BlogHer - News & Politics - Comments

So glad to hear your voice

Vita lingus — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:44:59 -0600

So glad to hear your voice here... As a great voice might say don't ask the media to be the voice of change ..... Stand up and be ones voice for change... Complacency and being led by the media or politicians is futile

Vita

I'm not a lawyer, or even american

kazari — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:47:55 -0600

but I was told it was to do with the armed forces. The charter defines a child as somebody under 18 years of age, and the US allows people to sign up at 16 (I think).

However, looking at your link to the unofficial summary, it only talks about children under 15 with reference to armed conflict (Article 38) so I'm probably wrong.

http://myrope.wordpress.com

I can only imagine the pressure on Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio...

Lisa Stone — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:52:54 -0600

...who was, according to the New York Times, the only woman to vote for the Stupak amendment:

<a href=http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/884>http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/884</a>

Lisa Stone BlogHer Co-founder Surfette BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Yes, please!

danine — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:38:19 -0600

Thank you for organizing this!

Danine

http://www.danine.net | @DanineSpencer on Twitter

What about single mothers?

ALittleToTheLeft — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:15:11 -0600

Shannonr - I agree with everything you said in your comment. This is a subject that I know something about. When I was 23 years old, I was divorced with a small child. My ex-husband never paid a dime in child support and even escaped to another country for a while to prevent being caught by the courts. For a short time, while my son was under 2 years old, I lived with my parents and got a small amount from welfare on a monthly basis (to be exact, it was $34.50) a month!

Being on welfare is not the day at the beach that some people seem to think it is. At that time, I was expcted to visit the welfafre office to review my status on a weekly basis. I imaging this process is much like having to go to the unemployment office every week to show that you ARE still unemployed and are REALLY looking for work. I was treated with disdain by the state employess there simply BECAUSE I was on welfare. It was demoralizing. I was grilled as to how I was spending that $34.50 a month (uh, let's see - Pampers?). I tried to qualify for a work incentive program wherein I could receive training for some kind of job and work toward my independence from welfare. I was turned down. I was told, "No. You need to stay home and take care of your son."

So what was I to do? I was 23 years old, I had completed 3 years of college (which equates to NO years of college unless you actually complete your degree program). I was living with my parents and during that time my mother passed away. I was miserable and depressed. Was I the best mother to my son at that time? I don't know. But what I DID know was that I was never going to be a really good mother if I was not happy in my own life. So I threw down the gauntlet, went off welfare, took out loans and got some scholarships and went back to school to finish my degree. I took my two and a half year old son with me and took steps to turn my life around. I completed my degree in one year taking 21 credit hours of course work in the first semester, getting a full time job in between semesters and taking another 18 credit hours the second semester while working full time. I also, cared for my son, did the grocery shopping, cooked, cleaned the house, did the laundry, dealt with the bills, saw to it that my son had a good living environment & a good baby-sitter situation, read to him, played with him, loved him, nursed him when he was sick and taught him the importance of family. Although I was not married for a long time, I did not change my last name back to my maiden name for my son's sake. I felt his life would be less confusing for him as he went through the early school years if he and I had the same last name. Meanwhile my ex-husband was traveling the world, smoking pot and selling it, and pretty much living a fancy free life. Which one of us was more detrimental to the family?

Was it always easy for us? No. Did my son suffer for it? Maybe, a little. But I can tell you this, he learned a lot about work ethic and money management. He learned a lot about community and charity because as broke as we were for much of those first few years, we always donated his outgrown clothes and even some ofi his toys. We lived in a community of university students who were all in pretty much the same situation as us - so we worked together as a community babysitting for each others kids, helping to feed our kids together when things were really tough and lending emotional support when any one of us was crumbling under the pressure.

The people who make statements like Bob McDonnell's live in a bubble. They live in a "Leave it to Beaver" existence. Hey Bob, you think working mothers are detrimental to the family. What do you think of deadbeat dads, or abusive dads, or alcoholic dads, or just plain absent dads? What contibution are they making for the strength of the family unit in our society?

Feedback

shannonr — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:57:56 -0600

First of all, thank you for an article which I felt like was very well written. I didn't feel like it was an expression one way or the other of political belifs but your feedback on Bob McDonnell.

My response to people who question whether or not working women are detrimental to the family is this: it's not working women who are detrimental to the family, it's the lack of support by many companies, for working parents (men or women, I was raised by a single dad) that is detrimental to families. I am lucky enough to work for a company and in a position where flex time is completely available and up to me to use how I need. If I need to leave early for a football game, no problem, at the end of the day, they are more concerned that my job is done than from where I am doing it. But, I work as an HR Consultant and what I see 95% of the time is the absolute opposite. Most businesses are obsessed with their employees being at work the minute the clock strikes 8 and not leaving one second before it turns 5 pm or later. Flex time is not an option, it's still seen as cheating the company by many executives, even though technically salaried employees are paid to do a job, not based on the hours they work.

I have three teenagers, our after school schedule is hectic. My husband works offshore and is gone for 4 days at a time. It would not do me a lot of good to sit at home and do laundry while my kids are in school all day, and I wouldn't ultimately be happy. After years of fighting and inching along for equality in various areas for women, do we really want to force women to choose between having a family or having a career? I went back to school a few years ago and got an MBA while my kids were younger. I didn't need to do it at the time, but I feel like higher education is important for women and I really want a Master's degree. But the idea that women still have to defend their decisions to have a professional, working life, makes me a little crazy.

My bigger goal as a working parent, is that my kids know that I am here for them, and that I am able to make school plays, ensure the homework is done, and that I am engaged with them, working or not.

For many women, and many families, having one parent at home is not an option for various reasons. So, I come back to the idea that working women are not detrimental to the family. Working parents with no support system at all are a bigger issue.

I think I wrote more than I planned, a little rambling!

The funny thing? My boss, who is the VP of my division, is a female excutive whose husband is an attorney but now a full time stay at home dad. :)

There's always a way

Jill Miller Zimon — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:21:23 -0600

Thanks so much, Kim. I know I thought campaigning was hard work and that my professional career has been dedicated to actual problem-solving professions (like ombuds and risk management). But before, during and since the campaign, the already "in" and established folks here, who aren't awful people or anything at all like that, continued to make choices that completely defied not only transparency, but what I consider to be the entire constituency's best interests.

However...

Yesterday, at my synagogue, they gave me "an honor." I was asked to say the prayer before someone read from the Torah for Shabbat. This is called an aliyah. Then, after I did the two prayers (one before and one after the reading), the senior rabbi stepped forward and blessed me and another member who was re-elected to a different community's city council - an all white male city council right next to my town! don't get me started ;). And he said very nice things about us etc.

A little later, I stepped out to go to the ladies room and while there, saw a good friend with whom I'd gone through a two-year leadership institute from 2006-2006. We were members of the first class. And while we were chatting and I was sharing with her a few war stories, she just started to laugh this hearty laugh, and she said, "They are messing with the WRONG BROAD!" And she said that she'd been thinking that all along and was so thrilled for me to have won.

I've already counselled myself that I'm going to be taking deep breaths very very often while I acclimate to them and they acclimate to me. But if, at the age of 47, I don't stick with and stand by these goals - transparency, zeal etc. - as the underlying reasons for pursuing what I pursue, then what was the point of everything I've done before now?

I have plenty to learn. I am 100% positive I will change my mind about things as I watch and learn from the other council members and listen to residents. And I'll get frustrated too. But the results for the community will always be more important than how any one decision impacts me. I have to remember that. I hope I can.

Jill Writes Like She Talks

The Dems are not in trouble

Karen Joy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:19:19 -0600

If you listened to people coming out of the polls, these elections were dealing with the people that were running their state, not the President nor their representatives. It will be next year's elections that could possibly tell a story on whether or not the Dems are in trouble. Hurrah, the House Health Bill was passed!

SOME PEOPLE STILL DON'T GET IT

jchavez — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:03:55 -0600

Let's just say that when the news is reporting anything in politics, they assume you know what Washington is all about. So, when it comes to moms and dads like you and me, it's hard to understand what is meant by "medicare cuts". I have always believed that health insurance shouldn't be a profit organization or business. If you want to make money, raise auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance. No one should have to die or live a less than poor quality of life, because it costs money and expertise to do so. Insurance companies should not be "companies". CEO's should not be making millions for running the business "efficiently". I am part of a family of five in a one income household, with an income (this year) of about $50,000. We live in the midwest, so with cost of living, we do okay. We pay out over $250/month for health insurance. That's over $3000 a year and that doesn't include what the employer pays into it. We have not used all of what we have put in. Most of the people we know have not used what they've put in,yet, our insurance goes up just about every year. They are investing the $3000 a year and making money on it and if I need it, they no longer want to give it to me. They would rather I die or live a poor quality of life. If they give it to me, they don't make that interest on it and they don't care that my intention for giving them the money is to protect me from financial disaster- not them! I pay them out of fear. How is that a business. You cannot compare that to Wal-Mart who pays their employess next to nothing. I don't give Wal-mart my money to help me financially to stay alive and healthy and they have never promised me they would help when I had health issues. I agree that the whole health system is somewhat corrupt, but this is a great start to fixing it. I know people believe in free market, but that only exists in small business owners. If they don't do well, the government doesn't bail them out. People need to abandon their greed within their family and in work and lifestyle. THAT will fix the health care system and everything else in the world.

I am so happy that you've shared your story, Jill

Kim Pearson — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:53:55 -0600

Hey Jill,

You know I'm proud of you. (Or at least I hope you know.) It's a brave and noble thing you're doing - putting yourself out there, trying to be part of the solution instead of just pointing out the problems with government. I hope you govern with the same transparency and zeal with which you've executed your campaign, and I hope your story inspires others to get just as involved in their communities.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|

Time will tell

Erin Kotecki Vest — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:35:18 -0600

As of publication time, women blogging were talking mostly about Stupak. I look forward to reading the thoughts of women bloggers as they also break down the 39 Dems and their reasons.

Politics & News Contributing Editor Queen of Spain

From your FAVE third-party advocate buddy :)

Christine Watch Me — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:32:41 -0600

Erin, you have efficiently and thoroughly explored why you believe that one lone Republican was 'correct' in voting for the HC bill as it pertains to abortion rights (and also covered the bases for anyone who thinks that one Republican might have been 'wrong' regarding the same).

Any interest in commenting upon the 39 Democrats who voted AGAINST it, and what their fundamental issues might have been? For most, it wasn't abortion rights.

THOSE issues are the real "bipartisan" aspects of this debate.

It continues with the DoD

reneehendricks — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:04:16 -0600

I recently wrote an article on Technorati about the latest guideline that the Department of Defense has put in with regard to open source software. It seems a bit of clarification and clearing up of confusion was needed.

I have to say, it's really a great thing to see our government open up to the possibilities that open source technology can afford.

Great article here! I plan on coming back for more!

Renee Hendricks http://www.socialurl.com/reneehendricks

Research leads to employment for some

prophetlady — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:05:49 -0600

You might consider it blowing money on research, but someone got paid. In todays times people need to make a living and a research enables this process. I use to work for a variety of research companies, and I made a decent part time living doing it, and it placed food on my table.

I think you are more affected by the outcome of the statistics then the actual research itself, I hardly doubt the statistics are lying or are inaccurate in the findings of this particular study.

try not to take it so hard, and look at it as a paid study that someone made a living from, and that was the end result

Would love to hear/read more about the Mayor!

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:39:20 -0600

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and leave a comment on this post. I would love to read more about your friend who you helped and who became a mayor - that is fantastic. It's actually been hard to come up with words to adequately describe how it feels to have done what it takes. In the moment, it was much easier somehow!

Glad to know there are women interested in this kind of support and effort and goal. I think it's critical to a representative gov't but also, just to feeling like we matter. That's something I think most of us struggle with at one time or another.

Best to you too -

Jill Writes Like She Talks