Don't Give Me that Bullcrap!

I learn a lot about what some people are spewing out there in this new big wide world, (in regards to excuses people make for being less than what they are capable of being) from my husband. Yesterday, on his blog, he wrote:

"Chandra, a "recovering grammar snob" who works as an English teacher, has a smashing trio of essays on Literacy Privilege -- the invisible privilege that accrues to people who have the facility to write well and clearly, and who have absorbed the "correct" conventions of English. I know I've been guilty of dismissing people because of their grammar/spelling errors."

So today it's a privilege to be able to speak and write correctly? Seriously? I didn't have all the advantages of what the youth of today have when I was growing up. My mother was a single mother with a serious illness for the first part of my life. We didn't have a big house. We lived in an apartment complex near Washington, DC. 

Growing up I was beaten almost to death by a sibling. I spent time in the hospital recovering from this.

I was put in a home to be watched by an insane woman who locked us in rooms, threw food at us like we were dogs, and pulled us down the stairs by our hair. I lived through this while my mother visited her family for one last time in Italy. 

I watched my mother struggle until the illness got the better of her. I lived through a lot, more than what I can comfortably write here at this moment. 

I was bullied in school after my mother died for not having a mother. 

So, what I didn't do was make excuses for myself. I didn't sit down and feel sorry for myself because life had been hard on me. 

I worked to become educated because having an education was important. I was not a person that felt that everything should be handed to me, not even as a child. I learned. I grew. I focused. 

I was not given video games to play. I wasn't coddled. When I lost at a sport I did it with grace and an understanding that to become better I needed to practice. If I wanted to develop a sense of pride in an ability I worked to obtain in for myself. 

At the age of ten I had developed an impressive vocabulary and took pride in being able to read and write. I worked for every grade I made in school. I read because I knew that reading was a way to gain knowledge. It was a choice. 

I studied other languages to develop a better cultural understanding of the world. I was not pompous and arrogant enough to think that it was the responsibility of everyone else to learn to speak to me in my native language. I didn't expect other countries to cater to my English while I sat back and felt superior. I am not superior to others, but I am not inferior to anyone either. I am comfortable with who I am.

Every single day we make choices in our life. English is a dying language because people are becoming lazy. They shorten even simple words to make things in their lives quicker and easier. They don't work on developing skills, and this is not my fault. 

I am not living a privileged life. I am living a life I worked to have. I put effort in being able to read well and write legibly. Just because I don't bastardize the English language doesn't make me privileged - it makes me educated. I worked to be educated, and I feel I am better for it.

So no, I don't think those that have been too lazy to work toward reading and writing legibly are to be pitied and catered to. They have had the same, if not better, opportunities to learn and excel. I will not coddle them. They have been coddled for too long by too many, which is perhaps why more and more people fall into that same trap. 

Make all the excuses you want, but the truth is this - becoming literate takes work. If you aren't willing to do the work to obtain that talent then it's your own fault. It doesn't make someone that works for it privileged, it means they are just more focused on success.

Snape Doesn't Know Everything

In Harry Potter Professor Snape tries to show how ignorant Harry is and how important it is for him to know things in order to do better magic. Of course in theory according to the books and movie, Snape is just being a good guy (cough) trying to make Harry stronger so he can defeat Voldemort in the end.



But who would have known that Snape was wrong? Hmm. Makes you think about how that pompous exterior would have reacted, had he lived, to know he had given a classroom of students misinformation.
The truth is that Monkshood and Wolsfbane are not the same. However, a lot of people think that they are.

Monkshood is known as Aconitum napellus and has blue flowers, but Wolfsbane is actually Aconitum vulparia, and has yellowish flowers. Both are, however, quite poisonous. Wolfsbane is said to deter a werewolf (probably because they don't want to be poisoned). In ancient times it was used to poison the water supply of  the enemy. The plants do serve some medicinal purposes, however, mostly topically.

Wolfsbane

Monkswood

There are actually 109 species of Aconitum - all of which are poisonous. You can order seeds or plants and they are beautiful flowers. Just know that if you handle these plants your hands could suffer from numbness. If you ingest them you could die. There is no antidote.

So, teaching young children about the plants - well, maybe Snape was being helpful, or maybe he was being hopeful. He didn't seem to actually like children a whole lot, after all.

Guinevere Where art thou? on SyFy's "Merlin"

I love watching new shows and especially those that have some fantasy aspect to them. Most of them don't last long on television. I guess not everyone is as excited about new worlds and possibilities like I am. But, (of course there is a but here) I haven't been able to get into Syfy's channel "Merlin."  Not because it's not entertaining. It has some fun things going on. It's not because Merlin is the same age as Arthur. I like a little diversity from the script. It's Guinevere.

Now, I read one blog that says if I don't like Angel Coulby as Guinevere I must be a "white supremist." Really? I don't dislike her in the role because I find her unattractive. She's very cute. I find that she doesn't have a chemistry with her Arthur, for one thing. She's not what I consider Gunivere material.

Besides the fact that she is not a white female actress, which I could care less about honestly, she is not delicate like Guinevere should be. In the fable Guinevere is a noble woman, in the show she is the daughter of a blacksmith. That's fine. She should still be a bit more stately and feminine, in my humble opinion, with a bit of spunk that shows she can take care of herself. In spite of the fact that most people picture the ancient queen as some blonde haired blue eyed bombshell, in reality during that time period the Welsh woman should have been brunette with maybe green eyes. That's beside the point. We can think outside the box.

Let's take a look at a few of my ethnic choices for the role. How about Vanessa Hudgens? She's young, vibrant, and has that minimal air that she could be an unwitting seductress. She has a seriously wide range of ethnicities in her background. She is also extremely talented. She could bring a sense of music to the role of Guinevere as well. I think just about any actor could have some chemistry with this adorable 23 year old actress. Forget that she is with Disney and that she dates Zach Efron. She would make a stunning Gwen. Of course there is the fact that she is not from the UK. I'm sure some people would frown on that, even though they seem to be tolerant of the race change which meant that people came to the UK long before the Vikings invaded and civilizations were travelling across waterways.

So, what about going out of the box then? How about Frieda Pinto? She is a very talented and gorgeous actress. She may not have been born in the UK, but she is from India which has a strong British influence. Especially since it was part of the British Raj until 1947. Listening to her in movies you could hear what might be interpreted by some as an "English" accent. However, if we are going to insist that there was an African influence in Arthurian England then it's not too much to expect that there could have been an Indian influence as well. Frieda would bring a lot of dimension to Guinevere's character, I would think. She's not only stunning, she has that sense of sensuality that seems to be missing in the current character.I could see the Frieda Pinto Gwen seducing Lancelot.

Of course if you really wanted an actress born in the UK there is always Ashley Madekwe! Not only is Ashley stunningly beautiful and a very talented actress, she brings a sort of elfish look to the character, which is perfect for a fantasy. It could also explain a bit of her background if the series wanted to go that way. It uses a lot of magic after all. Ashley has a very fresh and intoxicating look. Not only could she seduce Arthur and Lancelot she could probably give Mordred a run for the money. I think her chemistry with co-star Bradley James would bring ratings up for the Syfy channel.

So see? I'm not adverse to ethnic actresses holding the role of Gwen in the series. I just find it very difficult to like the character portrayed by the current actress. I'm not saying that Angel Coulby is untalented or unattractive - just not well suited for this particular part. I think she'd be a lot of fun to watch on Dr. Who where she could put some spunk into a role.

Of course this is just my opinion on the matter. I won't call you a name if you disagree. It would have been nice if the other blogger, whom I would credit if I could have found it again, would have extended the same courtesy.

The Problem with Election Funds and Evil

I heard a lot of people say they voted for Obama because he was the "lesser of two evils." It's sad that people had to think that any of our political were evil. Growing up we were taught to have a deep respect for the President of the United States. Times were definitely different then. Certainly no one presidential candidate collected over a billion dollars. With so many people out of work you would think that the billion dollars raised could have been used in more productive ways than launching smear campaigns. The truth is that 1 billion dollars equals about the salary of 20,000 median income families (that is families that earn 50,000 per year.) Putting that in perspective - The campaign funds from Obama could have easily housed and fed the entire population of Adams County, Wisconsin.  Mitt Romney's campaign funds, by the same token, could have supported 18,000 families. He could have given 50,000 to every citizen in Jasper, IN and still had enough left over to run some ads. But neither candidate did that. Not one penny of either candidates campaign money was used to support a needy family, raise a community center, or feed the homeless.

In turn instead of having an unbiased and fair election we had the battle of the bucks. Big bucks run elections. That's why when you mention people like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Laurie Roth, or Virgil Goode most Americans have no earthly clue who you are talking about. Most media outlets won't even talk to them or take them seriously. They have nowhere near the monetary backing that major party candidates receive.

The question is this: How many of you would have voted for the candidate that took his campaign money and used it to help a failing business? What if they took some of that campaign money and actually used it to support a wounded soldier pay off his mortgage? Perhaps they took a bit of the money and opened a community center in a troubled neighborhood? What type of media coverage would this have given them?

Of course neither candidate did that. There is supposed to be laws regarding how the campaign funds can be used. Yet there was proof that those legal issues of obtaining funds weren't exactly followed and there wasn't even a "bad boy" or a hand slap given for the offense. It was met with a simple "oops" and an "oh well."

I'm not angry over the election results. Honestly, it wouldn't matter which candidate won, though I wasn't even the least bit surprised by the results. The media does an awesome job of making the majority of people see and think what they want them to see and think. They seemed to even promote fallacies and twist facts in order to confuse and manipulate.

 My hope was that we had enough votes for one third party candidate to open up new options in our political system. That didn't happen.

The truth is that the only real change in this country can come from people actually waking up to realize that politics isn't about what is best for the country - it is about what is best for the party. Money and power run this country.

George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Our founding father's didn't believe in big government, and today our Federal government is growing like a wildfire out of control through each of our towns and businesses. Some of us see the scorching and realize we need to push it back before we are consumed, while others bask in the heat believing that they will never be burned. They feed the flames.

We have serious issues at home. We have high unemployment with more businesses each day cutting jobs. We have higher prices on commodities and lowering of incomes. Which brings us to remember another great insight of our first president, "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." We seem to have forgotten what our moral duty entails.

Being Called a Racist

When I was teaching in an urban high school in Dallas most of my students were of "color." Now I don't mind people being proud of their rich heritages at all. I think that we should all be proud of who we are and where we come from. I just don't think that being white, black, or hispanic defines us as people. There are so many more things about being us than meets the eye.

This presidential campaign isn't the first time that I have been accused of being racist. When I was teaching and a student didn't do their homework and I gave them a zero I was called racist. I was accused of failing them based on their color. It didn't seem to dawn on the student that not doing their work or having anything to grade might have affected their grade. Nope. It was all on me for not passing them for doing nothing. It also didn't matter that other students in the class, of the same color, were passing. They actually did their work. To this particular student the only reason that I should pass them was so that I wouldn't suffer under the pressure of being name called. It didn't work. I know who I am.

This presidential campaign I dared compare Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I was called a racist. Nothing I said indicated race. I simply stated that both men were rich, both had gone to law school, and other similarities between them. Romney was being chastised for all the same things Obama was, but for some reason it seemed okay for Obama to be that way and not the other guy. Evidently pointing that out made me racist. I don't buy it.

When I meet people I don't look at their color first. I don't ask them what religion they are affiliated with. I don't check out their bank accounts or worry about how they feel about abortion or gay marriage. Those things may come out in time, but for me it's not what matters. What matters is the person themselves. How they present themselves. How they interact with me and my family. If we click on other things. Honestly I'm not looking to clone myself to make friends. It's great if someone's opinions differ from my own as long as they are respectful of how I feel too.

Do I have friends that are of a different race than myself? Yes, I do. Do I have friends that are gay? Yes, I do. Do I have friends that are Mormon, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, or Pagan? I absolutely do. They aren't my friends because of or in spite of these things. These are just part of who they are, and I guess in turn, part of what makes them special. But I don't define them on their race, religion, or lifestyle. They are my friends because personally we clicked and our personalities complimented each other. We support, respect, and love each other.

On the outside I may look a certain way to people, and people may make judgements about me when they first see me. That's okay. Some people do that. I know that there is a lot more to people than what they wear on the outside. By putting people in categories we are severely limiting our own lives and understanding of what this world has to offer. It's one thing to acknowledge that each person is different, but when you identify them simply by the color of their skin or their religion you do them a great disservice.

Besides, there is a lot more to a person than meets the eye. The only way to find out is to actually take the time to get to know them. But, just because I didn't vote for Obama on election day doesn't make me a racist. I didn't vote for him because of his policies and political stance on the economy. If I had only voted for him because he was African American then I would have been doing him a great wrong, because I'm sure that he is much more than just the first Black President in the White House. And just because I don't agree with his stance on issues such as Health Care or Economic Recovery doesn't mean that I am going to start name calling or bashing people because they like his ideas. I respect their right to their opinions differing from my own.

This country was founded on diversity. Each day I recognize and celebrate that. One day, when people stop labeling and start accepting, we may even get past the days where we look at color and start appreciating character. That is the future I hope for my children and grandchildren.

Am I Liberal or Conservative? How about neither?

First off, I hate labels. Labels indicate that you have a nice neat box that you fit into. It also tends to give people an excuse for not seeing things your way or as an argument as to why you have to be wrong. For instance, teaching in special education I was labeled as a teacher. Never mind that I had to go to school for five years instead of four or that I had to take extra classes to obtain my degree, nor did it matter that I graduated in the top of the class at my college. All that mattered to the teachers in the first school I taught was that I was in Special Education. Here is a case in fact: I was the Academic Team sponsor for the school. I took the brightest and best and readied them for competition. When one of the teachers found out that I was sponsoring this group she said, "Oh! Aren't you Special Education?" I replied, "I teach special education, I am not a student of special education." She was far from convinced. She was predisposed to the label of the word and anyone connected with that, in her mind, had mental difficulties. A total misconception for even the students in that area. People that are intelligent know that Learning Disabled is a misnomer. We should rename it to something along the lines of "Learning Differently," because the fact is they just don't seem to grasp the listen to lecture and take notes style of teaching.

So, maybe this is where my root of hating labels begins. I really don't know. What I do know is that labels are extremely limiting and cause misconceptions.

So, what is a liberal? If you look in the dictionary it is far from helpful. It defines it as: "A person of liberal views." Thank you, Merriam-Webster. So let's dig a bit deeper. Like many words the meaning has changed over time. The word actually became political in Britain during the 17th and 18th century. Then it was used to describe a liberty from government interference. They believed that government should not be involved in social services such as education or healthcare to people, and should not get involved with the citizens rights. It is rather the opposite of what "Liberals" tend to believe today. The modern liberal believes the government has a duty to provide people with services and provide social welfare. They would tend to believe that these services should be provided by more taxation on the wealthy and no fear of increased government spending because these services are needed.

A conservative on the other hand is defined as "A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes and is cautious about change." That definition seems to be a bit more clear than the previous one. So, by definition a conservative is more cautious about spending and making changes. A conservative typically does not want an increase in government interference and is more like the 17th and 18th century Liberals of the time.

So what is the big deal here? Well, if you take the definition of either and try to fit me into one of those boxes I just won't fit. First, I don't believe that we should provide social programs for everyone at the expense of our government going broke and not being able to take care of important things. I think states should have more power in taking care of their citizens and making policies, because the Federal Government already has so many duties and expectations there is no way it can meet them all effectively. I think we see this in the abuse we have in the social programs that are in place. How many times have you heard that someone that really needed help couldn't get it but someone that didn't need it was abusing the system? A lot.

With that said, I do think that we need programs. I just think that states would be better able to handle them. Why? Because it's a numbers game. Dividing the population into fifty parts and having leaders in each of those would be more feasible. Assistance from the government to those states could then be based on population and need. States could relegate offices to each county. This would also increase a need for further employment and provide a better ability to determine who is abusing the system.

Of course this is just a thought on my part, not an actual plan. It just seems to make sense to divide things up and make it less complicated. Why? Because the current system is broken. So, in that regard I am looking for change which takes away my "conservative" status and I also am looking for a reduction in aid which makes me non "liberal."

To continue I don't think government should be involved in other social issues. Why does the government care who gets married? Do they really need to involve themselves in who pro-creates and who doesn't? Don't they have other issues they need to concern themselves with, such as protecting the borders or making nice abroad? I don't think the government should be worried about marriage. Again, let the states handle their own marriage laws. If it's about taxes then make the tax frame different. If two men and a woman want to marry or two women and a man want to get married why should I care? I'm not living with them. Does it really have to be such a big deal? I don't care if two men want to marry or two women want to marry. It's really none of my business. Marriage is not a government business either. Most marriages are about religion and isn't there something about a separation of Church and State? So it's okay for the government to break it's own law?

So, according to my viewpoint here I'm probably more liberal than conservative. However, by the true definition since I don't want government involvement doesn't that go more toward conservatism? See how the label thing is kind of messed up?

What do I care about? I care about this country. I was told once that patriotism was dead. No, it's not dead. It may be nodding off and gone from some, but it's far from dead. I still believe in a strong and prosperous United States. I don't like the direction the country is currently taking. I don't like that they seem to be wanting to take away the liberties that were granted to us by our founding fathers. I don't like that they are able to sway people with lies and the media. I really don't like that so many people have become lazy and gullible believing anything put before them simply because it's easier.

I care about this country dying.

Historically as governments fail, and this one is failing, empires fall. We are falling. Our politicians are failing us. They have become more engrossed in power and politics then in the American people. We are a nation run by bankers and lawyers and not by the patriots that founded the country. Our politicians get away with negligence and lying. They have, upon more than one occasion, abused their power - such as when they give themselves secret pay raises as their constituents lose jobs and homes. They can raise millions of dollars for campaigning and run successful businesses but can't seem to control their own spending. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but it is an American issue because it is the American people that have to pay for this kind of abuse of power. Voting in an only two party system that controls the media, businesses, and our minds is our folly. Until we get past this we can never get to where we need to be again.

So, if you have to put me in some category to appease your mind then you just might be out of luck. I won't go and sit quietly in a box waiting to make someone else happy. I will continue to think, learn, express my opinions, and run rampant on my political journey even if I travel it alone.

What Happens When We Punish Businesses?

What happens when we overtax businesses?

First, think of a business like you would your household. This might help. You have things you can afford and then you have necessities. The only thing is when your taxes and incidentals go up you can't fire yourself, your spouse, and/or your children. 

Rent or Mortgage – a must have

Taxes – can’t get away from them

Utilities – another must have, such as phone service, electricity, internet or intranet, water, gas.

Incidentals - Furniture, air conditioning, heating.

Insurance – required by law, but businesses require a lot of insurance. Health insurance, property insurance, unemployment insurance, liability insurance, disability insurance, workmen’s compensation insurance.

Business supplies including products needed to sell or for production.

Now these are just the basics they have to meet to stay open. They can all be quite expensive. On top of these expenses they have to hire employees. So, as the economy in the US goes down sales go down. As sales go down profit goes down. What does not go down? That would be rent and/or mortgage, most likely, taxes, because they are on the increase, and insurance premiums. They also, since the economy is going down will most likely have to start paying more for supplies since cost of materials are rising.

Now, salaries have to be paid to employees because not one business I know of has people that go to work just for fun and say, “Nah, please don’t pay me. Just working here is reward enough.”

If demand for products or services is on a decline and taxes and other incidentals are going up what can a business cut from the budget to stay afloat? It can’t cut out the mortgage payments. It has to pay the taxes. Utilities can be reduced, maybe, but they can’t be cut. Insurance is required by law, so they can’t cut that out either. The only thing they can cut out is the amount of employees that they hire. On top of this they may even have to cut out rewards programs that employees were receiving before taxes were increased because profits are declining.

With the layoffs we also increase the unemployment status in the US, which is high already. Yes, the unemployment status went down slightly recently, but that is because some businesses are hiring for the holiday season. Look for the numbers to go right back up again after the holidays.

The bottom line is that businesses will not and cannot stay open without making a profit, just like a household cannot go on without an income. A profitable business will hire more people making the unemployment rates go down instead of up. More people will be able to keep their homes and food on their tables.

It’s sad when you hear that a business laid off people to rehire only part-time employees just so they don’t have to pay the added taxes set down by the government or the required increase in insurance benefits from the present administration. What happens to these employees besides just a cut in pay? They have to make sacrifices in their homes and make cuts as well, such as not spending as much and increasing the decline in American business. They also will now be required to find affordable insurance or pay a tax. Why? We have overtaxed our businesses, who are also the employers in this nation.

It’s nice to think that no matter what we do we can be rewarded, but that’s not even realistic. Realism comes when you stop to consider that without viable, healthy businesses this country is screwed. We only add to our increasing debt problems.

So, hate those that are touting giving breaks to businesses, but stop and think for just a minute about why it’s necessary, because right now small to moderate businesses are suffering over the increased taxes and requirements being set down by our government. If this continues you will be seeing a lot more empty buildings and a lot more people pounding the pavement hoping that somewhere there is work so that they can have a roof over their head and food in their bellies. Believe me, with the increased level of debt that this country is accruing daily welfare that we so easily take for granted may not be revamped or revised but just out and out broken because even our government won’t be able to pay and provide for the needy.

Building businesses in the country will build the economy in this country. Taxation is not the answer – it is actually one of the problems. The only cure to our increasing debt is to quit unnecessary spending.

This is why so many people are voting Republican, because when Obama gets back into office we can expect further decline in our economy, a lot more layoffs, and a lot more people needing government assistance. I don't want to vote Republican, but I live in Wisconsin, a swing state. I wanted to vote for Gary Johnson and for my principles. I don't feel I have a choice, because realistically I have to vote for one of two parties instead. This has become the American way. So, here is another vote for Romney/Ryan.

Oh, and that cheap insurance you think you'll have? Just wait, because I think you are going to find it costs a lot more than what you were promised.