America needs an American President not an American’t President.

AmericanFlag

 

When I see what is left of the 2016 Presidential field, I think to myself I am tired of the several American’ts that are running. American’ts are the people that tell us that we have to accept the status quo. There was a time in history when that was the case, we were forced to accept the status quo. However, this is not that time. Things are different now.

Something to be proud of.

The way things are now is about doing the work of creating a culture we can be proud of; doing the work it takes to make that happen. What is frustrating is the many Americans that seem stuck in a sticky time warp of ideas. They will not budge. They absolutely and unequivocally refuse to evolve. This is not the type of people to lead us all to a peaceful and prosperous future. Good leaders have earned leadership. Good leaders earn respect. Good leaders understand the concept of the consent of the governed. Good leaders understand the past and have a strong vision toward the future yet are very much in the present doing the work that needs to be done for the good of the many, not an exclusive few.

The answers are there if we choose to find them.

I want an American for President. This person does not need to have all of the answers but this person needs to be willing to find out what the answers are and go after them. This President needs to do all that is necessary so that the fewest people go to bed at night hungry, scared, worried because of circumstances that are far beyond our control. We need to create a society that says you are not alone in this. Working together to reach the optimum potential of humankind.

An American sees the obstacles, rises to the challenges, and has the political will to be honest about the solutions. Putting together a strong team that will come up with viable solutions and communicate those solutions to the citizens of this nation in ways they can understand and engage in. An American is what makes our nation the best in the world. Americans are bold, innovative, we adapt and we overcome. Americans meet the challenge that life throws at us, we do not cower or deny that the challenges are happening.

Americans see the vision and want the world to be a fair place.

Many Americans see the power dynamics of the world changing and see what needs to be done. There are tens of thousands, perhaps millions, in line with this vision that knows that humans are capable of developing the answers to live modern lives that are not at the expense of the ecosystems that we share with the rest of the world. Americans who refuse to be in a state of perpetual war creating pain for others. Americans who want to live in a world that feels fair and in balance. We know that the American’ts tell us this is not possible. However, something inside us burns, letting us know that this is possible, all we have to do is go through the steps to bring things back into balance.

The next leader of the free world needs to be an American not an American’t. I look forward to see what happens on Election Day next Fall.

Torn: Arizona Prop 123

education

A special election will be held May 17, 2016 in Arizona; my heart and stomach wretches at the options placed before the electorate. Proposition 123 is supposed to be a solution to the starvation of funding that the Arizona Legislature has inflicted on public education funding over the past decade. Governor Doug Ducey has put it to the voters to increase funding over the next ten years by $3.5 Billion. This sounds awesome and of course the Chamber of Commerce is on board. In the voter pamphlet sent out by the Secretary of State’s office, David Gowan, Speaker of the House says that this proposition would “mean an end to a lengthy and contentious lawsuit that has racked up legal bills and put the health of our entire state budget at risk.” Here is the thing about that, the lawsuit is the result of poor leadership and why should Arizona voters come to save the butts of those who have sold out Arizona’s students time and time again?

The dilemma.

The first thing that is frustrating is the way that the law is presented to the voters. I believe it was intentionally made to be deceptive and difficult to understand. What it comes down to is either we give the legislature more money by dipping into the state land trust fund so they can cover the debt they created with their own partisan politics, or we face being a state with the least funded schools in the nation even after the territory of Puerto Rico that is currently in a position of trying to restructure great debt.

I don’t want to tell the students no. I want to tell the students that we care about them and want their education to be supported in every way including financially. The problem is that this is another badly written bill from the state legislature. It is not a sustainable solution and it encourages continued bad behavior from the state capitol.

Who does the bailout benefit?

Funding education is vital to a prosperous Arizona future. What is so frustrating is that it is the poor leadership and mismanagement of funds by the Arizona State Legislature that put us in this position and they are double-dipping into the State Land Trust Fund to cover their mistake, yet more important to them they are making more of the State Trust Land available to developers. The land is supposed to last “in perpetuity” to fund Arizona education. It will not do that if we increase the sales whenever the legislature wants to pull out more money. I want to fully fund education in Arizona, but at what cost?

I am angry as an Arizonan that we have again be left with a difficult decision because of poor leadership.

Who are we electing anyway?

Related image

Watching the selection process for the Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party over the last few days leaves me wondering. Who are we electing anyway? The leader of the free world or the head fundraiser of the party, and should that person be the same person?

Many in the Democrat camp this week have circled the wagons around the talking point that Bernie Sanders does not deserve to be the Democratic candidate for the presidential race because he has not raised enough money compared to Hillary Clinton for down ticket candidates. In case you are not familiar with the term, down ticket candidates are those who are running for office in the Senate, House of Representatives, and for state elections. Where I do agree that winning down ticket races is an important part of standing up to the shortsighted and irresponsibly bad written laws coming from the Republicans lately; I don’t think that the president should also be the head Party fundraiser.

While Bernie Sanders went to participate in an economic conference hosted by the Vatican discussing a moral economy, Hillary Clinton went to actor George Clooney’s house for a fundraiser that in Clooney’s words raised an “obscene amount of money.”

As I have shared this idea that head fundraiser and the president should not be the same person with those in my social media circles, I was told more than once that I just don’t understand how things work. To that I answer I do understand how things work, however the way things work isn’t working for millions of people in the United States and to not even try to do something differently to see if it works better makes no sense to me.

It seems to me that the way that candidates are forced to make the ask for money for the Party places them in a vulnerable position. The party is supposed to be doing the fundraising work, which ought not be a major problem if the candidate they are supporting is good at her/his job. I think a great deal of the problem is that many candidates have not been servants of the people that they wish to have vote for them in elections. That is why they need to spend so much money to get their name out to the people and share a common narrative that they think the people will buy. I would argue that that is not the way it should work. I am old-fashioned however because I believe a voting record of a candidate or the previous works of service that they are known for should do the talking, that should be enough to fundraise from.

The strategy of fundraising from previous work will not be a successful strategy to market to the richer crowd who only want to buy favor with the winner. However, it will work to market to Main Street and those who understand the vision that the candidate is selling to win the Election.

It is irresponsible to make the candidate running for president the same person who is responsible for raising the money for the party. The members of the party should step up and do their jobs and leave the job of interviewing to be the leader of the United States to the candidates.

CUNY drops Mr. & Ms., why it matters

gender-balance-612x336

Political correctness gone amok or a much-welcomed end to oppression? There are many ways to look at the CUNY decision to ban the use of Mr. and Ms. in correspondence.

Words mean SOMETHING. So what does Mr. and Ms. mean to us? Well, first let us break this Ms. down a little more Ms. is indicating 1) this person is a female. Before 1971, and the use of Ms., there was Miss or Mrs., meaning that each time you spoke or corresponded with a female woman you gave her a little reminder that 1) she was female 2) and whether she was married or not and 3) if she was married, to whom she was married. Are women this forgetful that they need reminding of this every time people tell them something? If it is indeed so important, then why is the same reminder not reserved for men? Men have the Mr. that reminds them they are indeed male, but it does not remind them that they are a married man and to whom they are married. I think many of us know at least one or two men who sometimes forget they are married and to whom they are married to, but still there is no judgment. They don’t seem to need the reminder each time they correspond with someone. So, what does the salutation tell someone.

It breaks down gender, marital status, and status in a culture. The salutation is there to remind you where you stand in the culture and about how much respect you are to be afforded because of that fact. Is it necessary in 2015 to point out to a person that they are man or woman, married or unmarried, from a particular family or not, before letting them know that there will be a quiz on chapter 4 next Friday?

Am I reading into this too much? I do not think so. Because if these words did not matter so much. Why are so many people upset about losing them? What are they losing? They are losing what they think is entitled them because of the status these words convey. That is what is fascinating about all of this.