They won’t bow to the lobbyists, because they have standards! They will push for campaign reform, because they understand the anguish suffered by citizens whose voices are drowned in seas of cash. They are better than all who came before, because they represent the people, by golly!

Within a term or two, they are the new old guard, absorbed into grimy back office dealings. They now endure the split personality of their constituency–the people who want to believe in them still, and the people who feel deep shame that they ever voted for them.

Very few politicians, if any, can claim to properly represent their constituents these days. How can they? To get elected, it takes funding. There is no such thing as a free donation. Every cent donated to the election of an individual comes at a cost: “You will cast votes in my favor. If you don’t, you will not get my money, nor will you get my friends’ donations.”

How was this ever a good idea? Better to ask: “How do we make it better?”  For every suggestion, there is a downside. In the Ross Perot situation, where the would-be politician is independently wealthy, you fail to elect an “average” citizen. A super-wealthy candidate can’t possibly relate to the majority of the constituency. Likewise, grassroots efforts are doomed from the start. When is the last time we heard of a candidate raising more money through middle-class citizens than someone who takes money from giant entities and lobby groups?

According to many: “It’s our own fault for voting these idiots into office.”

Not so. We can only vote for who is on the ballot. Even write-in candidate choices are limited. To be considered, said candidates must slog through red tape merely to get write-in votes counted in their names. As long as the average voter is unable to outspend the real decision makers, each ballot is limited to the candidates who have the funding and clout to get their names included.

Greed runs the government. It’s no secret. There’s little sense of fair play, and what smidgen you might encounter is tempered by the demands of power-hungry campaign supporters.

Until something drastic happens, there will be no significant campaign finance reform. Surface issues will be addressed, but the root of the evil lies in the trail of cash. Follow any given trail from donor to politician, and it’s a safe guess that votes or contracts were made in the best interests of said donors.

The system needs to change. But how? The people who count are the voters whose standards of living depend on the choices made by elected officials. We called them our “leaders,” but how can they lead when they are merely followers of their donors’ demands? No, they are not leaders. They are followers, sheep in the worst sense.

I admit it: I’m afraid of storms. Well, I’m afraid of the bad ones, anyway. Is there such a thing as a storm that isn’t violent? Yes and no. After all, “storm” is another word for “violence” or “commotion.” There are the occasional storms that have thunder and lightening, but they aren’t the titanic clashers of radar red.

My fears are reinforced by news reports of devastating tornadoes and floods. This morning, we heard about the Boy Scout camp that got demolished. Maybe these words are overused. “Devastating” is used for tragedy. “Tragedy” is used for devastation. With the constant presence of these words in the media, it’s amazing that they retain their meaning. Or do they?

The war in Iraq is devastating. The tsunami in December 2004 was a massive tragedy. Isn’t it tragic that millions of borrowers may lose their homes to the various and sundry banking corporations? Tragedy, devastation, tragic, devastating, how-sad, awful, bleak… Every day, every news channel.

It comes down to fear. Am I truly afraid of the storms, or am I afraid that I’ll be the statistical name read on the national news, along with my husband and children, of the latest victims of Nature’s Fury? Maybe it’s as simple as this: I don’t want to lose the people I love or the stuff I have. I don’t want to get hurt. I don’t want to die. Death is inescapable, largely unpredictable. It is final. Maybe.

It’s easier to just blame it on the storm.

To warm chest welcome

Lashes graze cheeks pink

Softly budded roses

Many write of innocence lost

Yet I call it found.

* * * * *

1. If an unvaccinated child gets ill with one of these preventable diseases, s/he has a 5-10% chance of giving it to MY CHILDREN, who are both vaccinated. Granted that’s a 90-95% chance they won’t, but I don’t like any chances. Don’t put my kids at risk over unproven “facts.”

2. The Thimerosal connection is unproven. Yes, mercury is bad, but it’s so minuscule that your child probably encounters more in the general environment than in a shot. If you’re this worried about mercury, DON’T USE THE NEW CFL LIGHT BULBS, as they contain mercury, which is bad if they get broken!

3. Most shots don’t have Thimerosal. I’d have to look it up, but I believe a doctor/nurse told me that its use in Illinois vaccinations was supposed to get banned a while back. Again, I am not certain of this. Either way, only one of my 5yo daughter’s shots had it in 2002.

4. Speaking of my daughter: she is autistic. I am 100% sure it had nothing to do with vaccinations. It turns out that autism can run in families. My brother has Asperger Syndrome, and my sister has ADHD (one of her daughters is ADD, another is either ADD or ODD), our mom is ADD, and I’m ADD, possibly some Asperger. When we look back, almost everyone who knows my daughter can see some of the subtle signs since she was a baby. She is on the under-stimulated side of Sensory Processing Disorder (as opposed to easily over stimulated), and those traits were there from the start.

5. The “sudden, rapid spread of autism” may not be so sudden. The diagnostic criteria have been greatly expanded over the past decade or two. My brother was not diagnosed until he was in college because he didn’t display what was “typical” autistic behavior. Think back: there have ALWAYS been children/adults who displayed what can now be considered ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) traits. Einstein is believed to have had Asperger. DaVinci, too. There have always been kids who “talked late” or just seemed behind all the others. Autism, ADD, and other learning disabilities can explain many of those cases. Personally, I suspect that if there is more autism due to environmental factors, it’s not as great an increase as people think.

6. Reactions to vaccinations are normal. It’s in the literature they give you. The body is being tricked into thinking there’s an attack. It’s only natural to not feel well after any kind of vaccination. But the vaccination contains dead or near-dead virus unable to make you truly ill. A couple days of feeling blech is a great tradeoff to dying or being permanently affected by a disease. HOWEVER, some people do react to the egg-based medium. The doctor can provide a different source for those people.

Please, it is SO IMPORTANT to vaccinate. This is how smallpox has been eradicated in the United States. What a horrible disease! And polio–who doesn’t know someone stricken by this debilitating disease? If you don’t, look into FDR.

When you do “research,” keep in mind that not every study is viable. A proper study needs to maintain strict controls, have a large number of subjects (the larger the better–fifty people a study does NOT make), and be conducted by open-minded scientists. Even then, the results can be interpreted in countless ways. You also need to see who is funding the research and whether it’s conducted through a reputable institution. I’m all about anecdotal “evidence,” but it needs to be backed up in some way.

“False correlations” abound in frightening ways. Saying a shot made a kid autistic just because the symptoms showed up soon after a round of shots is like saying “A bird flew into my window after I farted, therefore my farts make birds fly into windows.”

You can see I’m passionate about this issue. I would love for people to start being more careful about making bold statements such as “Vaccinations cause autism.”

To be honest, I worried about this for a while before we even knew we had a problem. I always said, though, that I’d rather have an autistic child than a dead child due to a preventable disease.

I love my kids fiercely, and I will continue to have them vaccinated to prevent horrid diseases.

In the past week, Obama said goodbye to Samantha Power, an adviser who called Mrs. Clinton a “monster,” while Mrs. Clinton said goodbye to Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to ever chosen to run for vice president for saying that Barack Obama is in the presidential race only because he is black. Apologies and accusations continue to ricochet off the sides of campaign vehicles and walls of media.

Something I heard on talk radio (the mighty WGN 720 AM from Chicago) got me to thinking about the prevalence of sniping among the candidates and parties. On a regional level, there was a special election to replace Dennis Hastert (R), Illinois’s 14th District Congressman, for the remainder of his term. Jim Oberweis was the Republican candidate, and Bill Foster was the Democrat. The special election was held last Saturday, March 8, but it’s not over. It will gear up again for the November elections when a candidate will be chosen to serve an entire term. The first part of the campaign was nasty, and the next few months promise to be worse.

Negative campaigning is more than an irritating phenomenon. It’s an insight to how the candidates will handle emotionally-charged challenges when in office. When a candidate’s character and/or message is attacked, do s/he fight back, roll over, or find a middle road? If a foreign prime minister makes negative claims about our president, what should we expect of our leader? Here’s a potential scenario:

King ABC of the Royal Kingdom of the Alphabet (RKA) doesn’t like the American president. ABC holds a news conference to sling buckets of mud. Every slimy smear is based in provable truth. President XYZ used illegal drugs as a young person. As a senator, XYZ voted against sending aid to RKA following a massive tornado outbreak. This resulted in a massive loss of life that could have been prevented with minimal assistance from the mighty USA. As a college student, XYZ openly advocated adopting a communist model to replace the current capitalist structure employed by the USA. Finally, ABC accuses XYZ of pretending to have a beneficial agenda when the true aim is to reshape the nation in an anti-democratic fashion.

How should XYZ respond? King ABC has rather important standing in the international community, and people listen to him. His angry words have the potential to incite bad feeling about XYZ, and many will side with ABC. Do XYZ’s people find dirt on ABC and throw it to the frenzied media? Does XYZ ignore ABC’s comments? Does XYZ attempt to reach out to ABC to find common ground? Does XYZ fly into a rage and threaten sanctions or embargoes, or worse? Does XYZ respond to the accusations in a way meant to explain why they are or aren’t significant issues?

Of course each situation has its unique variables. Of course it depends on the people and issues involved. And of course public opinion is important. Any of the above choices could be utilized in responsible manners. It’s the choice of when, where, and what that makes the difference. How diplomatic is XYZ? Can XYZ stand firm or bend when appropriate? We don’t want a president who will be so rigid that s/he breaks when tested. On the other hand, we also don’t want a president who will bend to other people’s wills when firmness is demanded.

Is political mud slinging unnecessary or inappropriate? I don’t like it any more than the next voter, but I would suggest that it serves a purpose. It’s a facet of an elected official’s service that we often don’t consider. When I go to vote, I will certainly take into consideration the give-and-take between the candidates. No less important, I will want to know if any candidate develops a reputation for being kind, nasty, responsible, snobbish, and so on.

In the Foster-Oberweis campaign, they both agreed to appear for radio interview on the John Williams show in early March. The show was part of the “Hometown Voices” series on WGN radio, broadcasting on remote at a location in the 14th District. Both candidates got caught in traffic. Both candidates did their interviews over the phone. After being interviewed, one candidate chose to move on to the location of their next appearance. The other candidate, although late and already interviewed, chose to arrive on location anyway. Which one showed more respect for his hosts and voters? The negative ads may not demonstrate that respect, but the simple act of showing up as promised spoke volumes. To be sure, his halo wasn’t untarnished, but that choice to show may have acted as restore some of that golden glow. Guess which candidate won the special election.

I’m not an expert. I don’t always get it right when voting (Gov. Blagojevich being my major voting gaff), but I think I have a semi-intelligent read on some politics. I know what I wish for our country, and I can generally choose a candidate who isn’t so bad. I’m not going to say who I plan to vote for come November. I just hope I’m not disappointed, again. (Thanks, Rod.)

RB

What I find amazing are the striking similarities behind the scenes of wildly different settings.  Whether it’s competitive dancing, cheerleading, ice skating, gymnastics, equestrian events, hockey, soccer, baseball, football, choir, band, pageants, modeling, and so on, parents and kids can expect certain things.

These activities have the same cast: young participants, parents, coaches, private instructors, equipment vendors, judges/referees/umpires, etc. If you go into an ice center or bowling alley, you’re likely to find a pro shop, a decently maintained facility, and a staff with the instructor(s) everyone gets to know. This is the same with a dance studio, a stables, or the music wing of the local middle- and high-schools.

The path to success is familiar wherever you go. Little kids are brought in to learn the basics–some still wearing training pants–not far from where the older kids are pushing their abilities to advanced levels. At shows, demonstrations, or competitions, spectators ooh and ah over how cute the smalls ones are, especially in their full get-up. When the teens display carefully honed talents, the crowds are duly impressed. Sprinkled among the kids may be a class of adults who came to the activity late, but with passion born of love for the activity.

Behind the scenes, the moms (and some dads) juggle outfits and equipments. If they’re lucky, they’ll get to their seats in time to see their kids perform. If not, they’ll catch it on the DVD conveniently sold through a media company hired by the group running the Event.

At the big Event, there will be divisions based on age and talent level. The young kids typically go early, if not first. Some cry, some ham it up, and most will follow the lead of their little friends. At some point during the Event, a kid will either go down or make a mistake, recover, then receive great applause for their bravery. When it’s over, some families will descend upon a few hapless ice cream parlors or restaurants to celebrate success, some go home to crash in exhaustion, and others slink home in defeat. All of them get up the next day and start again.

Among the parents where the commitment is serious, you’ll find the “stage moms” who micro-manage their kids’ lives and performances. Among the kids, you’ll find some with true talent and dedication. It’s their life’s ambition to make it in the activity. Some are driven by their dreams, and some by their parents’ dreams. Then there are the kids who love what they’re doing, but they haven’t the talent to go as far as they’d like. They’re always on the bubble of inclusion: some days they get a good part, but most days they barely hold their own. But they go on for the love of the environment and friends.

When I think of all this, I see the girls, ages 5-18, made up for dance/cheer/gymnastics/ice skating. Heavy makeup and flashy costumes are part of the deal, and, for the most part, they look like lovely young women, although some look too mature for their age.

The adults who run the whole thing tend to be people who were those teenagers, once upon a time. They grew up in that world and have chosen to continue doing what they love. They may not be young or spry enough to compete–or maybe they are–but they take pleasure in passing their knowledge on to the next generation. They teach, mentor, and teach some more. While a few take gross advantage of their students, it is the majority by far who nurtures and pushes the kids under their wings.

There are high and low points to this way of life. As they say, find balance in moderation. It’s not healthy to invest so much into this lifestyle that a series of defeats would break you. To use another cliché, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. That basket can be taken out by a blown knee, a lot sense of balance, or a growth spurt that makes those tight tucks and rolls impossible.

Go ahead and indulge your kids. But remember to teach them that there’s more to life. Think of all the kids who would love something as simple as piano lessons but can’t afford it. How about the kids who would love a steady, stable living situation? Being involved in all these competitive activities is a privilege. Getting to work your ass off to shine is a privilege. Teach your kids to make the best of what they love, and they’ll go far.

I am all for a president who is female or African American. For that matter, I’m open to a president who sports purple skin with yellow polka-dots. My concern is that voters are falling in love with the idea of a woman or black president, rather than the candidates themselves. I neither love nor hate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Rather, I wonder whether they have the chops to least the most powerful nation in the world.

Look beyond promises to see this or that legislation through. The president can veto that which passes the House and Senate, but s/he does not do the actual work of seeing it through. Congress does it. Committees and votes and more hoopla than I care to imagine all go into the pork rolls we call bills. The real change will come when the government suffers an identity crisis and fixes the broken cogs in the system’s wheels.

I’m not a politico–I don’t bring anything more than opinion to the business of voting. Still, I can share my observations of the major candidates.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton
Alone, she is a strong woman with strong opinions on how to make many wrongs right. She may or may not have participated in a series of wrongs. Her husband is a liability. Inserting himself into the campaign does hurt her standing in people’s eyes, as many pundits suggest. After all, if she can’t “control” him during the campaign, how does she expect to keep him heeled if they move back into the White House.
This argument can go two ways. One can spoil it by suggesting that as the First Gentleman, Bill won’t have the clearance levels he enjoyed as the president. On the other hand, he’s likely to have his wife’s ear on a regular basis. On another hand, does Hillary listen to him? She may not be open to his help. She is intelligent, strong, and can stand up to or with the best of them. Bill may be superfluous.
All this aside, there is an aloofness about her that turns many people off. It’s quite the contrast to her husband’s reputed ability to charm an audience. How necessary is it for a president to be approachable? Will her personality lend needed space to tense situations, or will it be a detriment?

…More later. I am rather tired and have many things that need my attention. Next: Barack Obama

Blog topics will be unpredictable, dependent upon my whim of the moment. Maybe I’ll choose a nom de plume for this blog. Maybe I’ll remain anonymous. I don’t know. What I do know it that this promises to be a release of sorts. It doesn’t matter if other people find it interesting, although I certainly don’t mind if they do.

Welcome.