#why don’t we talk about accessible healthcare why don’t we push for disabled benefits to be improved

[heartslobbf]

oh also can people stop saying that literally every single tiny fucking thing is ableist. like hi physically disabled neurodivergent person here, able bodied people are really out here claiming that everything ever is ableist in the most performative way imaginable, doing nothing to actually help disabled people and just speaking over us instead, pushing an inaccurate idea of what disability is and how disabled people are. for instance, you all seem to think we’re unintelligent as fuck, and you also think that all physically disabled people? cant go outside? you infantilise us and generalise our needs, when disability is so complex and each individual has a specific set of needs to be met that could be contradictory with another’s. you love to coddle white neurodivergent people, shielding them from criticism for racism by claiming that ‘they don’t understand’, thereby enabling racism from white neurodivergent people and also reinforcing the infantilisation of disabled people as a whole. this also suggests that kids are like? naturally racist ??? literally what the fuck like go outside get off the internet stop pretending to give a shit about disability when all you really want to do is enable racism and still somehow get woke points on twitter. like do i even need to mention how the only activism you see about physical disability from able bodied ppl is saying that the phrase go outside is ableist. you guys go on and on about autism and adhd (not the only disabilities in the neurodivergent bracket anyway) in an uneducated and gross way and just ignore every other fucking disability all while claiming to be suuuuch a good ally. shut the fuck up. stop making jokes about diabetes or pay me a tenner for each fucking one so i can afford better medical equipment

[nolimitsongrace]

Voting for Life—The No. 1 Issue in the Nation

Abortion and the 2020 Election: 5 Questions AnsweredOctober 13, 2020

There’s no question about it.

The moral foundation of our nation is being undermined and attacked. We are witnessing things in this nation that are devil-inspired. It’s time for the people of God to be unashamed and take a stand for righteousness.

As the 2020 election approaches, there are forces pushing an agenda against the Word of God, and we have an opportunity to stand firm.

One critical issue where we must arise and take action is abortion—the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. As Christians, this must be a nonnegotiable issue in our voting. Why? Because it is nonnegotiable to God. Voting for candidates who are in favor of abortion makes us accomplices to murder, whether we agree with abortion or not.

There is a lot at stake in 2020 when it comes to abortion, and many new issues have arisen. Here, we’re answering five questions about abortion and the 2020 election to help you make an informed and biblical decision.

1. Where does the Democratic Party stand on the issue of abortion?

Many people cast their vote with one issue in mind—often focused on a financial benefit they believe they will receive. The problem with this line of thinking is that it discounts the implications of the rest of what that party stands for.

When it comes to abortion, we as Christians have a responsibility to protect God’s creation. It’s part of stewardship on the earth. So, in the 2020 election, the party platforms matter.

First, we’ll take a look at where the Democratic Party stands on the issue of abortion. The Democratic Party platform states the following:

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally…that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood….

Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom.

Key takeaways:

Democrats are in favor of abortion.

Democrats want to force taxpayers to pay for abortion. (See Question 4.)

Democrats don’t mention any limits on the procedure or the stage of development of the unborn baby. (See Question 5.)

Note: Democratic elected officials vote with their party platform 74% of the time.

2. Where does the Republican Party stand on the issue of abortion?

Now, let’s take a look at where the Republican Party stands on the issue of abortion. The Republican Party platform states the following on protecting human life:

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.

We call on Congress to ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities — discrimination in its most lethal form.

This is only an excerpt of the Republican Party’s strong stand for life. We encourage you to read the entire statement in the platform.

With regard to Democrat support of abortion, the Republican Platform states:

Democrats’ almost limitless support for abortion, and their strident opposition to even the most basic restrictions on abortion, put them dramatically out of step with the American people. Because of their opposition to simple abortion clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” has been reduced to just “legal.” We are proud to be the party that protects human life and offers real solutions for women.

           Key takeaways:

Republicans stand for life and against abortion.

Republicans pledge to protect the unborn, as well as provide support and alternatives for pregnant women in need of assistance.

Republicans have taken a strong stand against the brutal practice of late-term abortion and the harvesting and selling of fetal body parts.

Republicans oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.

3. Where does the Bible stand on the issue of abortion?

In one of the most powerful teachings on where the Bible stands on the issue of abortion, Pastor George Pearsons recently shared 10 scriptures on what God thinks about abortion. We’ve shared them for you here.

Deuteronomy 30:19: “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (NIV).

Life begins in the womb. It is not a blob or a tissue—it is a human being, a person with a future, an anointing and a call from God with a purpose on this earth. God’s Word is clear—we are to choose life.

Proverbs 6:16-17: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood” (NIV).

Psalm 139:13: “You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

Psalm 22:31: “His righteous acts will be told to those not yet born. They will hear about everything he has done.”

Isaiah 44:2: “This is what the Lord says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you” (NIV).

Isaiah 46:3: “Listen to me, you descendants of Jacob, all the remnant of the people of Israel, you whom I have upheld since your birth, and have carried since you were born” (NIV).

Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (NIV).

Before you were born, God knew you. He set you apart. That is how special you were even before you were even born. The same applies to every unborn baby.

Psalm 78:5-6: “He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children; that the generation to come might know them, the children who would be born” (NKJV).

Ecclesiastes 11:5: “As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything” (NKJV).

Luke 1:41: “At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Certainly, there are far more verses that affirm God’s value of life, even in the womb. There is no question where God stands on abortion. He is always for life.

Watch Pastor George Pearsons preach a powerful message on abortion.

4. What is the Hyde Amendment?

There is a lot of talk about the Hyde Amendment in this election cycle. Democrats, for the first time, are seeking to repeal this important piece of legislation. Here is an explanation of the Hyde Amendment and why it’s so important in the 2020 election.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal Medicaid dollars (taxpayer dollars) from paying for abortion, unless the life of the mother is at risk.

The Hyde Amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976 and has been passed each year since then with bipartisan support.

The majority of Americans oppose their tax dollars paying for abortion.

With the passage of the Hyde Amendment, the abortion rate dropped significantly, saving an estimated 2.1 million lives.

The move by Democrats to repeal the Hyde Amendment is just one example of how extreme they’ve become in the area of abortion. It’s time for the Church to arise and stand up for these precious unborn little ones.

5. What is the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?

While there is no mention of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act or the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the Democratic Party platform, the following is an excerpt from the Republican Party platform explaining both, which were authored by Republicans.

We applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to add enforcement to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which imposes appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery whether the death of the infant is intended. We strongly oppose infanticide. Over a dozen states have passed Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version. Not only is it good legislation, but it enjoys the support of a majority of the American people. We support state and federal efforts against the cruelest forms of abortion, especially dismemberment abortion procedures, in which unborn babies are literally torn apart limb from limb.

These 5 questions and answers about abortion and the 2020 election are a lot to take in, but there is an urgency in this matter. More than 60 million babies have gone through this horrific experience, and their blood is crying out for justice. God will hold us responsible for how we vote on this issue. This is why we are voting for life in the 2020 election!

Watch as our special panel on Believers’ Voice of Victory discusses why abortion is the No. 1 issue to consider when voting.

Related Articles:

The 2020 Election: What’s Really at Stake?

5 Prayer Points for the 2020 Election

5 Things Every Christian Should Know About the Equality Act

7 Ways to Get Out the Christian Vote

© 1997 - 2020 Eagle Mountain International Church Inc. Aka Kenneth Copeland Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Category:

FaithBuilders

Comments

[cswilhite]

Technology revolution in the history of occupational therapy: Past, present, future

An invited convocation address to the University of New Mexico graduating class of 2019:

Welcome family, friends, graduates, faculty & staff of the Occupational Therapy Graduate Program Class of 2019. Families and loved ones: Thank you for entrusting the education of these brilliant young minds to the University of New Mexico where we are Lobos for Life.

Note to the audience: The graduates have requested a talk that makes them laugh and cry, is sobering, and also inspires them. I will endeavor to deliver!

First, let’s get the crying part over with. Many of our graduates will be making their new car payments to the federal government student loan repayment system for many, many years. So that is something to cry about.

Class of 2019, thank you for asking this speaker to address those assembled at your convocation. I don’t think it is a secret how much I admire you and am inspired by you to be a better teacher and occupational therapist. We caught lightning in a bottle.

Your group made learning together fun, even when tackling difficult concepts in neuro-rehabilitation. Your care and consideration about the topics, peer to peer teaching, generous sharing of resources, and willingness to explore and take risks was inspiring. You are very likely among the few in our profession at this moment who have learned about 3-D scanning and printing, virtual reality rehabilitation, engaged in prototyping and designing mobile apps, participating in Hackathons, and more. Let’s dig deeper.

You are entering the field of occupational therapy at a time like no other, influenced by a revolution in technology. I am talking specifically about the technology of information, communication, and the age of making things. All of these contemporary influences on technology are ripe for delivering occupational therapy in new and unprecedented ways. You are exactly the right group to harness this potent and powerful wave. I want to assure you that the manner in which you will use technology will not create the alienation and de-personalization that often accompanies technology tsunamis.

In fact, it is interesting to note our profession was born in such a turbulent period: the period known as industrialization: the industrial age enabled the rapid deployment of mechanical machines to perform work and resulted in the displacement of millions of master craftspeople from owning the products of their labor, the quality of their work, the knowledge of building an artful product from start to finish, and it especially severed them from the direct profit of their labor.

Industrialization herded craftspeople along with countless numbers of workers: immigrants, men, women, and children- into factories and piecework production on assembly lines. Their labor transformed continents, commerce, and politics. But the conditions of labor were quite intolerable and dehumanizing. Suddenly, Captains of industry had to deal with the collectivity of Union Labor. Strife and stress were headlines of the age. We fought two world wars with ever immense catacombs of weapons, chemicals, and the resulting millions of graves of combatants and innocent alike.

Occupational therapy was created as an antidote to the anonymizing effect industrialization had on people. We were born of a maker movement well before the current maker age happening now. We encouraged meaning and purposeful activity, occupation, as a means for health and wellness through the usefulness of one’s hands. During the time of war, our knowledge of activity and occupation became instrumental in rehabilitating injured and disabled soldiers and returning them to useful life in the community, while others were sent back to the theater of war.

Our professional ambition led us to practice within the medical model where we became experts in using adaptations and assistive devices to compensate for lost function; and we were experts in rehabilitative techniques to promote physical recovery. With legislative and policy successes we branched into outpatient, schools, long term care, and home care…and we were fortunate to lobby successfully to be an insurance reimbursable service. Our current policy asks involve increasing our direct access to home care patients, creating specific occupation-based reimbursement codes that are distinct from physical therapy codes, and gaining provider status in mental health care settings.

But will these hoped for victories be enough to secure our future as a profession? I think not. In this country, healthcare is a business. Business is competitive. Business is an evolutionary zero sum game where there are winners and losers. Prey and predator. Them and us. Collaborations and alliances evolve and others dissipate depending on the forces at play in the marketplace. But because we belong in healthcare systems, because this where the majority of people currently receive the value of our services, some of us must compete and be adept at the game. To be sure, we need occupational therapy professionals who are able to savvy the vagaries of the market sphere in pursuit of our goal of ensuring people undergoing episodes of medical care receive the benefit of occupational therapy services; the services that are proven to restore participation in life activities. We especially need people in the system who are able to hold the core of our ethos, our philosophy, and our practice…and not dumb it or dilute it down into a meaningless set of rote procedures.

Unfortunately, the business scenario is not a sustainable one. Resources for health care as usual are evaporating. While the business of health care remains lucrative, the cost of healthcare to society is overwhelming, taking up the largest percentage of our gross domestic product. We can’t afford the current model. Something’s got to give.

The delivery system of care must be rebuilt and redesigned: a sustainable system designed for high quality of care and where all people have equitable access to health care, quality of life, and quality of community life. It is a HUGE ask, and it is at the center of every health profession’s concern. We need to be at that drawing board where high level policy decisions are being made. We need to deliver best evidence, best bang for the buck. Some of you will be well suited to get to that workspace.

And as archaic as it may seem, it is time to become a master craftsperson, maker of things.  For example, the modalities of the near future involve revolutionary technologies in 3-D printing, robotics, and virtual reality. Occupational therapists working with people to recover from strokes, burns, and amputations will need advanced knowledge of rehabilitation strategies for working with people embedded with 3-D printed living tissue and who are recipients of 3-D printed organs. We also will be called upon for assisting our clients navigate occupations, with concurrent physical and emotional challenges, of using and accepting alterations to their bodies from implanted devices, robotic limbs, and brain transplants; and we will have to exercise good judgment in determining when to use virtuality to bring context to the bedside when pushing the principles of brain plasticity at human scale.

The entire human interface with technology is growing nearer, in real proximity to our “selves” and we must wonder if it will fundamentally change who we think we are as occupational beings. And so, the occupational therapist…the master craftsperson of occupation, must inform those who design and fabricate this new world. We must be on the top teams in healthcare, but also architecture, urban and regional planning, and engineering. We should, we must, deeply understand the technology AND the user experience of those depending on technology to perform occupations. There will also be ethical conundrums that are sure to follow in the wake of so much change. This age we are entering is both exciting and sobering. After all, we are fundamentally the same, albeit a tad more sophisticated version of our cave dweller selves.

So, understandably, you are probably feeling a bit overwhelmed by my forecast. I get it. You have been trained and educated in a 20th century model for the current systems in which you find your services reimbursed. We haven’t prepared you for this raucous new age. YOU must be at the forefront of inventing the 21st century model through trial and error, bootstrapping your way, and navigating through uncertainty until you reap your 21st century education.

Fortunately, there are a growing number of leaders in the profession of occupational therapy who have already foreseen the need to innovate a 21st century profession. In her 2018 Presidential Address, AOTA President Amy Lamb said “Occupational therapy practitioners are in the perfect position to [innovate] because we touch people in real time”.

I dig that. The need for healthful occupation is universal and the need is growing across our complex world. That will not change as long as our species exists. What is new is the use of occupation as a means for preventing occupational deprivation and for ensuring occupational justice. It’s like working without a net, but we have the tools.

Dr. Lamb goes on to provide the rubric for 21st century practice. The rubric of why, what, and how? She says: “From the inception of our profession, we have been grappling with and indeed mastering the why, what, and how. We have seen practitioners transform empty spaces into centers for healing, and we have used common materials to create adaptations that foster independence and enhance quality of life”.

The why occurs when you encounter untenable problems of occupational deprivation that harm people. You ask, why is this situation occurring? You set off, often with other disciplines on board, as well as the people affected by the problem, and together you circumnavigate the complexity of the problem until you see it in high definition.

Then you ask, what if? You work with your team to begin a brainstorming process, and then a winnowing, until you achieve a set of possible solutions.

Finally, you are ready to say how? What are the action steps that can be taken in implementing the solutions?

It is likely some actions taken will be at the level of law and policy, while others happen at the grassroots and in the contexts where the occupations are performed.

And you will be adept at implementing useful technologies, have a hand in their design and fabrication, and work to ensure technology is beneficial and distributed equitably and ethically.

In conclusion, hopefully, what we have given you as a Faculty, are lessons in persevering through challenge, the love of lifetime learning, and the limitlessness of your imagination. That you have the belief that you can create structure where there is none.

Honestly, speaking for the Faculty, we NEVER could have taught you enough. So you will benefit if you adopt responsibility for your 21st century education early. In turn, the world will benefit from your wisdom, your solutions, and your innovations.

Thankfully, there are many professions and health professions in the same boat as you find yourselves, and they too will need to pursue readiness for the challenges and opportunities ahead. Encourage them to join you in the work.

I know you are the right people, at the right time, in the right place. I have seen the results of your work, your tenacity, and your imaginations whether in the classroom or the pop up labs. I see what you can accomplish, and I know you are ready to move into the world.

And lastly I promise this: if you hold occupation as your core belief, as both the means and ends of the therapy process, and hold it dearly, you cannot help but create authentic solutions for future occupational concerns.  

[silvokrent]

This isn’t nearly as in-depth as I’d like it to be, but here’s my reaction to firearms legislation, mass shootings, who or what’s “to blame,” and what we should be doing about it.

At this point, honestly, I don’t care what your political stance is, whether or not you think gun legislation will or won’t stop “criminals” (whatever the fuck that actually means) from still getting access to firearms illegally. At this point, all that I care about is that we do something instead of debating every single hypothetical pro and con to any degree of restrictive firearms access. Yes, gun violence is a multifaceted issue, and the motives behind each individual instance of a shooting are going to vary. So if we’re not going to talk about making it more difficult for anyone to buy firearms, let’s talk about the sociopolitical motivations behind mass shootings, and what sort of solutions we as a society are willing to commit to.

The shooter was [insert minority here] that was motivated by [vague generalization of an aspect of their culture]. Okay. So if the attack was done by a perpetrator who had biased, bigoted beliefs that they inherited from their family/immediate cultural influence at home, then maybe we should implement more effective and comprehensive policies in schools that enforce ideological acceptance. Say, for example, that the shooter held misogynistic, antisemitic, anti-black, and anti-LGBT+ beliefs. Here’s a potential solution: legally mandate that schools — colleges, universities, and K-12 private, public, and charter schools — teach their students that women, Jews, non-white Americans, and LGBT+ people have the same human rights as anyone else, and that verbally/mentally/emotionally/physically abusing them in any social environment/setting (work, school, the gym, the bus stop, etc.) is unequivocally wrong. Start teaching children as young as pre-K that these toxic beliefs are not acceptable, no matter what that child’s parents are teaching them at home. Undermine hatred that the child is inheriting from their family. Teach children earlier about privilege and the centuries’ worth of oppression that marginalized groups have experienced and continue to experience, and teach them how to be allies to marginalized groups, like non-neurotypical individuals, or people that are physically disabled. Teach students comprehensive, scientifically-accurate sex ed, that illustrates the differences between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and that these differences do not get to be treated as “abnormal” or “subhuman” just because they’re not as prevalent or as widely-represented as heteronormativity or cisgendered folks. We should also take the time to educate people that just because you meet a person of a certain demographic with a hateful belief, doesn’t mean they represent their entire group. If rampant Islamophobia has taught us anything, it’s that society likes to create “the great other” to have as a relevant foil for our own values, and as a readily-identifiable enemy, while ignoring the hypocrisies and flaws we deny are a part of our own cultures.

But teaching children/students to accept people of other walks of life goes against my personal beliefs! If the government meddles too much in education, they could easily co-opt learning in the future to push certain agendas. Besides, you don’t have the right to indoctrinate my children with your radical liberal ideas! I wasn’t aware that teaching children to not be dickheads to other people was a radical liberal notion, but fine. Have it your way. And yes, I agree, too much government intervention can have its own problems, in a sense of who’s watching the watchman and making sure they don’t overstep certain boundaries. But having no standardized code that teaches students to accept people from other cultural/religious/ethnic/genetic backgrounds isn’t a solution, either. And frankly, there should be no reason why anyone would argue against teaching our kids that diversity is worthy of acceptance and celebration, not shunning and discrimination. If you’re not willing to enact a solution to fix the motivation behind mass shootings, then we need to make it harder for people with radicalized hateful beliefs to acquire firearms. Either present another plausible solution to reduce mass shootings, or pick one of the aforementioned solutions.

The shooter was a [insert person with a mental illness]. Sane people don’t commit terrorist acts! Ah, yes. The old “let’s scapegoat people with mental illnesses as the perpetrators as these attacks, rather than as the overwhelming victims, in order to avoid talking about gun control.” Very well. If we’re going to continue assigning sole culpability to individuals with anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, and other psychopathologies, then that means we need to make medical treatment easier to acquire and less stigmatized. If you have a diagnosed mental illness, then you should be able to access free — or at the very least, cheap and affordable — healthcare to treat your condition long-term, through medication, one-on-one patient-psychologist/psychiatrist therapy, and accommodations in the workplace, school, and so on. People with mental illness should have greater access to resources that protect them from housing and workplace discrimination. We must, as a collective society, learn to not ridicule or make disparaging jokes at their expense, often to the effect of exacerbating their mental illness. We need to learn to not sneer at coping mechanisms, or ridicule someone that has a service animal for emotional and otherwise support. Because if mentally ill people are responsible for these attacks, then that means we should be treating their psychopathologies in order to prevent mass shootings, right?

But I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward the mentally ill! I shouldn’t have to pay to fix their problems. Skirting around the fact that people with mental illnesses didn’t ask to have those “problems” in the first place, what you’re saying is that “here’s a potential solution that could save human lives, but I’m not willing to spend money on it.” If allocating our government tax dollars means that people suffering from mental illnesses get help, and people aren’t as likely to die in mass shootings, then isn’t that worth the expenditure? Either present another plausible solution to reduce mass shootings, or pick one of the aforementioned solutions. 

Look. Lax gun laws are not the sole culprit behind mass shootings. The United States is a petri dish of centuries’ worth of culture clash, and the subsequent internalized hatred that comes with over-representation of privileged demographics, and erasure of marginalized people that’ve been stigmatized by the media. The problem is a combination of factors: compassion fatigue, apathy, complacency, a status quo that solely benefits certain groups at others’ expense, and an unwillingness to examine or relinquish our own biases because we don’t want to change. Radicalized violence and terrorism are multifaceted issues, influenced by factors I haven’t even touched on, because it’s late, I’m tired, and frankly I’m not the best person qualified to educate others on a complex topic I’ve only just begun to unravel myself. But I do know that we need to find a solution. We needed a solution yesterday. We needed a solution months ago. We needed a solution decades ago. Every time we are bombarded by senseless bloodshed and death, we go through the ritual of “sending our thoughts and prayers,” and then patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves for doing what we think counts as the bare minimum.

It’s not enough. It’s never been enough.

Whenever someone tries to foster a discussion on gun violence and the underlying issues, the loudest voices in the room (typically our elected politicians) default to the cliché red herrings of “mental illness” and “[person of a certain minority group] committed the act, therefore [their demographic] as a whole is to blame.” And while there have been instances in the past of shootings being linked to specific groups, these generalizations are correlation, not causation. Clearly, pinning blame to any one group — a tactic we’ve been using for years — hasn’t fixed the issue, so we need to come up with a different answer. Revising our education and healthcare systems have the potential to fix so many issues in our country, but arguments are always made for why “it can’t be done.”

“Can’t” means “won’t.” Meaning that people have the capacity to try, but aren’t willing to.

Which brings us back to firearms. Because until we, as a country, are willing to sit down and find a solution for hate crimes and mental illness (the alleged culprits), then we need to make it harder for people to buy military-grade firearms and go on killing sprees at schools, nightclubs, and concerts. Our “right” to buy and stockpile thirty fucking assault rifles without a comprehensive system to account for the whereabouts of those weapons, and the identity of the wielder does not supersede a person’s right to not be shot and killed.

People are dying nearly every other day in our country at a rate not seen in other nations. At the very least, we should at least be willing to ask other countries for help, and try implementing their tactics just to find out whether or not they’d be a viable option for our country. Not wanting people dead as a result of gun violence isn’t a fucking political opinion. It’s not even a contentious ethical debate. It’s doing the right fucking thing. And if you don’t like any of the proposed solutions, then instead of telling me why mine are inherently wrong, offer up one of your own.

[bryanthailey]

Women in Maine government

Denise Tepler never intended to go into politics.

She is a teacher, a wife, a mother. She holds a master’s degree in Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania. She volunteered in her children’s schools and around her community, the small town of Topsham, Maine with a population of about 8,500 people. She is also the District 54 state representative.

Through her volunteer work, as well as her part-time teaching at the University of Southern Maine’s off-campus centers, Tepler explored a passion for service, and eventually was asked to run for school board. “I had some frustrations with the school system and was interested in making change and serving my community, so I agreed,” said Tepler. “I enjoyed feeling that could make positive change for our children and our community but also realized there were some tough choices to make. I learned I had skills as a thoughtful change agent.”

After her experience on the school board, Tepler set her sights on the state legislature in 2008. Before she tackled the campaign process, though, she applied to Emerge Maine, a program that aids women who want to run for office. Tepler credits Emerge as her inspiration. “I came to understand about the lack of women in politics and how important our voice and our style are to governing,” Tepler said.

Emerge’s goal is “to increase the number of Democratic women leaders from diverse back- grounds in public office through recruitment, training, and providing a powerful network”, ac- cording to Executive Director Sarah Skillin Woodard. “The end goal is to have gender parity in Maine and across the country. This includes having parity for women of color whose representation is far lower than women in general.” This is particularly relevant in Maine, which is the whitest state in the country, according to a 2015 census report.

Women make up over half of the United States population, but hold less than one third of elected offices. Despite its status as a world leader, the U.S. ranks 104th globally in number of women serving in national legislature.

In the United States, there have only been 37 female governors, and only 27 states have ever had a female governor, according to statistics gathered by Emerge. Women make up 19.4 percent of the United States Congress, and 24.8 percent of state legislatures. Of cities with a population exceeding 30,000 people, women make up 18.8 percent of mayors.

Maine has had 74 governors and each one has been a man. Only 4 women from Maine have ever been in Congress. The Maine State Legislature is 29.6 percent women. Currently, Maine has one female mayor, Emerge alumna Samantha Paradis of Belfast, a town of fewer than 7,000 people.

Each year, Emerge graduates around 25 women with political aspirations, after a 6-month, 70 hour program. Recently, the program has also trained 25 women to staff political campaigns. In the 2016 elections, Emerge Maine had a 72 percent success rate — every incumbent who graduated from the program held onto her seat, and 12 alumnae won House seats. Additionally, Speak- er of the House Sara Gideon (D-Freeport) and House Majority Leader Erin Herbig (D-Belfast) are Emerge Maine graduates.

“Women in elected office overwhelmingly support and push forward democratic principles like equality and fairness. When women hold public office they are more actively involved in a variety of gender-salient issue areas, including healthcare, the economy, education, and the environment,” said Woodard. “Women legislators are more responsive to constituents, value cooperation over hierarchical power, and find ways to engineer solutions in situations where men have trouble finding common ground. The entire country benefits when we have more women in elected office. Our legislatures work better and our leaders are able to forge important agreements. Everyone wins.”

Recently elected Bangor City Councilor Laura Supica is an Emerge Maine alumna as well, and incumbent Sarah Nichols is an alumna as well as a current board member. City councils function differently than state legislature, in that they are locally focused and much smaller. The Bangor City Council consists of only 9 people, and prior to this year’s election, only one councilor was a woman.

Alongside Supica, Clare Davitt, a reference librarian at the Bangor Public Library, was elected and sworn in last month. “It is obvious to me that as citizens, we deserve to be a part of the process that affects our lives daily,” Davitt said.

So why aren’t there more women in office? In 2012, American University government professor Jennifer Lawless and Loyola Marymount University political science professor Richard Fox determined seven primary barriers to women running for office, including lack of self-confidence, responsibilities in the home, and fear of poor treatment due to the nation’s response to women like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

While it’s true that many women have familial responsibilities that a political campaign would disrupt, the skills gained through running a household are actually valuable tools in politics. “Women have always been the kind of people that take care of everything, not just taking care of kids at home,” said Nichols. “Before deciding to run, many women have to figure out how to work it into their lives. When you already think like that, you have an advantage on making policy. You already think about how it will affect other people.”

In Tepler’s case, she had to be convinced to run — both her school board campaign and her legislative campaign were kickstarted by encouragement and invitations from friends already serving. When she ran for school board, her youngest daughter was only 3 years old. “I am the primary home keeper in my family and had been available to do so for many years,” Tepler said. “My husband does not often cook. He does dishes and laundry but is busy during the day. It has taken him some adjustment to deal with a wife who is working a lot and is not always home to cook dinner, but he’s very cooperative and excited about my service.”

Another of Lawless and Fox’s barriers, fear of negative treatment or reception, is not unfounded. Tepler was elected to the House of Representatives in 2014 after then-incumbent Andrew Mason withdrew from the race and Tepler was chosen as the new candidate. “I don’t think we have a great support system for women in government beyond the partisan Emerge network. I have experienced sexist attitudes and have also found that being the only woman in certain rooms leaves me somewhat on the outside and my opinions not taken as seriously,” Tepler said, citing her work on the Tax Committee and the Democratic House Appropriations Caucus. “I have experienced the classic women’s meeting experience of having a man repeat something I said previous- ly and suddenly it’s heard.”

At 61 years old, Tepler says that she does not experience sexual harassment and “come-ons” on the job, but she’s aware of it happening around her. She says that it’s not always men perpetuating sexism within government, but rather women treating each other as competitors rather than colleagues. Men can be sympathetic to the issues women face on the job, but are hesitant to talk about it: “I have had some support about sexism from men, but it tends to be private rather than public. They will come offer support after witnessing a sexist incident, but will not publicly con- front it.”

Female legislators prioritize things differently than their male counterparts, which in turn gives more voice to topics deemed ‘women’s issues’, such as affordable and available daycare and menstrual products. “Issues that are important to women, from reproductive health care to the taxation of tampons and diapers, get more attention and are taken more seriously with women in the room — the more the better”, said Tepler. “There are issues that women are attentive to, such as child care, that I have found men, especially older men, tend to brush under the table. Women tend to be better at working cooperatively in groups, and therefore are more productive in legislative settings.”

Similarly, female legislators who work on policies that help women pave the way for more women in government. “Access to reproductive health care and improved policies regarding paid leave and childcare will make government jobs more accessible to women — they will have more control over their personal lives and the time and ability to serve in office,” said Nichols.

Since women make up more than half of the population, it’s crucial to have a similar percentage in government to ensure equal representation of all people. Women of color, disabled women, immigrant women, and lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women are further underrepresented, and many of these women do not have access to the resources they need to run successful campaigns and be elected.

“Women are leaders,” said Davitt. “Women are strong and competent and are more than capable of creating policy and representing our constituents. Girls and young women need to see them- selves reflected in leadership positions to help motivate them and give them a sense that they matter.”

[takebackthedream]

Would a Berniecrat Have Won Ossoff’s Georgia Race? by Richard Eskow

Reams of commentary have been written about the results of the recent special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Jon Ossoff lost the seat left vacant, which was Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, to his Republican rival by a margin that was larger than expected.

Photo credit: Jon Ossoff / Facebook

It was the most expensive House race in history, with the two candidates spending a combined $50 million. Republican Karen Handel beat Ossoff by a 3.8 percent margin, winning 51.9 percent of the vote to Ossoff’s 48.1 percent.

Ossoff substantially outperformed the Democrats who had run against Price, who typically won by 20-point margins. But despite spending enormous sums on  his campaign, he failed to match Hillary Clinton’s 1-point loss to Donald Trump in the same district in 2016.

A total of 259,488 votes were cast. Handel won with a margin of less than 10,000 votes – 9,702.  That means a shift of only 9,703 votes would have changed the outcome. Remember that figure.

A Republican District?

Virtually all the commentary that has been written about this race was based on the assumption that this district is white, wealthier than average, and “a safe Republican seat.” Ossoff’s campaign appeared to share this assumption. Ossoff ran as a “Republican Lite,” demonizing government service and downplaying bread-and-butter Democratic issues.

Ossoff even talked about “bringing the government up to private-sector standards.” He presumably was not thinking of the “standards” that caused the BP oil spill or the Wall Street financial crisis of 2008.

But was his underlying assumption true? Do you have to run like a Republican to win in a district like the Georgia 6th?

Mining the Data

The Census Bureau publishes searchable data online for every congressional district, but very few commentators seem to have taken advantage of this free resource. The same seems to be true of the Democratic consultants who helped themselves to some of the $20 million in campaign funds Ossoff spent.

Here’s what they would have learned if they had:

82,355 households in the 6th earn less than the national average in yearly income.  

It’s true that this is a wealthier-then-average district – but that’s an average.  These households earn less than the national average of $51,000 a year.

The voters who live in these households were never told that the Democratic candidate would fight to increase their wages, give them better benefits, or do more to make the necessities of living more affordable.  And Ossoff studiously avoided class or economic inequality, refusing to support tax increases even for the wealthiest Americans.

77,658 residents had no health insurance coverage at all.

That’s after the Affordable Care Act had been in effect for year.  During the campaign, these voters were never told that healthcare is a basic human right, or that Medicare For All could provide them with the medical care they need.  Instead, Ossoff said that he did not support single-payer healthcare.

81,376 voters are 65 years of age or older.

The Trumpcare bill Karen Handel supports slashes revenue for Medicare, laying the groundwork for deep cuts further down the road. The Medicaid cuts pushed by Trump and his fellow Republicans would eliminate a major source of funding for the nursing home care used by many seniors. And Trump’s budget would cut billions in funding from Social Security.

Ossoff could have run on strengthening Medicare’s funding and expanding Social Security to meet our nation’s retirement crisis. Instead, he chose to soft-pedal these issues, even though seniors are more likely than other eligible voters to show up at the polls on Election Day.

95,974 residents are African-American.   

Despite the district’s large black population, Ossoff did very little outreach to black voters. He spent heavily on television advertising and very little on get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts in predominantly African-American communities. He did not discuss racism, either individual or structural. 

African-American working people struggle with the same burdens as workers of other races, and black college graduates have been especially ill-served by our system of student indebtedness. His silence on these issues undoubtedly also affected turnout in this group.

96,154 residents are Hispanic/Latino.  

Again, it appears Ossoff conducted very little outreach to this group. Hispanics struggle with wage inequality, access to medical care, and environmental concerns, while struggling with issues of bigotry and hatred that have been inflamed by the current president and his party.

88,230 people in this district are between the ages of 45 and 64.

Many of these Georgians will be severely harmed financially if “Trumpcare,” the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, becomes law. Many “Medicare for All” proposals, on the other hand, suggest a phased-in approach that begins by making Medicare available to people 55 and older; some include younger ages as well.

Ossoff opposed Medicare for All. He also opposed Trumpcare, but did not make it a centerpiece of his campaign. His healthcare comments were often rhetorically indistinguishable from that of many Republicans, a point he emphasized himself early in the campaign.

“Responsible leaders of both parties agree that no American should face financial ruin, suffer or die because they have a pre-existing condition,” Ossoff told an Atlanta newspaper early in the campaign.

Issues of wage stagnation have hit this age group heavily, but Ossoff did not run on raising wages or government investment in job growth.

131,586 people in the district are between the ages of 20 and 34.

Voters of all ages are struggling with the burden of student debt, but this age group has been hit especially hard. Total student debt in this country now exceeds $1.4 trillion, yet Ossoff did not make the issue a centerpiece of his campaign.

The debt issue has been made even worse for millennial college grads by the fact that they graduated into a weak job market. Ossoff could have campaigned on a platform of tuition-free higher education, combined with relief for student debt holders and a program for creating jobs and raising wages. And yet, despite the fact this this district includes many college graduates, he chose not to.

144,313 residents are foreign-born.   

Ossoff did not emphasize immigrants’ rights or equality and social justice for ethnic and religious minorities.  He did not speak out forcefully against Trump’s attempted Muslim ban or his demonization of Hispanics.

46,214 voting-age residents are disabled.  Trump, together with his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill, is trying to slash Social Security disability.  Trumpcare would have a devastating impact on disabled Americans.

63,123 residents work in educational services, health care, and social assistance.

29,736 are government workers. Another 9,238 work in public administration. 

That’s 102,097 people whose jobs are on the cutting block when Republicans are in power.  A strong progressive agenda, by contrast, would emphasize smart, targeted spending increases in these areas.

There are 130,472 housing units with mortgages in the district. 

Since many of those mortgages are held by couples, means there are even more voters who write checks to a bank every month. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) protects their interests; a modern-day Glass Steagall Act, and a breakup of the biggest banks, would protect them even more.

More Than Numbers

What, if anything, does Ossoff’s loss mean for the Democratic Party going forward?  While the answer is speculative by necessity, the answer is: It could mean quite a lot. Even in their worst years, the Democratic congressional candidate in this district has received 38 percent of the vote. That’s the Democrats’ foundation.  What will get them from there to the finish line?

Remember, less than ten thousand votes would’ve made the difference for Ossoff. A campaign based on economic populism and a strong commitment to civil rights – that is, a “Berniecrat” campaign – could arguably have turned out many thousands of voters who stayed home this time around, while swaying others to the Democratic column.

The Ossoff campaign would have been wise to spend less on television buys and invest a lot more in doorbell-ringing and other forms of voter-to-voter outreach. That could have proved especially critical in communities of color and among workers who are struggling economically.

Would this strategy have succeeded in the Ossoff race?  We can’t know, of course. But we do know this: what the Democrats have been doing has failed.

That’s why insiders and party activists must ignore the voices of those who created this mess in the first place. That includes Rahm Emmanuel and Bruce Reed, who argued recently that Trump hatred alone will lift the party to victory in 2018.

“Democrats don’t need to spend the next year navel-gazing over how to motivate their base,” they sneer. “Navel-gazing” is apparently a snarky term for any analysis that doesn’t promote your personal interests.

The party has lost more than 900 state legislature seats since 2009, according to some measures. It has lost both houses of Congress, along with two thirds of statehouses and two thirds of governorships.  It has remained largely silent and impotent as Republicans rig the game in their favor through gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Something needs to change.  The party must turn sharply left on both economic and social issues if it is to have a chance of regaining Congress in the future.  If it does that, it will also be taking a stand on principle for the first time in a generation.  The value of political courage is something that numbers alone can’t measure.