The Lady Speaks

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Read more »

From the post that started me on this blogging thing:

A Question of Doing What’s Right — Christy Hardin Smith
Jan 6, 2006

But it isn’t enough that I want more for myself and my family. Every person in this nation needs to wake up and realize that they deserve more as well. That’s a message that Democrats could take to the bank, I’m sure of it. I know it is a message that would resonate here in West Virginia. People are hungry for hope, they are hungry for someone who will value them — and not just use them as a pawn.

More than that, they deserve to be valued. It’s a question of doing what is right, not just what is politically expedient in the moment to win the election or raise more money or whatever else seems to be driving political power these days. Let’s give the little guy a voice again — help him to stand on his own two feet and make something for his children, and you help the whole country. That goes for moms, too, I can tell you that. [emphasis mine - Jenn]

I thought it would take me awhile to figure out where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do — and whether or not I really wanted to stop writing about politics — but as often happens, the path became clear in surprisingly short time and the signs were unmistakable.

After hearing, or rather reading, something yesterday afternoon that surprised me and quite honestly hurt to the core, mostly because of the source(s), I’m making a run for it.

It’s time to step away from politics for awhile, especially Presidential politics. I’ve decided to move into the slightly safer, less emotionally vulnerable territory of parenting blog.

While I never even made the Z-list, I’ve had a good time writing, and there are quite a few posts I’m very proud of having authored. One of those is being included in a college textbook that will be coming out in August.

Not bad for a small-town girl with a big mouth.

Of course, since I do have a big mouth, this is just ‘au revoir‘ and not goodbye.

I’m sure I’ll be back every once in awhile, when something simply pisses me off so much as to demand I write about it, but the topics will most likely be geared more toward social justice and social reform issues.

And I’ll still be around the web, but I’ll be staying in more friendly spots with people whose progressive values more closely match my own, as well as quite a few sites where politics isn’t even worthy of a passing glance

Thanks to all of you who’ve been reading this blog since January 2006. If you feel like it, stop over at The Mom Speaks and say hello.

Blessed be.

– Jenn

*All items in red edited at 3:10p*

Okay, so maybe I lied about taking a break from writing about politics…

Well, no. It’s more a case of “when VastLeft Un-endorses Obama, the cause is so over the top as to require sensible people post about it.”

Admittedly, VastLeft’s support was self described as “tepid” by Lambert but he, like many of us, really believed that pushing the “D” in November — even if we had to hold our noses — was still the smartest, safest thing to do, considering the McCain threat.

So what happened to cause VL to un-endorse? Obama, throwing yet another Democratic principle (and Constitutional mandate) under the bus, wants to expand El Pollo Loco’s Faith-Based Initiatives program (AP) and — this is a big, big problem — and supports their right to hire and fire based on faith.

Yep, you read that right — religious programs receiving federal dollars (our tax money) would be allowed to hire and fire anyone who does not meet their “standard of faith.”

In other words, a program designed to offer housing assistance would be allowed to discriminate against prospective employees who do not share their faith and the particular tenets of that faith. So, programs run by Christian denominations of all stripes could discriminate against Wiccans, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, etc. And fundamentalist church programs could discriminate against all of those, plus other Christians.

Literally, a Presbyterian could lose their job at a Pentacostal food pantry or a Baptist-sponsored pre-kindergarten program because they believe in infant baptism.

Now, I have no problem with church employees being required to profess the same tenets as the church they’re hoping to hire them. You are being hired by the congregation, and you will be a representative of that congregation. It is the same reason why individual churches as well as their larger assemblies set the rules on who they will and will not marry.

The problem comes when a federally-funded program is allowed to act as a congregation-funded one. At that point, it crosses the line to government-sponsored religion. And that is unconstitutional.

No, no, and hell no.

I haven’t even gotten into the fact that the Faith-Based Initiatives program is a disaster of epic proportions which is more about coercing needy people into converting than about actually, y’know… helping.

Nor am I going to delve into the morass that is Obama’s (and most all Democrats’) continual pandering to the religious right. I wish the party that believes in religious freedom (or did) would start standing up and saying, “Religion is an intensely personal issue, and should remain a private affair for all people.”

Then again, you know what they say about wishes and horses…

My choice this fall has been made. Even with clothespins and lots of mind-altering self-medicating, there is just no way I can vote for someone who will give my money to places that wouldn’t allow me to work for them. Down-ticket only is my only choice, unless things really change or the superdelegates throw their support new nominee.

And now… I’m returning to my self-imposed break from politics.

[Note: Post title shamelessly stolen from VastLeft's post.]

The past couple of months, my posting has been infrequent at best. The simple fact is that blog fatigue, political fatigue, and plain ol’ “life” fatigue have left me with little time and/or little interest.

I’ve been writing about the same topics, the same outrages for two and a half years. Almost nothing has changed in that time except a few generals and the leadership of Congress. (And wow, did we get suckered on that last one! Forgive me if I can’t get worked up about “change!” and “hope!” when our Democratic Party-controlled Congress has failed to provide any of the changes we worked for, hoped for, and expected after the 2006 election.) The war - and war profiteering - continues, the illegal spying on the communications of Americans continues, Big Business continues to prosper while the poor and (diminishing) middle-class struggle to put food on the table and keep roofs over their heads. All with the complicity of the Democrats.

Also, I can’t work up any enthusiasm for our candidate. Heck, even tepid enthusiasm would be an improvement on my feelings of “Oh yay. Another idiot, only this one thinks Republicans are the “party of ideas” and made political hay during the primary by lumping the only two-term Democratic president since FDR into the same category as Bushes I & II. And the DNC wants me to vote for him?!”

I’d love to say “I’ll absolutely push the “D” button come November” with the same enthusiasm I did during the last election cycle, but the truth is, I’m on the fence. And Senator Obama, the Democratic “leadership,” and most of the Congressional Democrats - along with Senator Obama’s more fanatical supporters - have got to stop giving me reasons to only vote down-ticket.

No, I will never vote for McCain, or for any Republican. One might as well write in “Satan” or “Dick Cheney” [redundancy?] as far as evil, greed, and continued corruption are concerned. But, I cannot and will not support a candidate who cannot and will not stand up for what used to be core Democratic principles. Especially one I worry may not be all that different from the Republicans when it comes to policy-making.

Are there topics that need to be written about? Absolutely. Torture, illegal spying, global warming, the economy, the war in Iraq, stifling of government scientists - to name just a few.

The problem is, I am so disheartened by the failures of our Democratically-controlled Congress — to take its place as a co-equal branch of government, to stand up for the Constitution and the freedoms and responsibilities enshrined therein, to fight when it comes to the social justice issues that were the bedrock of the party, to bring about meaningful changes that benefit all Americans, not just the rich and powerful — that I honestly don’t even know what to say.

Back in February of 2006, when I first started blogging, I felt that my voice combined with all those in the lefty blogosphere would be heard. Throughout 2006, especially after the November elections, I believed we were having an impact, and we were - literally - going to change the face of activism and even politics.

That naivete is gone, as is the belief that all progressives were the same. Last year, Nancy took impeachment off the table, and the Democrats in Congress failed to do much besides hold hearings that hold no one accountable. Legislative fights that should be no-brainers for Democrats have instead become kabuki productions where “bipartisan” means doing what the President wants.

Over the past six months, I’ve watched as supposedly-progressive allies showed themselves to be misogynistic, judgmental excuse-makers whose “ideas” were more important than actual justice and social reform. I’ve watched others show racist tendencies I would have never suspected during our mutual fights against the war and FISA and for S-CHIP.

I’ve been lumped in with everyone from rednecks to the Nazis for having the temerity to ask for substance and detail instead of style and rhetoric. I’ve been told that where I live, the candidate I support, and the income I make “proves” I’m a “low-information” voter, a racist, and a closet Republican. Funny how no one thought I was “low-information” in the days when we were following the live-blogging of the Plame trial, or working for the Lamont campaign, or delivering rubber stamps to Congress, in addition to calling Congress on a continual basis — to the point that one of Senator Specter’s aides and I are on a first-name basis.

I’ve been told that the party doesn’t need voters like me anymore, and that symbolism is more important than policy. I’ve been told I’m an “idiot” and “moron” for feeling saddened that the first viable, and truly competitive, female Presidential candidate has suspended her campaign, despite winning a slim majority of the popular vote and nearly every battleground state. I’m told to “get over it.”

I’ve seen the fights against war, torture and rendition, and destruction of the Constitution take a backseat to demonizing candidates and calling out allies.

I’ve been screamed at for questioning the abilities of the presumptive nominee because “SCOTUS boogah boogah your uterus.” At what point did being a Democrat mean being a blind follower? Wasn’t that one of our criticisms against Republicans? And, as I’ve said elsewhere, when did the President become the only person in the US able to kill or save Roe v. Wade? You see, there is a big building in DC where there are these people called Democratic Senators who are supposed to prevent SCOTUS from being overrun by fundamentalist judges. [Great job on Alito and Roberts, Democratic Congress! I'm supposed to trust your judgments on who the Democratic nominee should be ... why?]

Quite honestly, I’m demoralized by it all. What was the point if we can be splintered into factions as easily as we have been? Do I think we’re “emboldening” the Republicans? No, not really. Their arguments haven’t changed in the past almost-30 years. What’s emboldening the Republicans is the simple fact that the Democrats still can’t effectively fight back against them. They refuse to even try.

Anyway…

The short version is, I’m not sure where to go right now. Maybe the path — and the words — will become clear soon, or maybe I’ll hang up my “political blogger” tag and start a daily recipe or parenting advice blog. I’m actually thinking that last one might be interesting. It seems that managing to get two kids through their teens and another halfway there without anyone being arrested, put in rehab, or being killed by you indicates to other parents that you might know something about child-raising. Also because I’ve reached that stage (also known as grandbabyitis} where you comfort terrified young moms in the supermarket whose infants won’t stop crying.

I never thought it possible, but parenting is starting to look a whole lot easier than being an involved, activist voter.

I’m petty enough to be driven nuts by this stuff and - I admit it - my estimation of a person‘s intelligence drops in direct proportion to their ability to spell and punctuate correctly.

I also admit that I had several fine English teachers during high school who drilled proper spelling, proper use of homonyms, and proper punctuation into me. (Although, come to think of it, I still don’t know what a past participle is.)

As I wander the blogosphere and the internet in general, I am amazed by the number of so-called educated people who can’t figure out if their they’re yet, or who are often stricken by apostrophe madnes’s.

So, here’s a quick primer on the top three - in my opinion - misuses and abuses of the English language in composition:

Are we their yet?

They’re - contraction of “they are” - use this when you’re [see below] talking about people doing something.

Examples: They’re going to the store. They’re starting a group blog.

Their - possessive, belongs to a more than one - ie: husband and wife, a family, friends, etc.

Examples: Their car broke down. Their blog is quite informative.

There - place - indicates location.

Examples: They’re going there to get their car. Their blog can be found at the link there.

Bonus hint: If the car belongs to them, then it is theirs. Not their’s.

Your going now?

You’re - contraction of “you are” - use this when a person is taking action of some sort.

Example: You’re going to get your car? You’re going to start a blog?

Your - indicates possession - use this when something belongs to a person.

Example: Your dog ate my cat. Your blog is very good.

Bonus hint: If it belongs to you, it is yours. Not your’s.

The peril’s of random apostrophes

Too many people apparently didn’t learn the rules about proper apostrophe use. So they’re showing up anywhere and everywhere they choose. Most notably in a particular “A-list” blog’s headlines.

Apostrophes indicate ownership and contraction. If you are contracting with “is” or “has” then use the “apostrophe-s.” (ie: Bill’s going to the store. Sally’s already left for work.)

However - and this is when apostrophes go wild - If something belongs to someone or several someones, use an apostrophe to indicate ownership. If the subject is simply more than one - ie: plural - do not use the apostrophe.

1. If the noun is singular and possessive, you add “apostrophe-s.”

Examples: The Farmer boy’s dog ate Bill’s cat. The fire company’s chicken barbeque was held yesterday at Wal-mart’s parking lot.

The dog belongs to the Farmer boy, and the cat belongs to Bill. The barbeque belongs to the fire company, and the parking lot belongs to Wal-mart.

2. If a noun is plural, ends in “s,” but there is no possession to show, no apostrophe is needed.

Example: The Farmers will be attending the Fair. The Elks meet monthly.

That A-list blog I spoke of earlier likes to write “the Clinton’s,” which is, of course, wrong because they are usually referring to the couple. Which would make it plural, non-possessive. “The Clintons.”

The last example is the subject of confusion and controversy. Some say you must add the “apostrophe-s” to all names unless you are writing about an historic or famous person. (Jesus, Moses, Diogenes, etc.)

I disagree for three reasons: First, this is not what I was taught, and second, because I think skipping the “apostrophe-s” and using a simple apostrophe looks cleaner on the page. Third, we don’t use “Farmers’s” or “cheerleaders’s” when we speak. (Farmerszz? Cheerleaderszz?)

3. If the noun is plural and/or a proper noun which ends in “s,” and it’s possessive, the the apostrophe goes at the end of the word with no following “s.”

Examples: The Farmers’ dog ate a cat. The cheerleaders’ bake sale was yesterday.

The dog belongs to the Farmers. The bake sale belongs to the cheerleaders.

This has been your quick and easy English lesson for the year. If you’d like to learn more - or you’ve often misused the three examples above, go read: 46 Ways to Embarrass Yourself in Writing, 5 Embarrassing Grammatical Mistakes, or Easy Mistakes: Commonly Misspelled Words.

You did it, PK! After 14 years (counting K-4) of hard work and the every-single-year pre-emptive announcement that you didn’t think you were going to pass, you are a high school graduate.

Tonight was both an ending and a beginning. The end of your high school years, the beginning of your college years. The beginning of your life as an adult.

Tonight was the last night you would be together with all the friends you’ve made along the way, but the first night of a new life and new friendships.

Dr. Seuss wrote — in the book you demanded to be read every single night, sometimes twice, in the weeks before you entered pre-kindergarten:

Congratulations!
Today is your day.
You’re off to Great Places!
You’re off and away!

You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes
You can steer yourself
any direction you choose.
You’re on your own. And you know what you know.
And YOU are the guy who’ll decide where to go.

Today’s your day, PK, and you are off to Great Places. I wish so much for you, but most of all, I wish you a bright, happy, and fulfilled life.

I love you. I’m proud of you. I am blessed by your presence in my life. And “whatever road you choose, I’m right behind you - win or lose.”

Edward D. Owen, Jr.

June 11, 1979 - October 12, 2004
We miss you still, and for always.

I Am the People, the Mob
By Carl Sandburg

I am the people–the mob–the crowd–the mass.
Do you know that all the great work of the world is done through me?
I am the workingman, the inventor, the maker of the world’s food and
clothes.
I am the audience that witnesses history. The Napoleons come from me
and the Lincolns. They die. And then I send forth more Napoleons
and Lincolns.
I am the seed ground. I am a prairie that will stand for much plowing.
Terrible storms pass over me. I forget. The best of me is sucked out
and wasted. I forget. Everything but Death comes to me and makes
me work and give up what I have. And I forget.
Sometimes I growl, shake myself and spatter a few red drops for history
to remember. Then–I forget.
When I, the People, learn to remember, when I, the People, use the
lessons of yesterday and no longer forget who robbed me last year,
who played me for a fool–then there will be no speaker in all the
world say the name: “The People,” with any fleck of a sneer in his
voice or any far-off smile of derision.
The mob–the crowd–the mass–will arrive then.

Today’s the day. Montanans and South Dakotans will flock to the polls, vote their choices - with much expectation and extrapolation by the news media - and the primary season will end.

Only the primary season though. Hillary intends to take this to the superdelegates, and all the way to the convention, if need be.

My candle and the teaspoon are at the ready. The fight continues.

Rise, Hillary. Rise.

This one’s for all those Obama supporters out there screaming and ranting that the DNC has to “follow the rules!” and wailing and moaning that Hillary is breaking said rules.

Here’s a snippet of reality from Big Tent Democrat, who lays out the DNC’s actual rules and the consequences:

To recapitulate, a strict interpretation of the DNC Rules that follows the reasoning of the DNC Memo circulated today would require the following results:

A. The stripping of 50% of the delegates of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan.

B. The full seating of the Florida delegation.

C. Should the DNC RBC reject the safe harbor provision for Florida, then Florida would have 50% of its delegations stripped, but Barack Obama would be entitled to no delegates from Florida due to his violation of Rule 20c.1.b.

The upshot of strictly applying the rules as described above would be:

A. In Iowa, Obama, Clinton and Edwards would lose one half of their delegates. My understanding is that this would result in a net loss for Obama of 6 in his pledged delegate margin over Clinton.B. In New Hampshire, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with no net change in the delegate margin between Clinton and Obama.

C. In South Carolina, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with a net loss in Obama’s delegate margin of 9.

D. In Michigan, Clinton would gain 37 delegates. In addition there would be 28 uncommitted delegates. A net gain of 37 delegates for Clinton.

E.In Florida, if the entire delegation is seated, Clinton gains 93 delegates Obama 55, and Edwards 13. A net gain of 38 delegates for Clinton.

If instead the safe harbor provision is deemed not to apply, then Clinton gains 47 delegates, Obama 0 (due to his violation of Rule 20) and Edwards 7. A net gain of 47 for Clinton over Obama.

[Bold added for easier reading - Jenn] Read BTD’s entire post, with actual rules.

Now, the question is: Will the DNC apply their actual rules, or will they rig the game?

I can’t be there, but you can join the Rally in DC and tell the DNC to Count Every Vote.

Tell them this matters. That the rules must apply equally to all candidates. That one candidate followed their rules — despite what her opponent and his vocal, misogynistic supporters say — and will not be pushed out of this race because of their favoritism.

Tell them this race isn’t over, not by a long shot, because Hillary will continue to rise.

Dr. Maya Angelou:

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female.

But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don’t give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise.

Another stanza of Dr. Angelou’s poem is equally appropriate to Hillary and the misogynistic hate spewed by the media and the opposition’s supporters during this campaign.

From PoemHunter:

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise.

Rise, Hillary. Rise.