Honor

Laundry from the clothesline
Somehow smells like sunshine
Molecules of happiness
I close my eyes,

The memories come rushing in so fast and true,
I have you. I have you.

This morning as I lay in bed,
Not planning to get up or dressed
Just have a lazy Saturday at home
Don't want to do a single thing
Just lay here and enjoy the spring
But then I smell the sunshine and I know

that whether it is raining or the sky is blue,
I have you. I have you.

I'm gonna make the family breakfast,
Gonna tidy up my room
Gonna do those thousand little things
that you would always do.

I can sew back on that button,
write a letter to a friend,
And this way I'll teach the children
That all broken things can mend.

Your spirit is in all those little things I do.
I have you. I have you.

I can go and weed the garden,
Walking barefoot in the earth,
I can sing my children stories,
Of their purpose and their worth.

Gonna turn on the old radio
And probably sing along
Gonna dance while washing dishes
To some long-forgotten song.

And when the day is over and the time just flew,
I have you. I have you.

Laundry from the clothesline
Somehow smells like sunshine
Molecules of happiness
I close my eyes.

Money like water... and love

So I saw this neat analogy today.  Kids who grow up wealthy view money like we view water.  We know, in the back of our minds, that there are people who are "poor" when it comes to water, who have to walk miles to get drinkable water, and that bathing is a luxury that they cannot afford.  We also know that there are "middle class" water users, like those in Flint, who have access to drinking water, but it's bottled and must be carefully rationed.  The rest of us can turn on the tap, hot and cold as we wish, wash the dog, water the flowers, and use water in our toilets.  Think about that.  We flush  water multiple times a day.  So we can't fault those who grew up in trust-fund houses, who don't grasp the concept that not everybody has someone else who does their laundry or drives them around.

I've been looking for a good way to explain why I keep trusting people, even after so many have hurt me, and I think I've finally found it.  I grew up in a "love-rich" household.  My parents had Love, with a capital L.  They loved each other, until death.  They both came from parents who were married until death. My aunt and cousins lived next door to us growing up.  Family was always there for you, both literally and figuratively.  But then I married a man who had come from divorce.  And over the many years since our divorce, I have come to see just how lucky I was.  I was a trust-fund baby.  Not, of course, in the literal sense.  I think that, officially, we were "lower middle class".  We had running water.  But we had to conserve.  But in the matters of the heart, there was no such thing.  We had a home where our friends were always welcome.  We had so much Love we were giving it away.

A "trust-fund" child is always confident in matters of money.  He can walk into a job interview without any apprehension.  If he doesn't get this job, he can always tap into his retirement fund, or sell one of his many cars.  If someone robs him, takes his wallet, he will be upset, but not as much as a man who is robbed of everything he owns, with no back-up account to tide him over.

Some see the glass as half full.  Others, say it is half empty.  Once upon a time, I answered the age old question with "my cup runneth over".  After my divorce, I had thought those days were lost to me.  Then I found love again.  And I got hurt.  The second heartbreak was worse than the first. I was like the poor man, already down to my last dollar, when I was robbed.

So why do I keep on trusting people?  Why do I keep opening myself up to emotional pain?  Because I was raised in a house of Love.  That will be with me forever.  I can turn to my father, my sister, my aunt, my gran.  As a 'trust fund' baby in the House of Love, I can dip into that account in times of need, and come out the other side just fine.

I used to wonder, to worry, that without their dad around, my kids would grow up to be just like him - not knowing Love or what to do with it.  But the opposite has turned out to be true.  By only having me around, they're growing up just like me.  I Love Them.  More than those three words can express. We are rich.

Answer Key

Post 1: What are your issues?

Candidate 1: Katie McGinty

Candidate 2: Edward Clifford III

Candidate 3: Everett Stern

Candidate 4: Kerith Strano Taylor

Candidate 5: Glenn Thompson

Candidate 6: Pat Toomey

--------------------------------

Post 2: The environment:

Candidate 1: Glenn Thompson

Candidate 2: Pat Toomey

Candidate 3: Katie McGinty

Candidate 4: Edward Clifford III

Candidate 5: Everett Stern

Candidate 6: Kerith Strano Taylor

---------------------------------------

Post 3: The Economy

Candidate 1:Everett Stern

Candidate 2: Kerith Strano Taylor

Candidate 3: Glenn Thompson

Candidate 4: Pat Toomey

Candidate 5: Katie McGinty

Candidate 6: Edward Clifford III

------------------------------------

Post 4: Gun control / security

Candidate 1:  Pat Toomey

Candidate 2: Glenn Thompson

Candidate 3: Kerith Strano Taylor

Candidate 4: Everett Stern

Candidate 5: Edward Clifford III

Candidate 6: Katie McGinty

--------------------------------

Post 5: What is your background?

Candidate 1: Edward Clifford III

Candidate 2: Katie McGinty

Candidate 3:  Pat Toomey

Candidate 4: Glenn Thompson

Candidate 5: Kerith Strano Taylor

Candidate 6: Everett Stern

Total:

Katie McGinty (1, 3, 5, 6, 2)

Edward Clifford III (2, 4, 6, 5, 1)

Everett Stern (3, 5, 1, 4, 6)

Kerith Strano Taylor (4, 6, 2, 3, 5)

Glenn Thompson (5, 1, 3, 2, 4)

Pat Toomey (6, 2, 4, 1, 3)

PA Electoral Choices 2016: What is your background?

Post 5: What is your background?

If someone is running for political office, I want to know what they've done for a day job.  Have you owned your own business?  Been a stay-at-home parent?  Worked in a school or a hospital? Volunteered your time to any charities?  More specifically than "how do you earn your money?" I want to know, "What have you done for the last 10 years of your life?  How have you helped Pennsylvanians?" When I specifically searched for "biography" or "known for" or "background" they almost all started with what the candidate's father did for a living.  Um... I get how this can affect a person's upbringing but is it THAT important?  Still, I included it when I found it. I also included educational history (did this person go to college, if so, what was his or her major?)  As far as I can find, one candidate is currently divorced.  I finally had to bite the bullet and list who is an incumbent, because this is part of "what have you done for the last few years?" so I really feel like I may as well attach names to this, but there are two incumbents on this list, and four non-incumbents on this list.  So I'll at least sort of keep you guessing.

Candidate 1: Accountant for a financial services firm.  Lifelong resident of Pennsylvania.  Worked with the Ron Paul campaigns in 2008 and 2012, doing community outreach and event planning.

Candidate 2: Father was a police officer in Philadelphia. Graduated college with a chemistry degree, then graduated law school.  One marriage.  Three kids.  Was an advisor to Ed Rendell, is now chief of staff to Tom Wolf.  Has campaigned for the environment and the elderly, attempting to expand Medicaid to include 600,000 Pennsylvanians.

Candidate 3:  Father was a union worker. Graduated Harvard with a degree in government.  One marriage.  Three kids.  Served as a US Representative for three terms recently, but did not run for a fourth term in the House because Candidate 3 campaigned with the promise of term limits.  Is now running for Senate instead. Was part of the 2013 government shut-down, and voted against re-opening. 

Candidate 4: Father was a Navy veteran.  Graduated Penn State, then attended Temple for post-graduate work.  Worked as physical therapist and rehab specialist.  Volunteer firefighter, scoutmaster.  Has served four terms and is up for re-election.   Voted in favor of re-opening the government after the shut-down.

Candidate 5: Parents owned an auto shop together.  Graduated high school at 16. Graduated Penn State, then graduated law school.  Divorced.  Two children.  Serves on local school board.  Practices law.  Serves as a legal guardian for children in the foster care system. 

Candidate 6: Graduated from a Florida university with a business degree, then attended another Florida university for masters in business.  Worked for a financial firm.  Uncovered a terrorist fund and informed the FBI.  Was fired.  Opened own business, is now CEO.

PA Electoral Choices: Gun control and security

This is the touchiest subject I've handled yet.

If you think people in PA have strong feelings about coal, just mention the words 'gun control' and then you'll see what strong feelings look like.

As my friend John Acker said, "I've heard this from the people of Potter County since 2000. I'm sure it was prevalent well before. Al Gore was going to take their guns away, so was John Kerry and Barack Obama. It's strange how this claim that x candidate is going to take guns away seems to be the one of most long lasting and pernicious undercurrents in republican political persuasion. The even stranger thing is that it doesn't even need to be directly addressed in political ads or by the Republican candidates. It has become memetic. It's automatically assumed that whoever is running on a democratic ticket is going to not just restrict gun access, but physically come into homes and take guns away from citizens."

What do the candidates have to say?  Let's see:

Candidate 1:  [would] "require criminal background checks for those who purchase guns at gun shows and on the Internet—the same requirement on the books for purchases at gun stores." [would seek legislation that] "protected individual privacy by outlawing a federal gun registry."

Candidate 2: [would] "eliminate the requirement that a licensee must conduct business at a gun show only in the state that is specified on the licensee's license." and "loosen restrictions on inter-state gun purchases."

Candidate 3: [said] "...the Second Amendment should not be taken away...[but] some people should not be allowed to obtain one, such as anyone using a firearm to threaten another, domestic violence perpetrators, and people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility."

Candidate 4: [would] "oppose all legislative actions that impose unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners."  "The Second Amendment is the original homeland security act.  I will tirelessly fight to defend this basic Constitutional right."

Candidate 5: [said] "The federal government vastly exceeds its authority when it regulates guns. The regulations in place create victims of law-abiding citizens by restricting their ability to defend themselves."  “The background checks in place now for purchasing a firearm are adequate."

Candidate 6: [said] "The Second Amendment is a protected individual right." "...I come from a family of hunters.  Good sportsmen don't want to see terrorists able to buy weapons. They don't want to see criminals or the mentally infirmed have access to lethal weapons." "The need for commonsense gun safety measures has become clearer than ever."

I was incredibly surprised to find out who was who in this one.  See who you side with, then check your answers on my "cheat sheet", posted tomorrow.
 

PA Electoral Choices, 2016: The Economy

As with yesterday's post, this is a "double blind" study.  The candidates are once again mixed around.  I tried to boil the sometimes pages-long statements down to the most relevant parts.  I tried to be fair and give each candidate the same amount of space.  But this could only be approximate.  As with the last two posts, I will reveal who is who when this series is over.

Candidate 1:  "The current tax code is over 80,000 pages and it is written by Washington insiders...I want to eliminate the convoluted, lobbyist-created loopholes in the code." "Pennsylvania small business has been under assault...I will increase jobs in Pennsylvania by lifting federal impediments to small business development..."

Candidate 2:  "Raise the minimum wage to a living wage...and tie it to inflation...There is no reason that someone working full time in the United States of America should not be able to support themselves."  "We can rebuild America rather than spend trillions on foreign wars...We can employ Americans, retrain Americans instead of watching American workers train their foreign replacements..."

Candidate 3: [no statement on website specifically concerning the economy, budget, or jobs]

Candidate 4: "For the sake of our economy, job growth, and future generations, Washington's overspending and rising debt must be fixed." "Millions of Pennsylvania families live within their means every day; it’s time to make the federal government do the same."

Candidate 5: [congress should] "...advance policies that enable families to get ahead — like expanding tax credits that make child care more affordable."  "I support boosting the minimum wage to $15 an hour...We need to celebrate and support hard work." [I believe in] "closing the unfair tax loopholes that incentivize sending jobs overseas and put small businesses at a disadvantage."

Candidate 6: “Congress can strengthen the economy by rolling back the hundreds of thousands of regulations in place for small businesses." [I am] "against unbalanced budgets, all tax increases, and all increases in government spending"  "I am against the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage interferes with an individual’s ability to negotiate their own agreement."

Coming next: Gun control, the second amendment, security, and terrorism.  

PA Electoral Choices, 2016: Environmental issues

So there's a lot at stake when you start talking environmental issues.  I, personally, was a Girl Scout, and was taught to "always leave a place better than you found it."  I would love to see our country switch to clean energy.  But I also know that the issue of energy dependence is like a many-pronged brain tumor: Yes, we know it's bad.  Yes, we know it's killing us.  But can we remove it without also killing ourselves?  Our dependence on coal and oil is not just an environmental concern; it's economic and social as well.  Coal is jobs in PA.  It's entire towns.  Since this is such a 'touchy' issue, it's a good one to compare the candidates on.  So without further ado, your candidates for congress:

Candidate 1: "I will...advocate for increases in domestic production of fossil fuels... I believe that it is essential that we utilize more of our own domestic supplies of traditional energy sources..."

Candidate 2: [would like] "...to repeal a variety of subsidies and credits for ... alternative sources of energy."  and "supports allowing more oil exploration in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf, and the vast oil shale reserves in America's western states."

Candidate 3: [would like] " to pass commonsense climate protections with investments in energy efficiency and clean energy." and "...support innovations in clean energy technologies."

Candidate 4: [no statement on environmental issues]

Candidate 5: [would like to] "lift federal restrictions on developing natural resources...including but not limited to hydraulic fracturing."  [says] Pennsylvania has a wealth of natural resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas that must be harnessed."

Candidate 6: "We should be investing resources in becoming more energy independent; solar and wind."  "Many of our citizens are descended from miners and oil workers who proudly supported their families with jobs in energy production...[they] will happily take on jobs created by investment in cleaner energy production...should we get the opportunity."

P.S. In case you were wondering, I wasn't kidding about this "double blind" study - I've shifted which one is which from yesterday's post.  I've kept all the answers in my cheat sheet, which I will post when all of this is said and done.