My friend wrote me about some of her experiences in supporting Proposition 8 in California. Unfortunately, she and many church members have experienced great opposition, hatred, and even attacks as a result of their views. I had no idea the level of persecution many church members have been experiencing in California as a result of their views. She invited me to post her thoughts on my blog:
Our bishop and his wife have a gay son and I have so much respect for them. They stood up for the Proposition with all their might, knowing the ramifications it would and did have on their relationship with their son and his current partner. Lines were drawn in families in ways you cannot imagine. And neighbors, oh my gosh! Our friends canvassed our neighborhood back in early September and it was frightful. It is not that you do not want to stand up for it but that people are so cruel about their opposition to something that is at the core of your entire life; your religious freedom and your family! I, for one, was afraid to put out a yard sign but we did it anyway. My husband is a lot braver than me! It was like marking your house for any passers by~friend or foe.
The emotional trauma of so many experiences had most of the women I know crying at some point during these past few weeks on a pretty regular basis. It was a combination of so many factors, exhaustion, fears of retaliation from people who didn't get what we were trying to do. There were lots of nasty people, as we were holding up signs in pouring down weather, phone calling to get people to vote and support Pro8. Then there was Steve Young. Then our CA teachers association which we are required to pay into regularly donated 1 million dollars to NO! And then our public utility company that everyone, by no choice of their own, uses for gas and electricity, (PG&E) did the same. Many other companies and celebrities followed suit. We had members get assaulted, hit, ducking flying objects, having liquids thrown on them, having their kids photographed by "No" supporters. In one case our friends had a bottle of vodka thrown through their living room bay window after steeling their yard sign.
The most disturbing thing about the whole things was the way in which things were twisted to make us all appear to be filled with hate and bigotry towards gays, which could not have been further from the truth. Just like Satan always orchestrates, truth was twisted into lies.
The best thing about the whole thing was standing up in faith, the unity it brought to everyone, and the victory! We prevailed but by the skin of our teeth! I know our experiences were nothing compared to what many have suffered in light of their religious convictions. It was, however, a tiny glimpse into what it must have been like for the early saints and how they mustered the strength in numbers to achieve so much.
I would like it if others could know what really happened here and could prepare for the wave that is coming your way too. Please know it is not because I am being cowardly that I am not putting this on my blog, but because there are people I love that just don't and won't try to understand and I am trying to repair fences and preserve what is left of family and friendships.
We are all so grateful to all the Saints everywhere that supported us and fasted and prayed and sent $ to help in this cause that goes far beyond our borders. We will continue to follow the prophet, gird up our loins, and be ready for the next go-around that has already begun! The watch word over here that I have heard from so many people is, "Hasten the Day" referencing the 2nd coming of Christ. It was like one night you went to bed thinking these are the last days...the next morning you woke up and knew it. It was very dramatic and it was a definite warning for all to get our lives and houses in order. The time is past for waffling, straddling the line, or being lukewarm.
Truth be known, we are kind of weak in these arenas and one of the things that was the most alarming was we were just not prepared for the harshness of the opposition. People that were not here just have no idea how much of an assault we took, individually, for our testimonies. Nor do they know how our constitutional rights were violated with respect to our civil rights of free speech, religious freedom and our rights to parent and teach good values to our children. We just were not prepared but those of you that haven't had this yet can prepare by knowing of some of these experiences we have had.
My favorite Joseph Smith quote has become,
“The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and dependent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah will say, ‘The work is done.'”
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Results of Election Poll
Results of my election poll:
7 Voted for Obama
11 Voted for McCain
1 No-Vote
Everyone, except for one person taking the poll was able to get in to vote in less than an hour. Not bad! Thanks for participating!!! Guess we don't mirror the results found in the nation.
7 Voted for Obama
11 Voted for McCain
1 No-Vote
Everyone, except for one person taking the poll was able to get in to vote in less than an hour. Not bad! Thanks for participating!!! Guess we don't mirror the results found in the nation.
Multiply and Replenish the Earth
Whenever we would hear about multiplying and replenishing the earth, my husband would always say, we have "Multiply" and "Replenish"; Brandon and Ethan, respectively. Well, since then, our family has definately multiplied a bit more with our next 3 additions.
Anyway, as I was thinking about this tight political race, I decided (in jest) that another reason to "multiply and replenish" the earth is to hopefully create more votes along your political lines----although that clearly is not always the case---as many children have differing political views than their parents. But hey, it could make a difference, especially a couple generations out. I think of the posterity of my grandparents on both sides, and it is huge. I can make a fairly good guess what political affiliation is the choice of most of that posterity. Hmmm. Maybe we could try for a couple more children before the next election.
Although, maybe there are better reasons to have children. Hmmmmmmmmm. Just kidding, I have to have some fun on election day!!! Happy Voting!
Anyway, as I was thinking about this tight political race, I decided (in jest) that another reason to "multiply and replenish" the earth is to hopefully create more votes along your political lines----although that clearly is not always the case---as many children have differing political views than their parents. But hey, it could make a difference, especially a couple generations out. I think of the posterity of my grandparents on both sides, and it is huge. I can make a fairly good guess what political affiliation is the choice of most of that posterity. Hmmm. Maybe we could try for a couple more children before the next election.
Although, maybe there are better reasons to have children. Hmmmmmmmmm. Just kidding, I have to have some fun on election day!!! Happy Voting!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Last Chance-----Proposition 8
I found this link on my friend Angie's facebook page, on Preserving Marriage.
Many people I respect and love have put forth strong opinions regarding Proposition 8.There have been fascinating, fabulous discussions on this issue which have occurred on facebook and other blogs. I appreciate the opinions and thoughts from my cousins Tracy, Greg, Zina, Erin, Uncle Tracy, Aunt Betsy and friend Pam.
My cousin Greg said:
Hello Facebook friends, especially those in California. I'd like to take a moment to let you know why I've decided to vote no on Prop 8. I've studied this issue extensively, have considered all the opposing viewpoints, and have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is good for our society. That makes me a bit of a minority among Mormons, considering all the money and time the LDS Church is committing to passing Prop 8. There are others church members who feel the same as I do, however, and you can get a glimpse of them over at the Mormons for Marriage website at http://mormonsformarriage.com. A lot of information is available on that website refuting much of the misinformation being spread by supporters of Prop 8, and for the sake of brevity I won't spend time here dealing with all those points.
Gay marriage extends all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities to gay couples that straight couples enjoy. Marriage is about more than just procreation. It is about creating a lifelong bond built on love and trust. It is the ultimate commitment. Our society is stronger and people are generally happier and more productive when they are in a married relationship. It is also about creating a family - a good environment for raising children. Marriage plays a vital role in the stability of our society and should be a goal for all of us, not just straight people. Children raised by gay couples should grow up knowing that their family is just as important and can be filled with just as much love as any other family. Marriage provides that stability and structure for children raised by gay couples.
Most of the support of Prop 8 is based on fear and a misunderstanding of homosexuality. Being gay is not a choice. It is not a disease that a child catches if they learn in school that some families have same-sex parents. It is not some shameful condition brought about by poor parenting or sexual abuse. Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by straight parents, and are no more likely to be homosexual. Our gay brothers and sisters have spent too much time being maligned and treated as second class citizens. It is time to stand up for what's right and realize that gay families are not a threat to straight families. In fact, allowing gay marriage sends the message that marriage is so important to our society and to our families that we want to extend that right to all couples, gay and straight alike. Marriage is important enough that it should be for everyone.
When people appeal to "traditional marriage", what they're really appealing to is marriage how they want to define it right now. I agree that allowing gay marriage is changing the definition of marriage. But the definition of marriage has been changing for a long time, and usually for the better. Which "traditional" marriage should we be retuning to? Arranged marriages based on family wealth and social standing? Marriage where the woman becomes the man's legal property? Polygamous marriage? The idea of a marriage being an equal partnership between two people who love each other is actually pretty new and is not "traditional" at all. We should now adapt the definition of marriage to include gay couples who wish to make the ultimate commitment to each other. We are finally at a point in our society where we understand that homosexuality is a natural and normal part of the human condition, and we should make sure public policy reflects that reality. I find it disheartening that my church, who years ago were persecuted for their practice of polygamy, are now the aggressors in a fight against a minority group who wants to engage in marriage practices the church disagrees with. I hope someday this will change.
If one of your children is gay, what do you want for them? How do you want them to be treated by society? Do you want to limit their potential happiness by having our society treat them as second class citizens? Do you want to be the cause of that much heartache and pain for them? We need to stop the hatred and the fear, and start healing the wounds that the majority have caused with years and years of mistreatment. Vote NO on 8.
Cousin Tracy said:
My cousin (who disagrees with me) posted a note explaining his views in a way that led to an extended discussion with others that was (precious rarity:) mostly thoughtful and mostly respectful. Here was my own addition to that conversation:
I wish there were a better word than "domestic partnership" for a committed long-term same-sex relationship, and I have no objection to ceremonies marking the phases of such a relationship, up to and including total commitment and mutual faithfulness. But I feel, keenly and deeply, that it does grave injury to civilization in general, and to the English language in particular, if the society-bedrock meaning of the word "marriage" is distorted by forcing it to assume the additional and distinct meaning of an idea still in search of a good word.
If California already provides, by law, the same rights to domestic partnerships as it does to marriages, why is there such a strong desire to change the ancient and obvious meaning of such a crucial word? (To paraphrase Shakespeare: "What's in a word? A domestic partnership by any other name would have the same rights.") If it is the word itself that is the source of the dispute, then the real issue must be one of free speech: specifically, the right, and even the vocabulary, to think and say "I approve of marriage" while also saying "I do not approve of homosexual behavior".
The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of society and has earned a universal respect over thousands of years. I believe that the goal of the most active and vocal opponents of Proposition 8 is to annex and appropriate that same public respect and approval for same-sex unions--in a single stroke, by diktat--and furthermore to silence, by means of the law, anyone who wishes to say that it is wrong. Whether or not they succeed, the evidence shows that this is exactly what these groups have done whenever they have had the opportunity.
Give the practice its own name and let it earn or lose respect and rights on its own terms, on its own merits, by its own track record, and by the unmuzzled voice of the people. Don't take away my words. -Tracy
Laura: My Dad sent me this article by Orson Scott Card that reflected many of the thoughts I have had on this matter:
Orson Scott Card article
Here is another quote I have seen and heard on other sites/blogs which applies:
Elder Neal A. Maxwell spoke about a society that discounts opinions that grow out of religious convictions:
"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years
ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he
will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to
halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many
years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the
Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or
political life.'
"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society
which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being
ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the
prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when
such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious
imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions
grow out of religious convictions.
"Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the
institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes
will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the
choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic
counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems
probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by
what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a
slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was,
till then, unconscious of itself."
Friend Pam wrote:
1. I am annoyed at not being “allowed” by liberal friends to think that gay marriage is off the mark. They label me as hateful and “intolerant” because I want to protect my beliefs from their beliefs. What? I’m supposed to *tolerate* a hostile takeover of my beliefs, and if I don’t, I’m intolerant?
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I will be voting for AZ’s Prop. 102 (the equivalent of CA’s Prop. 8).
2. I am annoyed at being labeled uncompassionate because I believe in protecting babies. I’m “uncompassionate” towards women who have to make “the choice.” That’s incorrect. I’m not without compassion for them. Here’s what I am, though: I am disappointed they didn’t make any number of choices to prevent pregnancy. And I am livid that they want to terminate the lives of the innocent babies who inconvenience them. I am floored that they would rather terminate a child’s existence than donate nine months so that the child may live.
Also, I’ve heard a few women say that they wouldn’t have an abortion, but they support someone’s right to an abortion. That’s like saying that had they lived during the slave trade *they* wouldn’t have owned a slave, but they wouldn’t interfere someone’s *right* to own a slave. Only it’s worse than that, actually. Slavery was “merely” ruining another human’s life. Abortion is *taking* another human’s life, along with any contributions that life might have made to the world.
Here are some of the outcomes of same-gender marriage as shared by cousin Mary:
Outcomes
I always love a good, respectful debate. I love to hear the opinions of others. Feel free to share if you would like----but I understand if you are all Prop 8'd out. A couple days I was feeling that way, after reading through so many thoughts on this issue. Don't be shy---
I guess soon we will find out what happens with all this in California, which may lead the way to change throughout our country! Which is why this is such a critical issue.
Many people I respect and love have put forth strong opinions regarding Proposition 8.There have been fascinating, fabulous discussions on this issue which have occurred on facebook and other blogs. I appreciate the opinions and thoughts from my cousins Tracy, Greg, Zina, Erin, Uncle Tracy, Aunt Betsy and friend Pam.
My cousin Greg said:
Hello Facebook friends, especially those in California. I'd like to take a moment to let you know why I've decided to vote no on Prop 8. I've studied this issue extensively, have considered all the opposing viewpoints, and have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is good for our society. That makes me a bit of a minority among Mormons, considering all the money and time the LDS Church is committing to passing Prop 8. There are others church members who feel the same as I do, however, and you can get a glimpse of them over at the Mormons for Marriage website at http://mormonsformarriage.com. A lot of information is available on that website refuting much of the misinformation being spread by supporters of Prop 8, and for the sake of brevity I won't spend time here dealing with all those points.
Gay marriage extends all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities to gay couples that straight couples enjoy. Marriage is about more than just procreation. It is about creating a lifelong bond built on love and trust. It is the ultimate commitment. Our society is stronger and people are generally happier and more productive when they are in a married relationship. It is also about creating a family - a good environment for raising children. Marriage plays a vital role in the stability of our society and should be a goal for all of us, not just straight people. Children raised by gay couples should grow up knowing that their family is just as important and can be filled with just as much love as any other family. Marriage provides that stability and structure for children raised by gay couples.
Most of the support of Prop 8 is based on fear and a misunderstanding of homosexuality. Being gay is not a choice. It is not a disease that a child catches if they learn in school that some families have same-sex parents. It is not some shameful condition brought about by poor parenting or sexual abuse. Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by straight parents, and are no more likely to be homosexual. Our gay brothers and sisters have spent too much time being maligned and treated as second class citizens. It is time to stand up for what's right and realize that gay families are not a threat to straight families. In fact, allowing gay marriage sends the message that marriage is so important to our society and to our families that we want to extend that right to all couples, gay and straight alike. Marriage is important enough that it should be for everyone.
When people appeal to "traditional marriage", what they're really appealing to is marriage how they want to define it right now. I agree that allowing gay marriage is changing the definition of marriage. But the definition of marriage has been changing for a long time, and usually for the better. Which "traditional" marriage should we be retuning to? Arranged marriages based on family wealth and social standing? Marriage where the woman becomes the man's legal property? Polygamous marriage? The idea of a marriage being an equal partnership between two people who love each other is actually pretty new and is not "traditional" at all. We should now adapt the definition of marriage to include gay couples who wish to make the ultimate commitment to each other. We are finally at a point in our society where we understand that homosexuality is a natural and normal part of the human condition, and we should make sure public policy reflects that reality. I find it disheartening that my church, who years ago were persecuted for their practice of polygamy, are now the aggressors in a fight against a minority group who wants to engage in marriage practices the church disagrees with. I hope someday this will change.
If one of your children is gay, what do you want for them? How do you want them to be treated by society? Do you want to limit their potential happiness by having our society treat them as second class citizens? Do you want to be the cause of that much heartache and pain for them? We need to stop the hatred and the fear, and start healing the wounds that the majority have caused with years and years of mistreatment. Vote NO on 8.
Cousin Tracy said:
My cousin (who disagrees with me) posted a note explaining his views in a way that led to an extended discussion with others that was (precious rarity:) mostly thoughtful and mostly respectful. Here was my own addition to that conversation:
I wish there were a better word than "domestic partnership" for a committed long-term same-sex relationship, and I have no objection to ceremonies marking the phases of such a relationship, up to and including total commitment and mutual faithfulness. But I feel, keenly and deeply, that it does grave injury to civilization in general, and to the English language in particular, if the society-bedrock meaning of the word "marriage" is distorted by forcing it to assume the additional and distinct meaning of an idea still in search of a good word.
If California already provides, by law, the same rights to domestic partnerships as it does to marriages, why is there such a strong desire to change the ancient and obvious meaning of such a crucial word? (To paraphrase Shakespeare: "What's in a word? A domestic partnership by any other name would have the same rights.") If it is the word itself that is the source of the dispute, then the real issue must be one of free speech: specifically, the right, and even the vocabulary, to think and say "I approve of marriage" while also saying "I do not approve of homosexual behavior".
The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of society and has earned a universal respect over thousands of years. I believe that the goal of the most active and vocal opponents of Proposition 8 is to annex and appropriate that same public respect and approval for same-sex unions--in a single stroke, by diktat--and furthermore to silence, by means of the law, anyone who wishes to say that it is wrong. Whether or not they succeed, the evidence shows that this is exactly what these groups have done whenever they have had the opportunity.
Give the practice its own name and let it earn or lose respect and rights on its own terms, on its own merits, by its own track record, and by the unmuzzled voice of the people. Don't take away my words. -Tracy
Laura: My Dad sent me this article by Orson Scott Card that reflected many of the thoughts I have had on this matter:
Orson Scott Card article
Here is another quote I have seen and heard on other sites/blogs which applies:
Elder Neal A. Maxwell spoke about a society that discounts opinions that grow out of religious convictions:
"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years
ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he
will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to
halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many
years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the
Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or
political life.'
"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society
which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being
ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the
prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when
such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious
imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions
grow out of religious convictions.
"Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the
institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes
will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the
choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic
counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems
probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by
what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a
slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was,
till then, unconscious of itself."
Friend Pam wrote:
1. I am annoyed at not being “allowed” by liberal friends to think that gay marriage is off the mark. They label me as hateful and “intolerant” because I want to protect my beliefs from their beliefs. What? I’m supposed to *tolerate* a hostile takeover of my beliefs, and if I don’t, I’m intolerant?
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I will be voting for AZ’s Prop. 102 (the equivalent of CA’s Prop. 8).
2. I am annoyed at being labeled uncompassionate because I believe in protecting babies. I’m “uncompassionate” towards women who have to make “the choice.” That’s incorrect. I’m not without compassion for them. Here’s what I am, though: I am disappointed they didn’t make any number of choices to prevent pregnancy. And I am livid that they want to terminate the lives of the innocent babies who inconvenience them. I am floored that they would rather terminate a child’s existence than donate nine months so that the child may live.
Also, I’ve heard a few women say that they wouldn’t have an abortion, but they support someone’s right to an abortion. That’s like saying that had they lived during the slave trade *they* wouldn’t have owned a slave, but they wouldn’t interfere someone’s *right* to own a slave. Only it’s worse than that, actually. Slavery was “merely” ruining another human’s life. Abortion is *taking* another human’s life, along with any contributions that life might have made to the world.
Here are some of the outcomes of same-gender marriage as shared by cousin Mary:
Outcomes
I always love a good, respectful debate. I love to hear the opinions of others. Feel free to share if you would like----but I understand if you are all Prop 8'd out. A couple days I was feeling that way, after reading through so many thoughts on this issue. Don't be shy---
I guess soon we will find out what happens with all this in California, which may lead the way to change throughout our country! Which is why this is such a critical issue.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Proverbs 22:6
I don't know what is more funny---the t-shirt or the fact that I got it at D.I. for $1.00. Does that mean this t-shirt is out of touch with our society---since it is found at a thrift store??? I guess it depends which side of the fence you are on!
What is the saying? Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)---hence the t-shirt. Just kidding---You have got to have a sense of humor in this election year!
I have to enjoy some political humor while I still can!!!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My thoughts on Poverty in America
My friend Bon , wrote about Blog Action Day----Addressing Poverty, on her blog.(http://bonsblogbydesign.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-action-day-2008.html . ) As a Social Worker, I could not resist sharing some of my thoughts on this topic.
Often in America, we differentiate between the non-working and the working poor. We feel that the working poor are entitled to help, but we are often conditional in our desire/efforts to help the non-working poor.
When we think that a great number of those in poverty are children, and are helpless, it is even harder to make those distinctions about the poor and who "deserves" our help. Currently , almost 40% of children are living in poverty. Clearly, children need and deserve our help.
And, let's look at the rest of the poor/homeless population. I believe that a great percentage of them are a product of deinstitutionalization, or would be institutionalized if it were a current possibility.
Ever since the grand de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the 1960's, many of the institutionalized patients, and those who would have been patients, have ended up on the streets. Community mental health centers were created to help these patients, but most of the patients were unable to follow through with outpatient services.
The mentally ill could receive better help from governmental programs and services, if they had the mental state to be able to fill out the paperwork and follow through with the many bureaucratic processes. Sadly, they rarely are in a position to do so. They are often unable to make appointments and keep them, access the medication they are in dire need of, or take their meds on a daily basis.
I am not suggesting that institutionalization is the answer. I don't really know the answer. All I know is that it is heart-wrenching. There is a great deal of suffering that is preventable, or could be greatly alleviated through med management and community support.
That is another main problem. For the most part, people don't want to deal with the homeless/mental illness population. Our communities are not the close-knit communities of the past. In every family, mental illness exists. Who doesn't have a crazy Aunt or Uncle or family member? Mental illness is often genetic. Each time a baby is born, parents are throwing up the genetic dice, and hoping that the "crazy" gene doesn't come out. Well, like throwing up the dice, it is just a matter of time before that gene comes out somewhere once again in every family. This is an issue that does affect every family or will in the future.
In this day and age, we tend to be a 'throw away' society. If someone has mental health issues, they are considered a burden, and we really don't want to deal with it. We are happy to have some community mental health centers, as long as they are not in our back yard. The problem is that these community mental health centers are great, but only as long as you can make and keep appointments, and deal with a bureaucratic system. Think how much all of us hate filling out paperwork, etc. Imagine if you were dealing with homelessness, or mental illness---would you be able to do it?
Often these people are left to fend for themselves without familial or community support to help them deal with/overcome their illnesses. So often, they end up on the streets. They don't have the time, effort, ability to deal with the bureaucracy of getting help. Often they end up self-medicating with drugs.
Many drug users are people struggling with mental health issues who have not gotten the help they need. It is like the chicken and the egg debate---which comes first, the mental illness or the drug use? Does the drug use cause the mental health issues which often ensue? Or did a chronic mental illness lead to drug use?
My theory, is whether they are working/non-working, drug users, or non-drug users, at fault for where they are at, or not, the bottom line, is they need help. We need to find ways to help.
In Utah, for the last year, there have been ads on the television, with a phone number offered to help people who are addicted to meth. A definite scourge of our time (which has a HUGE impact on homelessness, women and children living in poverty, abuse, and neglect).
I decided to call this number to see what resources are available for meth/drug addiction in Utah . I was told that in order to receive services, a person needs to call, make an appointment for an evaluation, and then get on a waiting list.
Having worked with this population, I know that these people need a drug rehab center that they can check into on the spot. They need to be able to walk in, get evaluated, and immediately get the help they need. Many of these people are homeless, and don't have a phone number or address. Every service available asks for contact info, that often does not exist for those most in need of the service. For this population, setting an appointment, keeping an appointment, and then waiting on a waiting list is nearly impossible. They are often worrying about getting food for the day and where they are going to sleep.
When this population doesn't receive the help they need, they often delve deeper into the dark underworld of drugs and crime, which their children are also exposed to. Yes, often eventually, DCFS will get involved, and perhaps children will be taken away. By that time, they end up in an already burdened foster care system.
I have worked in many mental health environments; the prison, community mental health center with adults and children, and a drug and alcohol rehab center. These systems work well, once you can get into the systems. Sometimes that is the hardest task of all.
One of the most rewarding and heart-wrenching jobs I ever did was working at the Food & Care Coalition in Provo. I would volunteer every Sunday night with my friend Tyra during our college years. I loved how easy it was for people to get a meal there. They walked in at meal time, wrote down their name, which often was "Jesus Christ" or the names of other famous people. Then they would sit down, and we would bring them a meal. I thought it was done in such a caring way, with love, and people were able to retain their dignity.
There are many opportunities we have to serve people in our communities. There are homeless shelters, there are Big Brother/Big Sister programs, Project Read (teaching adults to read), and many other programs seeking volunteers. I haven't participated in volunteer work for a long time, and really need to do better in this regard.
Sorry, I have some strong opinions on this topic. The moral of the story: Don't ever get a Social Worker talking about poverty!!! I could go on and on and on, but I guess I have, so I will stop now. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Often in America, we differentiate between the non-working and the working poor. We feel that the working poor are entitled to help, but we are often conditional in our desire/efforts to help the non-working poor.
When we think that a great number of those in poverty are children, and are helpless, it is even harder to make those distinctions about the poor and who "deserves" our help. Currently , almost 40% of children are living in poverty. Clearly, children need and deserve our help.
And, let's look at the rest of the poor/homeless population. I believe that a great percentage of them are a product of deinstitutionalization, or would be institutionalized if it were a current possibility.
Ever since the grand de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the 1960's, many of the institutionalized patients, and those who would have been patients, have ended up on the streets. Community mental health centers were created to help these patients, but most of the patients were unable to follow through with outpatient services.
The mentally ill could receive better help from governmental programs and services, if they had the mental state to be able to fill out the paperwork and follow through with the many bureaucratic processes. Sadly, they rarely are in a position to do so. They are often unable to make appointments and keep them, access the medication they are in dire need of, or take their meds on a daily basis.
I am not suggesting that institutionalization is the answer. I don't really know the answer. All I know is that it is heart-wrenching. There is a great deal of suffering that is preventable, or could be greatly alleviated through med management and community support.
That is another main problem. For the most part, people don't want to deal with the homeless/mental illness population. Our communities are not the close-knit communities of the past. In every family, mental illness exists. Who doesn't have a crazy Aunt or Uncle or family member? Mental illness is often genetic. Each time a baby is born, parents are throwing up the genetic dice, and hoping that the "crazy" gene doesn't come out. Well, like throwing up the dice, it is just a matter of time before that gene comes out somewhere once again in every family. This is an issue that does affect every family or will in the future.
In this day and age, we tend to be a 'throw away' society. If someone has mental health issues, they are considered a burden, and we really don't want to deal with it. We are happy to have some community mental health centers, as long as they are not in our back yard. The problem is that these community mental health centers are great, but only as long as you can make and keep appointments, and deal with a bureaucratic system. Think how much all of us hate filling out paperwork, etc. Imagine if you were dealing with homelessness, or mental illness---would you be able to do it?
Often these people are left to fend for themselves without familial or community support to help them deal with/overcome their illnesses. So often, they end up on the streets. They don't have the time, effort, ability to deal with the bureaucracy of getting help. Often they end up self-medicating with drugs.
Many drug users are people struggling with mental health issues who have not gotten the help they need. It is like the chicken and the egg debate---which comes first, the mental illness or the drug use? Does the drug use cause the mental health issues which often ensue? Or did a chronic mental illness lead to drug use?
My theory, is whether they are working/non-working, drug users, or non-drug users, at fault for where they are at, or not, the bottom line, is they need help. We need to find ways to help.
In Utah, for the last year, there have been ads on the television, with a phone number offered to help people who are addicted to meth. A definite scourge of our time (which has a HUGE impact on homelessness, women and children living in poverty, abuse, and neglect).
I decided to call this number to see what resources are available for meth/drug addiction in Utah . I was told that in order to receive services, a person needs to call, make an appointment for an evaluation, and then get on a waiting list.
Having worked with this population, I know that these people need a drug rehab center that they can check into on the spot. They need to be able to walk in, get evaluated, and immediately get the help they need. Many of these people are homeless, and don't have a phone number or address. Every service available asks for contact info, that often does not exist for those most in need of the service. For this population, setting an appointment, keeping an appointment, and then waiting on a waiting list is nearly impossible. They are often worrying about getting food for the day and where they are going to sleep.
When this population doesn't receive the help they need, they often delve deeper into the dark underworld of drugs and crime, which their children are also exposed to. Yes, often eventually, DCFS will get involved, and perhaps children will be taken away. By that time, they end up in an already burdened foster care system.
I have worked in many mental health environments; the prison, community mental health center with adults and children, and a drug and alcohol rehab center. These systems work well, once you can get into the systems. Sometimes that is the hardest task of all.
One of the most rewarding and heart-wrenching jobs I ever did was working at the Food & Care Coalition in Provo. I would volunteer every Sunday night with my friend Tyra during our college years. I loved how easy it was for people to get a meal there. They walked in at meal time, wrote down their name, which often was "Jesus Christ" or the names of other famous people. Then they would sit down, and we would bring them a meal. I thought it was done in such a caring way, with love, and people were able to retain their dignity.
There are many opportunities we have to serve people in our communities. There are homeless shelters, there are Big Brother/Big Sister programs, Project Read (teaching adults to read), and many other programs seeking volunteers. I haven't participated in volunteer work for a long time, and really need to do better in this regard.
Sorry, I have some strong opinions on this topic. The moral of the story: Don't ever get a Social Worker talking about poverty!!! I could go on and on and on, but I guess I have, so I will stop now. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Bailout?
President George W. Bush stated in his nationally televised address Wednesday that "our entire economy is in danger".
Many analysts and people in both campaigns state that a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street is imperative in preventing a Great Depression, even greater than our country experienced in the past. It seems as though each family will end up paying $7000 for this crisis. The core of the plan involves the government buying up troubled assets of shaky financial firms in an effort to keep them from going under which will prevent a potentially severe recession. It is also supposed to include protections for taxpayers and new help for distressed homeowners. This plan is moving quickly and it looks like there may be decisive action taken before financial markets open on Monday morning.
This deal “is basically done,” and “hard issues are resolved,” he said. “This is almost a done deal, but I can’t announce it because that’s not my role,” Kanjorski added. “Just tell the American people the cavalry has arrived; we’re home,” he added. (I have no idea who Kanjorski is, but clearly is an important person in this process!)
“Under the bailout bill, which will let the government buy huge amounts of toxic mortgage-related assets, “we’re now the biggest mortgage holder in town, and we can do serious foreclosure avoidance,” Frank said.
“Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold,” Bush said “Our entire economy is in danger.”
Wow, we have five weeks to decide who should run our country under these tenuous times! Scary!
My husband is opposed to a bailout. I am confused----are we really on the brink of another Great Depression? Will the stability of all be in question without the bailout? Or is this an overdramatic measure by the government to save companies and individuals who should have been more prudent? Will a bailout be worth the cost to the taxpayers? Are we saving companies that should have to pay the price for their bad choices? So much to consider. It looks like action IS going to happen. It makes you realize how important the electoral process is. The people we have voted into office are making critical decisions on our behalf. What are your thoughts? Bailout or no bailout?
Many analysts and people in both campaigns state that a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street is imperative in preventing a Great Depression, even greater than our country experienced in the past. It seems as though each family will end up paying $7000 for this crisis. The core of the plan involves the government buying up troubled assets of shaky financial firms in an effort to keep them from going under which will prevent a potentially severe recession. It is also supposed to include protections for taxpayers and new help for distressed homeowners. This plan is moving quickly and it looks like there may be decisive action taken before financial markets open on Monday morning.
This deal “is basically done,” and “hard issues are resolved,” he said. “This is almost a done deal, but I can’t announce it because that’s not my role,” Kanjorski added. “Just tell the American people the cavalry has arrived; we’re home,” he added. (I have no idea who Kanjorski is, but clearly is an important person in this process!)
“Under the bailout bill, which will let the government buy huge amounts of toxic mortgage-related assets, “we’re now the biggest mortgage holder in town, and we can do serious foreclosure avoidance,” Frank said.
“Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold,” Bush said “Our entire economy is in danger.”
Wow, we have five weeks to decide who should run our country under these tenuous times! Scary!
My husband is opposed to a bailout. I am confused----are we really on the brink of another Great Depression? Will the stability of all be in question without the bailout? Or is this an overdramatic measure by the government to save companies and individuals who should have been more prudent? Will a bailout be worth the cost to the taxpayers? Are we saving companies that should have to pay the price for their bad choices? So much to consider. It looks like action IS going to happen. It makes you realize how important the electoral process is. The people we have voted into office are making critical decisions on our behalf. What are your thoughts? Bailout or no bailout?
Monday, September 08, 2008
Oprah says NO to Palin???
So, this story about Oprah refusing to invite Palin to her show can be found everywhere on google. Here is one link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-opr.html
Oprah says NO to having Sarah Palin on her show? I thought Oprah was all about empowering women. But then again, she is a huge supporter of Obama, so I guess it makes sense, although I thought she was a little more willing to expose the public to more than her viewpoint. This makes me want to boycott OPRAH. Last season I didn't enjoy all the celebrity appearances on her show. Everyone felt the need to tell Oprah what an incredible, amazing person she is. I thought it was funny how she always accepted the compliments and agreed with them about how great she is. A little humility would NOT be the worst thing to happen to THE OPRAH MACHINE. Anyway, I am really wanting to hear Sarah Palin speak more publicly to see how well she continues to do, or if she starts to stumble. As I have said, I am NOT a fan of McCain, so he is hanging by the thread of Palin. I am not voting Obama, so, as my friend Amy (I think it was Amy) has said, if I decide I don't like Palin, I will not vote (to protest against all the candidates, although I know my protest won't be heard, but I don't know if I can be pleased with any vote at present). I am just hoping in the future, I will like some of the candidates on the ticket. It is pretty poor when your decision to vote is based on the vice presidential candidate. (My blog entry about "My issues with McCain" is finally up and running---I couldn't get the link to work---scroll down and you can find it---there is an article about McCain and his ex-wife that you might find interesting. Or if you are a die hard Republican, you may not want to read, as it may anger you. Don't hate me, just hate my political views. Don't worry, I am equal in my opposition. I do not like Obama either.)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-opr.html
Oprah says NO to having Sarah Palin on her show? I thought Oprah was all about empowering women. But then again, she is a huge supporter of Obama, so I guess it makes sense, although I thought she was a little more willing to expose the public to more than her viewpoint. This makes me want to boycott OPRAH. Last season I didn't enjoy all the celebrity appearances on her show. Everyone felt the need to tell Oprah what an incredible, amazing person she is. I thought it was funny how she always accepted the compliments and agreed with them about how great she is. A little humility would NOT be the worst thing to happen to THE OPRAH MACHINE. Anyway, I am really wanting to hear Sarah Palin speak more publicly to see how well she continues to do, or if she starts to stumble. As I have said, I am NOT a fan of McCain, so he is hanging by the thread of Palin. I am not voting Obama, so, as my friend Amy (I think it was Amy) has said, if I decide I don't like Palin, I will not vote (to protest against all the candidates, although I know my protest won't be heard, but I don't know if I can be pleased with any vote at present). I am just hoping in the future, I will like some of the candidates on the ticket. It is pretty poor when your decision to vote is based on the vice presidential candidate. (My blog entry about "My issues with McCain" is finally up and running---I couldn't get the link to work---scroll down and you can find it---there is an article about McCain and his ex-wife that you might find interesting. Or if you are a die hard Republican, you may not want to read, as it may anger you. Don't hate me, just hate my political views. Don't worry, I am equal in my opposition. I do not like Obama either.)
Friday, September 05, 2008
Sarah Palin or Tina Fey?
Sarah Palin is making quite the splash. Press is press and the girl is on the front of several magazines this week; including People. For me, that is enough to make you a great political candidate. Just kidding, but I can't wait to read my People magazine this week and then we can discuss all about Palin in our People Magazine book club. For some of us who don't have time for books, we rely on our weekly trash magazines for reading material. I also happen to have a copy of "US" with Palin on the front, so I should have a lot of really reliable, fabulous information about Sarah! I know you can't wait---I will hurry and do my reading ! Hurry and do your reading (in the magazines, of course) so we can have a fabulous, mind-stimulating, round-table blog discussion!
You know how you know that Sarah Palin is making quite the impression? A lot of the strong Democrats are REALLY freaking out about her. So, that shows she is a really strong candidate. When you don't have a lot of the facts, those are the types of signs you look for to know who is a strong or weak candidate. And according to those standards, she is SUCH a strong candidate and quite the challenger. Although, in reality, she is just a VP candidate. So sad.
Although I have to say, I really do dislike the McCain's SO much. But, I have yet to see him on the cover of People or Us, so I don't have all the facts about him yet. I mean the Obama family was on the cover of People, and I just learned to LOVE his family SOOOO much from that great article. So, maybe after a People or US article about the McCain's my mind will change. (Just kidding people!)
Thursday, September 04, 2008
My Issues with McCain
Cindy McCain:
"If Americans want straight talk and the plain truth they should take a good close look at John McCain, a man tested and true.who's never wavered in his devotion to our country, a man who's served in Washington without ever becoming a Washington insider, who always speaks the truth no matter what the cost, a man of judgment and character,a loyal and loving and true husband and a magnificent father."
Really? Tested and true. A man of judgment and character---a loyal and loving and true husband? Really?
Check out this article found at: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html (for some reason I can't put the link up.)
Those are not the words I would use to describe John McCain and his behavior. Watching and listening to Cindy McCain is a perfect example of why I don't like listening to most politicians. I felt the same way listening to John. A lot swirling in my head. Any thoughts? Feel free to get spicy----I enjoy debates and thoughts on these things.
Palin for President
I am Independent. I tend to dislike politics (not the process) as I can hardly listen to politicians most of the time. Most politicians sound so false and assuming. I just can't get excited about most of them.
McCain has definately fallen into this category for me. His trophy wife also falls in this category (or should I call her McCain's upgrade---as he met her when he was still married. After a horrible 1969 car accident that left his first wife Carol disfigured and five inches shorter, McCain returned home and was allegedly "appalled" by her appearance. So, I guess he tried to upgrade his McWife and started that process while he was still married. Ironically, Cindy seems to be a downgrade. I can't look at that woman. Talk about the ultimate in fake. I mean all that plastic surgery----you would think they could make it look a touch more natural.) It is also rumored that he has quite the temper and has been known to say some horrible things to people around him; including his upgraded McWife. (I mean, hey, I can trash on her, but if you are going to do a McWife Upgrade, don't criticize or belittle your upgrade! Hello, you should never use the C word in relation to your wife! ) This all makes me dislike McCain. That and listening to him speak. I just have a hard time listening to his voice---like I do most politicians. I just don't sense a great deal of sincerity.
Obama, at first, seemed like a positive option, but he has fallen by the wayside for me. I don't particularly like his viewpoints on oil, health care, etc. I am not thrilled with his VP choice either. At first he sounded inspirational, but now he seems guarded and too cautious in what he says.
So, I have heard in the news all these criticisms of Palin regarding her pregnant daughter, and her baby with down syndrome that will have an absent mother due to her VP campaigning.
Well, after hearing Palin's speech last night, I must say:
1st of all: I could stand to listen to her
2nd: I felt a touch inspired!
3rd: I am impressed with many of the political accomplishments she made in Alaska
4th: I like her!
So, maybe I wouldn't vote for her to be my mother, but that's OK, cause I already have one. However, when it comes to politics, let's just say, I think I am swinging to the McCain side as a result of Palin. I just wish I could vote for Palin for President.
One thing she said in her speech last night that I liked:
“In small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening,” she said. “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton [Pa.] and another way in San Francisco.”
The one unscripted aside in her speech may end up being the most memorable line. “You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
“I loved that she didn’t try to hide that she’s a mom, and that raising kids is hard, and that she didn’t try to make herself out to be something that she wasn’t,” says Amanda Ficek, a mother of three from Minneapolis. “I just thought she was so real. I’m inspired.”
That's what I felt; for once we have a candidate who seems more REAL and inspirational. I could get excited about Palin!
Here are more excerpts from her speech that I enjoyed:
“I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities. …
“I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country. …
“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems - as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines…build more nuclear plants…create jobs with clean coal…and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. …
The only problem with voting for Palin for VP is I would have to vote for McCain for President. I guess there is hope----McCain is old!
Interesting ----------just some thoughts, nothing set in stone, just thinking on it all! What did you think of her speech last night?
McCain has definately fallen into this category for me. His trophy wife also falls in this category (or should I call her McCain's upgrade---as he met her when he was still married. After a horrible 1969 car accident that left his first wife Carol disfigured and five inches shorter, McCain returned home and was allegedly "appalled" by her appearance. So, I guess he tried to upgrade his McWife and started that process while he was still married. Ironically, Cindy seems to be a downgrade. I can't look at that woman. Talk about the ultimate in fake. I mean all that plastic surgery----you would think they could make it look a touch more natural.) It is also rumored that he has quite the temper and has been known to say some horrible things to people around him; including his upgraded McWife. (I mean, hey, I can trash on her, but if you are going to do a McWife Upgrade, don't criticize or belittle your upgrade! Hello, you should never use the C word in relation to your wife! ) This all makes me dislike McCain. That and listening to him speak. I just have a hard time listening to his voice---like I do most politicians. I just don't sense a great deal of sincerity.
Obama, at first, seemed like a positive option, but he has fallen by the wayside for me. I don't particularly like his viewpoints on oil, health care, etc. I am not thrilled with his VP choice either. At first he sounded inspirational, but now he seems guarded and too cautious in what he says.
So, I have heard in the news all these criticisms of Palin regarding her pregnant daughter, and her baby with down syndrome that will have an absent mother due to her VP campaigning.
Well, after hearing Palin's speech last night, I must say:
1st of all: I could stand to listen to her
2nd: I felt a touch inspired!
3rd: I am impressed with many of the political accomplishments she made in Alaska
4th: I like her!
So, maybe I wouldn't vote for her to be my mother, but that's OK, cause I already have one. However, when it comes to politics, let's just say, I think I am swinging to the McCain side as a result of Palin. I just wish I could vote for Palin for President.
One thing she said in her speech last night that I liked:
“In small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening,” she said. “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton [Pa.] and another way in San Francisco.”
The one unscripted aside in her speech may end up being the most memorable line. “You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
“I loved that she didn’t try to hide that she’s a mom, and that raising kids is hard, and that she didn’t try to make herself out to be something that she wasn’t,” says Amanda Ficek, a mother of three from Minneapolis. “I just thought she was so real. I’m inspired.”
That's what I felt; for once we have a candidate who seems more REAL and inspirational. I could get excited about Palin!
Here are more excerpts from her speech that I enjoyed:
“I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities. …
“I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country. …
“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems - as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines…build more nuclear plants…create jobs with clean coal…and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. …
The only problem with voting for Palin for VP is I would have to vote for McCain for President. I guess there is hope----McCain is old!
Interesting ----------just some thoughts, nothing set in stone, just thinking on it all! What did you think of her speech last night?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
To be a foster parent
This post is just an add-on to my last post titled "Go Texas". As we all know, there is a foster care shortage ANYWAY. Especially with the raid----in Texas, I am sure this foster care shortage is completely out of control. I wish I lived there, because I would totally get trained to be a foster care parent (as required by the State) and be happy to take in one of these girls. Think what a priviledge it would be to help one of these girls out. When Brandon first heard of this, he told me straight up, "Oh Laura, this would be your total dream, to totally take in one of these girls and take her shopping and help her adjust to the world." Yes, my husband does know me well. We once started the foster care training, before little Benjamin came into our life. We were thinking of becoming Shelter Parents (a little different than foster parents, but very similar)! Anyway, I believe so strongly (who doesn't) that every child deserves to grow up in a home with loving parents. So many kids in foster care would do anything to have a family. It is so tragic as there is not much hope for kids in foster care to ever be adopted or have a "real" family.
There is such a need for normal, healthy, families to get involved in foster parenting. Brandon, when he attended the first training for future foster parents, was appauled at the types of people who were there for the most part. Many were scary, creepy looking people who clearly were not looking into foster parenting for what they could provide to a child.
Our hands are a little full right now, and probably will be for a while, but I would encourage anyone to jump in, and give a kid a chance at a positive future. Seriously, I wish I lived in Texas, I would certainly love to give these kids a chance. I hope that many LDS people in Texas will decide to help out these kids. I think it would be an easier adjustment to go to an LDS home for these girls, than many of the other homes out there. Just something to think about. We can all make a difference, and I can't think of a better way, than in helping one of these children.
OK, don't worry, I am now off my soap box for the day!
There is such a need for normal, healthy, families to get involved in foster parenting. Brandon, when he attended the first training for future foster parents, was appauled at the types of people who were there for the most part. Many were scary, creepy looking people who clearly were not looking into foster parenting for what they could provide to a child.
Our hands are a little full right now, and probably will be for a while, but I would encourage anyone to jump in, and give a kid a chance at a positive future. Seriously, I wish I lived in Texas, I would certainly love to give these kids a chance. I hope that many LDS people in Texas will decide to help out these kids. I think it would be an easier adjustment to go to an LDS home for these girls, than many of the other homes out there. Just something to think about. We can all make a difference, and I can't think of a better way, than in helping one of these children.
OK, don't worry, I am now off my soap box for the day!
Go Texas!
Well, I have totally been absorbed with this raid in Texas, where 416 children have been placed in State Custody as a result of possible abuse. I believe this is the largest amount of children placed into State Custody ever at one time. I also find it fascinating that they are currently joined by 133 women (mostly mothers of these children!)
Imagine being one of the social worker's on this case----talk about a foster care nightmare! Can you imagine trying to find foster homes for all these kids? Or trying to keep kids with their siblings? Do you constitute their "siblings" to be only siblings from the same mother? Cause clearly I think there may be difficulty finding homes suitable for 56 siblings! Or finding a home for a sixteen year old mother with 3 kids?
Also, imagine all the GAL's(Guardian Ad Litem's) and CASA's (Court-Appointed Specialized Advocate's) that will be needed on these cases. I used to volunteer as a CASA. How I would love to be a CASA in this case! Oh, how I would love to be involved on any level in a case like this. There would be so much to learn and hopefully many ways to help women and children in need. There is no greater service than this, in my opinion.
And what is going to happen to all these mothers? I am surprised they are letting them stay. Even though they are also most likely victims, they also are likely to dictate to these children what they are allowed to say. Some of them may be charged with failure to protect(if they were present when abuse took place)! I am hoping that all these victims can get the help they need. In a perfect world, these Moms could be empowered, leaving the abuse they are most likely experiencing, and receive educational & financial help as they find their way in this "new" world they now find themselves in. Hopefully, they could remain with their children. That way the children and women would at least have each other as they navigate their way through this new situation they find themselves in. If not, that means they will be needing to find 100's of new foster homes for all these children. All these children are used to a world without television, normal school, and normal clothes. Talk about major shock as they are exposed to our world. Talk about serious counseling needs, but with their distrust of the outside world, it will be quite the task!
I also find it so ironic that their compound is called "Yearning for Zion". Are they kidding around? Really? I bet 14-15 year old girls are "yearning" to be married to and have sex with ugly, nasty, pig-headed, male-chauvinistic, abusive men. Did I not tell you that was on my list of things to do at age 14? I feel so bad for these girls, born into this community and forced into this lifestyle of polygamy.
According to the search warrant, the 16 year old who called in the complaint said she has been held against her will at the compound. She had been told that if she left "outsiders will hurt her, force her to cut her hair, to wear makeup & modern clothes & to have sex with lots of men." Ironically, their threat seems similar to life in the compound where insiders hurt her, she is forced to wear her hair a certain way, wear no makeup, and have sex with an old man who is abusive.
Hmmmm. Which one to choose? Unfortunately, never being exposed to the outside world and the freedoms that exist there, they do not know how much better their life could be outside of their "Yearning for Zion" compound.
According to current information found through interviews, the children have been disciplined by being "deprived of food" and forced to sit in "closed closets". They have already determined that a number of teen girls are pregnant.
It appears that many of the children are not disclosing their names or family trees. As a result, I have heard that DNA testing will be used to determine this information. This is a dream come true for Maury Povich and Montel Williams. This could result in a much needed career rejuvenation for them! It could be a win-win situation. Think how much the state could save in DNA testing, and hey, I am sure we would all enjoy seeing how some of these family trees grow inward instead of outward! We are all wanting to know "who is the daddy of this fifteen year old?" Is it the nasty 50 or 60 year old? So many questions?
The other sad thing, is apparently, Jeffs has many of these compounds sprouting up in random places. This compound in Texas, was for the elite. Most of the people in the Texas compound are his wives and family members. This was going to be his place of refuge, if he hadn't been imprisoned. So, it will be interesting to see how many of his family members also end up in jail!
Apparently, in this case, authorities are looking to prove that this religion or "way of life" is a danger to children, as in their culture, girls are "spiritually married" to much older men as soon as they reach puberty, and boys are groomed to be perpetuate the cycle. Who knows if they will be able to prove their case. If they are, be careful, Utah and Arizona----other communities with similar ways of life would also be subject to having their children removed due to possible endangerment.
I applaud the courage of Texas prosecutors to take on such a case. The implications are far reaching, and may greatly help to protect women and children who find themselves in abusive communities. GO TEXAS!
Imagine being one of the social worker's on this case----talk about a foster care nightmare! Can you imagine trying to find foster homes for all these kids? Or trying to keep kids with their siblings? Do you constitute their "siblings" to be only siblings from the same mother? Cause clearly I think there may be difficulty finding homes suitable for 56 siblings! Or finding a home for a sixteen year old mother with 3 kids?
Also, imagine all the GAL's(Guardian Ad Litem's) and CASA's (Court-Appointed Specialized Advocate's) that will be needed on these cases. I used to volunteer as a CASA. How I would love to be a CASA in this case! Oh, how I would love to be involved on any level in a case like this. There would be so much to learn and hopefully many ways to help women and children in need. There is no greater service than this, in my opinion.
And what is going to happen to all these mothers? I am surprised they are letting them stay. Even though they are also most likely victims, they also are likely to dictate to these children what they are allowed to say. Some of them may be charged with failure to protect(if they were present when abuse took place)! I am hoping that all these victims can get the help they need. In a perfect world, these Moms could be empowered, leaving the abuse they are most likely experiencing, and receive educational & financial help as they find their way in this "new" world they now find themselves in. Hopefully, they could remain with their children. That way the children and women would at least have each other as they navigate their way through this new situation they find themselves in. If not, that means they will be needing to find 100's of new foster homes for all these children. All these children are used to a world without television, normal school, and normal clothes. Talk about major shock as they are exposed to our world. Talk about serious counseling needs, but with their distrust of the outside world, it will be quite the task!
I also find it so ironic that their compound is called "Yearning for Zion". Are they kidding around? Really? I bet 14-15 year old girls are "yearning" to be married to and have sex with ugly, nasty, pig-headed, male-chauvinistic, abusive men. Did I not tell you that was on my list of things to do at age 14? I feel so bad for these girls, born into this community and forced into this lifestyle of polygamy.
According to the search warrant, the 16 year old who called in the complaint said she has been held against her will at the compound. She had been told that if she left "outsiders will hurt her, force her to cut her hair, to wear makeup & modern clothes & to have sex with lots of men." Ironically, their threat seems similar to life in the compound where insiders hurt her, she is forced to wear her hair a certain way, wear no makeup, and have sex with an old man who is abusive.
Hmmmm. Which one to choose? Unfortunately, never being exposed to the outside world and the freedoms that exist there, they do not know how much better their life could be outside of their "Yearning for Zion" compound.
According to current information found through interviews, the children have been disciplined by being "deprived of food" and forced to sit in "closed closets". They have already determined that a number of teen girls are pregnant.
It appears that many of the children are not disclosing their names or family trees. As a result, I have heard that DNA testing will be used to determine this information. This is a dream come true for Maury Povich and Montel Williams. This could result in a much needed career rejuvenation for them! It could be a win-win situation. Think how much the state could save in DNA testing, and hey, I am sure we would all enjoy seeing how some of these family trees grow inward instead of outward! We are all wanting to know "who is the daddy of this fifteen year old?" Is it the nasty 50 or 60 year old? So many questions?
The other sad thing, is apparently, Jeffs has many of these compounds sprouting up in random places. This compound in Texas, was for the elite. Most of the people in the Texas compound are his wives and family members. This was going to be his place of refuge, if he hadn't been imprisoned. So, it will be interesting to see how many of his family members also end up in jail!
Apparently, in this case, authorities are looking to prove that this religion or "way of life" is a danger to children, as in their culture, girls are "spiritually married" to much older men as soon as they reach puberty, and boys are groomed to be perpetuate the cycle. Who knows if they will be able to prove their case. If they are, be careful, Utah and Arizona----other communities with similar ways of life would also be subject to having their children removed due to possible endangerment.
I applaud the courage of Texas prosecutors to take on such a case. The implications are far reaching, and may greatly help to protect women and children who find themselves in abusive communities. GO TEXAS!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
STD's and Eliot Spitzer
Just thought you would all want to know:
25% of all teenage girls between the ages of 14-19 have an STD.
This is in the same report where only 50% of teenage girls claim to be sexually active.
So, according to this report, if your teen daughter is sexually active, she has a 50%chance of having an STD.
What can we do to change this?????
I guess continue to support missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and hopefully have more people abiding by the principles of God!
On a similar note:
Glenn Beck, on his radio show, does an advertisement for ProFlowers. Yesterday's flower special was the:
I am not seeing hookers "dozen rose special"
What better way to say I love you than to send your special someone the
"I am not seeing hookers" dozen rose special!!! Every woman would be proud to show off her special roses!!!
Thanks Eliot Spitzer (the governor of NY who was just caught seeing high-priced call girls), for making the every day man look fabulous!!!
I have to give them points for creativity in advertising! Go ProFlowers!
25% of all teenage girls between the ages of 14-19 have an STD.
This is in the same report where only 50% of teenage girls claim to be sexually active.
So, according to this report, if your teen daughter is sexually active, she has a 50%chance of having an STD.
What can we do to change this?????
I guess continue to support missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and hopefully have more people abiding by the principles of God!
On a similar note:
Glenn Beck, on his radio show, does an advertisement for ProFlowers. Yesterday's flower special was the:
I am not seeing hookers "dozen rose special"
What better way to say I love you than to send your special someone the
"I am not seeing hookers" dozen rose special!!! Every woman would be proud to show off her special roses!!!
Thanks Eliot Spitzer (the governor of NY who was just caught seeing high-priced call girls), for making the every day man look fabulous!!!
I have to give them points for creativity in advertising! Go ProFlowers!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Participate in a Rally/News Conference (Senate Bill 220, Utah)!
"In its truest essence, Senate Bill 220 says that if you buy a home that is poorly constructed, the owner, will almost always be responsible to pay to fix the damage, despite the fact that the damage was clearly caused by the builder’s or the developer’s negligence. This bill does nothing more than give a free pass to builders when they build homes replete with construction defects."
This is an excerpt from the article found here: .Channel 2 News Story
This is why we do not want this bill to pass. We believe that if a developer or builder is negligent, they should be responsible for their negligence. The average citizen should not be left with the grief of a developer's negligence!!!
This Monday, March 3rd, at 9 am, at the Capitol, there will be a rally/news conference relating to Senate Bill 220 (referred to in the below posting). We will be passing out fliers to the legislators!!! The more people there the better, to show our representatives that we care about this issue. It will be covered by the press to help this become more of the "known" issue that it should be! Come if you can, bring kids, the more the merrier!!!
This is an excerpt from the article found here: .Channel 2 News Story
This is why we do not want this bill to pass. We believe that if a developer or builder is negligent, they should be responsible for their negligence. The average citizen should not be left with the grief of a developer's negligence!!!
This Monday, March 3rd, at 9 am, at the Capitol, there will be a rally/news conference relating to Senate Bill 220 (referred to in the below posting). We will be passing out fliers to the legislators!!! The more people there the better, to show our representatives that we care about this issue. It will be covered by the press to help this become more of the "known" issue that it should be! Come if you can, bring kids, the more the merrier!!!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Senate Bill 220
Being a stay at home Mom, I usually do not get that involved in politics. However, Senate Bill 220 has just come to my attention. It looks like this is about to go through if we don't get actively involved---all of us can send some letters. Let's take some political action!!! What is also disturbing is that this has already passed through the Utah State Senate, and now will probably be passed through the House of Representatives. We have got to talk to our representatives to tell them to put a stop to it. (All their names and emails can be found at the bottom.) Just send them a letter!
What is also upsetting is that we are not hearing much about this in the media. How come the news is not talking about this when it could have a major impact on lots of people; especially our city, where lots of new development is occurring!!!
A friend emailed me this info, and I pass it on:
Approximately 80% of all new developments in Utah, whether condominiums, town homes, or single-family homes, are governed and operated by a homeowner association (HOA). The HOA represents the collective interests of all the individual homeowners. There are thousands of HOAs throughout Utah, representing hundreds of thousands of Utah residents.
Senate Bill 220 will absolutely devastate HOAs and their respective homeowner members. Generally, HOAs are created and obligated to maintain key structural areas of homes and condos, like roofs, stucco, foundations, brick, sidewalks, roadways, etc. Since the HOA has the obligation to maintain and repair those important structural elements, it is the only entity that can bring a lawsuit to seek redress for defects in the construction of those elements. Since Senate Bill 220 precludes all claims except for contractual claims (which do not exist between an HOA and the building entity), it will completely bar the HOA from successfully bringing claims on behalf of the homeowner members. Since the HOA is barred, the respective homeowners are also barred.
In its truest essence, Senate Bill 220 says that if you buy a home that is poorly constructed, the owner, will almost always be responsible to pay to fix the damage, despite the fact that the damage was clearly caused by the builder’s or the developer’s negligence. This bill does nothing more than give a free pass to builders when they build homes replete with construction defects.
These problems are not only hazardous (mold), but they are very expensive repairs (foundation subsidence, complete replacement of the stucco application, etc.). The repair work required in each of these cases is well over two million dollars. If the HOA is unable to bring these claims against the builder, it will be forced to special assess their homeowner members who will be required to pay those expensive assessments out of their own pockets. This is not only completely unfair, but it is unbelievable that our State legislators, who are charged to represent their constituents, would even think about passing this bill. They would never consider preventing an individual from seeking legal redress for a driver’s or a doctor’s negligence. Then why should we protect a builder’s negligence.
Please vote no against SB 220! This will negatively impact millions of Utah residents for generations to come. Here are some other articles found in the news regarding Senate Bill 220. These articles made me more upset. After going through problems with our newly built home (faulty plumbing issues) I definately am opposed to this Senate bill!!! Read the following articles for more info:
Channel 2 News Story
Article in the SL TRIB
If you’d like to help out, please send your own message or the following formatted one to state representatives by clicking on the following link:
Your State Representative!
I welcome any comments regarding this bill!!!
What is also upsetting is that we are not hearing much about this in the media. How come the news is not talking about this when it could have a major impact on lots of people; especially our city, where lots of new development is occurring!!!
A friend emailed me this info, and I pass it on:
Approximately 80% of all new developments in Utah, whether condominiums, town homes, or single-family homes, are governed and operated by a homeowner association (HOA). The HOA represents the collective interests of all the individual homeowners. There are thousands of HOAs throughout Utah, representing hundreds of thousands of Utah residents.
Senate Bill 220 will absolutely devastate HOAs and their respective homeowner members. Generally, HOAs are created and obligated to maintain key structural areas of homes and condos, like roofs, stucco, foundations, brick, sidewalks, roadways, etc. Since the HOA has the obligation to maintain and repair those important structural elements, it is the only entity that can bring a lawsuit to seek redress for defects in the construction of those elements. Since Senate Bill 220 precludes all claims except for contractual claims (which do not exist between an HOA and the building entity), it will completely bar the HOA from successfully bringing claims on behalf of the homeowner members. Since the HOA is barred, the respective homeowners are also barred.
In its truest essence, Senate Bill 220 says that if you buy a home that is poorly constructed, the owner, will almost always be responsible to pay to fix the damage, despite the fact that the damage was clearly caused by the builder’s or the developer’s negligence. This bill does nothing more than give a free pass to builders when they build homes replete with construction defects.
These problems are not only hazardous (mold), but they are very expensive repairs (foundation subsidence, complete replacement of the stucco application, etc.). The repair work required in each of these cases is well over two million dollars. If the HOA is unable to bring these claims against the builder, it will be forced to special assess their homeowner members who will be required to pay those expensive assessments out of their own pockets. This is not only completely unfair, but it is unbelievable that our State legislators, who are charged to represent their constituents, would even think about passing this bill. They would never consider preventing an individual from seeking legal redress for a driver’s or a doctor’s negligence. Then why should we protect a builder’s negligence.
Please vote no against SB 220! This will negatively impact millions of Utah residents for generations to come. Here are some other articles found in the news regarding Senate Bill 220. These articles made me more upset. After going through problems with our newly built home (faulty plumbing issues) I definately am opposed to this Senate bill!!! Read the following articles for more info:
Channel 2 News Story
Article in the SL TRIB
If you’d like to help out, please send your own message or the following formatted one to state representatives by clicking on the following link:
Your State Representative!
I welcome any comments regarding this bill!!!
Thursday, February 07, 2008
P.S.
P.S. I guess I should get rid of the "Vote for Mitt Romney" since he is no longer running. I am sad that he didn't get further. Oh Huckabee! Thanks for ruining it for Romney! I may be voting for Obama now. I absolutely do NOT want to vote for McCain and Hillary is not an option. So, we shall see!!! That is what I like about being Independent. I am not stuck on a political party!!! Feel free to give me arguments in any direction, I am listening and my vote is not cast in stone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)