Leftagenda's Open Salon Blog

Should I stay or should I go?

Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:11:27 -0500

The big day. The big day-a-reno. What's next? With two possible options, that from where I'm standing seem worlds apart, what do we do with either result?

I've said it myself and I've heard people say it in the news, celbrity gossip mags, and from people I meet. "If McCain wins," or, "If Palin actually gets into office," and whatever the comment it ends with, "I am leaving, leaving this country." No one really means it. Well, most of us don't really mean it. If things go terribly wrong tomorrow and McCain wins, we'll see if there's a mass migration for the airport. It'll be on Countdown, maybe even The O'Reilly Factor, "Reports are coming in saying that hundreds of airports around the country have been flooded with people trying to buy one-way tickets out of the country." Of course, the commentary after that would be completely different. Bill might be smiling and laughing, overjoyed at this shared loss of rationality across the nation while Keith might even start crying sitting behind his desk. He won't even get to Worse Persons, he'll be so torn up.

Though a small part of me says, hell yeah I'd love to be able to just take off and forget all about it, there's a larger part of me that could never do that. Oh, I'm not saying I couldn't live overseas. I have, and I hope to again. But to leave in the fashion that I've talked about above has a certain amount of finality to it. It's like saying, so long America, and never turning back. I couldn't do it. There's too much of me that believes that there's something good here. There's something worth fighting for here.

The frightening part is that if McCain wins then we will have proven to the world and to ourselves that intelligence is not important. We'll have irrevocably achieved a level of hyposcrisy no other country has. The Right-Wings attack on intellectuality shows little regard for anyone that thinks. Little regard for anyone that makes decisions based on their brain instead of their gut. The only problem is that our guts are full of shit.

So, if tomorrow's a bad day and Obama doesn't win, what should we do? Rebuild, replan, and learn what mistakes were made this time and what we need to do better in the future. I'll be upset, I might even cry in my beer. I'll definitely be suspicious of voter fraud or suppression, but when it's all said and done I will go on. I will continue talking to people about the future. I'll continue fighting for intellectual passion and scientific thought to prevail over the failed attempts of religion to make decisions for our daily lives.

I can't afford a ticket anywhere right now anyway.

What's Wrong with Being Godless?

Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:11:09 -0500

I'm getting sick and tired of all the smears. One candidate after another resorts to smear tactics because they can't actually make any valid points. Recently, Elizabeth Dole ran an advertisement saying her opponent was "godless" and that she had attended a "godless" event. OK, so what's the problem?

I thought we have freedom of religion in American? Doesn't that include the absence of religion? Yes, I said it. The absence of religion. Being Atheist isn't a religion. No more than not believing in Santa Claus is a religion. But back to the point, is there something wrong with this? Now, I know these types of smears don't usually occur where someone is actually being called "godless." No, in this nation we've come to recognize that the majority of Americans are Christian. Standing from the outside of that religion I'll tell you what a Christian is in the larger sense. It's anyone, from any denomination or church that believes that Jesus Christ died for your sins. So yes, that covers everyone from Catholic to Evangelical. But what about the rest of us?

During the last year or more we have heard repeated attempts made to label Obama as a muslim. Why? Does it matter? What's the difference between a Muslim and a Christian? Nothing from an outsiders point of view. They both believe something based on a book, they both have their hero or savior, both of them mention something about an afterlife, and both have the moderates and their fanatics. So what's the difference? Who cares if Obama was a Muslim. Are people seriously not going to vote for someone that isn't Christian? Really, is that what it's all come down to. No matter how intelligent you are, no matter what your credentials, if you don't believe that Christ is your savior then no one will vote for you.

Sadly, I think the answer is yes. What kind of country are we that we go on and on about how open we are to diversity. Even many of the people talking about religious diversity still save a small bit of disdain for those of us that nonbelievers. But it's interesting to see that in a country that talks about its politicians representing Americans. We have a hard time voting for anyone that doesn't share the religion that the majority of Americans follow. From this, I have to say that possibly the most open minded people then are those of us that aren't given that option. For those of us that are nonbelievers, those of us that are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and the thousands upon thousands of other religions out there, we are the open minded Americans. Because it will be a long time, regardless of race, that someone running for president will be able to stand up in front of an audience and in a loud and clear voice declare, "I am not a Christian." It will be a long time before anyone ever stands at their podium, running for president and says, "I am an Atheist," or, "I am Hindu," or, "I am Muslim."

So, for those of you that perhaps earlier on were maybe going to vote for McCain because, you know, you'd heard that Obama might be a Muslim. Well, guess what? You have officially declared yourself bigots. You are bigotted lot of people that wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Even if he was a Muslim. From where I'm standing, I've never gotten to cast my vote for someone that shared my nonbelieving views. I've never seen a politician that was running for a federal office, or a state office (I'm in California) that would believe what I believe or don't believe. I've never had that luxery. No, instead I've had to go the hard route. Instead of taking an easy label, like religion, I've had to actually listen to those that want my vote. I've had to pick apart the rhetoric and decide which candidate I thought was the most intelligent. Not because they agree with my lack of religious beliefs. No, instead I had to decide based on what they said, what their record showed me, and what other people who had interacted with them said about them.

This election was pretty easy for me to decide on. Not because of the smears or the hate tactics. Simply because I listened. You are or you aren't a true Christian? You are or you aren't a true Muslim? Who cares? It has nothing to do with my politics, how intelligent you are about the world is what's important. How much you respect freedom is more important. Freedom of religion, or no religion. That's the America that I served for. Can you bigots out there say as much?

For the People

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:10:46 -0400

Did you watch? Did you see?

I have never felt more strongly about a candidate for any postition. Obama for '08.

I almost shed a tear. His speech moved me in so many ways... I was overjoyed.

He never mentioned McCain. He continuously mentioned the middle class. McCain did not mentioned the middle class a single time in any of the three debates.

Obama's plans are well thought out, but there something more important going on. Did you feel good about the future? No, no, not do you feel good about the future, I asked, "Did you feel good about the future?"

Obama's campaign has been driven by the message of hope, and I've felt it many times before this. This presentation tonight though was a full 30 minutes packed full of hope. I don't know if I've been hopeful for that long in a while.

Finally, a presidential candidate that speaks to us, not about health care just being more affordable; instead saying everyone deserves to have it and should be provided with it if they can't afford it. Everyone. That's the difference. Everyone. That sounds nice. Everyone. The United States of America. Everyone. Yeah, that's good.

Whatever happens, I'm going to remember this feeling. I'm going to hold onto it for as long as I can because... because, folks, if he doesn't win... if he doesn't win, it's going to be a long time before we feel it again.

How parents can effectively change schools

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:10:35 -0400

How can parents change schools?

I've taught in an inner city now for two years and I think I can tell you exactly what differences parents can make. To begin with, and this may sound simple but it's not for all parents, parents need to actually get involved with the school. Go to PTA meetings. Make time to go and meet all of your children's teachers face to face. Call their teachers once a week, or ask for an continuous update about your child's grades and what they can do to improve. There is technology now that allows teachers to put grades and scores online where parents can log in and see, confidentially, their child's scores and grades. GET INVOLVED.

Now here's the problem. If you go to an affluent school district, you'll see that many parents already are involved. Very involved. Many teachers know that parents will question them and call on them to explain their curriculum, their assignments, the scoring methods. Because of this teachers are more careful to provide top educational opportunities for students. That part isn't the problem, that stuff is good. Here's the actual problem. When you move over to a lower income area, many parents can't provide the same amount of time to insuring thier child is receiving the right kind of education. Many parents are single and can't get to school while they're are at work and taking time off isn't an option. Some parents are KIDS THEMSELVES, and basically haven't developed the maturity to realize the impact of their actions for their child. Many parents have a long held contempt for "the system" and are intimidated by school officials and such (in affluent neighborhoods, parents intimidate bad teachers). There are also a lot of cases where parents themselves either don't speak English, therefore making communication more difficult between teachers and parents, OR they are in fact illegal immigrants that had their child here in the states and they are fearful of any interaction with "the system." Please notice that in many of these instances the parents are powerless to effect change.

A teacher at my first school called a student a "nigger." Now in an affluent neighborhood that teacher would have been removed the very next day and if he/she wasn't there would have been hell to pay from all the parents. At an inner city school, the children are given no voice. No parents are coming to stand up for them. In fact, they are use to things not working out for them so they come to expect it. THe principal tried to remove the teacher, he got lawyered up. When it went to the school board for trial, the student, nor any parents, went to the trial to represent themselves and the teacher was let off because his story was that he was only saying what another student said. There was no one to argue against his story. This story still disgusts me and the teacher is basically ostrasized by the staff but everyday he is still alone with about 100 kids through out the day. What can we do?

When we have back to school nights, I have gotten less then ten families that actually come to see me. I've spoken to teachers that work in more affluent areas and the differences are staggering. They get the majority of their students's parents to come and they never have enough time to see them all. THey have to make appointments with parents on a regular basis. They know parents by their first names because they speak to them so often. My school was the exact opposite.

Now, we've looked at the problem. And we've seen what the solution is. More parental involvement. But here's the thing. Many of the reasons that I mentioned that parents weren't going to their child's school weren't matters of choice. Believe me many of these parents would like to be there more often.

Here's what I propose.

PTAs in affluent areas take on a school to be their "buddy." Many of those parents are incredibly organized and they know how to get a message out and how to get a response from the school. They are well informed and for the most part they have received a higher level of education. If PTAs in these areas chose a single school in a lower economic area they could effectively create change. It could all be combined as well by say creating a UNION PTA, that covers many schools, thus strengthening the parents together. THat way, when there are fifty to a hundred parents at one school, and there are only a dozen at another school, they can pool their resources and get the schools to start listening to them.

I've always given an ear to my students, and they must realize it because sometimes they'll bring friends in to talk to me. Many times they are having problems with a teacher. My advice to them many times, aside from those complaints of too much homework and such, is to tell their parents. Ask their parents to call the school, call the teacher, write a note for you to give the teacher. Something, anything that shows the teacher that you aren't alone. They can't take advantage of you because you've, well you've got people. You've got someone that will stand up to it. Unfortunately, teaching is really tough. Administration doesn't always work to a teacher's advantage, collaboration is nonexistant, and spirits can be constantly broken. Parents help keep us on track. I've only been teaching for two years. I already feel the strain. Parents can help lift up teachers by challenging them to do better, by helping to raise funds for school trips or for more materials. The list goes on and on.

I would love to see parents join together. PTAs join together, because I think that many of these parents have enough love and compassion to spread it around. If you were a single parent, and worked two jobs, wouldn't you be forever grateful if someone did that for your child. If someone showed you the ropes on how to change their schools, how to organize, how to be effective?

Say it ain't so, Joe

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:10:08 -0400

Reading Mike Madden's article, "Say it ain't so, Joe" brought up some interesting suggestions about Joe Turncoat's fate. What shoudl the dems do with a traitor in their midst. I am one of the liberals that the article talks about that want to see his head on a stick, metaphorically. We have someone that ran on the dem ticket in 2000 with someone that has inarguably become a spokesman for the left and the green movement, yet now Joe wants to back a guy that is a replica of Bush. McCain use to be his own person, but he isn't anymore. McCain lies, consistently, on major issues. He consistently misrepresents himself and his past. He lies about what took place in Hanoi; really, does anyone believe that stupid cross in the dirt story? It's interesting to see that in previous articles from the early seventies John never makes any comment on the cross, or the football roster, or any of that crap. The only thing he mentions was that his captors were S & M freaks. I'm serious, I couldn't make this stuff up; I don't have the imagination that McCain has.

So, back to Joe. Joe has decided that McCain is his man. As I understand it the only issue they agree on is the war in Iraq. Joe continues to hold onto the notion that we have to be there to fight the good fight and we can't leave until we have victory. Too bad everyone else disagrees. General P. said recently that this isn't the kind of war that ends with victory flags being waved like in WWII. Bush, possibly the dumbest president we've ever had, has finally seen the light and is finishing talks to be out of Iraq by 2011. What the Hell is Joe holding on to? What is it that seems so important to him. Well I think that "media whore" is a correct label. Nothing, I mean nothing, seems to be more important to Joe than Joe.

What should the dems do with Joe? I've mentioned that I'm one of those liberals that wants him burnt to toast, but I also don't want to see them dems weakened. I agree with Madden's assertion that perhaps the best thing to do is to strip him of his titles. Of course Joe will be stripped of his titles. The man should be left alone to himself so that he can continuously wallow in his regret that he backed the wrong horse, sold himself out for publicity, and turned on all the people the voted for him in 2000. That isn't nearly enough though. Joe should be ostracized in the Senate. He's doing it to himself for now anyway. But will that continue after the election and Obama takes the whitehouse? I doubt it. I think it will be, after a short while, a picture of a dog with tail tucked between its legs beggin to come into the house. Furthermore, when Joe's time is up the dems should through every possilbe resource into the dem candidate opposing him. Every possible resource. If Obama himself has to go and speak at a townhall and endorse Joe's opposer then so be it. Get that man out of the Senate. Get rid of Joe.