parts of the woman or a proper occupation with the woman? In 2006, the answer is Preoccupation! However, it was a pretty common preoccupation in 1955. For many men, and even some women, thinking about women was thinking about they're parts. Luckily for women, society, for the most part, has changed by now.

However, for autistics, thinking about parts versus the whole of an object, is about what's within their context. Luckily for us, sexism is not the cause. However, it's also not so easily solved -- and for those of you who understand how NOT easy "solving" sexism was/is, no rotten fruit please. That's part of the point.

Autistics have their own context for looking at the world. This context is not shared with us, and not always shared amongst autistics either. For example, we look at people's faces -- the whole face, and with it the whole person. At least, we're supposed to. My sons' focus on parts. Be it eyes, mouths, noses...whatever. They do not focus on the whole face, let alone the whole person, all of the time. Hair, nose, mouth...those are favorites. Eyes are scary.

Is this objectification? Hardly, it's about assessing something within their context. Mouths have to do with speaking, and thus get a lot of focus. How do we make our mouths make words? Hmm. My two littlest ones have been trying to figure that out, and thus they focus on mouths. Hair is good to grab, chew on, very sensory. So, hair gets focus too. Noses, that's Willy's thing -- mostly because he likes to take them. He's moved on, though. Now he'll take your ears or your brain, too.

Looking back, I don't know whether or not I've provided any useful information. If nothing else, I've established my discomfort with the area of assessment. All of this seems to me like looking at parts of autism without understanding the whole of autism. And isn't that something that supposed to be bad? Yes, perhaps you can assess whether or not someone is autistic this way, but does it really tell you much when you don't understand the underlying causes behind these behaviors? I don't think so.

Tomorrow, I will cover What is Autism -- Part 4, Sensory Integration Disorder. Perhaps more sense will be made then.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-24T20:57:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas to all...

...And to all a Good Night!!!

My Apologies

2006-12-24T18:18:00.000-06:00

I said I would post the next in my What is Autism series today, but it's not going to happen. Between waking up sick, and having to reschedule Christmas to today to better suit the time-table of my step-son's visit to our household...I'm just not up to it. I tried to collect my thoughts and failed. I tried to rev up my mental juices...and failed. I figure a delayed, but coherent post would be much better than my current ramblings have turned out to be. So, I'm sorry, but I prefer quality over timeliness.

I'll be back to post again on Tuesday. A Merry Christmas to all!

What is Autism -- Part 2

2006-12-23T09:43:00.000-06:00

Communication

A diagnosis of autism does not rely on social irregularities alone. Autism is called a pervasive developmental disorder, and for a very good reason. Simply put, autism affects every aspect of an individual's life and experience set. One of the ways this is most apparent is in communication.

According to the DSM-IV (see Part 1 for link), the second set of criteria for a diagnosis of autism is "qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:"

(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not
accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
(b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic
language
(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

Once again, I'm going to break this down:

"(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)"

Two of my three autistic children are primarily non-verbal. What this means is that they do not speak communicatively on a regular basis; when they do it is usually with a single word, or an indicative portion of a single word. For instance, Alex can say "Mama," however usually when he's saying "Mama" it is a reflexive action that has no apparent connection to me, his mother. However, upon rare occasion, he will be communicating with me, acknowledging my presence, my attention, my love and our mutual connection. Last night was such a time. Alex was sick yesterday and didn't recover at all that day. He felt sick when he woke up; he still felt when he went to bed. (He's fine today.) Last time when I tucked him and gave him extra snuggles, he said, "Mama" repeatedly. Usually he says this in a sort of "monotone." It's not truly a monotone, but it's a repetitive inflection and pitch that indicates he's doing some vocal stimming. This time it was not said with the same pitch and inflection, but with hugs, eye contact and vocal variety. He was acknowledging that I was his Mama, and that he felt better with me there.

Imagine for a moment what it would be like to be full of feelings and thoughts, but unable to express them verbally. For those of us who take verbalizing our thoughts and feelings for granted, it's difficult to imagine. We can imagine ourselves in a foreign country where we don't speak the language, but that still doesn't properly correlate to autism. You see, were we in a foreign country, we'd mime and gesture our way to understanding. It wouldn't be easy, and we'd get frustrated, but if the other person was patient and willing, we could communicate. With autism, this ability is often absent as well.

It's not the words themselves that are so difficult. It's often the concept of communication itself that is baffling. In my previous post I described to individuals looking at different pieces of art, and how an autistic individual would find it difficult to redirect themselves to the piece discussed by the other person. Now, imagine this was your normal situation. People are talking, making sounds that are symbolic of things, but symbolic of what? If you don't know how to make that shared connection of stimulus, how are you going to make things and words, or things and gestures, or even things and pictures connect in your mind. If you're looking at a ball and the other person is labeling a table, "Table. This is a table," and you don't notice and attune yourself to the item being labeled, you may associate the ball with the word table. With such inconsistencies being a constant in your world, then labels for items, words themselves, are not going to make much sense. It's going to be very difficult and frustrating to use words, or understand words.

Now, to explain why autistic individuals find it so difficult to use miming or gestures to compensation for their lack of a usable verbal repertoire, let's think about Charades. Anyone who's ever played the game knows that it is more difficult than simply speaking. A good game of Charades relies on several key components. First, the person miming needs to understand the subject matter. Try to imagine yourself communicating magnesium in the form of Charades. A chemist or biologist might be able to do it successfully, but most of us just don't know enough properties of magnesium to find a means to use gestures to communicate the word. For myself, I don't even know where it is on the Periodic Table of Elements without looking it up. Now, the second component is for your team members, those who are guessing the word, to have a similar understanding of the word. The third is for the gesticulator to effectively communicate this shared meaning. Without any of those key factors shared meaning, i.e. effective communication, is going to elude the team.

Since shared meaning already eludes individuals with autism, miming is out. If you don't understand what "bye-bye" is, the leaving of another individual or yourself, and you don't understand that waving indicates "bye-bye," and you don't understand that it is a socially appropriate behavior to wish a farewell with the wave of the hand, then you're not going to be able to learn the gesture in context even though you can physically wave your hand.

"(b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others"

While my oldest child with autism is verbal, he does speak and he does speak fairly well (though he didn't when he was first diagnosed), he still has a lot of difficulty holding a conversation. For Willy, it isn't a lack of words that's the problem, it's the lack of context. Again, we return to shared meaning. While he understands the meaning of a great deal of words, he doesn't understand that everyone doesn't share the context that's within his own mind. Obviously, this isn't limited to individuals with autism by any means. I'm sure we can all think of a few examples, techno-babble and colloquialisms being frequent examples of miscommunication in our culture. However, most of us can correct these problems when the problem is brought to our attention.

Willy likes YouTube. He especially likes watching episodes of a cartoon called Monster Rancher on YouTube. One of the main characters in this cartoon is Holly. Willy loves Holly. According to Willy, he's going to marry her, and she's his sister, and she shares his birthday. Holly is very much akin to an imaginary friend. However, as much as Willy talks about Holly, he never mentions she's on Monster Rancher. When Willy started talking about Holly, I assumed she was a child from his class. I assume that he'd befriended a girl from school, and that they played together. His therapists thought the same thing. This went on for weeks. Until finally, Mark (my husband) heard me and Willy talking about Holly, and told me where she's from...and then the things Willy was saying made more sense. (Not the part about her being his sister, though.) But, despite the obvious miscommunication for someone who understood the context, it never occurred to Willy to share his context with those of us who didn't know.

This is frequent in Willy's case. And that context can be very elusive in and of itself. Willy assumes we share his context, or that shared context is unnecessary, or something to that affect, when in fact there's no shared context and effective communication is not happening.

Now, to clarify something, Asperger Syndrome is a pervasive developmental disorder that is on the Autistic Spectrum, but doesn't carry the same inhibited communication that Willy used to have, and that Alex and Ben still do. They develop the ability to communicate, but much like Willy is now, understanding the social complexities and the shared context of holding a conversation often eludes them without specialized help or painful struggles to develop the abilities on their own.

"(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language"

This probably refers to something called echolalia. It is the use of words without the proper meaning attached to it. When Alex does his vocal stimming, he is occasionally exhibiting echolalia. However, Willy did this much more frequently. We would say something, and Willy would repeat it back to us, several times, without any apparent understanding. It also refers to generalizing words that are not generalizations. Ben, for example, calls all his stuffed animals, and even a few trains, Winnie the Pooh. He can say Winnie the Pooh. He likes Winnie the Pooh. And he says it of his dinosaur, Thomas the Train, and a myriad of other toys, stuffed or not.

"(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level"

I'm sorry, I shouldn't, but I tend to scoff at this one. There are two reasons for this: First, when Willy was diagnosed with autism his doctor told us, quite frankly, that he'd never speak or practice pretend play (i.e., make-believe play), right before he told us our son wasn't worth our efforts and that he should be institutionalized. Now Willy is telling us stories about all the adventures he's had with his imaginary cartoon sister, Holly. And, whether it's a good thing or not, I can't resist the pleasure of thumbing my nose at this doctor, though I tend to leave him unidentified.

The second reason is more difficult to explain. 1) I see it as misplaced. 2) It's difficult to assess. 3) I don't think it's altogether true. Individuals with autism who are unable to communicate effectively are "in their own world." Unless you make substantial efforts, you don't know what's going on in that world. Even if you make substantial efforts, you have to make the right efforts, and you still don't always know what's going on in their world. Who are we to say they're not playing make-believe? We don't know! Just because we can't recognize it as such, doesn't mean it's not happening. It's the whole shared context thing again. We don't share their context, but that does NOT invalidate their context.

Now, I'll step it down a notch or two and explain a little about what this means. Neurotypical children, i.e. "normal" children, play in certain, predictable, recognizable ways. Little girls and little boys play house, they play war, they make dinosaurs roar and they build bridges out of blocks and have horses cross over the tops of them. All these are examples of "spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play."

Autistic children often don't do these activities without being taught how. Yet, they do play, even if they don't play in neurotypical ways. Alex likes looking at objects. He holds them by his face and twists them around, looking at it from a variety of angles. Is this play? The psychologists tell me, "No, it's not." For some reason I don't quite understand, it doesn't count in their opinions. However, Alex smiles, laughs, giggles and gets excited when he does this. He sees something we don't. We don't know what that is. We don't understand. But that doesn't mean we can say for sure that he's not using his imagination. We can't even say for sure that he's not imitating something we've done or do on a consistent basis. We just don't know.

While Alex's therapists and our family do work hard to teach Alex "normal" ways of play, we do NOT impede him from these activities he obviously enjoys, irregardless of our own lack of understanding. Alex loves to do this. He enjoys doing this. Who are we to take that away from him?

Now, at the beginning of this post, I said, "One of the ways this is most apparent is in communication." Autism is a pervasive disorder. It affects all areas of life. And, communication, or the lack thereof, is one of the most difficult challenges to overcome. You can want to be social. You can try to be social. However, if you cannot communicate, the barriers to socialization are virtually insurmountable. Ah, but I've got a secret...

Autistic individuals communicate regularly. They communicate in a variety of ways. They communicate through words, sounds, and vocal variety. They communicate through gestures and miming. They communicate through body language and actions. They communicate just as much, or nearly so, as the rest of us. Does it seem like I'm contradicting myself?

It shouldn't. I left the keys to these sensational (if you're typically-minded) statements throughout my post. You see, it's NOT that autistic individuals don't communicate. The autistics individuals who do communicate prove that. The thing is...autistic individuals do not communicate within our shared context!

Alex, non-verbal child that he is, communicates all the time! It's up to those who are around him to decipher his communicative messages to share his context. It's up to us to piece together the message and translate it to ourselves, and then to find a way to translate the response back into his context. It's hard work. It's frustrating. It often fails. But, it's worth it. Those precious moments of shared context are treasures of unimaginable worth and I cherish them. Some people find this to be more difficult than others, and some people, sadly, refuse to even try. However, this insistence that the autistic individual come into our world, our context to communicate basically slams the doors of communication in his/her face. Communication is a two-way street, and sometimes the more "able" people need to get over themselves enough to make the extra effort to make it happen.

What is Autism: Part 3, Behavioral Patterns, will be posted tomorrow.

What is Autism -- Part 1

2006-12-22T08:18:00.000-06:00

Social Interactions

According to the DSV-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual edition 4) published by the American Psychiatric Association, Autistic Disorder is a disorder consisting of the manifestation of a variety of measureable traits. One of these traits is the "qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:"

(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal vehaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental
level
(c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity.

Overwhelmed yet? I live this stuff every day, and when I first say that I went, "Huh?" But, then I was able to break it down into meaning based in examples. Lets see how this actually works.

"(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal vehaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction"

Willy is the most normal of my three autistics boys. This is ironic, because he was also given the worst prognosis. Lesson #1) Prognosis is not diagnosis: diagnoses are based in scientific fact; prognoses are "educated guesses," with personal bias thrown in. Anyway, Willy talks and socializes. He communicates in a variety of ways. But...and this is a big but...we have to actively teach him about emotions. His emotions, other peoples' emotions, doesn't matter; he just doesn't get it. Not on his own, anyway.

Human beings communicate in a variety of ways. One such way is non-verbal cues, such as facial expression and body language. Many people have heard of Emotional Quotients. Being people smart can get you just as far, if not farther, than being book smart or intelligent. Most people learn these non-verbal cues as they grow up; they soak it up through observation, often without ever being aware they're doing it. They make judgements on the basis of these observations, usually unconsciously. They take it for granted, and they expect others to be skillful as well.

Autistic people are not skillful at it, at least not naturally. They have to consciously learn these same skills of observation and intuition that most people take for granted. It's hard work. It holds them back. And, it's hard for those on the outside of autism to understand why this is such a difficulty for them.

Right now we are teaching Willy about emotions using exaggerated facial expressions (read enlarged emoticons), coaching him with verbal expressions, and other tried-and-true autism therapies. It's difficult to help Willy sort out his emotions, because sometimes we simply do not know what he's feeling. Sometimes it's hard for us to tell whether he's mad or frustrated or sad. But, slowly he's learning to be able to distinguish between them. Eventually, we hope, he'll be able to recognize emotions in other people and respond to those emotions appropriately.

"(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level"

Alex is seven years old. He's had many challenges, some of which are not directly related to (though they are exacerbated by) autism. Alex loves people. Alex is happy. Alex is fun. Yet, he doesn't really have any friends his own age. All of Alex's friends are people who've made the effort to be friends with him, an act he's not yet able to reciprocate. That doesn't mean he doesn't interact with them, or play with them, or anything like that. But, having a friend is different.

Generally speaking, I like people, though admittedly I don't trust them. I have friends who, given due cause, I'd go up to bat for on anything. While I care for the well-being of almost everyone on this planet, all six and a half billion of us (with the notable exception of mass murders, serial killers, rapists & child molesters), there are some people I set apart as "mine." I don't mean that in an owning or possessing sort of way, I simply mean that I associate them as an other who is directly tied to myself. My husband calls this "invisible strings." I would put it this way: I would not be who I am today without these people having touched my life and myself the way they have. These people are friends. They are set apart. They are elevated. They affect in dramatic, long-term fashion. They are friends.

Sadly, Alex does not readily make such distinctions. I am distinct. My husband is distinct. His brothers are distinct. His grandmother (my mom) is distinct. A few of his therapists and teachers are distinct. Other than that, anyone else rates just as high as everyone else. The children Alex plays with are not people, so much as props. Alex's excitement over classmates is virtually indistinguishable from his excitement over pets. His interactions...virtually the same. He's getting better at this, and we're working on it, but right now. People are all incredibly interesting, but Alex hasn't been able to break through the mold in which he views them...except for a precious few.

"(c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)"

Ben is an inquisitive, joyful little boy. He's four years old, and has all the energy and curiosity that implies. He climbs, crawls, runs and plays...he finds all sorts of things to investigate. He finds all sorts of pint-sized problems to solve. And he does so with fervor. He explores his body, his surroundings and his limits. He explores other people, all sorts of things, places and just about anything he can find. He doesn't have a flashing light that goes off in his mind saying, "This is a bad idea." He simply explores, pressing against and beyond any limits that are set.

Doesn't seem particularly uncommon for a four year old, huh? There's just one little difference; one that stands out if you're familiar with childhood development. Ben does NOT share his discoveries with anyone. Why, I'm not sure, but he doesn't. He could find something he considers to be "the coolest thing in the world" and he won't share it with anyone. Not that he won't hand it over upon request (though that can be difficult too), but more that he won't draw anyone else's attention to it. There's no "Mommy, look!" from Ben. He doesn't bring me his discoveries; he doesn't hide them in his pockets; he doesn't ooh and aah over them for anyone. He simply enjoys them on his own.

Now, the clincher here is that he also doesn't readily redirect his own attention when someone else tries to share their interests/discoveries with him. I can't point to the squirrels that play on our porch and have Ben actually look. I can move his head, gently but physically, and then enjoy that moment of discovery we can share, but this is fleeting and often a complete failure. I can dangle something in front of his face until he notices, or cue and cue and cue him, but in the end the struggle to attend is paramount. Sometimes shared attention occurs, most often it doesn't.

This makes education very difficult. In order to get something to "sink in," you first have to obtain shared attention. You have to make sure the other person's focus is on the same thing yours is, or you're going to have a disjointed conversation...if you converse at all.

Imagine for a moment... You're looking at a serene picture of a waterfall. It's peaceful and inviting. The water is cascading down into a pool below, and the painting is full of colorful fauna that makes you want to step right inside. Now, from somewhere around you, "That's a circle. It's a red circle. The circle is inside a square. The square is blue. Remember circle, square, red, blue." Confusion, disorientation, and a big "Huh?" follows these seemingly inappropriate statements. Now, at this point, most people would turn to look at the speaker and find what the heck they're talking about. "Ah," you think, "they're talking about the abstract sculpture behind you!" Then, it makes sense. A person who doesn't share their interests with others does not do that, they don't obtain shared attention to make sense out of confusing, conflicting information. At least, they do not do so readily and instinctually. Thus, the world makes that much less sense to them.

"(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity. "

Okay, this is where outside resources comes in handy. The dictionary definition of reciprocity is "A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations." (second dictionary, #2)

However, Wikipedia has this to tell us (when brought into proper context):

In social psychology, reciprocity refers to in-kind positive or negative responses of individuals towards the actions of others. Thus positively interpreted actions elicit positive responses and vice versa. Positive reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions as they only follow from other positive actions and they differ from social gift giving in
that they are not actions taken with the hope or expectation of future positive responses.

Breaking this down, I think this is refering to the tendency for autistic individuals, as depicted my children, to react to social stimulus in unpredictable ways. Most recently, a favorite therapist gave Willy several gifts for his birthday. These gifts included a basket of apples, a package of socks, and brand new shoes -- the kind that are too expensive for us to afford for our kids -- and a heart-warming card. These were very nice gifts that, upon reflection, Willy liked very much. However, Willy was interested in 1) opening his gifts as quickly as possible, 2) going back to his video which was a new excitement for him. Appropriate reciprocal behavior would have been to take time to open them nicely, enjoy and appreciate them, and thank the giver. The appreciation and thanks didn't come until later...after the favored therapist was gone. But, again, I'm neither psychologist nor sociologist...just a lay parent who's learned a lot about autism through immersion.

It's complicated, confusing and I'm just getting started. This is only ONE aspect of autism. If you have questions, please ask. If you have comments, please leave them. If you have anecdotes of your own, please share them.

What is Autism: Part 2, Communication will be posted tomorrow.

What is Autism: Introduction

2006-12-21T06:24:00.000-06:00

My dear friend, David Shantz, brought it to my attention that perhaps my readers don’t know so much about autism; perhaps that is something I should fix. When I address the issue of autism in the outside world, at school for example, I put my experiences in context. When I gave my first speech about autism, I knew I would have to explain what autism is. There’s so much about blogging that I’ve come to take for granted, there are so many relationships I’ve developed where the short-hand of a conversation works just fine, that perhaps I took it for granted that my readers would see the context of autism in my life. That was inappropriate.

However, one of the greatest difficulties when putting autism into context is that autism is complexicated. Yes, this does mean that autism is complex and complicated. However, I choose the “word” complexicated to imply something else as well. Like autism, complexicated is a word that will only be recognized and understood if you put a little effort into it. If you just shut your mind off, because complexicated isn’t a real word, then you’re shutting off a possible avenue of communication. However, if you’re open enough, you’ll recognize that it may very well be an attempt at “complicated” or it may be something else, perhaps a little more even.

It is very much the same with autism. You can cling to the notion that autism is a developmental disability, i.e. bad, or you can open yourself up to the myriad of possibilities. When putting autism into context, a person such as myself has the responsibility to acknowledge its complexicated nature. It’s not the subject matter of a single post. Therefore, I’m going to present a series of post about autism. I’m going to address autism from a variety of angles, while using many real-world, personal examples to bring it all into context.

Before anyone gets jumpy, and by this I’m referring the my neurodiversity-friendly readers, I’m going to explain autism both as a disability, and as a difference…so please don’t tune me out because I repeat what the doctors say.

The Autism Acceptance Project

2006-12-19T08:41:00.000-06:00

Recently I was reacquainting myself with a blog called The Joy of Autism, which I was frequenting when I was blogging more regularly. It's a blog about the joys of raising a child with autism, and was a stepping stone in my path to neurodiversity. While I was there, something caught my eye: a circular looking symbol with the words The Autism Acceptance Project.

Intriguing! So I clicked and there was the Autism Acceptance Project. It's a Canadian based organization, founded by the author of The Joy of Autism blog, and very much in-line with my own thinking. Though, this particular project focuses more stringently on the art of autism than I would, it's still very much something I want to encourage.

If you want to learn more about TAAP, and see some interesting art in the process, check out this video. There's a lot of encouraging information there.

Due to this video, I found this essay, Don't Mourn for Us by Jim Sinclair. Here are some very telling excerpts:

Therefore, when parents say,

I wish my child did not have autism,

what they're really saying is,

I wish the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different
(non-autistic) child instead.

Read that again. This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence. This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.
*****
That does not mean the child is incapable of relating at all. It only means you're assuming a shared system, a shared understanding of signals and meanings, that the child in fact does not share.
*****
Grieve if you must, for your own lost dreams. But don't mourn for us. We are alive. We are real. And we're here waiting for you.
*****
We need you. We need your help and your understanding. Your world is not very open to us, and we won't make it without your strong support.

For a long while I've related to connecting with an autistic child to building a bridge. You've got to build a little, they've got to build a little; you've got to cross a little, they've got to cross a little. Sometimes, you have to do most of the work. Sometimes, they're ready to help. Nobody can do it alone, but if connections are to be made it must be done. This essay, written by an autistic individual, confirms that theory, reinforces it, and gives me hope that someday more and more people will be willing to make the effort.

It is my goal, and the goal of The Autism Acceptance Project and the Autism Network International (run by Jim Sinclair), to open up our shared world for autistic individuals; not just for them, not just for us, but for all of us to share a better, more hopeful existence together.

Politics, Energy, and the Lack Thereof

2006-12-19T05:12:00.000-06:00

As some of you have surely noticed, I haven't been living up to the Politics part of my title lately. This is wholly intentional. It's not that I am no longer interested in politics, but I definitely need a break and not posting about politics is more productive than not posting at all. So, besides the Guard the Borders Blogbursts, which I don't have to write, I will not be posting about politics until the New Year.

It's called "saving my energy." You see, starting this New Year, I am tackling a project that I find more than a little intimidating. It was my idea, and I still think it's a good one, and hopefully I won't have to do it alone, but somebody's got to get it going. That would be me.

As many of my more frequent readers know, I'm the Secretary on the Board of Directors for a political action organization called VOID. To use GTL's term, we're a centrist organization, and are working to give voters back the power that corrupt incumbents have taken from them by urging said voters to vote against incumbents. For those of you who are new, I'm not going into the details of this stance, as I've done it many times already, please just jump to our Mission Statement.

My project is both simple and complicated. Basically, I want to create a database of sorts of voter education websites. Not only do I want to find all of them (or just the best, if I can't find "all"), but I also want to create a write-up of each I list that informs readers of both the good and bad of each site. What's their purpose, what they can help you with, and what slants they have...basically. Kind of a Who's Who of voter education sites, with a big splash of How to Make the Most of it in there too. Like I said, both simple and complicated. And, I'm in charge. Now that the moment of elation has been completely and utterly passed, I see the enormity of what I've taken on. The "due date" is early 2008 to allow time for distribution before the big, 2008 elections. And, unless I get a sufficient amount of help, I'm going to need every second of that...considering everything else I've got going on.

So, saving my energy is about right, and quite necessary. And, most of my posts will be about what I find, versus news commentary. So, that's my plan.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-12-18T08:24:00.000-06:00

By Nancy Matthis at American Daughter

Today's Blogburst is also available as a Podcast.

The Price of Lettuce

Federal subsidies do not reduce the COST of food to the taxpayer. They increase it. Likewise, illegal immigration does not reduce the cost of food, or of any other goods and services, to the taxpayer. Illegal immigration also increases those costs.

In fact, illegal immigration increases the citizen's financial burden in exactly the same ways and using the same types of governmental mechanisms as the inefficient and ill-conceived government subsidy programs. Let's just look at the numbers. The available data points come from different years, so our results will not be specific for any single year, but will be representative of the general problem.

Note: This article responds to two comments made by liberals on earlier articles in our Illegal Immigration series.

Joe Budzinski referenced our report on The Crider Case on Nova Townhall Blog. Over there, they play host to a token liberal, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Stay Puft took it upon himself to publish a response, We Can't Ignore Agriculture, featuring Critique of American Daughter.

"....farmers work on very tight profit margins. They can't pay more. If they paid higher rates, the cost of producing a crop would exceed its market value.

The only way to increase wages in these sorts of jobs would be to increase government subsidies even more (make tax payers pay for the wage increases), or let food prices shoot up (make consumers pay)

both of these options seem untenable. In the later case, the negative economic consequences could be more severe than anything brought on by the recent influx of immigrants....

We need this stuff, but in today's economy it isn't profitable without being propped up with tax dollars. Last year, we put over 16 billion dollars into these subsidies. "

The Word-Drum took a shot at our friend Doyle, when he cross-posted our article Illegals Deadlier Than War On Terror on his weblog A Cool Change. As you can see, the fellow who left the comment cannot spell any better than he can do math.

"As a Vegitarian American (Democrat) I resent having to pay the kind of prices for lettuce that would occur if we did something about illegals. It's Bush's fault anyway."

Both of these fellows believe in the incorrect "manna from heaven" theory of government assistance. It is an item of religious faith with liberals that we will deconstruct in the following discussion.

Update -- It is likely that the second comment was meant as a joke. The sad fact is that most liberals are so divorced from reality that it sounded like an authentic liberal response. And we are pretty certain that the first commenter really believes in his logic. As our contributor [Bad Moon Rising] likes to say, "They walk among us. And they vote."

The average expenditure for food per person in the United States in 2005 was $3,452 (source).

The average annual agricultural subsidy in the United States between 1996 and 2002 was $16 billion (source).

The population of the United States recently passed the milestone of 300 million (source).

So, if the value of the agricultural subsidy were applied to reduce the cost of food (it actually is not intended to do that and does not do that, but we'll get to that later) it would amount to a benefit of $53.34 per person.

$16 billion divided by 300 million = $53.34 per person

If the subsidy had the effect of benefiting the citizen, it would represent a savings of:

$53.34 on $3,452 or 1.55%

But wait just one minute! That $16 billion agricultural subsidy budget did not come, as liberals would have us believe, as manna from heaven. IT CAME OUT OF THAT SAME CITIZEN'S POCKET IN THE FIRST PLACE. Does that mean that he just broke even? No. Not even close.

In order to implement an agricultural subsidy program, the government had to maintain pro rata segments of

the Internal Revenue Service to extract the tax money from that poor hapless citizen

the Department of Agriculture to study the situation and distribute the funds

the General Accountability Office to audit everyone's books

the General Services Administration to provide all those agencies with buildings, utilities, and services

the legislative, executive, and judicial arms of government to create, administer, and judge such a program

Like a bad charity, government provides only fractional benefits in return for the resources it consumes. Our poor taxpayer will be very lucky to pay only a few hundred dollars for his apparent $53.34 benefit. So instead of saving him 1.55% on his food bill, the interference of the government likely costs him an extra three to four percent.

But that is assuming the government intended to help John Q. And that was never the intention. Agricultural subsidies have traditionally been used to pay farmers to let some of their fields lie fallow, so that overall they produce less, and prices remain high. Another use for subsidy funds has been to buy up the surplus of overproduced commodities and store it in government repositories, again so that prices remain high. These subsidies were originally introduced to buy the farm vote. Nowadays they are earmark payoffs for a few big factory farms, another form of big business.

Bottom line: John Q. the food consumer is being taxed to provide the funds that government uses to increase his costs.

The situation with illegal immigration is analogous. As it factors into the price of food, illegal immigration can be viewed as an additional agricultural subsidy administered and financed by government.

The farmer's cost of food production in the United States amounts to about 20% of the consumer's cost (source). The value of his crop land is determined by the real estate sector. The cost of equipment -- tractors, harvesters, whatever -- evokes names like Case, Caterpillar, John Deere, Massey Ferguson. A tractor is a tractor, a fixed capital cost. To make the case for the lower cost of illegal labor, one has to look at the systems in place for delivering food to the consumer, the other 80% -- including pickers, processors, packers, the employees in fast food chains, etc.

So will reducing the cost of labor in the food delivery pipeline save John Q. some percentage of his per capita annual food consumption costs?

80% of $3,452 = $2,762

Dispassionate analyses of the costs of illegal immigration are hard to find. One scholarly study was completed in 1997 by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. Based on 1996 data, he estimated the NET cost of illegal immigration to the federal budget at $24.44 billion. Extrapolated to 2006, through increases in the number of illegals and inflation, that becomes at least $70 billion this year (source).

Most of the organizations advocating for sensible immigration policy use this figure, which represents the cost to the government's budget, and note that this amounts to

$70 billion / 300 million= $233+ per capita for the US population

But wait just one minute! That $70 billion illegal alien subsidy budget did not come, as liberals would have us believe, as manna from heaven. IT CAME OUT OF THE US TAXPAYER'S POCKET. It was collected and administered and redistributed by the same inefficient charity -- the US government -- as the other agricultural subsidy. So to wind up with $70 billion in the federal budget to lavish on our law-breaking uninvited guests, our government had to extract many times that amount from us. You remember -- to pay for the IRS, the GAO, the GSA, the USDA, the three branches, and oh yes for pro rata segments of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (remember our bankrupted emergency rooms), Justice (recall the illegals' disproportionately high percentage in the federal pens), etc.

Now we see that we are approaching a substantial portion of John Q.'s food budget. In fact, it has been estimated that illegal labor reduces the price of a head of lettuce about two cents. You'd have to eat a very great deal of lettuce to make this worthwhile.

Does anyone make out? Well, if you are the sort who spends a lot on maids to clean your house, gardeners to tend your lawn, perhaps a nanny and a chauffer, maybe yes. For example, if you can save $10 per hour on a maid who works for you one day a week (say $15 per hour instead of $25 per hour), you will save

$80 x 52 = $4,160 per year

And if you can shave a similar amount off the wages of a gardener who fine-tunes your boxwood and manicures your grass one day per week (say $25 per hour instead of $35 per hour), you can double your savings.

These wages are the going rates in the DC suburbs where our lawmakers have their posh dwellings. Throw in the Hispanic nanny who tends the little ones 48 hours per week while you are at work, and this becomes very attractive.

So the "Tijuana express" IS benefiting the folk who are responsible for keeping the underground railroad running. But let's be honest. This is not about the price of lettuce.

For an overview of our government's history of disastrous meddling in the agricultural economy, read Agricultural Subsidies in the HighBeam Encyclopedia here.

Previous articles in our Illegal Immigration series:

The Crider Case

Illegals Deadlier Than War On Terror

Going By The Numbers

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

New on the Side-bar

2006-12-18T01:20:00.001-06:00

I just skimmed and put up a bunch of blogs that pertain to creative writing in some form. This is not yet a recommendation for them, but because I want to explore them myself. If they stick around...that means I like them. Or, perhaps, it just means I got distracted. We'll see.

"Raw, naked fear."

2006-12-18T01:20:00.000-06:00

A few months ago, I was thinking about my writing career, or lack of career, and was looking at my wall. I was thinking about what I wanted, and why I didn't work for it the way I should. Mark was standing by me.

There's a sign on my wall. It's a quote from Orson Scott Card that I pulled from "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy." It goes like this:

It might be true enough that the story isn't ready for publication -- but that isn't why you aren't sending it out. No, you're hanging on to this manuscript for one reason only.

Raw, naked fear.

I looked at it and said, "That's it. That's why."

Mark knew what I was talking about. He, too, has fears of success. He knew what I was going through and he knew how it haunted me. He simply said, "I know," and put his hand on my shoulder.

As much as Mark believes in me, as much as he wants me to succeed, as much as he knows that I can, he also knows that I have to believe it, and I have to be willing to do it. I, and only I, can do my work.

Nothing changed dramatically. Not all at once. But, soon, I started submitting short stories again. I started writing and re-editing my work. I went back to college. There, I acquired the urge to write a new kind of book. To study non-fiction, write it and seek to have it published. I started a fiction novel as well. I started thinking about what I did wrong with my unpublished novel, that sits waiting in a box for me to have the courage to take another look.

Every day I face that raw, naked fear. Whether the fear of failure or the fear of success is more strong depends on the moment. Somedays the fear wins, but not for long. And not today.

From Teacher to Baby

2006-12-17T03:35:00.000-06:00

I woke up this evening (yes, I'm on nights again) and my eldest son had a revelation for me.

"Mom," he said, "I think I...maybe instead of a teacher I'm gonna be a baby."

Out of the blue, with no context. "I don't know what that means, Willy." I moved to close the door, cutting off the conversation I was too busy waking up to have. Then, slowly, I stopped myself.

Willy smiled. "I'm not gonna be a teacher any more. I'm gonna be a baby...a baby-sitter."

Ah, the light comes on. "Well, Willy. You're seven. Soon, you'll be eight. Maybe, when you're eighteen, then we'll worry about it, okay? That's ten years away, okay?"

"No, I'm just going to be a baby-sitter, Mom."

Well, I thought as I closed the door, at least he's not trying to choose between being a train and a fire truck any more.

* * *

When I was Willy's age, I wanted to be a teacher. I idolized my teacher, Mrs. Rogers, then. She gave me a white, stuffed money that made monkey noises. I was recovering from surgery, too frail to go to school, and she came to see me. She brought me homework and taught me lessons. She didn't have to, but she really, really cared about "her" kids. She came to see me several times a week while I recovered, and she gave me a stuffed monkey. I wanted to be just like her when I grew up.

When I was Brandon's age (my step-son), I wanted to be an author. We had a special day in school, where we came in the costume of what we wanted to be. Having no idea what an author would look like, I dressed up in a frilly dress, curled my hair, put a bow on my ponytail and wore my uncomfortable, i.e. dress, shoes. My teacher, Mr. Walker, was a good man, a good teacher, and he laughed (kindly so) and told me that authors generally wore jeans and a t-shirt because they worked from home. With a smile I thought about my uncomfortable shoes, and I wanted to be an author that much more when I grew up.

Two years later I was reading A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle. I loved that book. Not only was it something I could share with my mother (who was never a big reader, though now the Bible is a daily pastime), but it had a great story about a little girl who seemed far too much like me, except happily more dramatic. Her mother was just amazing. She was a chemist...or something, and stayed home, working in her lab upon occasion. Meg (the girl) grew up, in later stories like The Arm of the Starfish and A Swiftly Tilting Planet, to be a mother and a marine biologist. And, that was what I wanted to be. Going to exotic places, with my husband and my children, and having adventures. And then, of course, I'd write about them, because I'd still be a writer, too.

You learn, as you get older and actually step out into the world, what it means to have 24 hours in a day. As a child, 24 seems like a lot. You have time to go to school, climb rocks, deliver papers, play football, join the army, defeat the paratroopers, have dinner, and do your chores. Marine biology, child-rearing, and writing about it afterwards...sure, I could do that!

But, you grow up. You realize, in biology class, that dissecting pigs is not fun. It stinks, makes you queasy, and you split open the liver...so, obviously, you're not very good at it. You realize, in chemistry class, that maybe science isn't your thing when yours is the one project in the whole class that needs to be re-done, because it didn't get all frothy. And, when you finally graduate, after learning all the things you aren't good at, you marry, move out, have actual kids, and realize that 24 hours is not long enough to guarantee yourself a shower everyday, let alone time to write, let alone time to have adventures then write about them.

I don't speak five different languages. I've never been outside the country of my birth. And I've never touched a dolphin. However, I can still read Madeleine L'Engle and remember the dreams of youth, without regret. I can read Narnia, and read grown-up stories, and I can dream and write. And, someday, perhaps my stories will reach the mainstream and publication. Someday, I might inspire someone else to dream. And, for me, that's even better than living an adventure.

* * *

So, next time my son tells me he wants to be a teacher, a baby-sitter, or a fire truck, I'll take the time to hear his dream, to truly listen, and to help it come alive in his soul. He may never be a teacher, a baby-sitter, or a fire truck -- he'll definitely never be a fire truck -- but that's no reason not to dream. Perhaps, when he's older and on his own path, he'll look back and smile. Perhaps, he'll think of his dreams as a stepping-stone to where he is now. I can help with that. And, you know, that is truly better than living an adventure.

Defending Our Common Wealth: A Plug

2006-12-15T04:19:00.000-06:00

Part of what I'm doing in preparing for my book is studying the art of essay writing. Now, as per my own opinion, I do not write essays on my blog. On my blog I write thoughts, in free form. It's kind of like brainstorming...but in print. If I were to compare it to anything, I would compare it to speeches. Blogging, for me, is impromptu speaking. Essay writing is giving a manuscript speech. Neither is more valuable to me than the other, but they have some inherent differences -- thus the studying.

That being said, one of the essays I've recently read is Defending Our Common Wealth by Scott Russell Sanders. I'm not familiar with him, or with the New American Dream, which published his work, but I do have to say this is worth a read. I don't agree with everything in there, but the sentiment...that's what I feel is most important. Check it out!

:-P

2006-12-15T00:56:00.000-06:00

School's almost over for this term, and then I get a nice "long" break. All my work's turned in and for the first time in weeks I have a full night before me and I'm not sure what I should do. I have a list of tasks that I want to get done, both for myself and for others, but I'm dwelling. I'm dwelling on something outside of my control, as is my tendancy.

So, here it is: I'm writing a book. In order to get published, though, I don't write the book, I write the book proposal. Okay, I can do that. I have to learn how, but that's not such a big thing. But first I have to get some publication credits, and a blog doesn't count. A blog doesn't count because nobody has to believe in my work, my writing, my voice in order for me to have a blog. Having a blog and having readers are two different things...but still, the blogosphere, as many of us are aware, is not the most respected medium, so it doesn't "count."

:-P

They call what I need "clips," which means I have to get published and I need evidence that I got published. Where do you start? The word from the wise is that you start at your local newspaper. Not only have I read this in numerous books, but I also got it straight from the fingers of Cammie McGovern, a mother of a child with autism who has also been published...including in the New York Times. Impressive stuff. I like her work. I contacted her. She actually responded! So...local newspaper. Easy enough, right?

:-P

The Janesville Gazette won't even consider publishing me. It's not that they don't like my ideas. It's not that they don't like my writing. It's not that they don't like my style. They won't even take a look. Why? They have a policy: if they bend it for me, omigosh!, more Janesville residents will want to write editorials and they just can't have that.

Okay, so I'm being snide. I know this. I'm even almost sorry about it, but for a paper that advertises "It's your paper," they sure don't seem very willing to give voice to members of the community. Okay, Letter to the Editor, yes, but when the paper gets to express its views in 500 - 700 words almost every single day (and that's just on the editorial page) and everybody else (excluding syndicated artists, of course) gets a maximum of 250 words, which they are free to whittle down however they choose... You start to see my point.

I think back on the days when our country was founded, and I think about what "freedom of the press" meant to our forefathers, and I just have to cringe. This isn't the New York Times we're talking about here, just a little ol' paper that's trying a little too hard to compete with the big boys...something its never going to be able to do. Besides, even the NYT would consider my work...right before they rejected it. The New York Times publishes people who've been published elsewhere, it's just the way the biz works. I know this. Still, they'd consider me. And my hometown paper wouldn't even do that.

It's not the end of the world. There are still other possibilities open to me. And, I will make use of them. But, right now, I'm just a bit irritated. Rejection, sure, as I writer I'm used to that. But this isn't even rejection in the typical sense. When you get a rejection letter, as a writer, artist, scholar, ect., you're supposed to remind yourself that the editor isn't rejecting you, s/he's rejecting one example of your work. Nope. This guy rejected me, not because of my work -- he didn't even see my work -- but simply because I didn't fit a holier-than-thou profile. I guess I'm just too "Janesville" for the Janesville Gazette, which is kind of sad.

Recovering

2006-11-16T01:11:00.000-06:00

I'm still recovering from my hectic week, and I'm behind on school work. Ah, well, I'll be caught up soon.

I kind of got pulled into My Space. It's interesting. I get music, which is rather nice. Other than that...not sure what the point is. However, my dad has a site there and that's why I joined.

I'm really enjoying the free music! I haven't figured out how to blog there, and I'm not sure I want to add another blog to my to-do list anyway. We'll see.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-11-13T23:54:00.000-06:00

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Last Tuesday, the Democrats won the majority in both the House and the Senate. Within a day, President Bush was gloating on national TV about how he could now finally pass his Amnesty bill with a Democrat-controlled Congress. This galling statement by the President was reinforced by the White House spokesman:

White House spokesman Tony Snow reacted to the change in House control by allowing they’re disappointed, but that it presents some intriguing opportunities, such as passing comprehensive immigration reform which failed in the previous Republican House.

Meanwhile, conservatives are shocked - SHOCKED! - by this open defiance of the vast majority of Americans' wishes. "What on earth is Bush thinking?!," they wonder. Howard Sutherland says there's no need for such surprise, and here's why:

If George W. Bush has been consistent about anything it is his determination to keep the United States open to the mass migration of Mexicans and other Latin Americans.
[...]
George W. Bush is a true believer in amnesty for illegal aliens, at least for Mexicans, and perhaps in some sort of EU-style shotgun marriage of Canada, the United States and Mexico as well.
[...]
That he is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the welfare of Mexicans, does not faze him. The amnesty/guest worker program is President Bush’s lodestar, the legacy he sincerely wants to leave America. In the teeth of all the evidence, he believes that we would be better for it and it’s just the right thing to do. It is more important to him than Iraq, so important that he jettisoned the GOP’s best chance to hold on to the Congress rather than back away from it.

So with the President dancing on the political graves of the massacred GOP, it looks like a plan for amnesty is a sure thing. Now pundits everywhere, on both sides of the aisle, are breathlessly calculating where millions of new voters will fit into the political landscape of the future. I've watched and taken part in several debates on which party will end up scooping the Newly Amnestied Immigrant vote.

Here are a few viewpoints I've seen expressed about the powerful new Latino voting bloc:

A conservative sees it as political suicide for the Republicans: "It’s still baffling why Bush wants to legalize millions of potential Democrat voters."

A liberal who believes the Republican loss of power will be permanent: "Good luck getting it back after we give citizenship to 10 million new Democratic voters and annihilate you in the Southwest."

An independent conservative is convinced that the Latino voting bloc will vote along traditional family values: "They’re mostly very traditional catholics. When the Dems overreach on gay marriage, completely unrestricted late term abortion, etc., they’re going to hit a brick wall in that demographic."

A Hispanic-American voter ascribes his own values to the new voting bloc: "Hispanics are not a monolithic voting bloc that can be easily manipulated with this one issue. We’re too fragmented for that."

And a conservative Hispanic-American in NY doesn't believe that all Latino votes will automatically side with the Democrats: “If ever there was a constituency that voted with its wallet, and with an eye on social issues, it’s the Hispanic.”

Suffice it to say, an unprecedented and massive influx of voters presents a vast unknown. Before either party gets too excited counting their chickens before they're hatched, I'd like to offer some personal insight into how this demographic shift will impact the American political landscape.

Any stereotypes of how second, third, and fourth generation Hispanic-Americans have voted in the past need to be discarded. The Latino trends in America prior to amnesty will not apply. There are currently 20-30 million illegal aliens inside our borders that Bush and the Democrats would like to give citizenship to. Among that number, there are exceptions to what I'm about to say, but I won't be discussing those exceptions today. I will be discussing the largest majority of illegals, most if which come from Mexico, Central, and South America - and my experience living in Mexico and observing the Mexican election system.

The vast majority of illegals are, to a very large extent, semi-literate, poorly educated, and unskilled laborers. They come to America to take what they can get, and most really have very little interest in American citizenship, and the duties and responsibilities thereof. Thus, they will not be dashing to the polls in the first election after their amnesty, either to vote Democrat out of gratefulness for their brand-new citizenship (which they don't care much for), or to vote Republican because they have an urgent religious objection to same-sex marriages. They will, in fact, not be too interested in voting at all - unless they can get something out of it. Even then, they will have to be shepherded to the polls by their Latino leaders; at best, lured by promises of freebies, or at worst, covertly paid for their vote.

I lived in Mexico in 2000, the year that Vicente Fox was first elected. The week of the election, the little town that I lived in was a-swarm with poll workers and party volunteers. I'll let you in on the dirty little secret about elections in Mexico: they are bought and paid for at the local level by party workers. Twenty pesos and a cerveza could buy a vote from the day laborers. Those with a little more education were lured by the promise of government programs and hand-outs. Those with the most education believe in Mexican reconquista and will vote for anyone who can stick it to the U.S.

Fox was largely voted for because he actually campaigned on the issue of his access and influence with George W. Bush. There was a lot of talk about how much cooperation and concessions Mexico would be able to squeeze from the U.S., and how much it would benefit Mexico. BINGO - jackpot for Vicente Fox!

Why was the status of Mexican influence over American affairs of such paramount importance to the voters of Mexico? Because a full 20% of Mexico's population is already residing inside America. It is crucial that the billions of dollars of free money flowing into Mexico be safe-guarded, and the promise of more realized.

Once elected, Vicente Fox’s election promises to his people were published in a five year plan called the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006. I need to make something very clear here: this plan is NOT for implementation in Mexico, it is Mexico’s plan for AMERICA. The Mexican government has been implementing this plan for the past five years. They've met many of their goals for forcing concessions from the U.S., and for manipulating and controlling how the issue of illegal immigration is defined and presented to the American people.

Here’s a sampling:

The issue of migration, especially in the United States, needs a new focus over the long term to permit the movement and residence of Mexican nationals to be safe, comfortable, legal and orderly, and the attitude of police persecution of this phenomenon must be abandoned and it must be perceived as a labor and social phenomenon. This requires a complete negotiation that strikes at the structural roots of [migration], its manifestations and consequences, and that considers migration a shared responsibility. (Section 4.8., page 61)

This element of the plan indicates how Mexico wants to be sure the debate over illegal immigration is never framed around the issue of law enforcement, but instead focused on the social aspects. This is where we get the emotional but fallacious arguments of "racism", "forced mass deportations", "forcibly separating legal children from illegal parents", etc.

There’s more:

Make Mexican sovereign decisions with respect to migratory flow and movement count, and offer and demand decent treatment for our countrymen who travel or reside abroad.

Encourage a long-term international migration policy …, with other nations and international organizations, that defends the rights of Mexicans abroad and strengthens their sense of belonging [to Mexico]. Play an active role in ensuring the labor rights of our countrymen [abroad], in the context of international competition.

Devise and implement government programs to recognize and value the contributions that migrants make, as much in the societies that receive them as in their societies of origin, insisting on full respect for their rights during their transit to and from Mexico. At the same time, raise the quality and efficiency of migration services. (Section 7.3.1(g), page 132)

The second point indicates Mexico's realization that to keep their exported laborers sending money home, they need to remain strongly connected to Mexico. With that type of determined focus on retaining nationalistic pride, which country do YOU think will hold the loyalty of the Newly Amnestied Immigrants?

Furthermore, Mexico has implemented a plan to create programs - not in Mexico - but in America, that recognize and honor migrants. It also speaks of raising the quality and efficiency of migration services. Thus, we now have train loads of illegals trucked to the border gratis, and the Mexican government has published and distributed pamphlets on how to break into America and remain undetected.

Listen, Mexico’s plan has already been successfully implemented for five years now while we Americans wallowed. But don’t take my word for it. Juan Hernandez is a Mexican official in Fox’s cabinet. He is supremely confident, even cocky, in recent U.S. op-eds and television appearances. On June 7th, in USA Today, he said what is all too obvious to anyone who will pay attention:

“Mexico knows where it wants to go even more clearly than the United States knows where it wants to go.”

That evening, on Nightline, he made it even clearer for us:

“We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the United States … will think Mexico first.”

Mexico first. Thus, we come to my final point. When the 20-30 million illegals are finally amnestied, they will be voting en masse for the party that best benefits them and Mexico. That will have to include concessions, hand-outs, special programs, and entitlements at all levels. Thus, either party that can devise and deliver advantages especially for them and their native country (remember that they still won't think of themselves as Americans, despite their cheap citizenship), will "buy" their vote. A few free cervezas won't hurt either.

So please, party pundits, don’t hold out hope that you will woo scads of new voters with your traditional party platforms. You'll have to get busy devising ways to buy the Newly Amnestied Immigrant vote. You Republicans won't recruit millions of Latino voters with family values and tax cuts (they don't pay taxes anyway!). And you Democrats can't just pose as the Enlightened Party of Brown People - you'll have to deliver billions in pork to this very specific demographic in order to buy their vote. We'll see how well that goes over with Real Americans.

Remember, those newly amnestied Mexican voters will NOT loyal to the U.S., and they won’t care what is best for the U.S. economically, politically, or socially. Nor will they be vested in the communities that are supporting them. They won't have any interest in performing the duties and responsibilities of citizenship out of patriotic pride, because their dual-citizenship will ensure that they remain loyal to Mexico.

Last thought: the influx of tens of millions of new "citizens" will be unprecedented in our history and has the potential for breaking our system of government beyond repair. So any politician that naively thinks he will reap a windfall of uneducated voters needs to rethink his strategy. Because unless he's working for Mexico, he'll have little to offer. A canny Azltan politician, on the other hand, acting in the best interests of Mexico, will have a willing base of millions of drone voters. How long do you think the Reconquista will take, considering the projected population explosion due to unchecked illegal and legal immigration? So Mr. Senator and Congressman, you'd better be careful what you ask for. ¿Hay alguien aqui que hable inglés?

...and baby makes three!

2006-11-09T17:57:00.000-06:00

Well, it's done. Today I went in for the feedback session of Ben's diagnostic process. And, he qualified as autistic, moderately so. The process to get him access to services is begun. Okay, so that consisted of a phone call, but still...it's begun. I also found a new source for material for my book, that in the doctor who diagnosed Ben. She seemed congenial to my goals, as well as understanding of the problem I see in communication between the different peoples involved.

I'll expound upon that at a later time. Right now, this is going to have to do. I've still got school work to do.

Blue in Wisconsin

2006-11-08T07:48:00.000-06:00

If voting was anti-climactic after all the research time I'd invested into my decisions, then the part where every campaign that I had any emotional investment in at all lost really sucked. Even slimy corruption doesn't necessarily get in the way of incumbents *ahem*DOYLE*gag*. The one incumbent I voted for won, but then again her opponent was against abortion because it killed consumers. I'd never heard a real person use that lame-ass excuse for a position, but now I have. Of all the reasons to be pro-life, that's the worst.

Anyway, Wisconsin is dramatically, and despicably blue...again. 'Cause, well, it did sooo wonderfully for us for the last few years. Now we get to repeat it all. I cannot tell you how much I wish Mark Green had won.

Anyway, ironies being what they are, the Marriage Amendment survived its first round. So, while Wisconsin may be blue, the sanctity of marriage is a strong belief state-wide. Also, it looks like there's a thumbs up for the very limited version of the death penalty. And, the local high schools got their funding. So, while the people-portion of the ballot sucked from my perspective, some interesting results came out of this election cycle.

Though, my overwhelming feeling is still the bitter, bile-ick-stic nature of Doyle's triumph. I really, really didn't want to deal with any more of his double-fisted, back-handed, deceiptful, government-for-sale crap. But, on the bright side, the Attorney General election hasn't been called, so we still might get a an attorney willing to investigate Doyle's shady dealings, let alone prosecute if possible.

VOTE

2006-11-07T17:08:00.000-06:00

Today is the day to vote, unless you've already voted absentee. Most of the time I advocate becoming an educated voter. However, today I don't really care. Go. Vote. I don't care who or what you vote for, just vote. It's more than a right, it's also an important responsibility of a citizen of every democratic republic. If you don't vote, you hardly have reason to bitch about it afterwards. If you don't like who's on the ballot, write someone in. Show you care and vote.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-11-07T17:07:00.000-06:00

This Blogburst is also available as a Podcast.

Why the United States Has Lost So Much in Latin America

By LomaAlta at Linknzona

The facts are not in dispute. During this Administration’s “watch”, the geopolitical situation in Latin America has deteriorated well beyond the tragic losses of any previous Administration. Communist tyrants rise in Venezuela, Bolivia, and now Nicaragua and socialism is on the march in other countries. President Reagan’s successes in spreading democracy and freedom in Latin America appear to have been stopped. Let’s examine some of the possible reasons.

Negligence. This Administration appears to be focused on the war on terrorism, particularly the Middle East and has neglected the problems arising in the countries of our neighbors to the south. Indisputable evidence of Middle Eastern terrorists increasing their presence in Latin America and illegally crossing our southern border with help of Latin American gangs is readily available [1]. These facts have been well known for years but emphasizing them goes against President Bush and his Administration’s open border, pro-illegal immigration policies as well as against most of the Democratic leadership and their Mainstream Media. Thus, little is heard about this growing threat. Even less is heard about its impact in Latin America. This leads directly to the President and his Administration’s relationships with Latin American leaders and through them, its people.

Submission, not Partnership. Latin Americans, and particularly Mexicans, like most people, respect power and its just and successful application. In addition, the cultural implications of power and weakness are viewed through the lens of machismo throughout Latin America and especially in Mexico [2].

The USA, as the world’s undisputed Super Power, must look weak and ineffectual to the rest of the World and downright mariposa-like to our friends south of the border as it panders to Presidente Fox, leaves its borders open during war time, and sacrifices the security and well being of its citizens to foreign invaders. Such weak and foolish behavior engenders disgust and dislike of the USA throughout Latin America in proportion to how much they take advantage of us. Mexico is first in line, of course, but can you imagine a president of any South American country calling our President the devil at the UN in New York? Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela did exactly that this fall. There were no repercussions. This will embolden other thugs and bullies to spit in our President’s face and regard the USA as a weak, stumbling, and blinded paper tiger.

Bumbling. How unsuited for representing the USA is Secretary Condi Rice? With the exception of John Bolton at the UN, I have yet to see any diplomatic courage and vision from this Administration. It seems Secretary Rice has fallen into the trap of so many of our diplomats. She sees her clients as other diplomats, world opinion is of paramount importance to her, and the national interests of the USA appear to be lost in the swirl of trips, functions, receptions, parties and all types of activities we call “form over substance”. A good example of this is diplomatic meddling in Nicaragua [3].

This is a brief overview of how the Bush Administration has mismanaged USA activities and interests in Latin America. Why is this Administration so much worse than previous ones? Previous administrations have bumbled, submitted to Mexican presidents, and neglected Latin America. But President Bush is the first president to put the interests of a foreign power – Mexico, above the interests of the USA.

How can a foreign leader respect a President who does not put his country first in negotiations? We all grew up with bullies. The vast majority of us learned that the quickest way to stop a bully from attacking or extorting something from us was to resist, and, to fight back if necessary. Sure it was scary and rough to be hit or beaten; but just the knowledge that you would not submit was almost always enough to send the bully in search of weaker victims.

Bullies are cowards and seek out the weakest victims they can find. The weaker you are, the more the cowards bully you, and the less they respect you. This is true on every school ground; and it is true among nations as we have learned over and over. To be weak is to invite attack.

For a nation to submit is for it to surrender its freedom and sovereignty. This is the principal reason our relations with Latin America are so bad and why communism is on the rise again there. The USA, through President Bush and the political leadership of both parties, has submitted to Mexico. Illegal immigration is the occupation of one peoples’ country by another people. President Bush not only submits to Mexico, he encourages and supports their continued bullying.

---------------------

[1] For example see: Daniel Sheehy’s 2005 book, “Fighting Immigration Anarchy”, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN, 329 pp, and J. D. Hayworth’s 2006 book, “Whatever it Takes”, Regency Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, 230 pp.

[2] ma•chis•mo
Pronunciation: (mä-chēz'mō, -chiz'-, mu-), [key]
—n.
1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate: The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo.

[3] More freedom lost in Latin America?

Critical Thinking vs. Constructive Listening

2006-11-06T02:04:00.000-06:00

Again with the textbook... Right now I'm learning about the steps of listening. Very important and valid for a public speaking course. But, a thought occurred to me: Most people who dabble in politics (or do more than dabble) realize that critical thinking is very important. We read and listen to messages very critically, because, frankly, there's a lot of deceipt going on, both intentionally and subconsciously. Critical thinking is very important, and I'm not one to deny that (though I do think far too many people apply it without understanding it very well, but that's not my point here).

However, progress (not the progressive progress, but general progress) requires more than critical thinking. Critical thinking is what pits adversaries against each other, creating an atmosphere of duelistic mentalities. It's them or us, baby...which side are you on.

For those of us who do not want to be on either side, for whatever reason, this gets very tiresome. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a Republican. Yet, if I stand against the one, it's assumed that I am the other. When I visit liberal blogs, it's often assumed I'm a Republican. When I visit conservative blogs, it's often assumed I'm a Democrat. And, that's kind of funny...but the point is that I'm neither, nor do I wish to be either. I'm past that.

What I want to do is find the middle ground that the majority, the real American majority can stand on comfortably. None of us are going to be 100% satisfied with that situation, but most of us will be more comfortable and better situated than we are now. It seems like a very logical place for us all to want to get to, because our government would be fulfilling its Constitutional purpose. And yet our reality is far from this middle ground despite all the critical thinking that so many people try to do.

What gives? Really. It makes me wonder if too many people are stuck in the critical thinking duelistic mentality and haven't moved onto the point of compromise and common ground. For instance, as long as the other person is willing to continue a discussion in a civil manner, I can usually find some sort of common ground with most of the people I run across. It's also common for friendships to develop between this people I disagree with, or, at the very least, friendly nods to acquaintanceship. This doesn't mean I agree with the -- sometimes ever -- but it does mean there is a willingness between both people to acknowledge the value of the other's opinion, and the potential uses that opinion may have. Worst comes to worst and there's no common ground on any particular issue, remaining civil can, at the very least, help both people strengthen their arguments by watching where the other finds holes in the self same argument. Ideas can be strengthened, can become more sound, or can be discarded and re-thought through civil, constructive debate.

I do wonder how much better our country would be if constructive debate were a more sought-after pastime. It makes me think that perhaps Inclusive Debates could accomplish even more than I originally expected. T'were it only nearer at hand.

Stumpless Bush

2006-11-05T23:01:00.000-06:00

This article made me laugh: Bush stumps in red states to save House.

Can you say "counter-productive?" I knew you could!

The best thing Bush can do to "save" the House is to sit quietly in a little room and practice his duck and cover technique. Many people are not happy with Bush. Many people are not happy with the House's complacent response to Bush. Emphasizing how buddy-buddy he is with some of these people are not going to help their case. It's just not a good idea.

Bush so doesn't care what people think, so why does he think people will care (at least in any positive manner) what he thinks about a particular candidate? (Not-so-silent nod to Prague Twin of, well, Prague Twin; I've enjoyed our recent debates.)
:-)

Anyway, I'm not saying this because I think Bush will listen to me. It's not like he's exactly good at that. Nor do I say this because I want the House to be "saved" in that manner. Nope, I want the Dems to take back the House. Not because I like the Dems (repulsive shudder), I do not. I especially dislike the Dems of my own state (and I do mean the politicians, not the voters). However, I do hope that the Dems winning Congress is the next step to a viable, middle-of-the-road, fiscally conservative, people-minded third-party. And that is something I do want.

So, Bush, go stump, please. Just don't be too stumped when it backfires.

Dead Writer Society

2006-11-05T22:44:00.000-06:00

I've obviously made a minor *ahem* adjustment to my blog. I'm going to try and get it fixed so it doesn't repeat the way it is, but other than that little excessiveness -- what do you think? Hmm?

Anyway, I would also like to introduce y'all to a new blogging friend of mine (new blogger, not new friend) named Rick. He has a baby blog called Dead Writer Society and from what he's done so far, I'd say he's about as eclectic as I am when it comes to "what to post about." I hope y'all will take the time to check him out and welcome him to the blogosphere! Thanks!

Books

2006-11-04T04:26:00.000-06:00

A funny thing happened tonight. I was going through my husband books, the ones he intended to sell at his now closed e-Bay store, and found that there were actually some books that I had absolutely no interest in reading...ever. This kind of caught me by surprise. I'm a bibliophile, and so I was not prepared to actually look at a book in my possesion and decide I did not want to read it. It's unheard of! I mean, sure, there's books that I want to read later, I mean, way later, but there have not been books that I simply don't want to read at all. Until now.

It's funny, really. An archaic book on surgical procedure. Ew. Why would I want to read that? Why would anyone who's not really niche-y want to read that? How did we ever get it? People have been giving Mark old books, so we've got tons of them. Unfortunately, most are books nobody wants. Thus, the closing of the very unprofitable store.

So, now, we have to figure out what to do with all these old, worthless books. And, that's surprising, because I've never really considered any book worthless. There've been some really bad books that I've read, and I've enjoyed destroying them for their badness. But, there's worth in that. These books are not even books either of us can take pleasure in destroying. They're not bad, they're just worthless. Obsolete.

It's strange. Our bookshelf space is very limited, and I do want to reclaim the space these books are currently occupying (remember the bibliophile part?), but what to do with them? Ah, well, we'll think of something. We always do.

Amendments, Referendums and Voting

2006-11-03T00:35:00.000-06:00

One of the fun things about our Republic is that we occasionally have the opportunity to cast some singularly special votes. We tend to call these Amendments and Referendums. Amendments are rare, but I have the opportunity to vote on one in just a few days. It's an Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that will, if passed, limit marriage to one man and one woman, while also limiting the recognition of non-marital relationships. We also have a state wide "advisory referendum" that will begin the process to consider reinstituting the death penalty in Wisconsin. One of my favorite things about this referendum is that it has "DNA evidence" written right in there, which is the only way I'll even consider the death penalty after some lengthy debates with my friend Lisa Renee. Yet, these two are not the only specials I have the opportunity to have a say in. On the local level, I also get to vote as to whether or not I want to fund additions onto the high schools in my city. Oh goody!

Now, maybe I'm just strange. I mean, I'm rather used to that. But, I find all these specials rather fun. Somehow it seems so much more democratic when we voters actually get a say in what happens, not just who decides what happens. So, I'm really looking forward to voting next Tuesday, and I hope you are to, even if you don't have specials. And if you don't have specials, maybe voters can find a way to ensure a special is included in every elections. Who knows, it just might help boost voter turn-out!

Paul Ryan

2006-11-03T00:08:00.000-06:00

Okay, so here's the problem. Due to my association with VOID and my own conscience, I cannot/will not vote for Paul Ryan. It's not that I think he's a bad guy, I don't. I've met him and he was very nice, very personable. I met his wife, and she has deep and abiding concerns for individuals with disabilities, which is always a heart-warmer for me. He's also friends/associates with Mark Green, who I am voting for. As a Congressman, Paul Ryan has not served us poorly, however he has not served us excellently either. He's a staunch Republican, and leans more towards the classic conservative. Which does win some points with me, but he's also too much of a political party man. Which loses lots of points with me. He's not a yes-man to Bush, but he hasn't exactly been effective when it comes to standing up for fiscal conservatism, though he has tried. So, my "no" vote for Paul Ryan is less against Ryan and more against the incumbency that dooms our system to corruption. Ryan's a party to that, but he's not a big-wig in that.

The problem is that his opponent, the only opponent I can find information about (not even a name for anyone else) is Jeffrey Thomas. Thomas, as a candidate, is totally yawn-worthy. Apparently he has just the two issues: Ryan had dealings with Abramoff and health care. His ideal solution for our health care crisis is for the government to administer it and for employers to bankroll it, all on a national level. And frankly that scares the crap out of me. I've seen government administered health care. It's the only health care we currently have access to, and while it's better than nothing, I guarantee y'all who have access to something else don't want it. Admittedly, Abramoff is icky and I don't like that Ryan can be at all associated with him, and health care is a concern. But, c'mon. All the problems in America, and this is Thomas' sales pitch? Please. This is not someone who imbues confidence. This is not someone I want representing me or my area in Congress.

So, the incumbent is out. His opponent, apparently his sole opponent, is out. What to do? Well, I haven't exactly decided yet. And this is the only thing left to decide by Nov. 7. I could vote for Thomas, because it's not like it'd hurt anything seeing as he doesn't stand a chance. But, that seems kind of dirty, considering I think this district should put up a better candidate. I could write in someone, but who? Ah, it's late and I'm still hoping I'll discover another candidate.

The Melting Pot vs. Ethnocentrism

2006-11-01T09:49:00.000-06:00

One of the things I really don't like about college is all the textbooks that just can't seem to help but insert their own political bias into subject matter where it does NOT belong. For instance, public speaking. It's a class I don't particularly want to take, because I'm not inclined to be a speaker -- I'm a writer -- but taking the class is all the more difficult when I find myself arguing with the textbook on just about every page.

I'm not against other people having political opinions, however I am against people using inappropriate venues to assert their political opinions as facts. Then again, I'm generally against people asserting their opinions as facts, no matter what the venue is, however that's just a persuasive tactic that's widely used -- and I know I've been guilty of it more than once. A textbook is not the venue for it, however, especially when the politics involved and the subject matter are completely irrelevant to each other.

I'm reading Public Speaking by Michael and Suzanne Osborn (relation unknown) for my speech class with Herzing On-line. Here's the quote that sparked this little rant: "In the first half of the twentieth century, the idea of America as a "melting pot" suggested that as various groups of immigrants came to this country, they would be melted down in some vast cultural cauldron into a superior alloy called "the American character." This metaphor reinforced enthnocentrism and expressed cultural arrogance."

I'm sorry, but no. This has no place in a public speaking textbook. This is not about public speaking. This is a particular point of view, that basically says (which is reinforced further along in the text) that Americans are not allowed to have a culture of their own, because it is disrespectful. And so, I've got to say, What they hell!?!

Having a culture of your own is not ethnocentric. You can have a culture of your own, and still value other cultures and sample the experiences of those cultures. They are not mutually exclusive. While I grant there is a mediocre movement towards a global community, which people typically flout until their cultural identity is threatened, this idea that a global community is somehow better than, superior to, and inevitable from a hodge-podge of national, regional and local communities and their various identities is not "fact," it is "opinion" and valuing this opinion over all others could be called *drum roll please* ethnocentric, because one is putting the global "ethnicity" above any singular ethnicity.

This is not to say that I don't respect the cultures of other people. I do. Very much. That is not to say that I believe that America and all Americans have a single culture. I don't. That's ridiculous, and if you don't know that's ridiculous I suggest you try going to Texas, then to Nebraska, then to Vermont and see it for yourself. However, I do suggest that claims that America neither has nor is entitled to a cultural identity that is American is equally false. While going to Texas and Nebraska and Vermont you'll see many differences. You'll see a wide variety of culture. However, you'll also see bits and pieces of the American culture that ties us together. The American culture is part of the reason why the whole nation, or at least most of it, mourned when the World Trade Center was attacked. The American culture is part of the reason why the whole nation, or at least most of it, aided the victims of Katrina and Rita, and it is also why so many people are still helping those victims and still outraged that the government did not do more to help/prevent/reconstruct that area of our nation. Were it not for the American culture, most of us would have no more concern for "those people" in New York City or "those people" in New Orleans (and many other communities) than we do for the people affected by the tsunamis across the ocean. The reason we do care more is because "those people" are our people.

The melting pot isn't necessarily about making a "superior" alloy of the many people involved, it's about making an American alloy with the many people involved. It's about having a national culture, a national identity, a nation that is stronger than its individual parts. And that melting pot, that national culture, that national identity and the nation that it produced has made us into the last remaining "superpower" of our time, for good and for ill. We're not perfect, but we are American. That is what the melting pot is about. And that is something that is worthy of our interest and our effort.

Again, I'm all for valuing other cultures. If we did a little more of that, we might not have made quite so many mistakes as a nation as we have done. However, valuing other cultures does NOT mean throwwing our own away. The more I learn about other cultures, the richer my own becomes, because it's easy to take your own culture for granted when you've got nothing to compare it to, however I'm not going to give up my own culture because I value that of another person. I'm not going to give up Halloween and Trick-or-Treating with my children, just because other people throughout the world celebrate the holiday differently, or don't celebrate it at all. That's not avoiding ethnocentrism, that's avoiding culture altogether. De-valuing culture de-values humanity. De-valuing one's own culture is just as bad as de-valuing the culture of other people. Of course, if there's aspects of one's own culture that are negative and/or derogatory, then fixing and changing that aspect of one's culture is appropriate; but it is not necessary to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so to speak. Culture is important. It's a uniting element that brings people together when things seem to be (or actually are) falling apart. The American culture will save us in our times of crises.

The melting pot isn't an example of ethnocentrism. The melting pot is an example of American culture. Claiming American culture is better than French culture and the French should act just like Americans is ethnocentrism. Expecting the French immigrant to become an American is not ethnocentric, that's the choice the immigrant made; expecting the French tourists to be American is ethnocentric; expecting the French to be American when you're the tourist is ethnocentric; but having a culture that is American is not ethnocentric, and expecting immigrants to embrace and develop that culture is not ethnocentric...that's how America came to be.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-10-30T23:22:00.000-06:00

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

I was having a helluva time writing an article for this week's GTB Blogburst. Over the weekend, I started three articles and each one fizzled out for lack of inspiration. For instance, I started one on President Bush's new fence bill - the one that has no funding - and it was hard for me to work up any outrage, since I wasn't surprised at such an empty gesture. In fact, I was expecting nothing less from this President, and that's a sorry indictment of how faithless he's become. The President's abrogation of this issue has boiled my blood for years, and is one of the main reasons why I am no longer a Republican, but now a furious and rebellious Independent. As I mulled over what to say about Bush's latest nothingness, I realized that anything I had say about his treason on this issue, I've already said before - and then some.

So I started another article about the effect of the immigration issue on elections; or rather, the effect it should have, but isn't. Because here we are at election time again, having to hold our noses to go elect more of the same do-nothing politicians. Yeah, the same types who have successfully ignored the will of the people for so many years. Out of a nation of 300 million people, you'd think we could field a few really top notch candidates for leadership at any level. But noooo...

The point is that I remain uninspired and severely jaded. Call it writer's block, or call it a crisis of faith, but... I. GOT. NUTHIN'.

So, in a late hour attempt to find some really good material to offer our faithful Blogburst readers, I sent out a request to our affiliates for their favorite links this week, which I could compile for everyone's convenience. Thus, this week's Blogburst is a little bit of a Trick or Treat - some chilling, and some funny. Which is apropos, considering that our nation's immigration policy is a monstrous nightmare for mainstream Americans.

The Nightmare on Main Street Edition of the GTB Blogburst

So Bush signed a law to create a border fence. Here is an image of the fence as designed by a joint committee of Mexicans and Liberals, and approved by Bush...

"Report an illegal to the Feds and watch the Feds sit on their hands!"

Minuteman 2.0.: The Minuteman project was a publicity stunt; we now need to take it to the next level and have citizen patrols guarding the border.

"Needed: Border Billboards": As soon as sniper posts are erected along our borders, we'll need some billboards erected that read something like this...

The Carpentersville Saga: Carpentersville Illinois is pursuing a Hazelton style ordinance, but as these two videos show, not if the pro crime Hispanics and their supporters have anything to say about it!

The C'Ville Video

New Freedom Folks Video: C'ville Video Update

"The US Border Patrol and Border Police are Out Gunned, Out Manned and Facing an Enemy with Technological Superiority Over Them!": You knew illegals were coming into the USA daily, but did you know that down in Mexico they are literally being brought up to the border by the train load? The report has the pictures to prove it!

Trains from Central America and Mexico en route
to the U.S. border

Wild Thing sent some more jarring photos of our uninvited and unwelcome and undocumented "guests"- and no, these are not crazy Halloween costumes:

If you think illegal immigration is nothing more than "good hard-working people, with good intentions" sneaking in here for a little harmless Trick-or-Treat, then these posts from some of the strongest contributors to Guard the Borders will convince you of the ghoulish truth.

Many thanks to Third World County, Mr. Ogre, Freedom Folks, PC Free Zone, and the Independent Conservative.

A Home for the Unwanted?

2006-10-27T23:22:00.000-05:00

As many of my readers know, I am the mother of three children with special needs; two of which have firm diagnoses (I'm working on the diagnostic process for the third -- again). However, something I rarely talk or write about is my experiences with individuals with special needs prior to knowing the needs of my children. While some date far back into my childhood, most of those are vague and were rather infrequent.

In adulthood, I worked for a short while at a Community-Based Residential Facility. For those who aren't familiar with the term, it is the "step up" from mental institutions which is currently popular in our country. By those "in the know," i.e. many doctors and medical professionals, these facilities are touted as "better than" institutions, and thus the best option available for individuals with disabilities. While I will agree that these facilities are better than mental institutions, I will disagree strongly that they are not "the best" option. Not even close.

My time at the CBRF in question was short, and I worked mostly at night while the clients, as they were called (which is so much better than "resident" *rolls eyes*), were asleep. However, I did help them through their morning routine.

I went through the training, feeling very optimistic about this job. All the literature, all the videos, all the hype repeated something I honestly took to heart. The message was that it was our job to help these special individuals meet their fullest potential. Unfortunately, the reality was that this message was a crock of shit. I apologize for the language, but anything polite would be far too much of an understatement. One of the first things I was trained how to do once I was actually placed in a residential facility was how to plug someone's nose, just for a second, to get her to open her mouth to take her daily dose of Ensure. Of course, we weren't supposed to do this, but this is how it was done for this particular client. To say the least, I wasn't any good at it -- mostly because I refused to do it.

One client was rather combative. She tended to argue with everything and everyone within her limited compacity. She was one of the most unhappy people I've ever met. My co-workers told me it was because of her disorder -- that this woman simply didn't like to be alive being the way she was -- however, I suspect it had more to do with the fact that she was always bossed around, rarely ever got to make choices for herself, and couldn't push herself out of the corner whenever a co-worker got frustrated and pushed her wheelchair in a corner -- so she could cool down, of course.

I only worked at the facility a short time, because I couldn't stand to watch these people being treated with such indignity and such lack of concern. It was the best paying job I could get, so I tried. One day I was sick with broncchitis and I didn't want to work, because some of my clients had fragile immune systems. However, nobody would cover my shift so I had to come in. It was a difficult night and I didn't get much done, but I was told that would be okay. However, somebody complained.

My boss's boss came to investigate the incident and provide me with my sixty-day review, and after talking to a few other people he took me downstair into an "office" area and asked me some questions. Mostly, he asked whether or not I considered myself a "team player" and why did I insist on trying to do things differently, when the routine of the house was already established. I described the "routine" to him, and asked him if this was what he really wanted me to do. He explained confidentiality rules to me. He explained the legal codes. And then he said, "But this is real, Stephanie. When you're here with these people, the rule books aren't what matters. What matters is staying on schedule." Then, he told me he'd put me on probation and I'd have to have another review in thirty days. He told me, for the good of our clients, I had to be a team player.

I rarely look people in the eye. I'm not comfortable with that. And, when I do, I don't see that "window to the soul" that other people claim to see; I merely see eyes. However, I looked my boss's boss in the eye, and named the "clients" one by one. I told him, "These ladies are human beings, not clients. They're people. I can't treat them like this. They're people. I won't do it." So, I walked back upstairs and said good-bye to each of these women, and I prayed all the way home that God would find a way to shine a light of hope in their lives. I couldn't be that hope. I wasn't strong enough then. And, I regret that.

My Mom worked at a variety of CBRFs for about two years. She had management experience, so she became a Lead; which basically means she managed the household and the staff of a household. She was a light of hope for several people while she was there. But the more she worked, the hard she tried, the less things seemed to change. Eventually she couldn't take it any more, so she left, and she prayed. I would bet she still does pray for those precious individuals.

Institutions are where society sends individuals who are to be forgotten. But, so are Community-Based Residential Facilities. My mother and I have vowed, upon more than one occassion, that my boys would never have to live in such a place. I renew that vow again. And I pray that someday, someday soon, our society will stop trying to forget about the many people with disabilities that discomfit them by their very existence, and remember instead that we are all people, and we all have potential that can be met and expanded upon with effort -- even the "least amongst us."

Worldview Quiz

2006-10-26T19:05:00.000-05:00

Lisa Renee of Liberal Common Sense found an interesting Worldview Quiz:

Give it a try! And offer feedback.

My scores were:
Your rating regarding science/non-science: -3
Your rating regarding values & humankind: -2
Your position on the worldview spectrum: (-2,-3)

Personally, I think they need to add some questions, because there's significantly more to "worldview" than science vs. religion, but hey, that's just me.

Mark Foley -- A Burning Scandal

2006-10-26T18:05:00.000-05:00

A fellow blogger expressed interest in my thoughts and comments on some of the recent scandals, sinced I'd been out of the loop for a while.

In searching for current material, this shouted for my attention. Now, as some of you are aware, I don't watch television, so I'm usually spared the Fox (which is neither worse nor better, merely different, from other mainstream news media outlets, imo) spin machine's rants and raving loony statements. However, this was irresistable, so I made the fatal click.

The title is this: "Foley Investigation a Complex Task for Ethics Panel"

So, I have to ask: "What's so damned complex about taking care of a sexual predator/freak!?!"

After all, Habeus Corpus is suspended, so call him a terrorist, take him out back, and torture him! C'mon, how difficult is that?!? Besides, he's added serious and present danger to the life expectancy of the Republican's control of Congress; what better definition of terrorism could there be, right?

Okay, so I'm not really advocating that, but, well, maybe. Since we can...

Okay, so my tongue was firmly in my cheek there, but only because I don't see this (with the exception of gender) being any different from what Bill Clinton did with his various secretaries/interns. That being because none of my news sources have explicitly clarified whether House pages are or are not children. I'm assuming they're not, because were they I suspect someone would be shouting that from the roof-tops; however, I also seem to remember way back in the days of yon, House pages were children. So, if someone could clarify that for me, that would be super. (And if House pages are children, then the joke ceases to be funny, and can be taken quite seriously -- as a genuine recommendation.) But, so far as I understand, Foley got caught hunting for some adult male booty, which I don't see as being either better nor worse, merely different, from men hunting for some adult female booty.

Either way, it's still gross, wrong, and, dare I say it, illegal. Not to mention unbefitting of a representative of the American government; ahem, *cough*Clinton!*cough*.

That being said, I still don't see how it could be any more "complex" of a task than a typical investigation. Foley doesn't even have the excuse that he was embedding, no pun intended, his sexual overtures in top secret documents. It seems to me like Fox is trying oh so very hard to make this yittle problem go away, but sorry pals, this broke at *the* wrong time. The Republican-controlled Congress is all but history, and as much as I hate the fact that that means we're going to have a Democrat-controlled Congress (once again, neither better nor worse, merely different), it's still time for the Republicans to take a walk down those lonely Capitol steps, dragging their feet back to their home-states, that is if their home-states still want 'em back.

Searching for Truth in a Fact-Obsessed World

2006-10-25T05:37:00.000-05:00

I've been reading a book called Madeleine L'Engle {Herself}, "written" by Madeleine L'Engle and compiled by Carole F. Chase. It's a collection of Madeleine's wisdom as related through her writing and her workshops. For those of you who don't know, Madeleine L'Engle is the author of numerous books, many with a Christian bent to them. Her website provides a lengthy bibliography, however the book she's most famous for, at least in my mind, is A Wrinkle in Time. A childhood favorite of mine that I've carried into adulthood with me.

Now, a particularly favored passage of mine from {Herself} is this one:

Truth and Fact
[A] lot of the world, including the Christian world (sometimes I think especially the Christian world), is hung up on literalism, and therefore confuses truth and fact. Perhaps that's why someone caught reading a novel frequently looks embarrassed, and tries to hide the book, pretending that what he's really reading is a book on how to fix his lawn mower or take out his own appendix. Is this rather general fear of story not so much a fear that story is not true, as that it might actually be true? And what about the word fiction? For many people it means something that is made up, is not true.

Now, Madeleine focuses very much on truth in fiction throughout this particular segment (she also focuses on truth vs. fact in religious matters). That's important to me, but I want to take the matter a little further, and apply it a little more fully to contemporary matters. Particularly, to the debate of contemporary matters.

Debate focuses primarily on facts, as it should. Neither I nor Madeleine are degrading facts; facts are necessary and they are important. However, facts are not truth.

Case in point, most people who debate are familiar with the myriad quotes that basically say statistics lie, which while enjoyable isn't accurate. Statistics are facts. However, they are not truth. A fact can be accurate. A fact can even be true. But a fact can be accurate without being true. And I think that's an important distinction to make.

Gravity is the force that holds the universe together; as far as we know, this is a fact. It may even be accurate, and it is as far as we can observe. But that doesn't make it true. We do not know whether or not it's true, and we will not know that within the span of our lives, or probably our children's children's lives. For how long did humanity, or certain segments of it, believe that the sun revolved around the earth? That was, as far as observation could tell, a fact. However, it was not true.

Science has frequently proven itself wrong over time. This is not a failing of science; quite the contrary in my mind, at least. However, it does mean we should be cautious as to how we use science, especially if that use is the justification we give for doing unconscionable things. For instance, science told us that human beings of native African descent, i.e. black people, were inferior. Factually, this was accurate as far as science could tell. However, it was not true. Slavery was justified by these facts, as well as the fact that slaves were used in Biblical times. However, this did not truly make slavery justifiable.

In America, individuals with disabilities were deemed inferior by science. This was a provable fact. It was accurate. However, that did not make it true. Irregardless of whether or not it was true, these facts were used to form institutions, which amounted to nothing more nor nothing less than prison camps for the physically and/or mentally disabled. These facts were also used to justify forced sterilization at the hands of the government! Imagine, for a moment, that the government has the right to decide whether or not you can have children -- ever! Sounds more like China then the U.S., huh? However, it happened here. And, worse yet, a true blemish on our nation's history is that Hilter, the maniacle German leader who killed millions of people, studied the United States to learn more about euthanasia. Don't believe me, check out this book. Even the synopsis will scare you.

Facts are useful things, but they are also dangerous. Facts can be used in the search for truth, however facts can also be used to justify the most unconscionable things. Remember that, as you're listening to and participating in the various debates that swirl around you in this contentious world. Ask yourself, is the fact you're using a fact used to search out truth, or is it a fact used to justify something false? Ask yourself whether the people you're debating with are using facts to find truth, or whether their using facts to justify a position that is essentially false? Fact, like anything humanity touches, can be used for good, or for evil. You are responsible for the decision you make.

Grades

2006-10-25T05:19:00.000-05:00

I have my final grades back for last term. I got 100% in Algebra (thank you, extra credit!) and a 99.5% in Composition I, so I have officially maintained my 4.0. Which is something that's motivating me a lot more than straight A's did in high school or before. I guess it's because I know that putting "Straight A's" on a resume for high school isn't going to mean crap; but putting Summa Cum Laude just might.

The down-side is my final project for my Comp class seems to have disappeared. I got credit for it, but I didn't get any commentary. My instructor for Comp was great at commentary. Not so much in telling me what I did wrong, because, well, it's Comp I and my writing is quite good enough for Comp I, but she does tell me what I did right, which I can then do more of. Besides, this is also the essay that has grown into a book in my mind, and knowing what she thought could have been very helpful. Alas!

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-10-23T09:26:00.000-05:00

Beheadings Aren't Just For Islamists Anymore

By Toni at Bear Creek Ledger

Those pro-illegal aliens should be paying attention to what's happening with the drug cartels south of the border. This is what we in the US have to look forward to if there isn't something done to control our southern borders.

We also have Venezuela's Chavez giving legal ID's to members of Hezbollah and Hamas but he is also assisting their efforts to become proficient in Spanish to help these terrorists to infiltrate the US.

Here's a story that is definitely not been publicized on the front page but should be since these drug cartels are controlling many areas of our southern border. I am getting to the point of believing the US should be placing active duty troops on our southern border to protect us. There is an assault and invasion occurring today that has been ignored and local law enforcement doesn't have a prayer against these drug cartels. And don't tell me about "posse comitatus"! These troops would be attacking foreign invaders.

From the Modern Tribalist is a story from ContraCostaTimes:

For all the beefed-up enforcement along the border, the militialike group of drug cartel enforcers known as the Zetas appears stronger than ever, a result of better training, successful recruiting in Central America and continued desertions from the Mexican military, U.S. intelligence officials say.

The Zetas have again become entrenched in Nuevo Laredo, and they practically control the movement of people through an intricate web of spies, checkpoints and skillful use of technology, provoking an extraordinary cross-border human exodus, U.S. and Mexican authorities say.

Last year, U.S. and Mexican authorities reported that the number of Zetas was falling rapidly, the result of both government pressure and ongoing warfare with rival cartels. But the shadowy group of elite former military officers, soldiers and others has now grown to more than 500 nationwide, with hundreds more in a support network throughout the country, U.S. officials said. Some of those networks are deepening their ties to Texas cities, including Houston and Dallas, with the help of Texas gang members.

A shootout late Friday between Zetas and members of the Mexican military - reportedly acting on tips from the Sinaloa cartel - involved grenades and bazookas in a residential neighborhood of Nuevo Laredo, U.S. authorities said. The firefight killed four people suspected of drug trafficking - believed to be Zetas - and injured at least four others, authorities said.

The report could not be independently confirmed.

The Zetas, enforcers of the gulf cartel, are battling rival members of the Sinaloa cartel for drug distribution routes, including the Interstate 35 corridor into Texas.

U.S. authorities said the gulf cartel has established training camps in the states of Tamaulipas - its base of operations - and Nuevo Leon, both of which border Texas, and in the central state of Michoacan. The organization is recruiting former Guatemalan special forces military personnel known as Kaibiles and members of the notorious cross border gangs known as Maras, including the violent Mara Salvatruchas with ties to El Salvador.

"The resiliency and determination of these criminals are beyond anything I have seen in my years in U.S. law enforcement," said one U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They're tough, and they won't break easily. They pose a serious threat to Mexico and to security along the border."

Be sure to read the rest of the article to fully realize the threat we are facing.

Beheadings are becoming the new tactical choice of these terrorists/drug cartels and the US is allowing this to be imported with impunity to the US. For those who are planning travel to Mexico you better be sure of where you're going because Mexico is not a safe country for travel.

Mexico City -- To send a chilling message to their underworld rivals, Mexican drug cartels are adopting a method of intimidation made notorious by Middle Eastern terrorist groups.

Already this year, at least 26 people have been decapitated in Mexico, with heads stuck on fences, dumped in trash piles and -- most recently -- tossed onto a nightclub dance floor.

Although beheading goes back centuries as a form of execution, it has become the latest tactical escalation of a turf war that gets nastier all the time, with hit men looking for new ways to instill fear.

"Before, they tortured the hell out of people, but they didn't throw their heads out in public," said James Kuykendall, a retired U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

Why this form of murder and mutilation is being used now is anyone's guess.

Beheadings have had a high international profile in recent years, as the tool of radical Islamist groups that release videos of hostages being executed.

In Mexico, as crime bosses fall and turf shifts, the pattern of killing is changing.

The War on Terror

2006-10-23T04:23:00.000-05:00

And the War on Habeus Corpus

Well, in my typical long-winded fashion, I was commenting on a fellow blogger, Tom of Who Hijacked Our Country, and decided it was too long-winded to dump on his blog, so I'm moving it to my own. First, some back story:

First, Tom posted a link to this video:

Keith Olbermann: Death of Habeus Corpus

Then, a commenter, Dustin, linked to this one:

Olbermann: Habeus Corpus

My original comment, went something to the effect of that while suspending, or eliminating, habeus corpus is a mistake that we will learn to regret, there's really no way to know if it is necessary -- short of comparing two alternate universes with/without side by side. But that I also believe America will eventually pull out of this. We have in the past, and I do believe we will again, because I do believe the structure of our government is sound, even when the people running it are not. (The last sentence is new.)

That being said, here's where I take it further:

Tom said, "Every recent terrorist plot that’s been foiled, has been prevented by good old fashioned police and detective work; not by spying on people or locking them away without a trial."

The trouble with the spying thing is that we don't know. The reason that spying is all top secret, and has been long before 9/11, is because there are lots of people who aren't trustworthy with such information, including some American citizens. We don't know how America would have fared without the extreme measures we've taken in the past. We don't know how America will fare with or without the extreme measures our government is taking now. I agree, completely, that it does NOT make it right -- Olbermann's line about (not an exact quote) "all vital, all important, and always wrong," is very true. It is wrong, the same way that all such acts were wrong before. However, "wrong" doesn't mean it's "unnecessary," and there's no way to know for sure whether it is "unnecessary," either in the past, or now. The war itself is wrong; war itself is wrong. But, that doesn't mean it's unnecessary.

I believe the terrorists are a threat to us, not because Bush & Co. says so, but because they've been at this for a long time, and the whole thing about "quitting means weakness" is very real to them. If the terrorists quick, they lose everything. They not only lose the war, but they lose the respect/fear of their own people, and they lose control of the countries and organizations they have under their thumb. The war, as much as people claim it is, is NOT about religion -- it's not Muslims against Christians -- it's about power. They want more power, we want to keep the power we have (and I'm not talking about energy sources, either) -- the religious aspect is just a cover-up to justify the power-grabbing. They want control, Bush has control, or thinks he does, and wants to keep it.

In a sense, it doesn't seem much different than our gang problems at home. Gangsters in the 'hood often feel as if they have nothing, but the gang. Nobody else cares, nobody else understands, and in the end reasonably good people get twisted by poverty and despair to the point that they are more than willing, they are eager, to do unconscionable things -- all justified by "we don't have enough." The Muslim terrorists do not seem that different, except when you look at their priviledged leadership, who often never did without in the same way their "foot soldiers" did; they are the true threat, because they are the orchestrators, they're the ones who convince the "little guy" that terrorism is how to get what they never had. Unless these leaders win completely, they lose everything; and that hurts, it scares them. OSB isn't out there playing suicide bomber; he doesn't want to die, he wants to rule the world. And it's that kind of desperation, that kind of desire, that puts us at risk.

Bush is facing that same kind of desperation, the same desire. Because he's so critized and so incompetent, he probably feels that he has to win completely, end this whole affair in a bang-up sort of way, to win at all. Whereas as you [Tom], Olbermann, and most of American can take "a little bit of terrorism," because a little bit can't destroy America -- even if it does destroy a few American lives, Bush wants to end it all, and have that be his legacy as President. Of course, it's never going to happen. It's not going to happen within his Presidency, and it won't happen afterwards. Terrorism, though not necessarily this particular brand of it, is a very human tendency to use the weapon at hand -- and when you're the little guy you have to make yourself seem scary to have any say, at least so these people believe.

What we're witnessing is what happens when powerful, power-hungry people get their backs pushed up against a wall of their own design -- on a global, epic scale. I admit that I would be just another "intrigued spectator" in this vast charade, if I didn't know quite so well that my children will have to live in whatever's left of the world after this has all played out. That terrifies me -- not the terrorists -- what will be left for the children terrifies me. And, I don't just mean mine, or America's children, I mean all the children's lives that have been or will be destroyed by this. Whether the child is American, or Iraqi, or Israeli, or French, or...whatever, they're all going to be suffering, or having the risk of suffering because of this, and that is what terrifies me. We're willing to degrade ourselves so far to give them something better, safer, whatever, and they're going to be left with crap.

I do believe America will pull out of this. I believe that it will probably come in my grandchildren's time, however, not in ours or our children's time. My grandfathers fought "the commies." My father and his generation (which includes some of you) were taught to hate the commies. My own husband was taught, by the army, to kill the commies. And yet, within my childhood, the Berlin Wall fell and so did the Soviet Union. I don't hate the commies and I never have. I've learned to hate the Islamic terrorists (though, I do not hate Muslims as a whole, I know better) and that scares me. It scares me to know that my children will undoubtably be taught to hate the Islamic terrorists, and it will probably take all mine and my husband's effort to keep them from hating all Muslims.

War is an awful, brutual thing. It destroys the lives, the bodies, and the happiness of those who fight it. It destroys the families they could have had if they hadn't. It destroys the countries who are ravaged by it. Most people know this. However, it seems many people don't realize that it destroys everyone else, too. We're all hurt by this. All our innocence and the innocence of our children that could have been, is gone because of this. It's too late to prevent that. Whether we pull out of Iraq, or stay in...it's too late. The damage is done. Nobody will ever be the same, because the war has happened. The fighting won't stop. Not anytime in the near future. We can pull out, and that's not going to stop the fighting. It's not going to stop the terrorists. We can stay in, and that's not going to stop the fighting. It's not going to stop the terrorists.

Habeus Corpus may keep us safer at home, depending on how you define saftey. I don't define saftey in that manner, however. Something clean and good about humanity is snuffed out with war and rumours of war. We've seen too much. Some of us have done too much. Do I fear the loss of habeus corpus -- of course I do. These very words could get me thrown in jail, though I do doubt that will happen. However, what I fear most has already happened. The essence of our humanity has already been tainted by this, and that is in unchangeable. It's happened. It could get worse, but it's already lost -- the damage is done. It's only a matter of degrees now.

And, despite that, I do believe this War on Terror is necessary. I believe Bush mangled it, but I also believe it is necessary. I do not think Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done a better job of it; different is not better. Whether you over-react or under-react, you are still reacting wrongly. And having either as a reflex is not the way to win something like this. We have to get beyond reacting, to the point where we're acting. We have to reach the point where we're calling the shots again; and neither the war in Afghanistan or Iraq qualifies, because they were both reactionary, or over-reactionary, wars. We need to get ahead of them. Habeus Corpus might help us do that; but again, we've lost more than we gain just by signing into law. It was the wrong choice, and yet...that, unfortunately, doesn't mean it was unnecessary.

War is sometimes necessary. Secrets are sometimes necessary. Crimes are sometimes necessary. They are alway, always, dirty, nasty, destructive things -- but sometimes necessary. Eliminating or suspending habeus corpus is a crime, a crime against humanity, but it may be necessary. We'll never know for sure whether it was or wasn't, because secrets are also sometimes necessary. We'll never know for sure what was or was not gained for our country by this action. However, we will learn to regret it. We will learn to be ashamed of it. As we've been ashamed by many things of our past.

Yet, I still believe in America, because America tries to do what is right, America cares about what is right, even when our leaders don't.

Disability Rights Videos

2006-10-23T03:35:00.000-05:00

Thanks to some helpful advice from triticale I was able to post the videos I wanted to show y'all. I didn't realize it was that easy! I just assumed that I would need web-space the same as for pictures. But, apparently not, so here they are!

Beware! Both videos have some graphic images in them.

When The Moon Come Up

Euthanasia Blues

Oh, and the bean was safely removed after a 3-4 hour stay at the emergency room. Of course, it took less than five minutes to remove the bean once someone was available to do that.

The Hazards of Toys

2006-10-22T12:11:00.000-05:00

I was going to post about something else, and it truly seemed pressing at the time, but alas I have forgotten what that was. You see, for my children's therapy they have a bin of beans. These are dried beans that they dig their hands it with toys to desensitize their hands. It's kind of like a portable sandbox -- with beans.

And, well, Ben has one up his nose now. So far in the wonderful world of parenting, I've been spared those wonderful trips to Urgent Care due to such minor crises. Not so any more.

I called Ask-A-Nurse, because I figured there has to be a better way to remove a bean from a child's nose than to go through the lengthy, exhausting process of going to the Emergency Room (which, in my town, on a weekend, is the only Urgent Care available). I mean, c'mon, it's a bean. He's not choking. Obviously he doesn't like it, but it's a rather minor crisis. Still, unless I find another means, that seems to be what's available.

Anyway, I called Ask-A-Nurse, and after waiting a good fifteen minutes or so, I got to talk to an actual nurse. She was obviously exhausted, in a worn, weary sort of way. I'm sure the people before had more serious problems than mine. I know this, because she started the conversation with (after asking for my son's name and accessing the information on her computer), "Oh good! He's got a bean in his nose!"

Of course, she caught herself right away. And, luckily for her, I'm usually not an "obnoxious parent" type, because I didn't lay into while she was apologizing, which is exactly what she expected me to do. But, it's just a bean. And, it's rather silly, because it's the second bean, which I told her.

So, hopefully she has a better day. Me, I'm calling my nurse-practitioner-mother-in-law and seeing if I can to an at-home bean-ectomy before I have to go to Urgent Care.

Videos Worth Watching

2006-10-22T04:49:00.000-05:00

If I knew how to post YouTube videos here, I would. But, since I don't...

Estee has posted some good ones. I highly recommend you take the time to watch them. They're between 5 - 7 minutes, but they're well worth it.

Exhausted, but Back

2006-10-22T02:16:00.000-05:00

Hello all!

Sorry for the lengthy wait between posts. I am just finishing my most recent college term, in which I had to study algebra, which I hated, and composition, which I loved. Unfortunately, I had to spend most of my time focused on the algebra, ick! But, though my final grades have not yet been posted, I'm confident that I managed to maintain my 4.0. Yay for me!

So, now it's time to catch up. Along with understanding (almost) algebra for the first time, I've had the pleasure of writing a research paper as my final. I chose neurodiversity for my topic, and my first draft was fifteen pages long -- unfortunate, because the assignment was for a 5 - 7 page paper! So, I repeatedly tried to narrow my focus, managed to do it in six pages, and decided that I obviously have to write a book about this, because there's just so much to say and I couldn't find a single book on this topic. Not one single book!

I also started writing a second novel, which will hopefully turn out better than my first novel -- so, I have lots of writing ahead of me. And, oddly enough, I'm very happy about that. Happiness isn't a frequent emotion, I'm more of a contented person than a happy one, so despite the hard work I've been putting in, this has been a happy ending for me -- with a new beginning on top of it.

I'm not going to be posting (at this time) my essay, because my instructor, who has not yet read it, thinks it might be publishable, both because she was apparently impressed with my writing abilities and also because of the subject matter. So, if she has ideas of how to get the piece published professionally, then I must wait on posting it here. Nothing ruins the publishability of piece more than publishing it on the world wide web first! However, if anyone of you wants to read it, feel free to e-mail me and I'll send it to you; all I ask is that you return it with feedback, and don't be afraid to be brutual. Better you, my friends, than an editor, right?
;-)

The world has also been moving steady along without my commentary, go figure. The numerous conflicts in the Middle East have been raging and waging and fighting as usual, with equally typical discussions on how to stop the strife. The borders were "plugged," well, sort of. An important vote concerning the sanctity of life is coming up in South Dakota. And that's not including the various scandals: from Foley, to Katsav, from Shanghai, to stock options. Isn't any wonder I now think corruption is the worlds biggest problem?!?

Ah, well. At least there are no scandals here at home. Oh, wait -- there are! 'Tis the season for smearing!

The Hazardous Pastimes of Unsung Heroes

2006-08-29T06:54:00.000-05:00

I was recently asked the question, "Why 'hazardous pastimes?'" I don't know if that is a question I've ever properly answered on this blog. It's certainly not an answer I could give in one post, but this'll be a start.

Our culture values heroes. That's easy enough to see. Just look at popular fiction. Whether it's movies, or books, or stories, heroism is a frequent theme. I'd guess (this is not a real, proven statistic) that, between heroism and romance, you could probably account for 90 – 95% of the fiction American's enjoy, and much of it is a mix between the two. I'm not criticizing that, nor am I immune to it, but I do consider it worthy of thought.

What makes a hero?

Most people think of a hero as someone who is strong and athletic. The avenger of wrongs. The justice-seeker. The good man who wreaks violent havoc on the forces of evil. You know the type. We have our Rambos, and our Batmans, our Lone Rangers and our Buffy the Vampire Slayers. And many, many others. We also have every-day heroes: police officers, soldiers, and the private citizens who are willing to stand up in the face of danger, like those who brought down the bad guys on Flight 93.

There's absolutely nothing wrong (imo) with idolizing and rewarding these people with our respect and our gratitude. However, this is not what I talk about when I think of hazardous pastimes and the heroes who brave them. I think about the unsung heroes, those whose quiet and subtle acts of heroism fall below the radar of our glamour-seeking society. These heroes live and work through life every day. They're good, but imperfect people. And they, too, deserve our respect, our admiration, our gratitude and, more importantly, our assistance.

Some hazards are very real, very vivid. Those kinds of hazards are what we tend to think about, as a society. Especially when it comes to politics. How many fellow bloggers have you known who at least joke about "the black helicopters?" How many bloggers keep their identities secret, because they don't want to face retribution for the political opinions they express on their blogs? How many people genuinely fear to stand up against the two-party standard, because the personal risk is simply too great?

Yet, as troubling as these very real hazards are, these are not the dangers I think about when I call politics a hazardous pastime.

At times like these, when I look back on my first foray into the political blogosphere, I feel shame. I was very passionate, but that is not shameful. My passion is a strength that has seen me through some pretty rough times, and some times that didn't feel as rough as I'm told they ought to have felt. That is a strength. However, when I first entered the blogosphere I was uninformed, ignorant. That is a weakness that I'm not comfortable with, and it is a matter of not a small amount of personal shame.

The lives of the unborn. Sanctity of marriage. The freedom to be publicly religious. The freedom to own a gun, and to use it if necessary. These are things I hold dear. These are things I have a passion for. However, this passion was misplaced and misused. In short, I was an ignorant, little twit spouting off Republican talking points as if they were truth. And that, to me, is a very shameful thing indeed. I didn't know better, and I feel I should have.

Luckily for me, my first foray into the political blogosphere was onto Watchblog, a blog frequented by knowledgeable (and some less knowledgeable) people who actually cared about politics, and more importantly people who wanted to share their knowledge...with me. Some exceptional people on that site devoted a significant amount of time and energy in teaching me aspects of history, politics, and even the art of blogging that I had never before considered. I consider these people to be heroes of the quiet, subtle sort...most especially because those who were frequently most helpful were also those with whom I was debating against. To them, it wasn't just about being right, or being convincing, or whatever...it was about sharing knowledge, even sharing the knowledge that would better prepare their opponent to debate with them. And that is something I admire.

Still, that doesn't explain why I see politics as a hazardous pastime. I consider politics a hazardous pastime for two particular reasons:

1) If you debate politics in the right way (at least, right imo), you're taking a very big risk. I'm not talking about the risk of being shot down, or the risk of being ridiculed, though they do exist. I'm talking about taking the risk of being proven wrong. If you are debating politics in a manner that I can respect, then you're open to the exchange of information and ideas that may *gasp* change your mind or, at least, your opinion.

2) If you debate politics, and gain knowledge from that, you run the risk of your informed passion being ignited to the point that you can't not do something about it.

I've experienced both.

Ah, Watchblog , for me it was like wanting to sink my toes in wet sand, and ending up in the middle of the ocean without a life-preserver...let alone a boat. I'd never debated politics before. At least, not with anyone who disagreed with me. And, I'd never experienced blogging before. I didn't even know what it was. I found Watchblog by linking political opinion articles on My Yahoo page. Boy, was I in over my head fast! But, I'm teachable, and there were some excellent teachers there. Not only did they teach me how to blog, but they taught me about the realities of politics. And, it was a rather painful experience. My ideallic, over-simplified notions of right and wrong in the political arena were shattered...completely.

Let me tell you, it's a scary experience, but I learned.

Many people influenced me on Watchblog, many people taught me, and many people still stand out in my memory two years later. However, two people stand out most strongly: David Remer and Daniel Summars*.

You might recognize those names. I have mentioned them before. David Remer is the founder of VOID.

Daniel Summars is also a participant of VOID, as the Treasurer on the Board of Directors. I have had the privilege of working closely with both of them on behalf of VOID, and I assure you that they are definitely heroes each in their own quiet, subtle way.

Of course, VOID didn't exist then. It wasn't until after they had both gotten through to me, and to each other, their shared bleak vision of America's future (if we stay on our current path) that VOID was formed. It happened rather quickly, fueled by both knowledge and passion.

But, it is those experiences (1) being proven so totally wrong, and 2) learning how to do something about it) that I learned that politics is a truly hazardous pastime, but one that is most certainly worth our efforts. Politics isn't some game that's entertaining to play. It's not a blind passion that gives one the opportunity to assert one's views on someone else. Politics is the means to achieve America's future. Either a future that is bleak and dismal for the every day citizen, yet prosperous for those imbedded politicians we continue to re-elect despite their corruption and greed. Or, a future that is free, secure and prosperous for all.

That is the choice that Americans face. Do we stick with the same-old, same-old, that has not been working? Or, do we take the risk, learn something new, and act on it? It doesn't seem like that difficult a choice to me. And, yet it is for many people.

So, I ask those of who you are reading this to take a chance. Please look at what VOID is trying to accomplish. Either join with us, or tell me why you don’t find our message compelling. If you won’t tell me why within the comments section, please e-mail me. I promise, whatever it is you say, I won’t hold it against you. This is a big nation, a free nation, and I’m well-versed in the disagreeing agreeably department. But, I would really, truly like feedback on the endeavors of VOID. Give us a shot, and please tell us what you think.

*Many others have worked hard to make VOID what it is and I by no means wish to belittle or denigrate your enormous contributions. You know who you are, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-08-28T21:27:00.000-05:00

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.
-Arnold Toynbee

Wide open and unguarded stand our gates, and through them passes a wild motley throng.
-Thomas Bailey Aldrich, “Unguarded Gates,” 1895

You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.
-Woodrow Wilson, Address to New Citizens, 1915

Those who favor unrestricted immigration care nothing for the people.
-Sam Gompers, founding president, AFL, 1921

Why was the border guard so thin? Did the Romans not notice…that their way of life was changing forever?
-Thomas Cahill, 1995

No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many are poor and unskilled.
-Robert Samuelson, economist and Newsweek columnist, 2005

We can’t protect our own borders.
-Donald Rumsfeld, November 29, 2005

*******

The following excerpts are all from a new book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. Many people may not read it because of the political baggage of the author, but I’ve read the book, despite my disagreement with the author on other issues, and it is entirely right on the money when it comes to the invasion of our country by foreigners. It occurred to me that many people may miss out on the common sense found within its pages so I’m excerpting a little bit of it here for those who may never read the words otherwise.

On November 28, 2005, President Bush, speaking in Tucson, conceded that in five years 4.5 million aliens had been caught attempting to break into the United States. Among that 4.5 million, Bush admitted, were "more than 350,000 with criminal records." One in every twelve illegal aliens the U.S. Border Patrol had apprehended was a criminal.

That is 70,000 felons apprehended each year, 200 felons every single day for five years, trying to break into our country to rob, rape, and murder Americans. Of the millions who succeeded on Bush’s watch, how many came for just such purposes? How many Americans have been robbed, assaulted, or murdered because the President failed in his duty to defend the borders of the United States?

Nearly 8 million foreigners did enter during those five years, 3.7 million of them illegally. If one in twelve was a criminal, 300,000 felons slipped in during Bush’s tenure. This is an historic dereliction of presidential duty.

There are today 36 million foreign-born in the United States, almost three times as many people as the 13.5 million hear at the peak of the Great Wave in 1910. And it is among these tens of millions of foreign-born that illegal aliens find sanctuary. As James Edwards of the Hudson Institute writes, legal and illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin. If we fail to control the one, we cannot control the other. As a rule, he notes, when legal immigration rises, illegal immigration soars.
[…]
Our foreign-born population today is almost equal to the 42 million who came over three and a half centuries from 1607 to 1965. The Border Patrol catches as many illegal immigrants every month as all the legal immigrants who came to America in the 1820s. Today’s numbers are of a different order of magnitude.

No nation has ever attempted to assimilate 36 million foreigners in a generation. Yet, each year, 1.5 million more are added to the number, half of the illegals, 90 percent of them from Third World countries whose people have never before been assimilated into our population.
[…]
“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities,” said Theodore Roosevelt. We are becoming was [sic] T.R. warned against: a multi-lingual, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural Tower of Babel. To the delight of anti-Americans everywhere and the indifference of our elites, we are risking the Balkanization and breakup of the nation.
[…]
How many spies and saboteurs have been sent into our country as sleeper agents? How many Al Qaeda are here awaiting orders to bomb subways and malls or assassinate our leaders? We have no idea. Neither does the Department of Homeland Security. Border security is homeland security. But America has lost control of her borders and, as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore.

In his address in Tucson, President Bush made a startling admission. For decades, he said, the United States has had a separate policy in dealing with non-Mexicans breaking in through the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, a policy of “catch-and-release”: “about four of every five non-Mexican illegal immigrants we catch are released in society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrives, about 75% of those released don’t show up at court.* As a result, last year [2004], only 30,000 of the 160,000 non-Mexicans caught coming across our southwest border were sent home.”

“This practice of catch and release has been the government’s policy for decades,” said Bush. “It is an unwise policy and we’re going to end it.”

Is this not an astonishing admission? …How can the president say our homeland is secure?

Further on in his Tucson speech, Bush conceded that our government and laws have been frozen in a pre-9/11 world:

Under current law, the federal government is required to release people caught crossing our border illegally if their home countries do not take them back in a set period of times…Those we were forced to release have included murderess, rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals.

“This undermines our border security” and the work “these good folks” of the Borders are doing, added the president.

Again, is this not astounding? President Bush was talking about releasing “murders, rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals” into our society, because “current law” commands it and the nations whence the criminals come refuse to take them back.

The question begs itself: With Bush and his party in power, why had they not changed “current law”? Why had President Bush not picked up a phone and told the leaders of these “home countries” that there will not be another visa issued to their country until they take back every one of their criminal felons who has broken into ours?

What is the matter with President Bush? What is the matter with us?

What explains the paralysis of the present White House?

George Bush has taken an oath to see to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. The immigration laws are clear. Businesses that hire illegal aliens break U.S. law and are subject to sanctions. Yet, as the columnist John O’Sullivan writes, “in the Clinton years 1995, 1996, and 1997 there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work-site arrests of illegals annually. In the same years about 1,000 employers were served notices of fines for employing them. Under the Bush administration, work-site arrests fell to 159 in 2004 where there was also the princely total of three notices of intent to fine served on employers.”

“In this dramatic relaxation of internal enforcement” under George W. Bush, O’Sullivan concludes, “is the explanation of the rapidly rising estimate of immigrants living and working illegally in this country.”

Can anyone say that, with this record, President Bush has faithfully executed the immigration laws of the United States?

Twice, President Bush took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article IV, Section 4, reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

Yet, with perhaps 4 million illegal aliens having broken in during Bush’s five and a half years in office, and our border states daily breached by thousands more, can anyone say President Bush has protected the states of this Union against that invasion? In an earlier America, this dereliction of constitutional duty would have called forth articles of impeachment.
[…]
America’s leaders claim she is the most powerful country on earth. But American has a government too morally flabby to act as decisively as Ike did** to remove from our national home those who have broken in and had no right to be here. How many America women must be assaulted, how many children molested, how many citizens must die at the hands of criminal aliens and foreign terrorists before our government does its duty?
[…]
If present projections of the U.S. Census Bureau prove accurate, the American our grandchildren will live in will be another country, a nation unrecognizable to our parents.

By 2050, it is now estimated that there will be almost 2.5 times as many people here as in 1960: 420 million. The share of the population of European descent will be a minority, as it is today in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. And that minority will be aging, shrinking, and dying. There will be as many Hispanics here – 102 million – as [sic] there are Mexicans today in Mexico. …By 2050, they will be 24 percent of a nation of 420 million. By nation of origin of our people, America will be a Third World Country.

Our great cities will all look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest will look like Juarez and Tijuana. Though we were never consulted about this transformation, never voted for it, and have protested against it in every poll and referendum, this is the future the elites have prepared for our children.

I'll close the excerpt with this warning:

This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a time.

Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is becoming transformed. As our elites nervously avert their gaze or welcome the invasion, we are witness to one of the great tragedies in human history. From Gibbon to Spengler to Toynbee and the Durants, the symptoms of a dying civilization are well known: the death of faith, the degeneration of morals, contempt for the old values, collapse of the culture, paralysis of the will. But the two certain signs that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.

Here in America, the self-delusion about what is happening and the paralysis in the face of the crises have no precedent. What can be said for a man who would allow his home to be invaded by strangers who demanded they be fed, clothed, housed, and granted the rights of the firstborn? What can be said for a ruling elite that permits this to be done to the nation, and that celebrates it as a milestone of moral progress?

We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the destruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.

_____________________________

*According to Congressional testimony on August 16th, the Border Patrol reported that actually only 90% of released illegals report back for their court date.

**In 1954, when Eisenhower discovered a million Mexicans here who did not belong, without apology he ordered them sent home in "Operation Wetback." They went.

__________________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

_____________________________

I'm not a big fan of Pat Buchanan [vast understatement], but even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Growth and Progress

2006-08-24T11:51:00.000-05:00

Somewhere in the daily humdrum of life, I loose perspective, that sense of why I'm doing what I'm doing. This is a regular tendency for me, though it is one I try to resist.

The what and the why gets lost in the everyday doing. So, since I've been so out of touch with my blog and the on-line community, and I'd lost touch so much with what I had intended to write about even when I was writing regularly, I think it's time to get back to that.

For starters, I'll quote myself:

"Politics: a hazardous pastime for the mind. Parenting: a hazardous pastime for the heart. Other: a mix of hazardous pastimes for the body and soul. A life that isn't multi-faceted, like a fine jewel, isn't complete. A life that isn't complete won't be joyful and fulfilling. Complete your life and find the joy and fulfillment in the precious jewel that is yourself."

That is the purpose of my blog. To explore the complexity that is myself, and to hope that others might share some facet of themselves here on this blog. I readily admit it has happened. But, it is not as pervasive as I had originally intended. I had, myself, gotten so wrapped up in the "output" of my daily life, that I had forgotten the why behind the what.

I'm going to try to get back to that. And, I hope that I haven't been so negligent that my readership is gone beyond the horizon...out of reach. Perhaps this will interest them enough to bring about a word from them. Perhaps not. We shall see.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-08-21T15:27:00.000-05:00

***A podcast of this week's Blogburst is now available.***

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

There are only a few hours left to have some impact on the case of two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who are being sentenced tomorrow for attempting to apprehend a drug smuggler who was fleeing across the border illegally. The charges against the Border Patrol agents were serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired. The Texas jury acquitted both men of assault with intent to commit murder, but found them guilty on all other charges. The recommended sentencing is 20 years in prison.

You can read the entire account of the case in this Daily Bulletin article written by Sara Carter, but there are a few things you need to know up front:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, who prosecuted this travesty of justice against the two BP agents, has successfully contended that BP agents are NOT SUPPOSED to apprehend or pursue illegals.

"It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone."

Two weeks after the incident, a Homeland Security agent tracked down the drug smuggler in Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the two Texas Border Patrol agents. They found the drug smuggler based upon a tip from another BP agent in Arizona! The connection between the Arizona BP agent and the drug smuggler is murky, though the prosecutor gets upset at any one who dares to question the unsavory connection.

The drug smuggler was treated to free tax-payer funded medical care in El Paso in addition to his full immunity to testify against the BP agents.

The drug smuggler changed his story, but the fact that he lied was never disclosed to the jury.

According to the memo, Aldrete-Davila told investigators the agents shot him in the buttocks when he was trying to enter the country illegally from Mexico. But according to Aldrete-Davila's later testimony and that of the agents, he was shot after trying to evade the agents upon his re-entry into Mexico.

The memo never was disclosed to the jury.

The drug smuggler is now suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights.

Also, Ramos' extensive training and accomplishments in drug interdiction, which would be directly relevant to the actions he took during the incident with the drug smuggler, was deemed not admissible during his trial.

As a Border Patrol agent, Ramos has been involved in the capture of nearly 100 drug smugglers and the seizure of untold thousands of pounds of narcotics. He also was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year in March 2005, though the nomination was withdrawn after details of the Aldrete-Davila incident came out.

Ramos also had drug interdiction training from the Drug Enforcement Agency and qualified as a Task Force Officer with the Border Patrol. But Ramos' training in narcotics -- as well as the numerous credentials he had received for taking Border Patrol field training classes -- was not admissible during the trial, he said.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, just addressed the Congressional hearings here in Houston on August 16th, where this case was of great concern among all the law enforcement officials.

He said the Border Patrol's official pursuit policy handcuffs agents in the field. He also sees the prosecution of Ramos and Compean as part of a larger effort by the federal government.

"The pursuit policy has negatively affected the Border Patrol's mission as well as public safety. Part of that mission is to stop terrorists and drug smugglers," Bonner said. "They could be smuggling Osama bin Laden, drugs, illegal aliens, or it could have been just some drunk teenager out on a joyride. You don't know until you stop them."

"The administration is trying to intimidate front-line agents from doing their job," he added. "If they can't do it administratively, they'll do it with trumped-up criminal charges.

"Moreover, the specter of improprieties in the prosecution of this case raises serious concerns that demand an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation."

Ramos and Compean and their young families have been living under threats of retaliation from criminals in the drug underworld.

The El Paso Sheriff's Department has met with the Ramos family to discuss continued threats against them from people they believe to be associated with Aldrete-Davila. The sheriff's department also has increased patrols around the family's home.

The only other organization that has responded to the Ramoses thus far, Monica Ramos said, is the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol, chaired by Andy Ramirez.

"This is the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen," Ramirez said. "This drug smuggler has fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."

This case has been virtually ignored by the press, which is why the American public only found out about it after the conviction of the two BP agents. But now that we know, we must take action. If, as TJ Bonner has said, this case is a dirty attempt by our government to intimidate law enforcement officers into leaving the borders wide open and unguarded, then the American people must speak out immediately.

You can do so by signing a petition that will be delivered to the President - but you must do so TODAY, it's the last day. The men will be sentenced tomorrow.

The goal is to collect 100,000 signatures asking President Bush to pardon these two men. So far, 97,589 people have signed the petition and there is no doubt in my mind that Guard the Borders readers can fill in the remaining numbers needed. The petition, to which you may add your own comment reads as follows:

To: President George W. Bush,

As a citizen of the United States I am outraged to learn that two U.S. Border Agents are facing twenty-year prison terms for doing their jobs-- pursuing illegal aliens who cross our border, and I’m calling on you to officially pardon them for their actions.

I am even more outraged to learn that this illegal alien (who was attempting to smuggle about 800 pounds of marijuana into our country), was tracked down by a Department of Homeland Security Investigator and granted immunity for his testimony against these two agents!

This is a terrible injustice, and I urge you to use your considerable authority and power to pardon these two agents and right this obvious wrong!

In addition to rallying your friends and family to take action with you, I would also ask that you call the White House Comments line, and leave a message on behalf of these agents. White House Comments line: 202-456-6213

Please do not hesitate to take this small action on behalf of men whose lives have been destroyed by a drug smuggler and corrupt government agents and prosecutors. It's the very least we can do for them - I wish there was more.

What if this was you? What will happen to these two men? What will be the fallout from such a miscarriage of justice?

"My husband is a good man, a loving father, and his devotion to his country and his job is undeniable," Monica Ramos said. "Prosecutors treated the drug smuggler like an innocent victim, refusing to allow testimony that would have helped my husband. The smuggler was given immunity. My husband is facing a life in prison.

"It's so frightening, it doesn't seem real."

COUNTING THE DAYS

About a week ago, feeling little hope, Joe Loya, Monica Ramos' father, took the family on what will be Ignacio Ramos' last fishing trip with his sons before he is sentenced.

"What kind of justice is this?" Loya asked. "What kind of nation do we live in when the word of a smuggler means more than the word of a just man?"

Monica Ramos says her hardest day is yet to come -- the day the authorities take her husband away.

"We just guard (our children's) hearts right now," Monica Ramos said. "I think about the last time he'll hug them as children, and maybe not get the chance to hug them again until they are grown men."

The sons are between 6 and 13 years old.

Ignacio Ramos was, if anything, even more emotional.

"Less than a month left with my family," he said, his voice choking, as though the air had been pulled from his lungs. "My sons," he whispered. Then silence.

It took several minutes for Ramos to summon more words. "All I think about at night is the day I have to leave my family. I can't sleep. I've always been with them."

Then he talked about the memories he would never have, "their first dates, high school graduation, sports," and the tears falling from his eyes were mirrored only by those of his wife, who took his hand into hers.

Families destroyed. A drug smuggler on the loose to threaten the lives of others and on the scam for $5 million dollars. And a government who won't do anything about either – unless we force it to.

The only ones left who can help are the American people themselves. That means you.

__________________________________________

Guard the Border Blogburst

2006-08-15T01:16:00.000-05:00

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality
(See my (Stephanie's) personal commentary below.)

For a long time here at GTB, we have focused on the tsunami of humanity that flows over our southern border from Mexico. Mexicans, by far, are the largest group of illegals inside our borders, and their open agenda of Reconquista has place tax-funded groups like La Raza, MEChA, and LULAC under the microscope. We've also covered the alarming news of the number of Middle Easterners who take full advantage of our unguarded borders to infiltrate our country, paying coyotes tens of thousands of dollars to allow them to blend in with herds of illegals crossing the border. Once inside the country, they disperse and fade away into our society.

Lately, focus has shifted from clandestine border crossings to blatant visa violations as the FBI hunted and captured 11 Egyptian men who entered the country under false pretenses. Such visa violations (including overstaying visa expirations) are not unusual for Middle Easterners, particularly from Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, etc., but we Americans are rarely aware of them. Chechens are also making concerted efforts to get into the country illegally, despite the generous visa allowances for their country.

Today, I'd like to examine our broken immigration process in the light of the current war in the Middle East. To that end, I'd like you to reference this column by Investor's Business Daily.

Why Borders Matter

Aug 09 06

The war in Lebanon is an object lesson in border protection. Hezbollah secretly beefed up its forces there as Israel lowered its northern guard. Then Hezbollah attacked. We should take note.

Lest Americans think this is "Israel's war," it's worth repeating that it was Hezbollah that bombed the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing some 250 Americans. Hezbollah also kidnapped Americans Terry Anderson and Beirut CIA Station Chief William Buckley. Buckley died in captivity with nine others. Some of the masterminds are still at large.

Hezbollah (Party of Allah) is not just a faraway threat. Its leaders have infiltrated the U.S. by breaching our own porous borders.

No matter where you stand on the war in the Middle East, it is not safe or prudent for Americans to be vulnerable - on their own soil - to the volatile agenda of sworn enemies of the United States. Our lax immigration system lets potential enemies slip through all the time, and the recent nationwide scramble to find 11 supposedly harmless Egyptians proves that.

With Hezbollah trying to infiltrate America, and teams of suspicious young men entering the U.S. under false pretenses, it's time to put more teeth in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System that requires young men from the Middle East who arrived after 9-11 to check in with immigration officials during their stays — not kill the program, as some in Washington have proposed.

The IBD article ends with a clear call to action. There is no reason why our national security ought to be compromised on the altar of political correctness. With enemies at our gates, we shouldn’t be forced to swing them wide to prove how kind and inclusive we are. There are already more than enough "tourists", "students", and "temporary residents" from the Middle East inside our borders with nefarious purposes; it's time we clamped down on their access to our people. While the demand for more teeth in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System is appropriate, perhaps we also need to consider reviewing and revoking the visas of others who we know support Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda. Those people shouldn't be too hard to find, even for an inept ICE and INS - they are marching in the streets proclaiming their loyalty to our enemies on a daily basis!

_________________________________

* * *

I have to disagree with certain aspects of this article. First, I do not believe singling out any particular race, ethnicity or country of origin is appropriate. Investigating people from Middle Eastern countries alone is inappropriate, because they are not the only ones who could intend harm to our country, nor are they, historically speaking, the only ones who do. I doubt that has changed just because the Middle East is where the media focuses its attention. Are all other terrorists obsolete and disbanded? Really?

That isn't to say that I do not believe that more measures should be taken to track and verify the legal visitors amongst us, because "over staying your welcome" is one of the easiest ways to stay in this country illegally. We need a better system, not a system bent on racism. The Red Scares were NOT a high-light of American values being played out in American actions. We should not repeat those mistakes.

And, as far as Israel, Lebanon, and the United States of America...I find our part in that whole mess to be deeply troubling. While I will not excuse Hezbollah's actions in any way, shape or form, I will say that our government made our military a target when they expedited arms to Israel, while hypocritically participating in the cease-fire farce. And farce it is, when the first news of the day concerning the matter yesterday was that Israel already broke the cease-fire and I suspect describing the cease-fire as "fragile" is an understatement, at best. Furthermore, when they discover -- again -- that Hezbollah will not be so easily disarmed, I do believe that Israel will -- again -- try her hand at occupation, with tragic results.

Any attempts to disarm or mitigate Hezbollah has to be done in a manner that truly "restores Lebanon's sovereignty," not in a manner that puts that "sovereignty" in the hands of foreigners...such as Israel herself. The Lebanese do not trust Israel. They have no reason to trust the country that just destroyed their homes, their infrastructure, and their lives. Hezbollah gained even more ligitimacy by Israel's invasion in the hearts of the Lebanese people, and that should be a concern for all of us who want a truly victorious end to this War on Terror.

Job Protection

2006-08-10T05:02:00.000-05:00

Good jobs are scarce in Wisconsin, especially in my part of Wisconsin. The article I linked doesn't wholly capture the truth of that; none I've seen does. The situation is precarious, and the government tends to fill the void with the same-old, same-old. This is something that my husband and I have felt dearly over the last few years, and the government's method of dealing with the problem has been sporadic and not nearly as successful as it could be.

The government puts a lot of efforts into recruiting new businesses to replace the old businesses, often offering delicious tax-breaks and a lot of media attention. This is all well and good, but it's still not nearly effective enough. Not only do the new businesses not always stay after they use up their tax-breaks, but they do not offer the variety of jobs that Wisconsin needs to revitalize our economy.

Finally, somebody is starting to take a closer look at this complicated problem. While, I would love to say that there is a new, vital set of businesses opening up in the area that provide good-paying, non-factory jobs...that's only a dream for the time being. That's not why I'm feeling just a little bit giddy.

Nope, it's something else entirely; but it's still something good!

Instead of protecting, accomodating and coddling illegal immigranst, somebody finally took some appropriate action!

Courtesy of the Janesville Gazette:

A Whitewater business owner and 25 workers who investigators say are illegal immigrants were arrested Tuesday by local and federal authorities.
* * *
Petrie, 47, is accused of employing people without proper documentation, including Social Security numbers, that would allow them to live and work in the United States, Otterbacher said.

Otterbacher said Petrie's arrest came after "a number of meetings between the company owner and the investigators."

She said Petrie was told many times that he couldn't employ illegal
immigrants, but he didn't change his way of operating.
* * *
The workers were taken to the Dodge County Jail, where they were kept overnight before deportation proceedings today, said Gail Montenegro, an ICE spokeswoman.

Well, here's to hoping they kick them out and keep them out. Yet...

Otterbacher said the police department tries to work with businesses and companies to foster good relationships, but she said law enforcement must step in when illegal behavior doesn't stop. Her concern is that other Hispanics may see the arrests as a threat to their community in Whitewater.
* * *
During the meeting, ICE officers told the group that the Star Packaging arrests were "just the tip of the iceberg," Otterbacher said.

It's too soon to be certain whether ICE officers will be allowed to do their job. I will clarify that I have absolutely NO problem with Hispanics; I do, however, have a very BIG problem with illegal immigrants. Not because they're immigrants, but because they're here illegally and their illegal status (and, thus, the cheapness of their labor) depresses the wages other members of the labor force can demand for their exertions and that is unacceptable.

Sad as it is, a job at such a packaging plant is usually "good money" for workers in Wisconsin. This type of grunt labor is our staple. Our economy is fed by such jobs being paid honest wages to taxpayers; hiring illegal immigrants is NOT helpful, by doing so companies are not only stiffing the government, they are cheating Wisconsin taxpayers out of much needed jobs.

I'm happy to say that the efforts of ICE made for a nice victory. I hope it continues. Wisconsin needs these jobs!

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-08-07T11:10:00.000-05:00

Illegal Alien Stole 10 yr old girl’s identity
By Toni at Bear Creek Ledger

How would you like to find out your child's identity had been stolen? You of course probably wouldn't know until the child reached adulthood.

Kern found out quite by accident when Hayley's application for the North Carolina Children's Health Insurance Program was initially rejected because her earned income was too high. Hayley is 10 years old. She doesn't have any earned income. Guess the Social Security Administration doesn't look at earned income for 10 year olds or 5 year olds for that matter. What she learned was that a man, an illegal immigrant in his 20s, had been working under Hayley's Social Security number for the past six years.
[...]
Rosario does not speak English. Through an interpreter, Knight learned that when Rosario came to the U.S. from Mexico at age 22, he was told he needed "work papers" to get a job. The working papers acquaintances provided was a Social Security card with Rosario's name and a fraudulent number. He believed the number was the "work papers" that allowed him to work in the U.S. Knight said Rosario was at a loss to understand what he had done wrong.

As much as I'd like to empathize with this Mexican man, I can't. I find it difficult to believe this man has been in the US working for 6 years and is unaware of the political fight going on with illegal aliens in this country. The one consistency with this man though; he has been in this country for 6 years, he can't speak any English and yet has a drivers license and vehicle. I'm surprised he hasn't purchased a home yet!

The mother, Shelly Kern now has the terrible task of trying to clear her childs identity. Clearing your child's name can be just as frustrating and infuriating as clearing an adult's name. Kern said maybe more so. First, she was referred to the regional Social Security Administration office where she was told there was nothing they could do. They sent her to the Employment Security Commission. Neither agency nor the DSS has enforcement powers, so Kern went to the Star Police Department.
[…]
When Kern tried to order a credit report on her daughter, she hit obstacle after obstacle online, the credit reporting agencies want credit information that her daughter, at age 10, does not have and she cannot get a credit report for Rosario, no matter that the Social Security number is fraudulent. She has appealed to the N.C. Attorney General's Office for assistance.

Apparently this has been happening for years:

The practice of stealing, selling and using Social Security numbers from juveniles began over 20 years ago in southern California and has spread throughout the country. Apparently, the SSNs are obtained through brokers, who are primarily Permanent Legal Residents. The "brokers" physically monitor court house records of newborns, and obtain their birth registry issued SSNs from open public records, or from other Permanent Legal Residents/Naturalized Citizens who are employees of city and county government that have access to tax records.

The reason this illegal practice has been relatively successful is that the IRS/SSA doesn't note that one to five year old children shouldn't be working, despite the SSA records that show the age of number holders. Also, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is not known for pursuing this line of investigation.

If you have children you should really read the rest of this story since there's more information covered that you should know.

The Courier-Tribune :: News Page

H/T: ALIPAC Forum

And of course, I want to give a bit of promo to Dan Demay's song - Illegal.

_________________________________

Saturday Morning

2006-08-05T08:47:00.000-05:00

My son gets to watch television once a week on Saturday Mornings. These shows have been pre-screened by my husband and I to be suffeciently and consistently safe. During this one three-hour stretch, we extend our bunny ears, pull in a station -- I don't know from where -- and Willy watches a series of shows that have little lessons embedded in exciting little tales. He loves it.

To describe how much of a ritual this is, and how important it is to my son, I'll tell you this. Willy learned the days of the week in order to determine what Saturday meant. It was that mysterious day when the cartoons would be on and he'd get to see something we just didn't have in our video collection. He'll tell you all about it, starting about ten minutes after cartoons are over.

Today is Saturday. Tomorrow is Sunday. Then, today is Sunday, and tomorrow is Monday. Then, today is Monday, and tomorrow is Tuesday. Then, today is Tuesday, and tomorrow is Wednesday. Then, today is Wednesday, and tomorrow is Thursday. Then, today is Thursday, and tomorrow is Friday. Then, today is Friday, and tomorrow is Saturday. Then, today is Saturday, and I get to watch cartoons!

We go through this a lot. At least once a day, everyday, starting at whatever the day happens to be. First, Willy confirms the day, then goes through the littany. Now, we didn't expect this. Willy started watching cartoons on Saturdays a while ago. Yet, the pattern of it became predictable. As his awareness grew, he started to be able to understand the time concept. Granted, it was later than his "typically" developing peers, but he's finally got it down. He understands days.

Now, hopefully, once school starts and we tell him that tomorrow is Monday, and he has to go to school on Mondays, he won't say, "No, I don't. Tomorrow isn't school."

We'll see.

For now, I'm just tired. Because my school is on-going, and somehow my days and nights got reversed. I usually like being a night-owl, but this is rather ridiculous, because I didn't try to be a night-owl this time. It just happened. However, if we're to go to church on Sunday, I have to get my days and nights switched back, at least for a little while. How? By staying up for most of Saturday, including last night.

Usually I would have gone to bed before now. It's been a while since I've listened to Willy's joyful exclamations at whatever surprises his cartoons hold. But now I can hear them loud and clear. It's a wonderful ritual that has taught our son time-concepts that were otherwise a struggle...yet it doesn't help my head not to ache.

Radical Middle

2006-08-05T03:57:00.000-05:00

I just found this site. It's bizarre and the spin is laid rather thickly there. Either that, or they're nuts or I'm just too tired or bored to care. Either way...

Anybody familiar with the Radical Middle?

Disappointed

2006-08-05T02:44:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to write a post for a few hours now. And, I guess, this is the best I'm going to be able to manage. It's not so much writer's block, as writer's blase. I mean, really, what's the point?

Anyway, the 2006 elections are coming up and I wanted to find out who's running against Kohl. I'll be blunt: I don't like Kohl; I think he's a putz. Now, just to clarify, this is different than a schmuck. He's not bad, in the sense that he hasn't done anything terrible, but he doesn't do much good either (thus, his winning isn't as horrid an idea as if Doyle were to win, Doyle being a schmuck). So, Kohl is a putz. He's a rich putz at that, which is why keeps winning elections -- he can fund his campaign himself.

This should explain why I found this article so distasteful:

Yes, there will be a Republican candidate on the November ballot. There also will be a Green Party candidate and an independent. And there's even a Democratic primary, with Ben Masel, a well-known Madison marijuana activist, challenging Kohl in September.

But, for all practical purposes, Kohl won re-election when the mainstream Republican Party failed to come up with a strong candidate to run against him.

Now, I realize that "media bias" is a controversial issue. And, usually it is a debate as to whether or not there is an equal balance between liberal and conservative bias. I'm going to by-pass that debate. My concern is with the way the major newspapers in Wisconsin prop up candidates.

I've witnessed this through out my eight-year stay in this state. I haven't always paid much attention. I haven't always cared. Sometimes they prop up Republicans; sometimes they prop up Democrats. But, they always seem to be propping up somebody. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of having to glean information from Minnesota and Illinois newspapers to get some honest to goodness reporting!

I mean, c'mon, how hard is it to just tell it like it is. When you can only find bad news about a certain local candidate in out-of-state papers, then there's a problem. I've encountered this too many times to count now, and I'm sick of it. Again, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. They play both sides of it. However, the minor parties are always side-lined, which is getting rather despicable.

One of the important things that must be revealed in this mess is that the two largest papers, Wisconsin State Journal and The Capital Times, are both run pretty much identically, because they're both owned by the same people. Now, the only newspaper who stands a chance of competing with them is
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which plays the same damn game. For all I know they may be owned by the same people even though they're not run off the same internet site. Even my home-town paper, The Janesville Gazette, gets into the fray, which seems a mite-bit ridiculous in comparison. But hell, why not?

Anyway, back to Kohl. Here's a bit of why I don't like him:

He's pro-illegal immigration. This site, which is currently targeting Kohl, can be used to easily see the immigration votes of other candidates as well. Check it out.

He wouldn't even tell Project Vote Smart what his views are. That kind of pisses me off. But, as you can see here, people concerned about the budget don't like him, businesses don't like him, gun owners don't like him, and he sucks at national security and trade.

And, there's other stuff, too. But I'm not inclined to hunt for it, which is what it takes to find the dirt on this man. It's there, it's just tedious and I'm grumpy.

Guard the Borders Blogburst

2006-07-31T21:51:00.000-05:00

The North American Union, SPP, and NASCO: Erasing America’s Borders
By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Our government has undertaken some monumental legislation that fully impacts the American way of life, our freedom, and our sovereignty. The purpose of such legislation is to homogenize Canada, Mexico, and the United States into a North American Union - and we're all going to sleep through it.

Have you heard of a little-known program called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? This tri-lateral partnership was signed by President Bush last year without Congressional oversight or public approval. Opponents of the SPP have called it NAFTA on steroids - and we all know how disastrous NAFTA has been for everyone except Mexico. It also appears to be modeled on the ineffective and highly unpopular European Union (unpopular with the people, that is).

I went to the website, www.spp.gov, to begin my research. There are, indeed, no boundaries between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. when it comes to the cooperation of financial, trade, and foreign affair departments. Though some of the PR language on the website sounds fairly benign, the commissions are picking up momentum. And you know what happens when bureaucrats start grasping at influence and power! Except that now we don't have to just worry about our own greedy bureaucrats - but Canada's and Mexico's too.

This is not some weird and obscure conspiracy website, it is our government's plan to literally give away or sell our national sovereignty. What is most galling is that we will share responsibility for security across North America. It is very conceivable that we could see our troops deployed to secure the southern border of Mexico. Yes, you read that right - not OUR unsecured warzone of a southern border - but Mexico's border with Belize and Guatemala. That is the conclusion of an investigative report done by Lou Dobbs on CNN:

Robert B. Murray notes:

President George W. Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed in March 2005 to create this union by executive regulations and agreements rather than by treaty to bypass Congress. Twenty working groups were formed and are well on their way to establishing a super-government for North America that will not be bound by our Constitution. The web site for this new bureaucracy—located at www.spp.gov—provides a look at their plans and accomplishments thus far. The plan is to have this arrangement implemented by 2010.

Behind its innocuous title, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” the United States will surrender its Constitution. According to Jerome R. Corsi, an author and political commentator, our nation-state prerogatives would be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body and our dollar would become the “Amero.”

Possibly the strongest leg of the SPP is NASCO - North America's SuperCorridor Coalition - otherwise known as the NAFTA Superhighway. Airily dismissed by some public officials as internet rumors and hype and completely unaffordable, NASCO has quietly been amassing funding and already begun preliminary construction in Texas.

*Picture removed to fix spacing error*

...already underway is the plan for a NAFTA Superhighway: 1,200 feet wide, stretching from Lazaro Cardenas on the west coast of Mexico, entering the United States at Laredo, Texas, and continuing straight north to Winnipeg, Canada, with another route to Kansas City thence north easterly to Detroit and Montreal.

Containerized goods from Asia will be offloaded onto Mexican trucks, with Mexican drivers, and distributed throughout the economic system. Go to www.nascocorridor.com to view the plan and progress. There will be no internal boundaries to restrict the flow of people, goods or services.

In fact, the first customs stop on the Superhighway will be in the heart of America - Kansas City! Along the way, primary U.S. labor unions will be by-passed in favor of Mexican labor, including the Longshoremen’s Union, the railroad United Transportation Union, and the Teamsters.

How will such a massive flow of goods and foreign traffic be monitored? According to author Jerome Corsi,

"Across the NAFTA Super-Highways will flow millions more Mexicans, now armed with North American border passes and biometric identification, as defined by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working groups organized within the Department of Commerce."

Similar toll systems snaking their way from the southern and northern borders cutting through major American cities will force American citizens to submit to having RFID enabled identification cards which contain an ever-increasing array of information about their personal lives.

Illegal aliens with cloned RFID transponders will enjoy streamlined access to the US while Americans labor under the financial burden of tolls that go directly to foreign corporations and restrictions that take the right of free travel out of their hands. This and more is occurring without Congressional oversight, but is naturally funded with our state and federal tax dollars.

But our public officials are saying this could never happen, if only because it's completely unaffordable! Not so, since foreign investment will cover any gaps that taxing the American people leaves. Additionally, the Bush administration has embarked on a policy of selling off key US infrastructure to the highest bidder - in most cases foreign owned corporations.

[K]ey players, including the investment bankers and the worldwide capital investment funds, have a plan to address these fiscal shortcomings with their own resources. On April 30, 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 12803 on infrastructure privatization, a move that cleared the way for private capital to invest in U.S. infrastructure projects, including highways.

For instance, the Indiana Toll Road, Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, a Texas toll road from Austin to Sequin and The Chicago Skyway have all been sold or leased for 99 years to foreign companies who will all enjoy billions in profits from American citizens forced to pay the tolls. And now the New Jersey Turnpike and the Ohio Turnpike are also under the hammer with foreign interests at the forefront of the negotiations.

An earlier Corsi article cites government websites which carry full planning details of the Super Highway. Its construction has already begun in Texas with no congressional oversight whatsoever. The Trans-Texas Corridor is being overseen by The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the contract is owned by the Cintra corporation which in turn is owned by the King of Spain Juan Carlos. The project is being financed by the implementation of a toll that will be collected by means of GPS tracking devices installed in all vehicles and also envelops many connecting roads to the highway. (Toll road info summarized by Paul Watson)

Watson further adds this dire prediction, "To even be allowed to use major roads and highways, US citizens will be subject to a criminal background check and the government will have the ability to pinpoint their particular RFID signal and remotely block it from central computer mainframes - effectively abolishing freedom of mobility in America."

President Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” While we’ve been looking elsewhere, our own government has implemented a comprehensive plan to erase our borders with Canada and Mexico. The NAFTA Superhighway will allow vehicles, people and goods to travel from Mexico, into the American heartland, and up to Canada with little impediment, making America's borders obsolete. Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, the new North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway (NASCO) will fully expedite the wholesale dismantling of American sovereignty. It would seem that the while the rest of the world is already lining up to get their piece of the American pie, Americans will be the last to know. It is happening quietly and behind our backs, while our attention is fully engaged by the War on Terror, the upcoming elections, and our personal lives.

_________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

A Business of Cards

2006-07-27T23:24:00.000-05:00

About a week ago I was driving myself to an appointment. As is typical, I was on the verge of being late. My minivan was idling nose down on a rather steep hill waiting for the light to change. When the light turned green I let go of the brakes and my engine died. It took me a second or two to realize that I was just rolling down the hill, instead of going. So, I had to hit the brakes, turn off the car and re-start it. While this isn't typical of my newish van, and I still don't know why it happened, I've had cars that had this problem in the past and I'm pretty quick about it from having plenty of practice.

However, this time was different. Somewhere in those fifteen seconds it took me to get my car started again, I heard a...

CRASH!!!

While the truck behind me stopped, the little car behind him did not. So, I pulled into the gas station on the corner and called the cops. Luckily someone involved had a cell phone, because I didn't have a whole lot of information. So, after hanging up the phone I walked back to the site of the crash and made sure everyone was alright. The truck bumper was a little worse for the wear, but the little car definitely took the brunt of the accident. Still, both vehicles were drivable and they got off the road as soon as they'd cleaned up some of the worst of the debris. Of course, they pulled over to the other side of the street, kitty corner to where the accident had taken place. I had to wait at two separate lights to get to the other drivers. By the time I had, the police officer was already there and had gotten the basic details he needed. When I arrived I told him my part it in, but he just jotted down another fact and waved me on my way. He didn't even require my name or liscense plate number.

I had known I wasn't liable, but being a stickler for the rules, I also knew I should stop. Some of my fellow bloggers call it Authoritarianism. Me, I simply consider it a matter of civil ethics to follow the rules and the rules are simple when it comes to involvement in a car accident: All participants and witnesses should stop, whether they "have time" or not.

Now, I have a friend who I shall call Joe. Joe works for a company I shall call CriminalType. Joe is usually both an ethical and moral person. Yet, there's a problem. Joe keeps telling me about the business practices of CriminalType, and I don't like what I'm hearing. Neither does Joe, but he doesn't seemed inclined to do much about it.

Briefly put, CriminalType's business practices involve forgery, blackmail, fraud, lots of fraud, and some other things less easily classified but obviously both unethical and illegal. Now, I've never had any doubt in my mind that these activities were wrong, from the first time Joe started telling me about them. However, now even with only my Accounting 101 class, as basic as that is, I'm starting to get a better idea of just how many businesses and people are being or are going to be hurt by these practices. I mean, we're not talking about Enron here, but the false information on their financial statements has led to a loan in which my mortgage, and all the other debt that weighs so heavily on me, could be dropped into it without even making a *plink*. And that's just one of the investors that's getting screwwed, or will be screwwed when this business of cards collapses in on itself.

Now, Joe does bring up the ethics of these matters to his bosses. They shrug it off and, when they do anything at all, they merely change the manner of their crime without changing the nature of it. Joe is looking for a new job, and trying to get out of there, but has no intention of blowing the whistle. And, that's where I really start having a problem with this whole situation.

As I said, I'm a stickler for the rules. As per the rules that I know and believe two things are true: 1) This company should not be allowed to continue doing business in this manner, dragging in as many businesses and people as they possibly can into their imminent destruction. 2) Joe should be the one to turn them in, because Joe has access to the necessary documentation to prove the criminal activities, and Joe has witnessed the criminal activities himself.

Not only that, while Joe has never directly instigated them, Joe has participated. He didn't forge the signature, but Joe did take the check to the bank...small consolation for the business it hurts that he was shaking his head in dismay all the while.

Also, the fraud involves a certain somebody getting paid under the table, so that he can continue to receive food stamps and medical assistance, despite making a rather high salary when it's all factored together. So, the state of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin tax payers, are being hurt by this.

The whole mess is just...aggravating.

So, what I pose to my reader is this: What the heck should I do? Do I call it in? Do I further pressure Joe to call it in? Where do I start? I don't think I can sit back and do nothing on this. Nor do I think I should. Yet, it still comes down to this: Joe should be the one to act, and so far he's refused to do so.

Medical Care and Bureaucracy

2006-07-23T03:44:00.000-05:00

There are two things I know:

1) With a nation as wealthy and prosperous as the United States is supposed to be, all citizens of this nation should have access to affordable health care.

2) I would prefer the government have as little to do with providing that health care as possible.

Bureaucracy is supposed to be efficient, or so my husband tells me. Where he got that, I don't know, but as far as I can tell it only works that way in the text books. Thankfully, as far as I know, I will not be reading such a text book during my scholastic pursuits, because I'm pretty sure I would be a disruption to the class -- having real-world experience, and little self-control when being "taught" bald-faced lies.

Anyway, as many of my readers are aware, I have three children with special needs, and I have a tendency to highlight what that means on this blog. And it means a lot of different things.

One of the things that having children with special needs (paired with being poor) means in America, and especially in Wisconsin, is that we all have health insurance. As long as the boys have SSI, they will be insured. Which is good news, because medical care for children with special needs is expensive stuff. However, the problem with this is that the medical assistance we receive is determined through a very bureaucratic process.

Simply put, this is not a good thing.

My youngest child, who was approved for SSI despite his ambiguous diagnosis, does not talk. Well, that's not entirely true. He can say "baby," "bye," and "daddy" clearly. He can also count to ten, but you won't know it until you notice the very fixed pattern to it: "un" "poo" "pee" "por" "pi" "pih" "denen" "ay" "na" "tih." There's a smattering of other "words" that come and go. Sometimes we can discern meaning from them and other times we cannot. This has all happened within the last month or two, before that his sounds were limited to high-pitched happy noises and high-pitched un-happy noises. Sometimes even those two were indistinguishable from each other.

Ben received both speech and occupational therapy through the school system. But, it's summer and I elected not to send the boys to summer school, because, frankly, it's a rather traumatic experience for them to be in school, but have it be nothing like school, and have a different schedule on top of it. Melt-down city? No thank you.

Now, typically, they should still receive speech and occupational therapy through a private service provider. As the laws are written, they are entitled to that. Which is why the bureaucrats have to find very specific, miniscule, ridiculous flaws in the requests in order to refuse these services. Which they do over and over again. And not just to my children.

Now, I'm not going to get into the complex politics of all this. Suffice it to say, under Tommy Thompson's watch these services were covered; under Jim Doyle's watch they are not; and yet the laws governing these services have not changed. For those who don't already know, the D and the R are reversed from what you might expect. Basically, Thompson's the Republican and also the more "social medicine" progressive of the two. Oh, Doyle talks about it, but he doesn't fund it, because he's got too many of his own vote-buying pet projects in the works.

I digress: The problem with socialized medicine is that bureaucracy is like communism. While it may look good on paper, the reality of it is so close to evil that all it takes is removing the good intentions to push it over the edge. And even with the good intentions intact it doesn't actually work.

Part of how socialized medicine works, at least in this country, is by pressuring those medical professionals who wish to accept patients who receive such services to agree to being paid a rate that doesn't actually pay for their expenses. This creates two common situations. First, those practioners who are charitable enough (and they're few and far between) to specialize in medical care for the poor (meaning they accept only patients who have medical assistance and/or no medical coverage at all and are familiar with the red-tape involved in the bureaucratic process) need grants merely to keep their doors open. So they rely on bureaucracy in an exponential fashion. Second, both those who specialize in providing medical care for the poor, and those who are willing to accept medical assistance but also have other patients, have to compensate for the non-expense meeting payments by expediting their services.

In the business world, expediency is considered a good thing. In medical services expediency drastically reduces the quality of medical services. I don't say this to disparage the medical service providers. Most of them are exceptional people who are willingly taking a dramatic reduction in pay, compared to what they could receive in a private practice, and providing their services the best they can, because they care. However, the truth of the matter is expediency is detrimental to quality health care services.

Another difficulty is that the service providers are often not given the power to make decisions appropriate for their patients. The bureaucrats do that, and I guarantee they do NOT care, because they haven't the faintest idea who the people in question are, which is the way the government prefers it. In the world of the bureaucrats were all ambiguous name-less, face-less, humanity-less numerical codes. When a service is denied the person/people who make that decision never even see the person. Therefore, it is the clinician who has the awful job of looking their patient in the eye and saying the service was denied, often with no way to explain why. Having been denied numerous times, I can tell you it hurts them as much as it hurts me.

For example, I received the service denial for Ben's speech therapy and it was, as usual, written in legalese. Something was approved, but something else was denied. The service itself was not cited, just a code. So, I took the document to the service provider for an explanation. The therapist who had written the request was not there, but her boss was, so I took it to Sue.

I could see it in her eyes before she told me. Patiently, as if she'd done it many times before (as she had), she explained what the denial meant. The evaluation was approved, meaning the examination and testing that had already been performed in order to write up the request in the first place had been funded, but all other services had been denied. She then told me that most requests, irregardless of the merit, were being denied all across the state. A few were being approved, just to demonstrate that the state is acting in good faith; which, of course, it is not.

At the moment, blame is unimportant. That's not the point of this piece. The point is that when people advocate for socialized medicine in this country, it makes me shudder. Literally. Physically. Shudder. Because the truth is, when it comes to funding and actually providing the services promised, Wisconsin is a good state, even with Doyle at the helm. Many states do not even provide what Wisconsin does. Wisconsin is a leader in providing medical assistance to the poor in this nation. And that should give everyone who advocates for socialized medicine a moment of pause, because these same bureaucracies that control the medical assistance programs across the nation will be the same bureaucracies that control socialized medicine should it become a reality for us.

Which means weeks or months of waiting for non-life threatening services to be approved. It means service denials that make absolutely no sense in the real-world, because the decisions are made outside of the real world. It means that waiting a half-hour or longer for your five to ten minutes with the doctor will be the norm for everyone. It means that medical conditions will go undiagnosed for months or years, because your doctor simply does not have the time or resources to find out what is going wrong in your body...that is until your life is obviously threatened. It means that everyone will need to learn how to navigate the wonderful world of bureaucratic mayhem in order to get the medical services that they have been promised, but will probably never fully receive.

And yes, I've been told that all this can be fixed. I've also been told that all this will be fixed, and has been fixed, and doesn't really happen and a whole lot of other distortions that simply do not coincide with reality. The reality of bureaucracy is messy, expensive and inefficient. And entrusting your medical care to bureaucrats is not a good thing to advocate. And yet, I am grateful for the services we receive, and I completely understand why those who have no access to medical care would be willing to jump on this bandwagon. But, folks, really, there has to be a better way.

Socialism, no matter how fettered it may be, is not the solution to poorly fettered capitalism. A happy-medium must be reached; one that provides quality medical care, as well as affordable medical care, to all American citizens. While bureaucratic-controlled medical care may be better than no medical care, there should be a better solution. This is America, the land of opportunity and innovation. And, frankly, with our history, we should be smarter than this.

Ask America -- a survey

2006-07-21T14:40:00.000-05:00

So, I've had this survey on my desk for a week or two, or something like that. I don't know how long, exactly, it's been there, because I've been swamped down with all sorts of paperwork, school work, and life.

Anyway, it's called "Ask America" and it's a special project of the Republican Party. Here are some high-lights:

The Republican Party is conducting this nationwide grass-roots project as a critical part of our efforts to continue to strengthen our Party by getting more Americans involved.

The goal is to help the Leadership of the Republican Party gain an on-going and in-depth understanding of the issues which are of greatest concern to Americans like you.
* * *

With President Bush overseeing the War on Terror and constantly under siege by Democrats and other liberal special interests here at home, it is vital that we have your answers to prove what Americans in your area really want.
* * *

With powerful special interest groups and deep pocket Washington lobbyists working behind the scenes to influence political decision making, I think it is time that we find out what you, the hard working American taxpayers, really want.

This survey, registered in your name, will serve as a mandate from you. And with major issues in Congress consistently being decided by just a few votes, I can't overstress how crucial it is that you have direct input on the national decision making.

Sounds good, doesn't it? I get direct input on the national decision making process!?! Hmm. I doubt it. But...

True to form, the President's opponents [referencing liberals] have put aside any pretense of bipartisanship and are following a game plan of continued obstructionism and "win at all costs."

Their game plan is to undermine, delay or destroy every proposal the
President sends to Capitol Hill with the goal being to effectively immobilize the Bush Administration, ensure that no major programs get through Congress and recapture control of Congress in the November elections.

...we have to stop them durned liberals, now don't we? Now, how in the world did my name get pulled out of their hat for this? They want a mandate...from me? Sore disappointment is in order.

Your answers will help give our Republican Members of Congress a special edge in legislative debates. Most importantly, they will ensure that we are in sync with the views of America's electorate all across the country.

That is why we must be prepared to protect President Bush's Congressional majorities so he can continue to deliver on more of the bold, innovative ideas that have become the hallmark of his Presidency.

*sigh* I can't imagine what they expect. But, they're obviously out of touch with reality if they honestly believe they are "in sync with the views of America's electorate all across the country." And if they think they are "in sync" with mine, then they are simply delusional.

Of course, there's this:

After analysis of this historic survey is complete, I will present President Bush and all of our Republican House incumbents and challengers with an official copy of the confidential results. And you will receive an exact duplicate of that report.

Perhaps my voice will have an impact. Perhaps the Republicans will be willing to address the concerns raised by this survey. I doubt it, but it's possible. If nothing else, assuming I do actually get a copy of it, I can always blog about it.

Then, there's the always present plea from any political party:

In addition to your valuable answers, I also hope I can count on you to
send a special contribution to support the National Republican Congressional Committee at this very important time.

This project is a huge undertaking, and we desperately need your help to fund it.

If they desperately need my help to fund this, then I'd like to visit that sea-side resort they're meeting up at out there in Arizona. But...

Your answers to the enclosed ASK AMERICA survey will tell the truth about where you and other Americans stand on the vital issues of the day. And the good news is, the truth always eventually wins out!

The truth always wins, so they better shape up or ship out! Oh, wait, that's not what they meant. Hmm.

Well, as you might have guessed, the survey was very biased towards the Republican agenda. I mean, they didn't have "The GOP is corrupt, sell-outs and I want my country back" anywhere! But here's some of what they did have:

2. Do you think American troops should pursue terrorists and their leaders even if it means going into countries where we are not invited?

(Yes, no, or no opinion; no "reasonable limits" option offered, not that
they'd have a clue what "reasonable" meant anyway)

4. How confident are you that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to keep America safe from future terrorist attacks and other catastrophic threats?

(very confident, somewhat confident, or not very confident -- terrified as hell that Katrina will be the norm wasn't an option either)

10. How confident do you feel that America's economy will continue to grow stronger in the next six months?

(they didn't offer "My husband and I are both unemployed and desperately pinching to make ends meet" as an option)

28. Do you back President Bush's efforts to build a "missile defense shield" to protect America from nuclear attack from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran?

(Can you say "star wars?" I knew you could! BTW, how can a state be rogue?)

33. President Bush has proposed a temporary guest-worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. Are you in favor of this proposal?

(yes, no, or no opinion, neither "HELL NO!" nor "Call it what it is, damn it!" was an option)

39. Do you think that confirmation of federal and Supreme Court judges should simply require a majority vote of 51 U.S. Senators or should 60 votes be needed to break a Senate filibuster?

(Hmm. No bias there; nope, move along, nothing to see here. *rolls eyes*)

40. In recent years, has the federal government grown more or less
intrusive in your personal and business affairs?

(This is a trick question, right?)

45. Does the national news media accurately report the news without liberal bias?

(yes, no, or no opinion, "No, nor does is accurately report the news
without conservative bias" wasn't an option)

47. Do you think the President and Congress should act aggressively to reduce the soaring oil prices to lessen the cost burden for all Americans?

(Hmm. And I thought acting aggressively was what made the
oil prices soar in the first place, silly me.)

51. Do you support the President's plan to unify our nation around a
comprehensive energy plan that protects consumers while producing more reliable, affordable and environmentally clean energy?

(He has a plan!?! Well, that's news to me. It must be those
pesky liberal reporters biasly not reporting that Bush has a plan.)

52. Generally, are you satisfied with the accomplishments of the
Republicans in Congress?

(Can you say pork? I knew you could!)

56. Which political party do you think is more in tune with American
values?

(Republican, Democrat or no opinion; "none of the above" was not an
option.)

Well, those are the high-lights. If there's call for it, I can type the whole thing in, but there just doesn't seem much point to it unless y'all really want to know.

So, my question for my lovely readers is this: Am I just a cynic? Will having taken this survey actually do some good?

Betrayal

2006-07-15T02:43:00.000-05:00

I have a rather intense feeling of betrayal at the moment; and so I'm going to blog about it for lack of any better way to vent my frustrations.

I officially started classes again on Wednesday. I have only one class, and that's a good thing because I'm going to need to do some serious studying for this class. It's actually something I don't know much about. ACCOUNTING! Not the most attractive aspect of the business world, imo, but a necessary one.

Like I said, class officially started Wednesday, but I dug around and found our first assignment and started my reading on Monday. I feel less guilty about that (the digging, not the reading), because the link was up and ready by the time I checked back that same day. So, I started early and it's a good thing, because I learned from the first chapter that almost everything I thought I knew about accounting was wrong. Granted, my view of accounting was basically people "crunching" numbers concerning other people's money (something I definitely didn't want to do), which was right. It's just what that "crunching" entails that I had over-simplified to a great degree. Accounting is a challenging field, and probably wouldn't be boring for someone who cared more about numbers than I.

However, the betrayal comes in when I get to my assignment. See, I read my two chapters, I made flash cards, re-read them, took notes, did most of the review material at the end of the chapters, went through the "lectures" (PowerPoint presentations) twice, and took notes on them...basically, I studied a lot more than I usually have to do.

And I went to do the assignment...

A good third of it was totally foreign to me. The instructor gave some tips and clues imbedded in the assignment itself, but still. I figure that if I'm asked to do an assignment, then I should have had the opportunity (and the directions to do so) to have learned the material in advance. I mean, that seems like common sense, right? But that isn't the worst of it.

After doing the assignment, and writing a complaint to the teacher along with my submission, I decided, what the heck, I'd take the quiz. Now, for myself, I think using notes, hand-outs, and looking in the textbook is cheating. I don't care if it's "allowed," which it is at Herzing; I just don't see the point of taking a test if you're going to be using materials other than your own brain to "prove" you learned something.

In that sense, I had to "cheat" on the test, because it was all material that we hadn't learned, i.e. been directed to study and been taught in the "lectures." To say I'm pissed is a bit of an understatement at this point. The consolation that I got all the questions right because I found out that the material we had not studied, as per our reading and lectures, was all in the review hand-outs I happened to read before I took the quiz (but only after I turned in the homework). I mean, how is it review, if you haven't actually viewed it the first time yet.

Well, anyway, it's done now. I worked my way through an assignment that required me to know things I hadn't been taught and I took a stupid test that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that I know how to read a hand-out written up in Excel. Now, I have my weekend free to get caught up on other things...again.

Why I Blog

2006-07-04T19:57:00.000-05:00

While it's true that I haven't been blogging much of late...I've had the need to decompress now that my first term in college is over...blogging is still something that is genuinely important to me and here's why.

I was almost assertive today. You see, there were three older gentlemen debating politics at the Dunkin Donuts when I went in to get a motivating dose of caffeine. It was a rather loud, vehement debate that was impossible not to notice. As per my typical behavior, I tried to ignore it. However, one of the gentlemen was arguing from a point of view I happen to share, at least to a certain extent, but was doing so using a certain myth that time and blogging has proven to me to be invalid. Not only was he hurting his own point by perpetuating this myth, but he was hurting my own...though I wasn't trying to make any...and I had to speak up.

The quote that got me? "...legions and legions and legions of Bush-hating liberals..."

Now, admittedly there are many people who disagree with Bush's politics. And there are ultra-liberal Leftists who truly and adamantly hate Bush. However, the "legions and legions and legions" is a fallacy perpetuated by the media, amongst others, to make this relatively small faction of the Liberal wing of politics seem more numerous and more powerful, to better fullfill their agenda. I have debated with many, many liberals. In fact, I seek them out on purpose in order to disagree with them on certain points (as I do with die-hard conservatives), however those amongst them who are venemously hateful of all things Bush are relatively few compared to the many sane and reasonable liberals out there who just dislike Bush's politics.

So, in order to do just a little to eliminate this exaggeration, I very courteously inserted myself into the conversation. I made the correction, was contradicted, supported my position, got agreeing nods from the other two gentlemen present, and exited out of the conversation as quickly and gutlessly as possible. Could I have expounded on what I knew and shared it with them? Of course. Would they have been receptive to what I had to say? Probably. They would have at least been willing to hear me out. Could I have distributed some of the VOID cards that are now burning a hole in my pocket, so to speak? Maybe. Unfortunately, I didn't even try.

Much to the possible surprise of at least some of my fellow bloggers, I'm not a naturally assertive person. The fact of the matter is I write much better than I speak. Oh, I'm full of witty come-backs and responses -- five to ten minutes after a verbal conversation has ended. When I'm writing it's different. I can think on my feet -- or something like that. And I do have something to say, something worth saying, something that I feel the need to say...as long as I don't have to actually say it. And thus, I blog.

So, while you're thinking about why you blog, I want to formally introduce you to two new bloggers whom I've had the pleasure of "recruiting" into the blogosphere. Please take the time to check them out and introduce them to any bloggers you might know who'd be interested in what they have to say. Though, ironically enough, neither of them have much interest in blogging about the main issues with which I choose to concern myself.

Mark at Lazy Mormon is my husband and he spends his time blogging about religion. In my own words and from what I've witnessed, he's seeking to bridge the divide between Mormons and non-Mormons. There are many people who irrationally dismiss those of us from the LDS faith because we're "cult-members" and there are those within the LDS faith who dismiss people from other religions because they're "wrong." Neither Mark or I agree with either stance and Mark seems bent on addressing it.

My dear friend (who chooses to remain nameless) has started a blog called possibly crazy which seems to be about working through her childhood traumas. A fellow blogger used the word "naughty" to describe a blog I introduced her to, and that is the word I'll use as a cautionary measure. This is a blog that explores issues that are not appropriate for all ages...and I'll leave it at that.

Please welcome both of these new bloggers into the blogosphere and if you know of any blogs they should visit, let them know. And don't forget...

Why do you blog?!?

Oh, and I just linked to a blog called military view, don't know much about Jumpmaster, but his is a fairly new blog (the "he" is an assumption which I hope will be corrected if necessary) and he seems worth getting to know, so you might want to check him out too.

Guard the Border Blogburst

2006-07-04T19:19:00.000-05:00

Well, better late than never. Here it is... (Personal commentary below)

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Last year, I experienced a Fourth of July that I never want to repeat. I wrote about it, but at the time, I don't think my experience registered on anyone's radar. Here's part of the description as I posted it last year:

...all day, I was looking forward to the famous Freedom Over Texas Celebration in Houston - one of the top 10 patriotic shows and fireworks displays in the country. I was determined to brave the crowds (which my husband and I typically loathe) with kiddos in tow, in order to enjoy the culminating holiday of our nation's heritage. We drove an hour to downtown Houston, spent 20 minutes looking for parking, and finally stepped into the crowds to move toward the center of the Celebration.

Here is what I saw as I crossed Allen Parkway near Buffalo Bayou:

There were NO 4th of July decorations - NONE. No red, white, and blue - anywhere.
There were no American flags.
No one was dressed in red, white, and blue except me and my kids.
There were no patriotic songs.
There was no indication of patriotic pride or nationalism in any way.

No one - not one person around us - spoke English.
The music that was blasting through the loudspeakers was Mexican mariachi or some such.
Home made pig skins were sold in baggies - and screeching kids in dirty clothes were hawking water bottles out of grubby coolers.
I saw more green Mexican flags and paraphernalia than anything American-themed.

What is this - Houston, Mexico?! Had I mistakenly ended up in some grungy street carnival in Little Mexico, instead of one of the "Top 10 Patriotic Celebrations in the Country"! I knew that there was supposed to be military equipment displays somewhere in the center (which I was making a bee-line for), along with stages for Clint Black and LeAnn Rimes. I'm not a country-western aficionado, but I knew that I could most likely expect a moving patriotic song or two. As the crowds surged toward the Freedom Celebration, my family and I lagged more and more behind. Hot, sweaty, and rudely jostled in the rowdy crowd - I grew more and more angry. Looking around, I realized that no one seemed to be there to celebrate the 4th of July. It seemed like any generic public fiesta - just one more reason to party. I stopped walking and finally acknowledged the fact that whatever "celebracion" was going on around us had nothing to do with America. I was far beyond disappointed - I was furious.

We left.

I took a lot of heat in the comments from people who objected to the fact that I objected to a Mexican-themed Fourth of July. But others wrote in comments and via email that they had seen and experienced a similar hi-jacking of our national holiday; they seemed more bewildered than furious. "How did this happen? When did this happen?!" There was no real public indignation.

Fast forward to 2006. This year, the in-your-face waving of the Mexican flag will have much more significance considering the politically-charged events of the past year. In a year that has seen illegal aliens gleefully desecrate Old Glory, and raise the Mexican flag over our own, such an offensive display is guaranteed to raise the ire of red-blooded Americans. After a year's worth of heavy-handed demands for the rights and privileges of full citizenship, illegal aliens and AINOs (Americans In Name Only) may feel emboldened to wave the Mexican flag during our Independence Day celebrations - just as they did last year with no public outcry.

I, for one, won't leave a 4th of July celebration like I did last year - furious but silent. I will say something to anyone who flaunts a foreign flag during our Independence Day. I want them to know it's inappropriate, deliberately incendiary, and offensive to people who deeply love this country and our valiant flag. This year, I have a feeling I won't be standing alone.

DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN YOUR TOWN!

_________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the War on Terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

While I agree with the sentiments written by Heidi in this post, I must publicly disagree with the notion of going to any public or private Independence Day celebration that includes fireworks, as odd as that sounds to many. As much as I would dislike celebrating the "birth" of this nation surrounded by Mexican flags and mariachi music, I find it equally offensive to celebrate Independence while surrounded by pyrotechnic novelties forcibly manufactured by schoolchildren living oppressive Chinese regime.

Take a look:

It turns out Chinese fireworks made by forced child labor have come under investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, according to Carl Olson, chairman of State Department Watch, a foreign policy watchdog group based in Washington.

The massive use of Chinese schoolchildren in the manufacturing of fireworks destined for the United States and, ironically, patriotic celebrations of freedom and justice, came to light following the explosion that killed 42 at the elementary school in Jiangxi province.

The children were tasked with daily producing 1,000 firecrackers each and the money from the business went to school officials.

While this article is "old" news, there's still far too much truth hidden there for me to be willing to participate in this particular "American" tradition.

Like most American businesses, fireworks manufacturing has lost out to countries with cheaper labor and lower safety standards.

So, while I will celebrate Independence day in my own quiet, but wholly American manner, it will include neither Mexican flags nor fireworks this year or any year I can help it.

Freaky Videos

2006-06-27T08:21:00.000-05:00

As y'all have probably noticed, I've not been on-line much lately...well, at least not blogging. Finals week is over, but I'm drained.

Yet, I do have a question...in story form.

My son, Alex, loves Veggie Tales. It's a cute Christian video series that teaches moral lessons in a fun, cartoon style. However, it started out pretty strapped for cash, and has become a big success. As I said, Alex loves watching them...unless we switch between contemporary videos and the original ones that were released. Then, he freaks out. Total autistic meltdown style. It's something that's difficult to describe, but there's something about the difference between the old stuff and the new stuff that's setting him off. Whatever it is nobody else seems able to perceive it.

Does anyone have a clue to what it may be? If it helps, he reacted the same way to a U-Tube video that was "editted." Does anyone who reads this know enough about videos to have a clue what might be setting him off, if so, some explanation would be very much appreciated.

As for me...I've been watching "Ever After," "Everything You Want," and "Never Been Kissed" a lot...which tells you something about the world my mind has vanished to if you recognize any of those movies.

Same Old, Same Old in Iraq

2006-06-23T00:51:00.000-05:00

Despite my general blasé with political discourse of late, I saw this and I couldn't resist:

Senate rejects Iraq redeployment motions

It was politics as usual on Capitol Hill. The Dems put forth two different motions that basically said, at least as presented here, "Get out of Iraq." The Reps said, "No." Not the least bit surprising in and of itself.

Personally, I don't like the way Iraq is being handled and I don't think "Stay the course" is a very good idea when the "course" in question is murky at best, however why is the only other option presented cut-and-run?

The only good justification I can see for leaving the Iraqis to handle this mess we created is if we were going to "redeploy" our troops to our own borders, effectively securing our country. That is not the intention of the Dems or the Reps. The Reps, apparently, want to stick it out no matter how badly the war is going, or seems to be going. The Dems want to cut and run, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves, thus abdicating their own responsibility for casting their votes in favor of this whole mess to begin with.

"Redeploying United States troops is necessary," said Kerry, D-Mass.

Most senators didn't agree, and the proposal fell on a 86-13
vote.

Let me take a moment to yawn. Kerry voted for the Iraq war, but one has to wonder why. It seems to me the only probable explanation is that Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war so he could complain about it later, but then again, understanding that man's, um, thinking has never been something I could do very well.

Then there's this pleasant bit of quotage:

Despite the Democratic defections, Reid said his
rank-and-file were united. "Every Democrat agrees that the direction of the war
in Iraq must change, and change now," he said.
--emphasis added

So, now anyone who disagreed isn't a Democrat, despite being a Democrat..? What does that mean, really? It is quite possible that every Democrat agrees a new direction is needed. However, obviously every Democrat did not agree on what that "new direction" should be.

Here's another quote, one exemplifying why I object to this whole thing:

At a Pentagon briefing, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said he expected
reductions in U.S. forces this year but did not agree with congressional efforts
to put a timetable on the effort.

"I don't like it, I feel it would limit my flexibility" and give the enemy a schedule to focus on, said Gen. George Casey.
--emphasis added

Can we stand back for a moment and say, "Duh!" please? Despite the way both the Dems and the Reps are playing this, it's not a game, it's a war. And we'd be doing a whole lot better if those on Capitol Hill could remember that once in a while. Good strategy is not announcing what you're going to do and when you're going to do it.

In a fiercely partisan debate over two days, Senate Republicans opposed any
timeline and painted Democrats as reckless with national security.

Reckless with national security...hmmm... It's seems bizarre for them to bring that up, considering both sides want to keep our own borders wide-open so anyone who's willing to brave the desert can walk right in. And, you know, come to think of it, our enemies don't really seem to mind the desert all that much.

Allergic Reaction?!?

2006-06-17T03:39:00.000-05:00

Wednesday
10:30 am: Willy tells me he itches. I take a look and see some mosquito bites on his arms and legs. A bit excessive, but it has been rainy and this is Wisconsin. Granted, I hadn't seen any mosquitoes yet, but... I kiss him on the forehead, and tell him to cover up and try not to scratch. Granted, not the greatest advice, but they're mosquito bites, right?
11:30 am: Alex's therapist tells me Willy is scratching. I take a look and the mosquito bites have gotten bigger. A lot bigger. Mosquito bites, for those who may be unaware, look like small, puffy bumps on the skin with a little prick in the center...and they itch. I hadn't checked for the little prick. But, now I do and do not see any little pricks. Just big puffy patches...that itch. After looking in our cupboards, I find we have no anti-itch supplies. So, I head off to the pharmacy, find that 90% of the available anti-itch products contain either zinc products or lydocaine...both of which Willy is allergic to. So, I choose three of the remaining products and try the first kind, which relieves some of Willy's itchiness.
12:30 pm: Willy's therapist comes over and tries to engage Willy in some play therapy. Willy isn't having any of it, so I try to help. Willy says he hates his therapist, which we all know he doesn't. After about a half an hour of dragging a pillow and blanket around, we decide Willy can rest. Luckily the therapist also works with Alex, who was scheduled next. By now Willy's rash is getting visibly larger within five-minute intervals and I'm definitely concerned.
1:10 pm: Willy wants to talk to Noni (grandma) so I call her. I talk to her as well; she says if it gets any worse to take him to the doctor. I'm thinking, "Duh." I talk to Willy about the doctor, whom he continues to fear due to the whole ear-wrestling thing. He cries; I wait.
1:20 pm: Willy screams! "I burn!" He says it over and over again. Now the rash is spreading visibly...no time delay. I pick him as he is and head for the door.
1:30 pm: We make it to the emergency room where Willy tells the nurse, whom he names Nurse Nellie, that he wants his shot now. We wait about twenty minutes before we see a doctor, which is a family record for speedy emergency room visits.
2:15 pm: Willy gets him shot. Within minutes he's feeling better. What does the doctor tell us? "It's an allergic reaction?" "Yes, but to what?" "Well, it's hard to say. But it's allergic reaction, not poison ivy or anything like that."

Willy is now doing fine. Along with the shot we got a bottle of Bendadryl type stuff, and it cleared up more and more with each dose. So, he's better. But, it begs some questions:

How is poison ivy not an allergic reaction? What is the good of knowing it was an allergic reaction if you have no idea what it was a reaction to? Wouldn't you think knowing what it was an allergic reaction to would be important considering the severity of the reaction? It took three hours for it to go from small bumps to an all-over-the body screaming painful nastiness. I want to know what it was!!! Does that seem so unreasonable?

Remembering My Bathrobe

2006-06-14T05:59:00.000-05:00

One of the most bizarre aspects of having children with diagnoses of Autism that I rarely discussion is the invasion factor. Generally I'm on good terms with our children's therapists, because if I'm not... Well, they don't stick around long. But that's rarely an issue.

However, now that my sleep schedule is practically non-existent, meaning I am asleep or awake with absolutely no predictable time-table, sometimes a therapy session or two is in full-swing when I get up in the "morning." This has been an interesting issue, especially since we now have a male therapist.

My husband wears full-length, rather conservative pajamas. While it's not recommended that he go around the house in his p.j.s all day, it's not a big deal either. Even if there are anywhere from one to three young women in our house that are not family members throughout the day. He's covered, so it's fine.

However, in the summer time I am a little less clad. I'm not talking about anything slinky or anything, it's not like I wear lingerie to bed, because frankly I wouldn't get much sleep if I did. It's just when I'm first waking up in the morning, wearing white capri pajama bottoms and a decent, if rather thin cami for the pajama tops, I don't want to walk into my living room, barely awake, and look my son's male therapist in the eye. It's just not kosher!

In the winter time, or even the fall, it's not an issue because I just wear a sweatshirt and flannel bottoms. I've taken my kids to school in that stuff. But now... There's definitely a price involved that I hadn't fully considered when I decided to go with the dainty, feminine lacy stuff. So, next time I went to the store I gave a reluctant nod to the whole my-house-is-not-my-own thing and bought the matching bathrobe, which is still white, lacy and feminine, but it's got long-sleeves and is much more, um, modest. Now all I have to do is remember to put it on before I go downstairs.

Reconciling Fiscal Conservatism...

2006-06-09T22:51:00.000-05:00

...and a Bleeding Heart!

I've wanted to do this post for a long time, though it is not of any immediate relevance. And, perhaps, that's the trouble. Something always came up. Anyway, here it is:

Fiscal conservatism, in layman's terms, is basically taking away the government's credit cards. Without it, the government cranks up the national debt and then we are forced to pay for it. Bush, of course, has taken it one step further by cranking up the national debt, and letting our children or their children worry about paying it off...somehow...someday. With fiscal conservatism, that's a no-no. You tax light and you spend light.

Oh! But what about the people?

And that's where the Constitution comes in:
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."

You see, our federal budget is all right there, believe it or not. We only have to work out the minutiae.

establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

And there you have it.

1) The federal government should fund that which is necessary to maintain justice, i.e. the federal court and law enforcement system.

2) The federal government should fund that which is necessary to insure domestic tranquility (use the find tool to search for "tranquility," interesting stuff if you don't know what this phrase originally references), but I would personally consider this to cover things like federal roads (because not funding the interstates would make for some very un-tranquil people), corporate controls (which might fall under justice anyway), and maintaining federal buildings, federal memorials and federal parks -- which are not only a part of our national heritage and therefore could also fall under securing the blessings of liberty, but also not funding these would make for some very un-tranquil people so here it is -- not to mention, securing our borders, which is definitely something that fits squarely with the description in the link above.

3) The federal government should fund that which is necessary to provide for the common defense, i.e. the military and their weapons.

4) The federal government should fund that which is necessary to promote the general welfare, i.e. those people who cannot provide for themselves should be provided for.

5) And, finally, the federal government should fund that which is necessary to secure the blessings of liberty, and liberty cannot be maintained by an ignorant citizenry, thus education must be funded.

Now, how hard is that?!? While I'm sure our "representatives" could find a way to make covering only these priorities break the budget, they should NOT be allowed to say they cannot fund all of these things because they already broke it.

They raise our debt to pay for sports stadiums, yet they cannot fund education. They raise our debt to pay for fancy weapons that are NOT currently useful to our military, yet our soldiers who are currently at war with our enemies are under-supplied. They raise our debt by pouring money into the multitude of research projects that hold their interest (at least long enough to sign the budget), but they cannot provide basic healthcare to those who cannot access it. In short, our government is NOT living up to their Constitutionally required expeditures, yet they're still spending our money faster than we can make it!

Does anybody who frequents this blog doubt that these guys just gotta go!?!

The government could, if it wished, afford all the things this country actually requires from our federal government. But, instead, they rack up debt we can't pay for things we don't need that they shouldn't be focused on anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind social programs -- by which I'm referencing the money the federal government pours into things like museums, art endowments and the like -- it's just that I think society should pay for such things the way society used to pay for such things, i.e. a bunch of people get together, promote their cause and raise the necessary money from other people, not from the federal government. Unless it's a federally-owned, federally-operated, American history museum, then it's not something the federal government should be involved in. If it's not art that is going to be used in a federal memorial or at a federal park as a monument, then the federal government should have nothing to do with it. It's that simple.

All the those things which truly lie within the proper grasp of the federal government could be funded affordably, if they tried (yes, I do realize that would require critical thinking, which they're not so good at, which is why they need to go!). Our taxes could be decreased and we, the American people, could actually get more for our money! What could be better than that!?!

Ah, but then the politicians couldn't pay back all those "supporters" who funded their way into office. And that's what this comes down to. Special interests, those who divert our federal funds from their proper purpose, make for some pretty big money...and big money donors to boot.

I guess, my point is two-fold (the second time I'm using that today, what's up with that!):

1) I'm a fiscal conservative, yet I'm also a -- dare I say it! -- bleeding hearted liberal when it comes to people and the social programs that directly benefits them. These are NOT mutually exclusive, no matter how many Dems and Reps want to tell you otherwise. Basically, we, the American people, can afford our cake, and the poor amongst us can eat it too.

2) Our current batch of "representatives" suck when it comes to fiscal conservatism. They suck when it comes to federally funding that which is, imo, required by the Constitution. And they especially suck when it comes to understanding what the poor actually needs to help them, and funding the welfare that will actually provide that help. And, frankly, I'm sick of it.

I'm sick of the Dems taxing us raw, raising our debt, and buying votes with hand-outs. I'm sick of the Reps taxing us raw, raising our debt, and buying votes with hand-outs. That's not fiscal conservatism and it's NOT a democratic republic.

No, you did NOT read that wrong. The only difference between the Dems and the Reps is who they tax worse and who they buy votes from. That's it. They both have got to go!

I don't know about you, but, as a one of those pesky "Posterity" people, I'm telling you I want my government BACK!!!

My Week From Hell

2006-06-05T06:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know it could have been worse, but the past week still merits a little profanity. Here are some of the highlights:

I took Mark to the emergency room.
My largest project yet, for computer applications, was due Wednesday.
Alex officially became a segregated student.
Mark and I took Alex and Ben to the zoo the very next day.
I had my final project due on Saturday, for my 4-week class.

It wasn't all bad. Over at GTL, I met a new blogger, James of Killer Is Me, and we had an intriguing debate about Individualism. We're pretty much polar opposites when it comes to that, but that's all part of the fun of it!

After you check James out, be sure to stop by my VOID post and take a little test. It's short, I promise!

As for me, I just bought Zuma, a game I've been playing on-line for quite a while. It's fun, if rather mindless. The game you buy is much cooler than the on-line game, but you can try it for an hour for free!

So, now I'm going to have some mindless fun before I have to do anything too strenuous, like save the world!

Politics, Parenting, and Other Hazardous Pastimes

Fare Thee Well...HazPas!

People Pushes

Bad Blogger

Psychological Reflections, Part 1

Cottonelle, Stress, and Blogger

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Not Up to Much

Psst. There's a WAR Going on...

Political gas?

Classes Starting

***Exclusive*** Guard the Borders Blogburst

Nesting Instinct

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Me

2007 New Year's Resolutions...

What is Autism -- In Conclusion

What is Autism -- Part 5

What is Autism -- Part 4

Sorry -- Again!

What is Autism -- Part 3

Merry Christmas!

My Apologies

What is Autism -- Part 2

What is Autism -- Part 1

What is Autism: Introduction

The Autism Acceptance Project

Politics, Energy, and the Lack Thereof

Guard the Borders Blogburst

New on the Side-bar

"Raw, naked fear."

From Teacher to Baby

Defending Our Common Wealth: A Plug

:-P

Recovering

Guard the Borders Blogburst

...and baby makes three!

Blue in Wisconsin

VOTE

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Critical Thinking vs. Constructive Listening

Stumpless Bush

Dead Writer Society

Books

Amendments, Referendums and Voting

Paul Ryan

The Melting Pot vs. Ethnocentrism

Guard the Borders Blogburst

A Home for the Unwanted?

Worldview Quiz

Mark Foley -- A Burning Scandal

Searching for Truth in a Fact-Obsessed World

Grades

Guard the Borders Blogburst

The War on Terror

Disability Rights Videos

The Hazards of Toys

Videos Worth Watching

Exhausted, but Back

The Hazardous Pastimes of Unsung Heroes

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Growth and Progress

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Guard the Border Blogburst

Job Protection

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Saturday Morning

Radical Middle

Disappointed

Guard the Borders Blogburst

A Business of Cards

Medical Care and Bureaucracy

Ask America -- a survey

Betrayal

Why I Blog

Guard the Border Blogburst

Freaky Videos

Same Old, Same Old in Iraq

Allergic Reaction?!?

Remembering My Bathrobe

Reconciling Fiscal Conservatism...

Exclusive Guard the Borders Blogburst