Protect the 2nd amendment

Much like the Bible, people think they know what the constitution says but really they have no idea. So I'm here to help you all out. Here is the actual text of the second amendment straight from the constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Here are a few quick definitions so we all know what we are talking about:

Keep: To retain possession

Bear: to carry. 

Regulated: control or supervise by the means of rules and regulations. 

Regulations: A rule or directive made or maintained by an authority. 

Security: The state of being free from danger or threat

Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency

Arms: Weapons and ammunition

Infringed: Act as to limit or encroach on. 

So in plain english:

A well controlled and supervised militia being necessary to maintain a state free from danger and threat the right of the people to retain possession of and carry weapons and ammunition shall not be encroached upon. 

It is fair to say that the wording of that amendment can be interpreted in many different ways, thereby causing the outrageous gun debate that we are now having in this country. It is also fair to say that we don't really have a need for a militia anymore. Our military is the largest in the world (one of the largest? I don't really keep track of the size of militaries), and the really great thing about having a powerful military is that the civilians can just not worry about it. (thanks soldiers). So that begs the question, if we can admit that we no longer require a militia, then do we still need the people to have the right to keep and bear arms? I mean, that was written so that average joe guy could protect himself during wartimes. 

Well, for protection, yes. It can be argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own protection is still important. (I wouldn't argue it, but it could be argued). We also need to remember that when the Constitution was written the only arms people were keeping were muskets and bullets. There were no handguns, rifles, AR's and definitely no 100 round magazines. So in order to be truly and honest logical about the Constitutional right to have guns, we have to think about what it means. 

The whole purpose of the right to bear arms is to ensure the security of the state. One of the best ways to ensure security back when America was just a toddler was with a militia. Our military then was not what it is today and the people needed to supplement the military with their own protections. The war was on our soil (we forget this, because wars are never on our soil anymore). But when the war in on your soil you have a much higher need for personal protection because the enemy (the actual enemy, not the figurative 21st century enemy) could very well appear at your home with guns blazing. 

Today, no soldiers are going to show up at your home guns blazing. Today we need to protect ourselves from modern threats like robbers and psychopathic murderers. While I will agree that there is a need to protect yourself and your family from threats of the outside world, that threat no longer requires a militia. You can get locks on your doors, alarm systems in your home, etc. 

There will never be a time when in order to protect yourself from a robber or other intruder in your life or home you will need a 100 round automatic rifle. One bullet will put the intruder out of commision if not kill him. 

That being said, the right to bear arms for the security of a free state basically ensures your right to a gun for protection. This in no way ensures your right to a gun for hunting, but hunting is relatively harmless, so fine we can include that. 

It's also important to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and people that will use their guns for evil. This isn't in the constitution but the soldiers in the revolutionary war did not give their guns to the british soldiers, why would you want someone to have a gun that could kill you? In today's world keeping guns out of the hands of the bad people means something different than what it meant hundreds of years ago. It means things like background checks, and controlling or regulating where the guns go, who gets them, and why they have them. If you are a law abiding honest gun owner, then your right to bear arms won't actually be infringed upon at all by gun control laws. 

Here are some of the things Obama ACTUALLY wants to do: 

~Create a national database to make sure background checks are run through all the systems and no criminal falls through the cracks. 

~Close the gun show loophole so that the same strict rules have to be followed at gun shows as they do at regular stores. 

~Start a national dialogue about mental health

~Encourage congress to pass an assault rifles ban

~Ban large ammunition magazines

~Train emergency responders to have an effective and quick response to shootings in public places

~Give incentives to schools with police officers. 

I know people don't like the word "ban" inherently. But instead of just getting mad at the word Obama or ban, really look at that list. What on that list is actually a bad thing and/or will actually take away the guns of a law abiding honest gun owner who is using their guns for protection and hunting? Keep in mind that the kids who took the lives of the students at Columbine got their guns from a gun show. Adam Lanza took his mothers AR that she got legally because ARs are legal. 

Think about how many lives would be saved just by not having automatic weapons around. James Holmes would have only gotten 5 or 6 shots off before having to reload, giving people way more time to run out of the theater. Eric Harris might have just resorted to only bombs, which he was bad at making and those lives would have been saved. 

What Obama is doing is not liberal or left wing. What he is doing is protecting his country, exactly what a commander in chief should do. Now I know this had lot of logic in it, so if that bothers you then go ahead and go back to posting memes about how Obama is black and probably on crack which is why he is banning all guns and allowing the gays to create hurricanes to kill all the good people. Otherwise, use your brain and think about how much better off this country would be if people weren't walking around with assault rifles. 

How to prevent rape: flow chart edition.

Ever since Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh and a slew of other not so intelligent conservative old men opened their mouths to define rape, rape has been a hot discussion topic. You might think this is a bad thing, but actually it's a good thing. This means that maybe people will stop assuming they have a right to another persons body. Maybe if we talk about it enough boys will grow up understanding the difference between respect and rape. 

The funny thing is, we still have, in this society, a culture of victim blaming. I see more re-posts of how women should prevent rape that I ever wished existed. Women should carry weapons or mase, they should dress like nuns and have short hair. Women shouldn't walk alone at night, they shouldn't park in parking structures, they shouldn't lead promiscuos lives. Women should refrain from things like one night stands, because it gives men the wrong impression and they might get raped. Women shouldn't go to frat parties, they shouldn't get drunk around men they don't trust. I could go on forever listing the ways women are supposed to cease enjoying their lives in order to prevent idiotic men and  immature boys from raping them. 

But why? Why do women have to be in charge of making sure they don't get raped? Shouldn't the rapist be in charge of NOT RAPING PEOPLE! I mean seriously, why are we not raising boys to be less ridiculous? 

Just recently Jenna Marbles, a youtube famous vlogger, made a video of things she doesn't understand about women "sluts edition". This video talked about a lot of things, but skirted pretty close to the edge of victim blaming. Victim blaming, meaning that women who get too drunk, make bad choices, sleep around too much, or dress "slutty" in some way deserve the assault of the man who found her black out drunk when she couldn't make decisions. 

A number of other less famous vloggers then made response videos about the slippery slope to victim blaming. This one is my favorite:

She does a really good job of articulating the problem with labeling date rape as a "bad decision". She makes the important and too often ignored point that being raped is not the result a bad decision on the part of the victim, but the result of a horrendous violating attack on the part of the rapist. Watching the video will do more justice than my description, so watch it and then continue reading. 

The thing that really killed me was the comments section of this video. Of course there were plenty of people saying how proud they were and how much they like when this vlogger had to say. But naturally there were jerks also. Jerks that made comments like "How drunk does someone have to be for it to be considered rape?" and "people shouldn't intervene if they think they see someone being taken advantage of."  Is that a joke? I can only assume those comments came from the same sort of jerks that edited this wonderful point made my this women into this totally rape-y version. 

That is the original photo. This wonderful and amazing women took this photo of herself to make the point that no matter how a woman is dressed, she isn't there for you to have sex with. Some completely horrible people edited to this:

Seriously? They "fixed" it by erasing the words "still not" so that she is now asking for it. This is how much power people think they have over other people's bodies. A quick photoshop job and now they can have sex with that woman. These are the people you think don't really exist. These are the people that you get sick of "feminists" hating. This is pretty symbolic of the way women are treated by rapist types. And this is NOT ok.  Ok, so whatever these are just stupid uneducated horrible men. Fine, then I'm going to educate everyone. I made this handy dandy flow chart to help you understand when it is ok to have sex with someone. I know it is small, I made it in a word proccesor and kind of quick but I tried to make it large enough to see. If your computer has a zoom feature use that. 

Should I have sex with this person I think is cute?

So you see, most roads lead to no. This doesn't imply that women can't have sex all the time all day, but they have to say yes all the time all day. My point is that we need to get away from "no means no". That's insane. Instead, wait for a yes. It also answers the question that never needed to be asked about how drunk someone has to be for it to be rape. Doesn't matter, they can have had 1 beer or 20 shots. If they are too drunk, tired, unconscious, distracted, or whatever, to definitively say yes, then you can't have sex with them. 

Let's think about it another way. You know how in football if the ruling on the field is not a touchdown, the only way to overturn it is with IRREFUTABLE video evidence? Meaning it was NOT a touchdown unless it can be irrefutably proven to have broken the plane. Think about sex like that, unless there is NO QUESTION in your mind at all, unless there is IRREFUTABLE evidence that the person said yes they want to have sex with you then you should NOT have sex with them. 

Still not understanding? Ok, well how about this: if someone was about to do what you are about to do to your sister, mother, daughter, or best friend would you beat the crap out of them? If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't. (disclaimer: this doesn't include that fact that dads would probably like to beat up the people taking their daughters on dates and holding their hand). 

Until we change this culture around rape, and until we make preventing rape the job of the rapist and not the victim, we are going to make women feel like bad things that happen to them are their fault. If women sleep around as much as men that DOES NOT mean they deserve to get raped. Even if you think their life is terrible, they do not deserve to get raped. Even if you think they are unworthy of respect, they do not deserve to get raped. When Daniel Tosh said that the audience member who heckled him deserved "to be gang raped by five guys" what he was doing was perpetuating the idea that bad women deserve bad things. 

I will leave you with this: even if a woman makes the worst decisions ever, every single day of her life and dresses like a prostitute and walks along the streets at 2am without any weapons...she still DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE RAPED. Teach this to your children, that the rapist is the only one responsible for preventing rape. 

Where was God? Oh, he was in Newtown, CT. Where were you?

To be completely honest with you, I've been avoiding the news as much as possibly lately. It just too much, it's too sad to think of those kids and those teachers. But, I don't live under a rock, I am not a starfish. And I have Facebook. There are a million things I could say about what happened.

We NEED to stop ignoring mental health issues. We don't need to start talking about the idea of maybe thinking about creating a committee for mental health issues. We need to just stop pretending like they don't exist. We need to focus on helping people more, and supporting people more. But I think this is beating a dead horse and everyone has their opinion on it anyways.

I could talk about guns. But I've said my piece. I will never understand why people think assault rifles should not be banned, since the entire purpose of an Assault Rifle is to ASSAULT people. But whatever, I am out of words to say on the guns issue.

No, my issue is this prayers in schools thing. First, why use such a horrible event to push such a ridiculous agenda? Second, prayer IS allowed in school, just not prayer of one religion administrated by to teachers. And third, the last time I check, God is there whether or not you are praying.

Here is how God works. (or at least the God I was taught to believe in). Also, might I add, this is how many of the people claiming this happened because prayer isn't allowed in schools say that God works also. God loves everyone. God loves people that believe, and people that don't believe. God protects. God does not only protect people that believe. God does not love conditionally, based upon whether or not you are praying. God does not even stop loving if you are sinning (so even if prayers SHOULD be allowed to be forced by teachers, thus not allowing it is a sin, God still loves the people not allowing it). God doesn't disappear when you stop praying and reappear when you start praying again. God does not force anybody to believe in Him, he simply waits patiently. God does not hate (I think the Westboro Baptist Church missed this memo). God doesn't stop loving people, it's just not a thing.

So to say that if there had been more prayer, and more God, and more christianity in that school this wouldn't have happened is just one big insult to the families, the lives lost, christians, God, and really, America. Look instead at all the moments that God (and/or the higher power/protector/Allah/Yahweh/etc) WAS there. Look at how many loves WEREN'T lost. Look at what those teachers did to save the lives of their students, seriously, that doesn't show you that God was there? That a 20-something from an evidently selfish generation could care so deeply for children who weren't hers that she would only know for a year, that she would take a bullet for them, if all you can see from that is that there isn't enough God is the world, you need new glasses.

To take away from the heroic acts of the people in Connecticut that God wasn't there, would be like taking away from Jesus dying on the cross that God wasn't there. Oh, don't get offended, it's true. I mean, what a terrible event to have this innocent man who was only trying to bring good to the world, who was the King of the Jews be crucified, where was God? Did this happen because Jesus and his disciples didn't pray enough? No, of course not that is a dumb thing to say.

Neither Jesus, nor God would ever force themselves upon someone. So why should you force them upon someone? Why should you speak for God and say he wasn't there, when clearly he was, because he always is. I can't explain why those tiny lives were lost, and I don't wish to because it's so horrible that they were. But I'm pretty sure God doesn't just sit back and watch things like that happen. At least not the one that I was taught to believe in.

guns

There is not really an effective way to explain the number of thoughts that went through my mind on Friday afternoon. I was standing in the courthouse, watching the trial of the murder of my aunt wear down on my family, listening to people talk about the new law allowing guns to be taken into new places especially schools (this was the place we all were the most concerned about). None of us had our cell phones because they aren't allowed in the courthouse, there are no TVs in the courthouse. There is no way to know what is happening in the outside world. Maybe this was for the best, did we really need to see all that news flashing on the screens while the jury was deliberating?

As we head to leave because the jury hadn't made a decision the deputy stops us and informs us of the horrible events of Friday afternoon. I pretty much stopped listening after "first grade classroom."

Like I said, there is no effective way to possibly explain the thoughts that went through my head in the moment. The first was that my very best friend in the first grade teacher, so I should make sure she's ok. But she lives in Colorado, so that was a fleeting thought. The second was those poor poor children. Those poor parents. That teacher. And my very next thought was, guns ruin everything.

Now, I realize that maybe in your lifetime you have enjoyed killing a Bambi or two. And when I say that my dad points out that I eat Betsy the cow, but hey, if you're killing in order to feed society go for it, and besides, this isn't a debate about hunting and vegetarianism. But in my lifetime, the only things guns have done is destroy lives.

Guns are the reason that I grew up, from the day before (June 18th, 1989) I was 20 months old, in a state of tragedy. Guns are the reason that my brothers 4th birthday party probably sucked and was basically just happening (so I've been told, I don't remember). Guns are the reason that my mom lost one of her sisters, and that 3 of my cousins grew up without a mom.

Guns are the reason all those kids died in Columbine. And the reason all those people died in Virginia Tech. Guns are the reason a teenage boy died in an Ann Arbor high school, he was playing with his dad's gun when his friend accidentally pulled the trigger. Guns are the reason for the lives lost in Aurora. And the lives lost in NYC, Detroit, Chicago, LA and every other urban city every single day.

The prosectur in my aunt's trial used one of my least favorite phrases to make a really good point. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gross. I hate that. But somebody has to have the gun. Somebody has to have the gun to use to to kill somebody on accident, on purpose, planned or unplanned. If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot somebody.

If now is not the time to talk about gun control. If now is not the time to talk about how to save those lives. If now is not the time to make sure those kids did not die in vain, then when is the time?

People don't want to talk about it because it sucks to talk about death. And they know that it will require them giving up some of their guns. If it will require admitting that the second amendment doesn't actually mean you just get to have AK-47's laying around the house.

The holiday debacle

Every single year since the dawn of time (aka since I was old enough to notice), as soon as halloween passes we are automatically engaged in the American Holiday Season. This includes really great things like shoving your whole extended family in one room over a meal and seeing what happens, and really frustrating things like the whole debate over what we should say to each other during this season. (this ends as soon as Dec 31st gets here, and then its happy new year, and nobody cares anymore.

Here is the solution to the debate over the holidays. But first, a story:

I work in retail. (this story likely is true for all service industry workers). I interact with hundreds of people every day, hundreds of different people with unique lives and stories and families. I usually get one of two versions of the "farewell greeting": "merry christmas" or "happy holidays" or some variation thereof. I don't often get told "happy hanukah" or "happy kwanza" or "happy solstice".

I respond with "you too."  Let's say for example that I didn't celebrate christmas, but none of the less I am wished a merry christmas, it can be assumed the person wishing me a merry christmas celebrates christmas, so by saying "you too" I am wishing them a merry christmas. In fact, no matter what they say to me, I am wishing them an enjoyable whatever holiday they celebrate. Sure, I hope Jewish people have a good day on Dec 25th, it would be weird to wish for someone to have a bad day, but it's equally weird to wish someone a merry holiday they don't celebrate.

There is no war on Christmas. There is a push to be more inclusive, if you don't like that then I guess you have a bigger problem than this blog can solve. Most stores do not have generic holiday seasons, nor do they have CHRISTmas seasons. Most stores have Americanized consumeristic holiday seasons marked with green trees and fat men in red suits. No, it's not weird for your local secular store to not carry a nativity scene. In fact, I wouldn't want or trust wal-mart or target to respectfully represent the religious christmas. I would much rather get that from a store that understands the nativity scene. The job of a store, like it or not, is to make money. Not to celebrate one religious holiday.

There is also not a war on other non-christian religions. (um, that sentence reminds me of the Gaza/Israel thing, so when I say no war, I mean in the way we as Americans trivialize the word "war"). Sure people like Bill O'Reilly say ridiculous things, but he is one guy. And one guy does not make a war. There is less product for those holidays around, because they are less common and less commercialized. Again, a stores job is to make money, and they make WAY more money on christmas than hanukkah.  I think people who are interested in celebrating CHRISTmas should wish their holiday was less prevalent in stores, it might have more meaning.

We are all fighting to celebrate the holiday season our own way, and we are letting the stores dictate what that means. If your best friend celebrated a different holiday than you, what would you say to them? You would probably tell them Happy Hanukkah, and they would say to you Merry Christmas. Since we don't know personally every person we meet, it makes sense to say "happy holiday(s)" because that implies that we hope for them to enjoy whichever winter celebration they have.

Also, if someone says to you the wrong holiday, who cares? Isn't it nice that they care enough to wish you a happy anything? There is no need at all to correct them. "well, I know you said to enjoy my holiday, but I celebrate christmas so you can say merry christmas," that's rude. It's also annoying. And it makes you look like a jerk. And it makes christmas feel like a holiday which is shoved down everyone's throats, not like the enjoyable thing that it is.

The moral of the story: who cares? This should not be a debate. Common courtesy should explain how to act. Just be glad people are wishing you a happy anything and that you have people in your life to celebrate your holiday with. Stop posting pictures on Facebook of how I should know what holiday to wish someone, and also of people telling me it's american to say merry christmas. It's the holidays, not the month of fighting. The election is over, just say have a good day if it's that serious.

What I'm taking away from the election.

After taking some time to watch the tallies trickle in, I think it's time to talk about what we (or I) learned from this election.

The most obvious post-election revelation is that the republican party needs a facelift, and a new numbers guy. I know people want to point fingers at Christie or Sandy for Mitt's loss, but here are a few more logical places your fingers can point. The first is that the Grand Ol' Party is clearly getting pretty old. This IS your grandfather's political party. Socially conservative views don't hold the same water they did way back when, and while it seems fair to have a party that's right of center, I think the republicans are getting a little right of right. I'm not just talking about being pro-life, because I think a lot of people could and would vote for the republican ticket while they are pro-life. I'm talking about being so "pro-life" that they want to define rape, ban contraceptives and defund planned parenthood. I'm talking about a party that falls so far to the right on marriage equality they feel the need to BAN it, even though it's not allowed in the first place. One pundit said it best last night when he said, "for young people being gay is like being left-handed, it's boring."  That's true, and if the GOP wants to win the young vote, they need to come around to the issues and beliefs of the majority of young people.
Which brings me to my second point, the GOP really needs a new numbers guy. Romney was counting on three key demographics to pull him through: white, male, christian. That's fine, the christian white male deserves a party that he agrees with, but he is not the majority anymore. That's the thing, Romney won the white vote. But he didn't win the election because Obama won all the other demographics. Obama's numbers guy realized that if they could get ALL the non-white folks to vote for Obama that's more than all the white folks. It's all a numbers game right? The democrats played the numbers really well, the GOP did not so much.
I wouldn't be surprised if we are witnessing history in the fall of the republican party. Political parties have an ebb and flow to them, and most politcal parties change, adapt, or disppear over time. For example, Lincoln was a republican and while yes current republicans are anti-slavery, the current republican party looks nothing like the republican party that Lincoln witnessed. Neither does the current Democratic party look like the Democratic party of Lincoln's time. This isn't something that will happen overnight, tomorrow the Republican party will look the same. But as top Republican's are beginning to call for a third party, are endorsing Obama, or are leaving the Republican party to be indepentents, it is clear there is a large swath of people who might start a third party.
The new third party will probably still be a conservative one. Fiscally speaking they will for sure be conservative.  But I think the general compassion that seems to be missing in the Republican party today will show up in a new third party. They will likely be socially moderate, though right-leaning. This will give a place to land for all the people that might be pro-life, but don't identify at all with people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.  People that might have their beliefs about traditional marriage, but see no need to attack gay people and call them names. It's not that I think a conservative viewpoint is so out of date it will go away forever, but the people I know that voted Republican this time around are exponentially more compassionate than the current Republican platform. (do we need a third party, or is everyone just gonna be independent  That's another question for another time).

I also learned that what that pundit said about young people is true. The first openly gay senator was elected and....silence. Nobody cares. So what?  We have a black president, a gay senator, marriage equality in 3 new states, and the defeat of some extreme senators. This is an incredible step forward. Did this happen because people changed their minds? Maybe a little bit, but young people turned out to vote overwhelmingly. And young people, as I've mentioned before about my generation, are really different from previous generations.
I would say that young vote is to absolutely to blame for those outcomes. If it wasn't why did pot get legalized in two states? It feels like young people thought, "meh, people can do what they want. Shouldn't we fix the economy?" Which is pretty much a solid thought process. I would suspect the generation of voters after me, and even the first time voters this election who are way younger than me, are not going to move the needle in the other direction.  If you think it's good or bad, it's 100% true that young people are socially liberal. (back to the rep party...if they want the young vote, they should figure this out)

So yeah, nothing is perfect and after a divisive campaign season we ended up exactly where we started. With gridlock in congress, a "fiscal cliff" upcoming, and two parties that have to figure out how to work together or crash the economy again.  But we also saw forward movement, and maybe the Republicans will work with the Democrats and the President after the people voted for them again.

My vote 2012

What better way to cap off this ridiculous election season than with an explanation of why I'm voting the way I am? Probably a party, or a day of no campaign commercials. I was watching regular TV the other day and EVERY commercial but one was a political commercial.  They were only for the props, if I lived in Ohio it probably would have been an extended commercial break and included lots more attacking of the president and Mitt Romney.  I wish I lived in Ohio so my vote would count, but NOT for the campaigning.  Anyways, here is my ballot explanation, skipping the ones like supreme court (because I need to do more research) and trustees because really, nobody cares about that explanation. (Ok, some people care, I don't have the time for it).

President: Barack Obama.
Prop 1: No
Prop 2: Yes
Prop 3: Yes
Prop 4: Yes
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: No


For the President.  I said at the beginning that if there was a republican that even had a chance of defeating Obama, it was Romney.  I said that because Romney was (before he got a little weird) a republican that I could at least consider as president.  And if the democrat wasn't Obama, who knows (well, who knew).

Everyone keeps asking if Obama has earned a second term, and yes he has. He's not perfect, but he's a little better than good enough. Let's start with Obama's bad side:

Issues on "life" (I so hate life being the term we use):  My friends always joke that I'm the most conservative because I'm really not pro-choice, or at least I really don't like knowing about people having abortions.  I also really really really hate the idea of partial birth abortion, there needs to be a cut off, I mean if you haven't figured out you don't want the baby by the third trimester, you've made it far enough you can do it, and put the baby up for adoption (also we need to make the adoption process easier. And less confusing for teen mothers).  I probably could justify voting for Romney on the life issue, except he took Ryan as his running mate and no abortions for rape victims is too much.  Plus, in my opinion, the best way to stop abortions is to increase education and contraceptives, not just make it illegal.  When is the last time a LAW prevented someone from doing what they needed to do to (in their opinion) live? If we make abortion illegal without education we will only increase back alley abortions and by default kill more teenage girls. Neither Obama nor Romney has the opinion I really feel comfortable voting for, but when it comes down to it, Romney took it too far by putting Ryan on the ticket.

On "women's" issues (which should really be everyone's issues): Barack Obama actually cares about women being equal.  He has a proven track record of caring about women. Lilly Ledbetter for example. Making it so women can get preventive care easily and more effectively, making contraceptives free (which by default decreases abortion), making college affordable (not a women's issue, but some women go to college soo...my point exactly all issues are women's issues). Romney will set us back 50 years, he will make it so that women can get paid less and have no legal recourse, he will control women's healthcare. Obama easily gets my vote here, there isn't even a debate.

Equality. My favorite thing people say to me is "I love my black/gay/hispanic/lady friends but...." But what? But you don't care about everyone being equal? What if I said that to my friend? "I love you but, I'm gonna leave you here on the side of the road because you're a minority."  During Barack Obama's presidency the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr act was signed, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, Lilly Ledbetter act was signed, the Defense of Marriage act was declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the government, Affordable Healthcare act was passed, oh yeah and our first black president was elected. Romney on the other hand hired a few women to his cabinet after some women's groups told him to, he will probably re-defend defense of marriage, he would repeal DADT if he didn't think it would be impossible to shove all those soldiers back in the closet (he said so himself, in not so harsh words). Romney also favors "self deportation" (whatever that is) while Obama favors path to citizenship and not deporting people who have lived here their whole lives. I love my (insert minority) friends, and I'm going to prove it by voting FOR equality, not against it. It's also worth noting that we don't really know what Romney will do when he's in office since he's sometimes liberal (Romney-care) and sometimes conservative (against marriage equality, even though he's state allows all couples to marry...).

The economy.  I've said it before that I don't care the think too much about economics, probably because I'm female and therefore to simple minded to figure it out. OR because I just hate numbers a lot. Either way, an economy that says if the rich get richer so too will the poor get richer doesn't make any sense.  An economy that says lets strengthen the core of our country makes sense. An economy that taxes people that can afford it more, and people that can't less is an economy I support.  Also, Obama's record shows that he's on top of it, the economy is on the upswing, even Romney says "the slowest RECOVERY of our time". Why would we take out something that's working and put back the stuff that broke it in the first place? That doesn't even make sense. And yes, I will vote for someone who is a democratic socialist (even though Obam isn't) over a capitalist (which Romney is). Capitalism has it's place, but it NEEDS to be balanced out by socialistic policies or the greedy people win and the poor people end up sleeping in gutters. Everyone deserves a fair shot. Just saying.

Those are the biggest issues in my book for voting for Obama. This is long, I can't believe you're still reading. On the the prop's which will be shorter (maybe).

Prop 1: Emergency Manager -no
I've been going back and forth on this one. I mean, obviously there are cities in Michigan that need some kind of financial intervention.  We can't just sit back and watch places like Detroit go bankrupt, that's not good for people, business, or the economy.  So yeah, the Emergency Manager thing seems ok. But the Emergency Manager thing gives absolute power, and absolute power is never good. It's good to create change in places that need it, and when the people resist change just because change is scary sometimes change has to just happen and people will adapt. But when that change is led by an absolute power that could potentially be looking out for corporate interests rather than the people, that's not ok.  There are a hundred ways to fall into the category that mean your city gets a review one of which is "other circumstances at the sole discretion of the state treasurer".  This also gives the financial manager the ability to override locally elected officials.  I guess my point is I think the idea is good, but it's obviously been taken to far. Essentially, if the state treasurer decides he doesn't like the locally elected officials of a certain town...he can declare it a financial distress.  With reform this idea might be ok, but as it is there is too much risk of absolute power.

Prop 2: Collective Bargaining etc. - yes
The only way to really protect collective bargaining is to put it in the constitution. Sure, it's already a law, but as we well know greed does not always follow the law. If it is already a law, what bad could come from putting in the constitution? none. What good? protecting something critical to making sure workers are treated fairly on the job. I'm not in a union, but that's not because it's illegal...it just is.  If someone works for a company, they should have the ability to unionize if they are treated unfairly. This is why we have unions, to protect workers. Again, this is something that may need reform, unions have gotten huge...but the idea that some old man is sitting in an office somewhere laughing and rolling around in union dues money is ridiculous. Sure, union bosses have issues, but is that worth taking away the protection somebody has on the job? Is it worth taking away someone's ability to strike for better conditions? No, it's not. I'm not 100% pro-union, but I'm 100% protecting workers ahead of corporations.

Prop 3: Clean energy - yes
I mean, what's cooler than getting to play putt putt with real windmills? (just kidding...but I would totally put a putt putt near a bunch of windmills if I could.) We NEED renewable energy, and for the michigan economy we need to start doing things that are forward thinking not backwards thinking. Clean energy is one of those things. Simple as that, anything that encourages a company like DTE to get it together I support. I also like breathing clean air. I mean...yeah that's it. Oh, and I like to protect the planet.

Prop 4: Home Health Care Workers - yes
I was really really undecided on this one for a long time. At first it seemed redundant to prop 2, which it's not but I had to sort that out, then it seemed sort of useless. But after reading that it will not require a person needing home health care to use a unionized worker, but it will just basically create a union for home health care workers...that was a selling point. Also, the idea of having something established to protect people from having criminals help them. Not everyone has the family support to make sure they get the best care, so having something that people can depend on to to know a background check has been run it worth it. Also, having something the worker can depend on is a good thing also. This means that if you want to be the home care person for your family member with a disability, you can do that without joining a union, but if you need home care and don't have anyone there to help you find someone you have something to trust. Yes and yes.

Prop 5: 2/3 majority to raise taxes. - no
Um, no. Also, no. No really, the only upside to this is that...um actually I don't know. Please feel free to let me know the upside. I don't hate taxes the way I'm supposed to, everyone seems to hate them, but why? Taxes pay for stuff we all need and use: roads, police officers, public school systems, etc. I like to have things around for everyone to use...and that happens with taxes. Now of course I also like to have my money in my pocket, but sometimes you gotta spend money to have stuff. New library? sure I'll help pay for that. I mean, I helped pay for a war, the least I can do is help pay for a library. (off topic about the library sorry). Also this could lead to a minority rule situation. If we are voting to raise taxes it should be 51% not 2/3. But we shouldn't be voting to raise taxes, it just happens. We should be voting in legislators that we trust to riase or not raise taxes.

Prop 6: voting on a bridge: - no
Can you imagine what it would be like if we had to vote for every construction project that was bothersome to a rich person? Every CEO of a company that has construction on his road would want the people to decide, and the people will always say no because the people for some reason don't understand that roads need fixing and bridges need building. Also, this bridge is free, so there's that. If someone offers you a free bridge you take it. This rich guy doesn't deserve for the people to decide anything, we need another bridge, it will create jobs in michigan and be paid for by canada, there is literally no downside.  Oh except this rich guy won't have a monopoly anymore, if you think that's a downside. Also, if you DON'T support this particular bridge, remember this will force us to vote on ANY international bridge forever, there is no end date to the voting. So what if they want another bridge in port huron? Or a bridge someplace else to get to Canada? We would have to vote.

The bottom line is this: for my decisions I took the approach of how it would impact people the most, and who it would most negatively impact. And yes, when forced to choose I choose working people over wealthy CEOs.  You don't have to vote with me, but at least vote.