Shoot First, Ask Questions Never.

After the Newtown School Shooting, at Sandy Hook Elementary school, I was sure our nation had reached a tipping point, when it came to seeking stronger, more effective gun control measures. The national discussion was alive with references to Assault Weapon bans, stringent background and mental health checks, stricter regulation of ammunition; Furthermore, all of this was coming from both sides of the political theater in Washington, making it seem like a political possibility in our near future. Then the NRA came along and started frothing at the mouth, like a rabid dog about how Obama wants to take their guns, and we should have armed guards in every school.


The NRA went a step further and began proposing more guns on the streets as a way to deter future gun violence. My first reaction is, Are you!@#$% Insane! People in general, here in the United States are unstable enough as it is, and you propose arming more of them? We've seen what less restrictive gun laws produce, look at Florida and the stand your ground law. First Trayvon Martin is murdered, for walking home from the store with an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Next you have studies done by Texas A&M, which shows how Homicides have increased in Florida with the implementation of Stand Your Ground, due to the fact altercations, which normally would have been handled in other ways, are quickly escalating into homicides. 


So my question is, why put more guns in the hands of people? What rational reason could there be to arm more people who will then be in a position to resort to lethal force, whereas they may have avoided confrontation altogether without the gun. Look at Michael Dunn as the perfect example; a group of teenagers were listening to music in their car, at a gas station when Mr. Dunn confronts the teens telling them to turn down the loud music. He then walks back to his car, grabs a gun and fires eight shots into the teen's car killing one of them. He claims it was self-defense, but how would someone need to defend themselves from loud music by murdering a teenager? Isn't this what police are for, to call and report issues such as noise complaints? Wouldn't it have been prudent for Mr. Dunn to have called the police, than to have shot up a car over a loud stereo? I think we can agree the answer is obvious here, but this is a direct example of what happens when more people have guns and laws are loosened to enable people to use those weapons more freely. A further example is Michael Jock, a resident of Petersburg, Florida who shot another customer waiting in line at a pizzeria. According to witnesses, Jock grew upset over the customers complaints regarding the speed of service, an altercation ensued, leading to shoving between the two, with Jock pulling out a revolver and killing the victim.


All it takes is a google search to find hundreds of similar incidents all over the country. As a society, we have gone from an enlightened stage, where we solve differences and conflicts through peaceful negotiation, to a stage where lethal force is now an acceptable first step in conflict resolution. Either our society has completely lost it or civilization is about to completely come apart at the seams, or there is something seriously wrong with these types of laws, as well as the people who staunchly defend them. When I was a kid I was taught, don't hit. As I got older, I was taught don't steal, don't lie, don't fight. Now I see our society, defend thieves, by enabling Wall Street Banks and Corporate Conglomerates to loot the Federal Treasury and our tax dollars. We defend and encourage lying, by voting in the same politicians who praise out of the left side of their mouth, the same things they condemn out the right side. People in our society approach conflict resolution now as an all or nothing game, where anything goes so long as I win. Arming more people, will inevitably lead to more homicides, by people who will resort to lethal force for a myriad of reasons, where they may have avoided conflict altogether before. 


Putting more armed people in our society, such as; Guards, Police, or Security, will only further serve to raise the anxiety level of most people who feel we are moving further toward a police state, encouraging them to have even itchier trigger fingers. Police, who are already suspicious and jumpy would be quicker to pull a weapon and use it, knowing more people will be carrying firearms with such policies. Rent-a-cops who have very little power, would have the ability to shoot first, ask questions later, turning a Police Academy reject, into a want to-be Dirty Harry. 


Imagine an armed guard at a school, who encounters two kids having a fistfight. This wasn't completely uncommon when I was in school. Kids sometimes resorted to fights, it is a part of growing up and learning appropriate behaviors. Now take someone who is armed, who is supposed to be there to protect the kids. They could be an off duty, or even an on duty cop, private security, or even an armed Janitor, as the NRA recently suggested. This person has the ability to bring a lethal weapon into the picture, turning a normal childhood altercation, into a crime scene. High-strung rent-a-cops, have already proven to be a liability with Tasers, if you look at various news articles. From Seventy-year-old grandmothers, to Six-year-old children, we can't trust security officials with appropriate use of Tasers, let alone weapons around our children.  


I don't see the solution laying with more guns on the streets and in the hands of the general public. This would be a recipe for disaster, and has already proven to be destructive and counterproductive in those areas where the laws reflect this approach. The fact a national organization like the National Rifle Association proposes these types of backward policies, and they are supported by Millions in the United States, says a lot about the moral standing of our society today. People who oppose Gay Rights, Claim to Support Life, and use Christian ideological principles to justify their own moral behavior, are the same people who support the Freedom to shoot first, support the use of lethal force first via Stand Your Ground laws, and lord their moral superiority over others. Again, I am amazed at the level of hypocrisy these people show and how far detached these people really are from the teachings of Jesus.


I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't take a Christian to recognize a Jesus from the Bible would not support lethal force first, would not support a political party who acts in direct contradiction to his teachings; helping the poor, being humble, turning the other cheek. Maybe I'm wrong, as I said I'm not a Christian, so I don't know Jesus the way Christians do. My point is, Conservatives and Evangelicals who make up the bulk of the NRA and their supporters, need to do some soul searching while their holding their open carry rally's, and demonizing those of us in society who are actually trying to make a positive difference on the issue of Gun Violence. 


We need more rational, clear thinking heads to combat the problem; people who are willing to sit down, compromise and come up with solutions, which are in the best interests of the general public. People who refuse to compromise, who want to emotionally knee-jerk, or who are incapable of looking beyond partisan divides need to be dealt with by our society. We need to stand up to these people and shame them back under their rocks, into the shadows where they belong, because they are doing more harm to our society than guns ever could. The only way to solve this problem is by working together as a society.                                                                                                                                                    

Send in the Trolls

I had so much fun writing yesterday. Not only did I manage to generate feedback from many of you out there, I also picked up my first few trolls. Like the beginning Blogger I am, I fed them and they kept me entertained for a few hours. They also serve as a reminder, there are always going to be people in the world, who would love nothing more than to see everything, including the human race, burn to the ground. It's sad, but I think those types of people will always be with us. I want to focus a little more about Trolls today, because the anonymity of the Internet allows for everyone to be a potential troll. 



I think trolls are a representation of baser human instincts to be aggressive, dominating, and savage, un-tethered by the confines of accepted societal behavior and free of the fear of consequences real-life imposes on such behavior. Most people would not dare act in such a manner in public, but the Internet allows for a person to anonymously act, without the fear of immediate physical consequences. They find courage through a barrier of anonymity, or they feel they are removed enough from others to be safe from real world retaliation. Others sometimes join in on this behavior, in much the same way real life people join in during a riot, otherwise known as the mob mentality. 



The problem with trolls, isn't their actions per se, obviously they are entitled to the same free speech and expression the rest of us enjoy, and it is that they serve as detractors from the important issues which need to be debated in our society. They have no desire to solve problems, work with others, or contribute to public discourse in any kind of meaningful way. People who feed them, while amusing and entertaining at times, encourage this behavior. Parents who do not monitor their children's online activities, allow the behavior from their children, and Adults who troll are often not held accountable, until recently. 



Trolling has been gaining infamy lately, not just in the United States. During 2011 in the United Kingdom, a Man was arrested for trolling a schoolgirl who committed suicide, by posting abusive messages online. In fact the U.K. has several examples of Trolls being arrested for various offences. The trend hasn't quite made it to the United States yet; However, a new strategy has been developed, which seems to be effective. A few months ago Gawker, the current events and self-proclaimed gossip site, outed the notorious troll Violentacrez, from the social news site, Reddit. The Troll is 49-year-old computer programmer, Michael Brutsch, who until recently worked at a Texas financial services company. See, what happened was Michael, thought it would be a bright idea to troll Reddit's forums like Misogyny, Incest, Creepshots, and encourage men to take sexualized pictures of women in public while stalking them. 





While this particular troll may not be criminally liable for their behavior, this case does highlight the danger online trolls can be. The rules of society do not always apply on the Internet, because we as a society have chosen not to enforce those rules. When the Internet first came into popular use, people were free to create an online persona, of their choosing. This made anonymity and the ability to create a persona on one’s choice, liberated a person from social confines; However, in our world today the Internet is made up of more than anonymous people, with anonymous lives. Social Networking sites allow real people to digitally connect to others, making the Internet a digital extension of real life in many ways. Yes, there are still those who have the ability or choice to create a false persona; However, popular sites such as Facebook, are designed for real people to connect with other real people. This is a stark distinction from what the Internet was in its infancy. 



We may be limited in how we address the issue of Internet trolls in the United States. Certainly not feeding them has worked in the past, as many trolls seem to crave the attention. I doubt the United States will ever take the route the U.K. has and hold people criminally accountable for their destructive behavior online; Although, the Gawker strategy of exposing the real life person behind the Internet troll, has proven to have an impact in the real world. Michael Brutsch was fired from his real life job, shortly after his exploits online were made public, so there can be real world consequences for online actions, if we are willing to go the step necessary to hold people accountable for their online actions. Ultimately, like many other things in life the choice is up to each one of us how we choose to proceed when it comes to handling an online troll. I think they serve as reminders of what our society is really like underneath the veneer of social rules we follow and how easily human beings can revert to a destructive and primal nature when the consequences for ones actions removed from the equation. Maybe we can learn something by addressing this issue as a society?

Our World, Our Decision.

I'm starting to think the human race is mentally deficient, especially after the recent gun violence and listening to both extremes prattle on about how the Gun Control issue needs to be either all or nothing. I responded to comments last night, regarding an earlier article I wrote titled, Gun Control Issue for the Masses, where I broke the issue down, addressed issues on both sides of the debate, and offered common sense, middle ground solutions to some of the problems. The responses I got, were completely off the wall, rants about; how I wanted to ban guns, assault weapons are merely cosmetic, people shouldn't need to be licensed to carry, people should be allowed to have the same level of weaponry as our military, and on, and on.... It was absolutely knee jerk, emotional, irrational, insanity.


This is a problem people, we've all let the extreme, fringe elements on both sides of the ideological divide gain to loud of a voice in the public sphere. We don't do enough to shame the craziest of the fringe back under their little rocks, instead giving them cameras or microphones and we parade them in public for "entertainment". Unfortunately, our society is also made up of sheep, who are very content to be led around without having to use a whole lot of brain power. This makes for a very dangerous combination. 


I think people who say we should ban all guns, are just as crazy as people who say we shouldn't ban anything. The fact our society condones this type of extremist behavior and entertains it, makes me question the mental health of our society in general. How can our species possibly survive, and thrive going forward, if we allow every single issue to devolve into a comparison of extremes, without any hope of rational, common sense compromises to fix problems? I lay the blame directly at the feet of each one of us, myself included, for not doing enough to put people in their place when they sound like crazy bastards. We don't hold people accountable for the things they say, we don't hold politicians accountable for the things they do, and we don't hold the entertainment industry accountable for their shameless promotion of garbage, which contributes to the divides in our society. 


There is a reason I named this Blog, Misanthropic Dissonance, because I love the human race and want so much to see it progress, succeed and grow, but at the same time I absolutely loath our society and what are have steadily become: A civilization of mindless, blind, sheep, following authority, following ideology, with a complete lack of critical thinking ability or common sense. It's disgusting to see people blindly follow, based on knee jerk, emotional reactivity, when people are capable of so much more. It makes me worry for the future of the human race, when our society immediately goes to the extremes of an issue, as important as gun violence, ensuring the problem will go on unfixed. I worry about whether my own children will have a viable future to live and prosper in, whether their children will have a future. We have become such a selfish society, with various demographics in our culture wanting more, or are not willing to compromise or coexist peacefully. 


This type of extremist behavior only serves to push our entire society to the brink of collapse. Do you really think if that happened, the common, everyday people would benefit? Of course not. The wealthy elite would be fine in their swanky mansions, or fortified compounds, while the rest of society would turn cut-throat just to survive. There is no downside to societal collapse for people who have everything, they would simply have more to rule over, while the rest of us were busy fighting to get by. Why is it, do you think our politicians refuse to solve issues, which could be resolved through compromising and common sense solutions? People need to wake up and break from this constant conditioning, the media and our society overall imposes on us, to submit to authority, to conform, to obey. Start questioning things; Why is bullying allowed, why do we condone hazing, why do look the other way when things are happening we know are wrong, why don't we stand up and demand for things to change, why do we assume we have no power, why do we let others tell us what to think, how to look, what to feel, how to behave, why don't we take personal control over our own lives? 


I am continually amazed at how few people in our society actually break from the pack and do stand up as a unique individuals to affect change. It is an encouraging thing to see, but also depressing to notice how the vast majority of people are completely blind to what is going on around them. I wouldn't even know where to begin when it comes to solving this particular problem. I would love to offer solutions, but this is one of those times when you can't help others, they need to help themselves. People have to be willing to open their own eyes and look around, question reality and decide to walk their own path, rather than follow the herd. People have to be willing to open their ears and their minds to the world, and accept the uncomfortable truths about life, existence, nature, and about themselves. Eventually all of us will die, and the only thing that will be remembered of us, is the impact we've had on those around us. Eventually they will die, and after enough time, we will be forgotten from history entirely. Knowing this fact, is it then worth holding on to an extremist position, and slowing the growth and progress of the human race in the process? What good could it possibly accomplish? What kind of legacy will such extremist thinking leave on future generations who will look back and wonder how we were able to even function as a society?



We have one shot to get it right in this life. We could continue condoning selfish, greedy behavior in our fellow human beings, who are only concerned with themselves, or we could strive to make the world different. Our legacy, though one day forgotten, has the potential to contribute to the progress and growth of the human race into something much better. It is up to each one of us to decide how that legacy will affect the course of our species. Will it enable growth and progress toward something better, or restrict our progress and hold us back from becoming what we can imagine of ourselves.

Our Impact on the Environment and Climate Change.

Climate Change has been a hot button topic for several years. There are those who believe humans contribute to climate change through pollution, deforestation, and general neglect of our environment, while others are insistent humans have a negligible impact on our planets climate. Big Business, who is often the center of the Climate Change debate, as a prominent cause, obviously does not subscribe to Climate Change through human activity. If they admitted to their own culpability, it could potentially be costly for them to continue conducting business the way they have been. Not only would these billion dollar industries have to eat into their bottom line to bring their processes and procedures in line with appropriate limits to lessen the impact they have on the environment, they could potentially face civil penalties for their disregard of environmental safety and responsibility. So we know these interests, have an economic stake in suppressing, or spreading disinformation related to Climate Change.



On the other side of the coin, we have people who favor the opposite extreme. These people believe any use of natural resources contributes to the destruction of our planet. They are against deforestation, even in instances where it is done for safety issues, such clearing dead wood or preventing forest fires through controlled burning; Furthermore, many of them propose forcing society to remove their environmental footprint altogether. While I can sympathize with this sentiment, as I believe we should lessen our impact on the environment, I do not believe it is possible to completely remove our impact on the planet. With that being said, there is a case to be made for ways we can change our own behavior, and the overall behavior of our society to limit impact to our climate, as well as our planet.



We know there are fines for dumping pollution. We also know businesses make billions every year, and some of them dump pollution into our oceans, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to pay for the proper disposal of such pollution. We saw how oil companies shortchanged safety measures and endangered our oceans in pursuit of greater profits, with the recent Horizon oil disaster a few years ago. Even with the fines BP faced, the profits made far outweighed the cost. What is to stop another business from acting the same way? This of course is just one example out of tens of thousands over the last few decades. I am concerned with the short attention-span of the American people, it will take several thousand more examples before actual change occurs. By then the damage done to our environment may be irreversible.



Corporations are not the only culprit in this tragedy. As individuals, Americans waste and consume more natural resources every year. It is estimated by the Natural Resources Defense Council, that 10 percent of the total energy we use, 50 percent of the land , and over 80 percent of the freshwater consumed in the United States is used every year to put food on our tables. Of this, 40 percent of the food goes uneaten, which translates to roughly 20 pounds of food, per person, per month. This is significant, when you think about the impact to our environment to produce this food, as well as for the disposal of what is left to rot. I think we can safely say this is a travesty on an epic scale, yet we allow our society to continue on a path, which promises to increase our consumption and waste.



At some point, we all have to face the fact we are borrowing from the natural resources of our environment and leaving a debt to our children, which they will be unable to repay. That debt may have a greater impact, than our children will be able to successfully navigate, and it may happen a lot sooner than we realized. Look at glaciers in Greenland, which have stood for thousands of years, withering away under our changing climate. Natural habitats in the Arctic Circle are eroding under increased temperatures. Large chunks of Antarctica are breaking off and falling into the ocean, which threatens to raise sea levels: the consequences of this would be catastrophic for millions of people living in areas near or at sea level. Finally, we can look at climate reports over the last year alone for information showing an increase in global temperatures. Last year was considered to be the hottest on record, according to a recent Huffington Post article citing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.



It is true our planet goes through periods of climate transition between cooling and heating periods; however, the overwhelming research gathered points directly toward human behaviors which have an impact on our environment are contributing factors for the dramatic changes happening in our climate. Severe storms such as last year’s hurricane Sandy, or Hurricane Katrina are examples of potential impact due to Climate Change.  So long as the financial incentives are geared toward consumption and profit, Businesses as well as wasteful consumers will continue to act accordingly, and the problem will get worse. Removing financial incentives and making overproduction and pollution cost prohibitive through legal, tax, and regulatory means, while promoting responsible production methods, such as resource replenishment, conservation, and afforestation programs like the one Infosys created, will bring us toward a more sustainable future and lessen our impact on the environment.



We have a duty to leave our children a world they can live and thrive in. So long as our society condones the ideal that greed is good, pursuit of profit over safety and security of our future is acceptable, and those who conduct themselves in a way contrary to the public interest are held to a different standard and allowed to pollute and consume, we will never be able to counter the impact of these forces on our environment, our climate, or our future. We need to fundamentally change the way we operate as a society and move away from a profit-consumption based model into something more sustainable; Otherwise, there won't be a future left for our children worth living in.

Finding Solutions for Economic Sustainability

This post originated on January 2nd, 2013. Unfortunately, it was accidentally deleted by, yours truly. I've since rewritten it, and share it with you once again. My apologies.



As many of you probably know, or will soon figure out I am not an economist. I'm an average girl, who looks at the world in her own unique way. I'm not a puppet of any ideology, even my own. So when I hear politicians and pundits speak about Solutions for Economic Sustainability, I immediately tune them out because I know they are beholden to their ideological beliefs, rather than interested in actual common sense solutions. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum. You can't spend your way to sustainability, and you can't unregulated your way there either. Having worked in the private sector my entire adult life, first in Banking, then Information Technology, and finally as a business manager, I have a view of these types of problems from the ground up.



Here are a few rather simplistic, but quite effective solutions, which could be implemented and help grow the economy. Sending Jobs Overseas; this should be a relatively simple fix. The best way to prevent corporations from sending jobs overseas, is to make it cost prohibitive for them to engage in the practice in the first place. Extraordinarily high tax rates on companies who send jobs overseas, or use contract workers in replace of full/part time employees to subvert labor laws. Some of you may ask, what then would stop these businesses from picking up and moving overseas? Well the answer is nothing; however, you could also impose steep tariffs on such companies who then try to do business with the United States. Remember the best way to effect a change in corporate behavior is to aim for their bottom line. These actions would also promote small business growth, as small businesses who hire locally would receive tax incentives, while companies who outsource would be penalized. Corporations should exist to serve the public interest, just as much as they serve their shareholders. Tax and Tariff laws can be used to compel them to support economic growth. This first step should increase available work within the United States, including high quality jobs. As a Second to that, I would say limit visa applications for high tech employment in the United States and give Americans priority over such positions.



Now this position will not completely eliminate the problems surrounding corporate responsibility to the public interest. Businesses will still continue to shortchange both employees and customers, in an effort to maximize profits. During the last election season I noticed how President Obama was taking a beating over the unemployment rate, as well as lackluster job growth. I found it strange how big business, who has overtly aligned itself with the Republican Party platform, was directly responsible for the lack of quality hiring, as well as the continued layoffs despite record profits. These businesses had a financial motivation to keep the economy suppressed, because it benefited them politically in supporting Republican candidates. Employers telling employees how they should vote, and threatening to fire them if President Obama was reelected, went a step further to show the politicizing of businesses, making the prospects of future election meddling by big business a frightening thought. Regulation would go a long way toward solving this particular wrinkle; However, I think it goes a step beyond that. We need a constitutional amendment, defining corporations and legal, business entities, not persons.



The next thing we can do to guide our economy toward sustainability is fix the Education System in the United States. I don't mean hodge-podge changes, state by state. I am talking about across the board standards set at the federal level, as well as full funding for academic programs. Instead of millions of dollars going to professional athletes, specifically tailored heavy taxes on professional sports could be used to help fund a National educational system. Since education has a history of being sacrificed for athletic programs, the least we could do is try to balance the equation by ensuring that teachers are paid appropriately for the work they do. The higher quality of an education we can provide to our children, the more productive those children will be when they enter the workforce and economy.



In addendum, I would also say secondary education should not be for-profit. A for-profit entity is concerned only for its bottom line, not for the quality of services provided; Additionally, for-profit education leads to a greater degree of post-graduate debt, which can become a further drag on the overall economy. Secondary Education should be affordable to all those who wish to attend. We should offer free Bachelor’s Degree tuition to those who are willing to enter into civic service. Instead of soldiers getting a GI Bill, their education should be paid for at the school of their choice. Graduate degrees should be paid for, to those veterans who decide to reenlist. Each of these potential solutions are designed to improve the ability to access further education. Right now we have fallen behind most other western nations in education, yet we still claim to be a superpower. Unfortunately, the current trend has been to further cut education, which is detrimental to our society over the long term. Helping out citizens educate themselves, provides for a more intelligent and productive workforce.



Healthcare is another area, where we fail to realize the benefits of investment. Yes, I know Obamacare changed a lot of things, but it didn't change some of the things that really needed changed. First, Healthcare should be completely non-profit. This includes mental health.  For-profit healthcare is not interested in the quality of care given to patients, or their quality of life. All for-profit cares about is profit. This seems like an antithetical position to take when you are talking about nurses, doctors, hospitals, and healthcare. If healthcare came directly out of our taxes to the government, and in return we did not have to pay a dime out of pocket, the financial burdens associated with healthcare for individuals would be gone. People would be free to use their finances to help grow the economy, rather than be crushed under a mountain of debt. If healthcare was completely paid for by the government, and completely non-profit, emphasis could be placed on cures, treatments, and preventative measures, as opposed to palliatives. Currently it is more profitable to treat a problem, than it is to cure it. With a public system, the emphasis would be on ways to reduce costs and maximize preventative care. For-profit healthcare loses money on preventative care.  I included mental health at the beginning of this, because I have seen the sorry state of our mental health system in the United States. These people need help and many could be productive members to society, if given the right treatment and level of care. These changes should also contribute a significant cost savings, as the profits will be reinvested, instead of going into a Swiss bank account.



Another issue that would promote economic sustainability is reducing prison populations, thereby reducing prison expenses. This could be done by shifting our national priorities away from the current human warehousing policies, toward a rehabilitative, structured, and managed reform and release program. Making sure people get a quality education, are taught appropriate life skills, helping newly incarcerated individuals by segregating them from hard-core felons, so as not to inadvertently train a new class of hard-core felons. Reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenses and focusing additional resources toward rehabilitative services. The amount of money saved with this new approach, will outweigh the investments needed.



I understand that many of these ideas cost money; however, if you ask most average people whether or not they would prefer to never again have to worry about medical bills, in exchange for a flat tax rate to pay for it, most people would be glad to not have those medical worries again. If you asked people whether or not they think healthcare should be for-profit and designed to drain your pocketbook, instead of non-profit and focused on actual healthcare, I think they would safely say healthcare. We all know education is important, but we place more emphasis on professional sports as a society. Professional sports are the modern day coliseum, meant to distract us from our daily lives. Using a Sports tax, to pay for quality education would mean the next big superstar will have a world class education, paid for by their future careers in professional sports. Eliminating tax loopholes on corporations that send jobs overseas, and using selective taxes, as well as tariff's will also generate revenue and promote job growth here at home; in addition, many of these ideas are designed to show significant cost savings, by removing the profit from the pockets of the wealthy and putting it back into the coffers of the taxpayers. These solutions may not be the most popular, and they may not have the political support necessary to pass; however, they are common sense solutions for making our economy sustainable.

The Importance of Social Competency

An expected part of growth in all human beings includes a level of social competency, where children develop and possess the social, intellectual, and emotional behaviors appropriate for integration into a society. Children who do not develop a healthy level of social competence have problems throughout their life in a variety of life skill areas. Without appropriate social skills a person may experience trouble in the areas of employment, daily living skills, independent living and participating in the community. A surprising number of employers have also claimed that social competency is more important to them than actual experience, during hiring decisions (Mellard & Hazel, 1992). 


Social competency is integrated into the intellectual and emotional development of children; as children grow and develop it is expected their level of social competency will evolve with their age. Learning disabilities, or physical disabilities could contribute to a deficit in social competency, especially if social integration is not a key ingredient in a treatment plan. Research indicates that the majority of children with a learning disability such as a deficiency in social competency need more time than average to encode and produce information in a variety of educational and social situations (Mellard & Hazel, 1992). A child may conversely be intelligent beyond the norm for their age; however, lack in appropriate social skills for their age. A child may be well grounded emotionally, but have intellectual deficits, which impair their ability to encode new information. They may find it difficult to assimilate appropriately into social situations. Because Social competency is tied to emotional and intellectual development, in concert with social development it has the potential for affecting all three areas of growth. 


Bronfenbrenners systems of development are based in the concept of childhood development affected by nurturing and environment. According to Bronfenbrenners concept of Microsystems, the child's relationship with their parents is bi-directional and this interaction lays the framework for the social aspect of social competence (Bukatko, 2008). A parent’s belief system for example, may have a direct impact on the child's belief system; positive parenting approach could foster appropriate emotional development in a child. A safe support structure and parental involvement in the child's education could assist the child with their intellectual development; all of which are aspects of social competence.





Interactions in a school or community setting at the microsystem level only involve their immediate environment such as; pre-school classroom, or day-care provider. These environments are extensions of the parent-child dynamic and start out with only a small number of people. The interactions a child has with these caregivers impacts the child's growth in all areas of social competency. Because the Child's relationship is bi-directional with caregivers, a child's actions or reactions to others affect how they are treated. Children given positive encouragement and interaction may learn to have a better sense of self-esteem, which would impact their emotional development; conversely, a child given little stimulation may end up lacking in intellectual development. These interactions from the beginning stages of life begin the child's foundation for eventual assimilation into society through adaptation to their social environment, by stimulating the child's growth and development, and according to Piaget provide opportunities for the child to develop their knowledge through social experience. According to Piaget, adult-child relationships influence all aspects of development, but this also applies to child-peer relationships.


As a child develops their Cognitive, Emotional, and Social skills, learns new behaviors, and implements those behaviors through interactions with others, they move from the microsystem stage to the mesosystem stage, where other parts of the microsystem start working together (Bukatko, 2008). This can occur through interactions between the parents and school on the child's behalf where a parent and teacher work together and serve as conduits of learning for the child. A child's development begins to depend on more than just their parents or caregivers. Children may learn through their peers, or grandparents, whereas in the microsystem stage the child would have a limited realm of their immediate environment. 


Social competency becomes even more necessary for the developing child at the mesosystem stage, because their education and development starts to come from multiple avenues, not just those in their immediate environment. A child who has self-esteem issues, for example, may have a hard time forming new social relationships with peers or acquaintances. This hinders their ability to develop their social skills, and can lead to depression or anxiety issues, which in turn would impact their intellectual development. A child's level of social competency becomes more pronounced and if not addressed could lead to significant developmental delays for the child. The interactions a child has with immediate caregivers in the microsystem stage as opposed to the mesosystem stage is essentially the same; the only real differences between the two are that the child has expanded the base from which they seek out knowledge from others. Having strong structural supports with caregivers, healthy and positive interactions, as well as frequent social engagement will help a child maintain a healthy level of social competency, even as the base of societies influence on their development grows.



Piaget focused on the child's social development as a sociomoral development where the child starts out from anomy, where there is no regulation, to heteronomy which is regulation by others, to autonomy where the child is able to self-regulate their own social behavior. He believed that children are given moral rules to follow by others as they develop and eventually learn how to practice impulse control or the ability to control one's own behavior, which eventually leads to adulthood and autonomy. While Piaget was discussing the topic of morality, this is still an important concept, as it relates to social competency. Piaget's theory regarding sociomoral development is based on the premise of a child learning rules established by others, following those rules, and eventually learning how to create their own rules of appropriate behavior within a social context. If a child does not have a level of social competency equal to their level of development, they may not be able to follow rules established by others, either through a lack of social skills, intellectual delays in their development, or emotional disturbances, which prevent them from functioning on a level parallel to their peers. The model of sociomoral development put forth by Piaget does address the parent-child, child-peer relationship as the basis for social development and recognizes the roles cognitive development and emotional development play in social development. Piaget (1926), also believed that intelligent thought and behavior evolved through the experience of discussion, negotiation, and conflict, especially in the company of peers.


The reason why I chose to focus on social competency as today’s topic, was due to my perception of the lack of attention paid to social competency when working with children who have exceptional needs. As a society we address behaviors before academics in school settings, and we address academics before social development, because we expect children to develop appropriate social skills by going through school and interacting with their peers, teachers and family. Sometimes we overlook the importance of the social needs of children, because it is an obvious area where a child takes the reins of responsibility once they become school-aged. They move on to form friendships as they advance academically, find new interests, and assimilate into society. Some children whose emotional needs are not met, who may have learning deficits or delays, or who may have negative social relationships with caregivers, will not be able to automatically form healthy and appropriate relationships with others. 


Schools are not currently equipped to address these issues, as we see frequently in the news with regards to bullying; Furthermore, cuts in education spending relegate Exceptional Needs Children to the back burner of school district priorities, while elevating revenue generating activities such as sporting programs. Children with a low social competency level may preclude themselves from the opportunities of experiencing peer interaction, negotiation, persuasion, and conflict that influence the growth and development of social-cognitive and social skills (Piaget, 1970). Social competency affects not only the development of the child, but their ability to learn valuable life skills, which are necessary to be successful adults in life.

References

Bukatko, D. (2008). Child and adolescent development: a chronological approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Mellard, 


D. F. & Hazel, J. S. (1992). Social competencies as a pathway to successful life transitions. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15, 251-271.


Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Routlege and Kegan Paul.



Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology, (3rd ed., Vol. 1) NewYork: Wiley. 

A Social Networking Experiment

Several weeks ago, I created a Petition on the White House, We the People petition site. The purpose of this petition, as it states is to promote and support the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pretty straightforward. It is a legitimate petition; however, promoting the Equal Rights Amendment was not the only reason I had for creating the petition. I wanted to conduct an experiment, to see how effective social networking could be for the average, everyday user of such media.

Initially my thoughts on Social Networking were; everything you post will be shared around the world, things can go viral if you post it enough times and in enough places where people visit frequently, and people who are exposed to overwhelmingly popular causes and who have a vested interest in said cause will be more likely to join. All Assumptions, not quite as cut and dry as I first thought. To Date, my petition has been shared with all the heavy hitting social groups such as; PFLAG, Equality Now, GLAAD, HRC, Democratic Party on Facebook, as well as over a hundred other groups, pages, and popular causes with a vested interest. This has effectively exposed the petition to millions of people, yet 2 weeks after it was created only 48 people signed it.

While it is true, what you post on Social Networking sites such as Google+, or Facebook can and does sometimes go global, the likelihood of an average user creating new material which goes viral is low. People seem to have developed a gloss-over effect, when it comes to content on social networking sites. Unless they are specifically looking for information or updates, people are less likely to pay attention and more likely to skim over content. This makes attractive attention to a particular post, problematic. So many garbage posts have been introduced through social media, the tendency of people to tune out information has grown at an increasing rate, leaving legitimate posts in the proverbial bin.

I really thought the people who have a vested interest in Equal Rights, and who claim to be activists would easily pick up on the petition and run with it, promoting, sharing, and engaging others to get involved. To me this seemed like the low hanging fruit. Not only was this assumption wrong, to my surprise very few people who claim to be activists working for Equal Rights, even bothered to sign the petition and almost no one shared it. I'm still a little shocked by this last bit, but in a way it kind of makes sense. If you look at various Equality groups, LGBT support groups and the like, and you look at their subscribers and members, you will probably find that many people who claim to be activists supporting said causes, are only labeling themselves such because they think it will enhance their social profile; however, they are not activists in the sense of the word one would expect. When you look at it from this angle, the failure of assumptions made about Social Networking become clearer.

Most people who use Social Networking sites, do so because they want to create a social profile they believe others will find appealing, regardless of whether or not it is entirely true. People who have never held a picket sign, joined a petition, or participated in an assembly, can become die hard activists for a variety of causes, without actually doing anything for the cause. People can be experts at anything or everything, because they watched MacGyver, or Chef's because they know how to boil water on the stove. While it is true, a lot of people use Social Networking to connect with friends and family, the ability to create a persona on the Internet has made hyperbole the new norm, and allowed people to create and share with the world who we wish we really were, instead of who we really are. I wonder if we will ever be able to go back to the realism that existed in everyday life, prior to the Internet.

Obstacles in the Field of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Every day in the United States people suffer from degenerative diseases and mind wasting maladies. Many of these people look to embryonic stem cell research as a last hope for recovery, since medical science today cannot find cures or solutions to these illnesses. The field of embryonic stem cell research has many obstacles in its path toward progress, which one day may be overcome. Some of these current obstacles include; the conservative ideology against embryonic stem cell research, political interference in the field of stem cell research, and the use of embryonic stem cell research as a political wedge issue.

Conservative ideology see’s embryonic stem cells as human life, due to the fact that the embryos used are fertilized eggs. This may seem like an extreme position to take but conservatives see embryonic stem cell research as simply another extension of the larger abortion issue, both of which deal with the morality of fertilized eggs prior to viability. Until recently conservative policies in place prevented funding for stem cell research and scientists have had to turn toward fertility clinics as a source of embryos for embryonic stem cells. One of these clinics was an in-vitro fertilization clinic, where the modern techniques used for in-vitro fertilization cause the creation of a large portion of leftover embryos that are destroyed, while many are frozen indefinitely or donated to stem-cell research (Kinsley, 2004). Conservative ideological policies such as these are now poised to be overturned by the Democratic majority in the new 2009 congress, according to statements made by President Obama, during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Another obstacle in the path of embryonic stem cell research is the political interference coming mainly from the Republican Party. Over the last eight years scientists such as Doug Melton, who works out of Harvard University, have needed to make arrangements with a fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts to collect embryos that have been donated by couples. “Melton, whose two children have juvenile diabetes--a disease he believes could potentially be cured by stem cells--says he tried to use government-approved cell lines ($5,000 per vial) for his research, but he found them difficult to obtain and questioned their quality.” (Kelb, 2004).

In 2005, New Jersey Governor James McGreevy announced the creation of a New Jersey Stem Cell Institute, which will cost $50 Million over the next five years and will be funded by the state (“Hype,” 2005). The reason private institutions and state governments need to take these actions is due to the lack of federal funding for the field of stem cell research. Countries such as Korea, China, and Russia currently permit stem cell research. The restrictions that are placed on scientists in the United States only hurt our ability to be competitive and innovative in this new and growing field of medical science. Instead of being a world leader in the breakthroughs of embryonic stem cell research, we are looking backwards and allowing other nations to take up the mantle of research.

The one of the last obstacles to the advancement of embryonic stem cell research in the United States would be the use of stem cell research as a political wedge issue; this is most pronounced during an election year, where a Republican and a Democrat run against each other. In many ways the reason this becomes a wedge issue is because the core base of the Republican Party is made up of conservative ideologues. Embryonic stem cell research becomes a red meat issue, which Republicans can bring up during an election to galvanize their base for more money and support.

The fact that this is a field of medical science, which could potentially cure or ease the suffering of thousands of people, is under attack by a theistic, rigid, and ideological part of our society, who attempt to assign rights to embryos as though they were human beings. This ideological opposition does not stop at stem cell research, as witnessed when former President Bush, handpicked Leon Kass to be the chairman of his bioethics panel in January 2002. “Kass has problems with, among other things, dissection of cadavers, organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, body shops, laboratory fertilization, surrogate wombs, gender-change surgery," he wrote in his book "Toward a More Natural Science.” (Salon, 2004).

I think that until we come to a point in our society where we say enough and stop putting political agendas and conservative ideological views above the medical needs of human beings, people will continue to languish and suffer. Political interference in stem cell research, conservative ideological arguments, and the use of stem cell research as a political wedge issue may continue in the short-term, but I think with the new Democratic Congress and White House we may see a turn of the tide in this important field of medical research.

References

Hype over experience. (2005, September). Economist, 376(8445), pp. 80-80.

Kelb, C. (2004, March). Brand-new stem cells. Newsweek, 143(11). 

Kinsley, M. (2004, May). The false controversy of stem cells. Time Magazine,  

            163(22). 

Manjoo, F (2004). Thou shalt not make scientific progress. Salon.com, (2). Retrieved

            February 8, 2009 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/03/25/stem_cells/index.html

I've Decided You CAN Get Married - Updated

In the 1990's, the United States congress passed the Defense of Marriage act, attempting to stop gay marriage from being legalized by the courts. This law was responsible for making marriage other than between one man and one woman illegal, and unrecognizable under federal law. It went further to remove the recognition of states who chose to legalize same-sex marriage, or civil unions and their benefits to same-sex couples. The Defense of Marriage act was and has been unchallenged for much of the last decade, until recently.

Through court decisions, states like Massachusetts and Utah have overturned opposition to Gay Marriage, ruling it unconstitutional to bar through law due to its violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Other Federal court systems have begun weighing in on the issue and appear to lean toward Marriage Equality. The first reason for this is simple; Marriage is a civil and secular institution. You need a license to marry in all 50 states, meaning marriage is enshrined through law in the legal system and does not require any religion to exist. While religious marriage does exist it is not necessarily a part of or a parcel to civil marriage. Atheists and other non-religious people are free to marry, through a Justice of the Peace, or District Magistrate in all states. Since each state regulates the distribution of marriage licenses, this is a further example of the separation between religious marriage and civil marriage.

These attempts to restrict marriage to one man, one woman unions has met with uncertainty by Federal courts who cite the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; furthermore, it goes on to state, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."(US, 1868). Courts have held this to mean the civil privileges of marriage are not to be denied, and states such as California are not allowed to bar same-sex couples from marriage rights. The Massachusetts Supreme court ruling in 2006, as well as the recent Federal judge ruling in California both support the legality of same-sex marriage as a right.

Our founding fathers also supported a right to happiness, by enshrining this phrase in the preamble of our countries constitution; the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gay Americans like all Americans have the fundamental right to select their own partners in life, regardless of gender. This is a concept sometimes forgotten by religious ideologues who wish to push their religious beliefs on others; they commonly use religious arguments to justify their legal opposition to same-sex marriage. These arguments often lack substance and are merely references to religious texts written thousands of years ago.

Christianity in the United States has taken up the torch of this new crusade in particular, as their texts and teachings are the common bell weather arguments about the low morality of homosexuality and homosexuals. They quote the scriptures such as Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. While this may exist in the Christian Bible as text, it is often cited by those who commonly ignore or overlook other verses located before and after it, which include; selling a daughter into slavery, the condemnation of eating shellfish, or wearing clothes made with different types of cloth. This ability to selectively choose verses in Leviticus, which only suit your ideological viewpoint, represents an improper appeal to authority; furthermore not all people are Christian, and appealing to Christian Biblical authority implies one would have to believe in Christianity. As non-Christians will attest, Christian ideology is not a tangible authority in a logical argument.

Doctor Halsall at Fordham University has studied Native American Societies and LGBT history in particular, and teaches on the subject. This research has uncovered acceptance of homosexuality as a natural occurrence by some Native American Societies. It was even possible for some tribes to allow children to choose their own gender, with full integration into the tribe as a member of their chosen gender(Halsall, 2007). This forward-thinking viewpoint is important because it shows our society, which is a melting pot of culture and diversity, has the ability to overcome Puritanical Christian thinking.

In fact many of the evangelical Christian moral arguments against Gay Marriage echo the same arguments against Interracial Marriage in the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era, many white Americans felt interracial marriage should be outlawed as well; that it was also an abomination. As a society even today there are times when interracial couples encounter resistance in society. These moral arguments are typically overturned with time, as people become more educated and aware of diverse cultures. Christianity may currently stand against Gay Marriage, although Pagan's and Wiccan's completely embrace this natural diversity. The moral argument really then becomes an argument of religious viewpoints, and because of freedom of religion in America, Christianity does not have a monopoly on the law.

This doesn't stop Christian Opposition, as well as some secular opposition to same sex marriage from making the claims that Homosexuality is unnatural. You hear the common phrase Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; however, research into this subject does not concur with that statement. Dr. Kinsey of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction pioneered studies into human sexual behavior. What Kinsey found was that individuals fall along a continuum of sexuality ranging from complete heterosexuality, to complete homosexuality. This theory became the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale and is still used today.

The Kinsey scale is based on the concept that all human beings fall along a continuum of sexual orientation, from extreme heterosexuality, to extreme homosexuality. Kinsey's scale is used to help explain the phenomena of Bisexuality, as well the ability of some straight and gay individuals to be able to change sexual orientation roles. This theory does not address the larger issue of genetic factors, which cause homosexuality; however, Kinsey's research suggests that both Adam and Eve, as well as Adam and Steve are equally plausible and normal(Kinsey, 2010).

Research has also been done in the animal kingdom to try and understand the nature of sexuality. The University of California did a comprehensive study on several different species of animal's which showed the integration of same-sex behavior into their respective societies. Same-sex behavior was not only a universal trait in the animal kingdom, scientists also theorize it may be a product of Natural Selection. Male Bottle Nose Dolphins, for example, engage in same sex interactions to facilitate group bonding. The female Laysan Albatross can remain pair bonded for life to another female and cooperatively rear offspring. These examples are not indicative of a lifestyle choice, but serve a fundamental purpose within their respective populations. In order to believe that homosexuality is an unnatural lifestyle choice, we are forced to also believe that animals have the cognitive ability to make that choice(Riverside, 2009). Other studies done on the Bonobo Ape's of Africa were documented displaying bisexual behavior, across 90% of the entire species. This is important, due to the Nature arguments used against homosexual behavior, claiming homosexual behavior is unnatural. In this instance we have an entire natural species, who exhibit sexual behavior resembling Kinsey's theory.

The reason why this becomes important with regard to Kinsey's theory, is due to the lack of social stigma associated with homosexual behavior, among the Bonobo Ape's, as well as the natural acceptance of such behavior by the species overall. In contrast it could be argued, Human beings create stigma's on homosexuality and demonize the behavior; thereby, forcing people the majority of people through peer pressure to choose one orientation or the other, when most people may naturally fall somewhere in the middle.

This is important to all of us because we each take for granted our own liberties in the United States. We forget we have the right to choose our life partner, or the government has a duty to apply laws and privileges equally to us all. We have forgotten that religiously backed laws create a religious infringement on civil liberties. Not everyone is a Christian, therefore all laws based on Christianity, force others to follow Christian beliefs. The government does not have a role or the authority to interfere in the relationships of private, consenting, loving, adults. It is also constitutionally bound against allowing any one religious institution from dictating law to the rest of the country. If Christians had the authority to regulate marriage as they saw fit, where would the line be; Gay marriage, or perhaps only marriages of Christians. Would pagan handfastings become illegal as well? This isn't a slippery slope, but a very real possibility when you give control of the legal system over to any one religious belief system.

If my religious beliefs were responsible for creating laws and I decided to target marriages and relationships my beliefs did not agree with, there would be outrage and condemnation from everyone who is not of my faith. It would also be an infringement on the rights of everyone. This is what has happened to the issue of same-sex marriage in America. A civil, secular, legal construct which stands separate from religion is regulated by people who apply their own religious ideological standard to the legal system. There are talk of public opinion polls and how public opinion is split on the issue, just as it was during the civil rights era with interracial marriage. This does not mean individual rights should be subject to popular approval; popular approval today could mean popular disapproval tomorrow when someone Else's rights are at stake.

If one day it is decided that people over 30 are not allowed to marry, because they are moving beyond their peak years of reproduction and as a society we don't want to encourage older parenting, as well as scientific evidence which shows older parents have a higher rate of birth defects with their offspring, would we as a society accept these imposed social rules? No, most likely we would not allow our society to dictate terms to us, which interfere with the free exercise of our rights; yet this is what happens each day Gay Marriage is held back and marriage equality is not achieved. If complete strangers who are not a part of your life are affected by your private life, and are enabled through law to make different rules for you, you in effect have no rights. Civil Marriage rights are for everyone and are not subject to popular approval under the constitution, perhaps our society needs to catch up with the constitution on this issue.

 ~ Updated 6/29/15

On June 26th, 2015 The United States Supreme Court upheld that bans on Same-sex marriages were unconstitutional, thereby making Marriage Equality the law of the land. Though many of us were skeptical of seeing Marriage Equality achieved within our lifetime, and the very real possibility exists of a Federal Constitutional Amendment being pushed in the future should the GOP gain even more power, for right now, in this moment we can say Marriage Equality has arrived. 

References

Bible, (2010). King James Bible [Electronic Edition]. (Leviticus 18:22), Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=407964

Halsall, P. (2007). People with a history: an online guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans history [Online Edition]. (Native American Societies), Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-am.html#c17

Kinsey, (2009, March). Kinsey's heterosexual-homosexual rating scale. Retrieved October  12, 2010, from The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction Web site: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html#what

Owens, J (2004, July, 23). Homosexual activity among animals stirs debate. National Geographic News, Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

University of California - Riverside (2009, June 17). Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

US Government. (1868). 14th amendment. United States Constitution

The Equal Rights Amendment

What is the Equal Rights Amendment? To put it simply, it is the natural extension of equal rights based on sex, similar to the extension of equal rights based on race. Doesn't sound very controversial, I mean women today are allowed to own property, have careers, participate in government, vote, etc. Why then would we need the Equal Rights Amendment? A not so long time ago, we were not allowed to vote, were excluded from participating in government, even today glass ceilings exist for women in society. We make up a little over half the population, but have never held either the office of President or Vice-President. It has only been in the last 30 years, women have been confirmed to the Supreme Court, and it wasn't until 2007 before a woman was voted in as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

When a man runs for political office, no one considers how his gender will affect his ability to represent the people; however, a woman is scrutinized for a myriad of reasons, unrelated to her ability to do the job, but directly related to the fact she is a woman. Recently in Iowa, an all-male Supreme Court ruling stated, a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant he found irresistibly attractive. So apparently, through no fault of your own, if your boss can't control themselves you can be legally fired. It is for situations like this, which are really happening all across the country, the Equal Rights Amendment was originally proposed.

Many women today take for granted the way women are treated in our society today. I am engaged to a woman who doesn't vote, and I remind her frequently how we didn't have that right for 144 years; furthermore, it took 30 years for the Amendment to be Ratified after it was first introduced. This shows our society has a long and sordid history of discriminating against women. Unfortunately, the only way we will secure rights is by fighting for them.

Currently, a White House petition is available asking President Obama to Support and Advance the Equal Rights Amendment, originally introduced in 1972. The Amendment fell 3 states shy of ratification by 1982, when the deadline expired; however, legal experts have determined this deadline could be further extended to allow for additional ratification's. This approach has been termed, the three-state strategy.

The three-state strategy is a legal argument, stating the earlier 35 state ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment remain valid, and only 3 more states are needed for ratification, without congress resubmitting the Amendment to state lawmakers. Rescission's of earlier Ratification's were found to be unconstitutional. The deadline expiration is not without it's own precedent. Previously expired deadlines have been extended by congress on prior Amendments, as an example The Twenty-Seventh Amendment took more than 202 years to ratify.

The hope with this petition has been for President Obama to lobby congress and the states to extend the deadline or remove it, and to advocate for Ratification. Given the Election of 2012, the support women voters gave to the Obama Campaign, as well as the Presidents own record on woman's issues, with his support it is possible the Equal Rights Amendment will be successful. Maybe one day, in the distant future if the human race has not destroyed itself, issues such as equal rights will be a non-issue as humanity will assume that is the way it has always been. Until then, the only way we will secure equality is by fighting for it, every single day!

Gun Control Issue for the Masses

The issue is about both Gun Control, and the idiots who abuse their right to bare arms. Let's break it down from both sides; You have firearm manufacturers who are producing and distributing millions of guns per year, for sale in the United States. At the same time you have over 250 million guns in the United States already. If I were a smart woman, and I am, I would say this is probably a big reason for the easy access to firearms by people who are incompetent, homicidal, or both. To put a very fine point on it, guns are everywhere and more are manufactured every year.

Law's surrounding the ability to acquire and possess firearms vary like a patchwork quilt across the United States. From states where you can purchase guns without background checks, to states where there are so many restrictions for some it would be cost prohibitive, there is absolutely no uniformity of law regarding firearm acquisition and possession. Lobby Ideologues like the NRA or Handgun-Free America, Inc who are diametrically opposed to one another leave no room for a common sense middle ground on the issue. In turn the politicians they solicit, the political parties that support them in their party platforms, or the millions of mindless ideological automatons who follow one political party or another are unable to come to a middle ground of common sense on the issue.

Recent statements by the NRA said, "We should have armed police/security in every single school". The first thing I thought is Great, just what we need trigger happy TSA-style cops or rent-a-cop's, patrolling the schools and bullying students. I guess we should make kids wear uniforms, have identical haircuts, and read from government-approved conservative propaganda too, and go the whole hog while we are at it. A US style Hitlerjugend. Now I understand my Hyperbolic tirade aside, the Hitlerjugend was overdoing it, but the sentiment is very real. Do we really need to take the step of a police state by bringing armed people into our schools. We already criminalize everything, all this is going to do is cause unnecessary problems between a gung-ho Pat Garrett and a kid who is being a kid. For the NRA to put out this kind of statement, highlights their refusal to find a common sense solution to the very real problem of gun violence.

I see the problem like this; there are to many guns, available to too many people who are not responsible enough, or mentally competent enough to possess them. Guns which should be available only to military-style forces, are readily available to these people, and handguns are so prevalent I'm surprised we don't trip and fall over the sheer number of them. Yes, some criminals have guns, that is why law enforcement carries firearms. Yes, responsible and mentally competent gun people should have the ability to possess firearms, for defense. Yes, hunters should be allowed hunting rifles. Yes, concealed carry permits should be allowed to those who are competent and responsible. Most liberals understand these points and do not take exception to them.

Part of the problem is groups like the NRA who push for legislation to make purchasing and owning a gun so easy, irresponsible or mentally incompetent people are able to acquire weapons, and either themselves or their children then use those weapons inappropriately. Most people are not taught respect for firearms, and many people who own firearms do not take the proper precautions to ensure their arms are locked up appropriately. Another part of the problem is an ideology which refuses to find common sense, middle ground compromises on the issue.

The issue of Children using weapons, is the responsibility of the parents who should monitor their children's activities, and properly secure their firearms. Adults who commit crimes with guns, should never have been allowed to purchase guns in the first place, and a lax system of laws has made it far too easy for these people to do this. Gun companies should not be producing millions of guns per year and distributing them for sale, when there are already hundreds of millions of guns available.

I personally own a rifle, and plan to acquire a LTCF in my state. I enjoy visiting a local gun range and sampling different firearms, and have had training to use various firearms from the Military. I don't agree this issue has to be all or nothing and I've given it serious thought. I think there are Common sense things we can do to minimize incidents of gun violence.

For starters; Ammunition should be strictly controlled and monitored: if bullets are more difficult to obtain it may help deter the next shooter. This doesn't mean bullets should be impossible to get, but we could treat the sale of ammunition in a similar way to the way we treat the sale of Sudafed, or the way we monitor the prescription of narcotic pain killers. Gun Amnesty programs should be in every county in the country, with appropriate and genuine positive reinforcements to encourage participation. Getting excess firearms off the streets goes a long way toward reducing gun violence.

The Penal system should be overhauled, taken away from a privatized for-profit system, and be designed and geared toward rehabilitative services, rather than human warehousing; Similarly, The mental health system in the United States should also be overhauled, taken away from a privatized for-profit system which medicates people, and dumps them on the corner, while making off like a one-armed bandit on their insurance or off the taxpayers dime. Address the real issues surrounding mental health and make sure these people are taken care of and cared for.

People should not be allowed to own AR15's, AK47's, M16's or other assault weapons, unless that person is a veteran, works in law enforcement, or has a background in tactical weapons training. These weapons are designed to inflict multiple casualties, not to hunt animals; Therefore, they have no place in civilian life in the hands of people who are not properly trained to handle them.

It is also important to note; Personal Responsibility plays a part in this discussion as well. People who own firearms and do not keep them properly secured, out of the reach of children are as culpable as the child, when that child takes their weapon and uses it. Parents who do not properly monitor their children's activities, who claim they had no idea what was going on are as culpable as the child. Remember folks, Children are not fully mentally developed, they may have a knowledge of Right and Wrong from their own perspective; However, there are differences in the way children view potential consequences compared to Adults. While they do have to accept responsibility for their actions, treating them the same as you would an adult is antithetical to a just and enlightened society.

There you have it Folks, it is what it is.