The Beginning of the End: U.S. History Censorship in Public Schools

School censorship of history, and regular neglect of recent history all together, may well be the greatest injustice to would-be American adults. The recent fuss in Jefferson County, Colorado is evidence enough that partisan officials are subverting education starting by excluding teachers unions from the decisions regarding their school district, and ending with omitting important aspects of U.S. History. They claim the analysis of curriculum is to "review curricular choices for conformity to Jeffco academic standards, accuracy and omissions", and present information accurately and objectively. How can you expect conformity AND academic standards through censorship? Your act of censorship immediately lowers your academic standards. How can information, riddled with omissions, be accurate or objective?

The act of censoring, by definition, makes the remaining information quite distinctly subjective.

It's no wonder that young adults have increasingly limited coping skills. How is anyone expected to cope with the horrors of our collective past as they echo in our ever changing future if they are not given the chance to digest the information over time? The intention of protecting our children rarely works, and is often sought after moreso than preparing our children. For the record, there is no "protecting our children". It's a myth; an illusion, as sure as perfection, that will never be achieved. What's worse is that in the pursuit of this illusion, we, perhaps unintentionally, hand over those children to anxious and unnecessarily complex lives.

The great irony is we make vulnerable that which we attempt to protect.

I'm quite sure, however, the current outlawing of historical events in public schools in Colorado in order to "not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law" has little to do with protecting children. This reeks of adults attempting to control youth through censorship; exactly the kind of behavior that incites social strife and civil disorder. Removing important aspects of history, even current events, has a way of finding its way into the hands and minds of people, and removing it from the forefront only begs the question: what are you hiding?

Remember this? And how outraged the public was to be shielded from an issue like a child in need of coddling? Yeah.

It wasn't a stand alone incident.

And you wonder why people go into a panic when something happens in the world!

Because censorship does nothing but make people angry when they finally find out the truth.

And apparently Americans are so self-centered that they'd rather hear about themselves ad nauseum. 

And can only handle rehashed, unsubstantial self-analysis, but can't deal with current events or adult situations. No, not American adults. Maybe it's because of their limited education *ahem*!

Now, don't let yourself be fooled. This isn't protecting six-year-olds, who are pretty well sheltered from the truth of life as it is. No, this censorship would go all the way to the end of public school's reach, affecting A.P. History, whose credit would be honored at higher education institutions. Higher education cannot function under the presumption of being "more than" general education when its sources are restricting knowledge on a foundational level. "Higher education" cannot be the establishment for which our nation's youth finally learns an unbiased version of U.S. History. Does this mean that the general populace is doomed to live in a shroud of deception? As it is, these youth could hardly be considered children any more. 

If high school students can be convicted of manslaughter by being given the responsibility of driving, then they can handle the gravity of their ancestors' legacy. 

Preparing for their personal authority as legal drivers and legal adults similarly requires thorough examination of the law as it applies to them. Denying young adults the information from our past also denies them the understanding of their legal rights: their right to peaceably gather, their right to protest, and, should it come to that, the right to abolish the government. 

Please, please, PLEASE take a moment to sign the petition to help prevent setting a precedent of censorship in our schools.

Citizens United Ruling Persists, While the Power of the Individual Diminishes

Today I write to attempt to dissipate my shroud of anguish. I am distraught by our Senate, and truly saddened by its unwillingness to overturn Citizens United. But it's not just the end result that agitates me so. It was denied swiftly, and with little compromise, which is especially disturbing right before a major election. It was denied uniformly by Republicans, which indicates to me that we are no longer communicating on a feedback loop (more information on feedback loops soon), required to continue upward progress. And the saddest of all? The ruling stands on a technicality.

Our government is not listening to its people any more.

If you took a vote nation-wide, and perhaps we should this November, I believe we'd see the majority of individuals do want the ruling of Citizens United overturned (80% consensus, which is huge). But our representatives think they know better. Of course they do, because they aren't listening to the people that voted them into office. If they were, there would be a more efficient system for individuals to convey their opinions other than calling and writing. By the by, if you know of a more efficient system, by all means, leave a link in the comments so we can spread the word. Our government officials are listening to the companies and excessively wealthy individuals that helped pay for their campaigns (which is mostly marketing), who convinced all those voters to sway in their direction. Obviously, in this model, voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

Voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

The only thing worse than knowing the government is not willing to regulate campaign funds from corporations is that, in doing so, they are actively abridging our individual "freedom of speech".  You'll note that the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abridging the freedom of speech."


abridge (v.) - to reduce or lesson in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail; to deprive, cut off.

Special interest groups, corporations, even non-profits who are willing to funnel money into a campaign are effectively drowning out the authority of individuals' voices. This is the argument we should be making to the Supreme Court - that we must protect the diminished free speech of individuals by nullifying the over-funded agendas of the wealthy.

Ultimately, I believe this all boils down to simple addition. If the first amendment protects what we say, then in the voting process we still operate on the assumption that one person equals one vote. By allowing a corporation, definitively a collection of people, to also have a voice, and one that can out-spend an individual 100 to 1 (or more), then the individuals making up that collection have just extended their voting power. That is to say, unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes. It is a bidding war, not a test of moral fortitude. Arguments have been made accusing those who would overturn Citizens United would effectively amend the Bill of Rights, but it simply continues to redefine it to identify how it works in today's system. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect corporations; it was written to protect individuals.

Unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes.

The first amendment protects what you can say, not HOW you say it. Cursing at the top of your lungs is still allowed, but if you do it at 2am and wake up your neighbors, there will be grounds for arresting you for disturbing the peace. If you want to make films that directly defame political candidates who oppose your political agenda, be my guest. But be prepared for legal backlash when you take outside money to promote or distribute it (they already got backlash when they tried to distribute the film just before a major political election). Even conservative political commentator George F. Will admitted "the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech".

dis sem i nate (v.) - to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse

By this definition, monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to amplify speech; it gives what is being said greater power and influence. Thus, overturning Citizens United would limit the power and influence corporations have over the voting public.

Monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to AMPLIFY SPEECH; it gives WHAT is being said greater POWER and INFLUENCE.

Even reading through wikipedia to gleen more information on the first amendment, "campaign financing" stands out like a sore thumb. But perhaps it is because modern mobsters are alive and kicking within our government. Somewhere in the last few decades, mob bosses, who use money (and thus power over people) to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people into compliance, have found a new home on the other side of the legal system. They aren't hiding from the law any more, they are manipulating the lawmakers, and thus rigging the law, to their advantage. Even Al Franken compared the current ruling of Citizens United with money laundering. What the hell happened to accountability?

This is because we've forgotten what money is. Money is not speech. Speech, non-verbal, verbal, or expressionism, is speech. The old adage "put your money where your mouth is" very casually denotes the difference, in fact. Your mouth does the speaking; your money invests in its completion. This means that putting money anywhere is the next step AFTER speech, not the speech itself. A man walks up to you and says, "I like your hat", and there is no pretense or intention; but a man who walks up to you and says, "I like your hat" with a few bills in his hand now has the power to take it from you. He doesn't even need to offer the money to you, really. Just showing the money suggests the bargaining POWER of money. And that's what it boils down to, ladies and gents. The Supreme Court ruled that it has no authority to regulate POWER over the American public. The political mobster has tucked away his loaded pistol, which years ago would have been not-so-subtly used to get his way, in favor of the understated implication of quid pro quo.

I'm trying not to see this as the beginning of the end, but it's difficult. Oh, corporate America, how do thy own me? I shudder to count the ways.

9-year-old Girl Accidentally Kills Shooting Range Instructor and NO ONE is Asking Some Essential Questions

As someone who believes in the value of having gun safety as a lifelong skill AND stricter gun safety laws, I felt the need to weigh in on this recent incident.

I first shot a gun when I was 10 years old. My father felt it was important, so he went with me as my guardian. It was a rifle, with a sight scope on it (I couldn't tell you what gauge). The way you shoot is by propping it up on the wooden gate in front of you, based on height. Because I was leaning forward, into the gun and onto the gate, there was no way I would loose control of the gun. Also, it was NOT an automatic (such as the one in the aforementioned incident).

I have since trained with police officers, active military, DEA instructors, and NRA members (I wanted to be in law enforcement in high school). Every time I've fired a weapon, there has never been a question as to whether or not I'd loose control of the weapon because every decision was based on "safety first".

Here are the questions I would pose before further judgement could be assessed:

1) Was there any instruction with the weapon BEFORE it was loaded? It seems to me that kind of reaction happens when the person holding the weapon hasn't become familiar with the weapon before loading it with ammunition and firing.

2) Is there a policy of where the instructor should stand while a CHILD is shooting (as opposed to normal adult clients)? Standing next to the child seems idiotic at best. Even when you are shooting at an indoor range, it's policy to stand BEHIND the person with a loaded gun.

3) Is there a policy for helping a child hold the gun? It should have been expected that a child couldn't handle an automatic uzi, and thus, at the very least, the first shots should have been secured with the instructors hands on the gun as well. Once they get used to the recoil, there may be a chance the child could handle it on their own.

4) Is there a policy that requires the child to learn on a rifle first (as the 5 year old is allowed to, according to the above article)? If a 9-year-old can't handle a .22 rifle, then they shouldn't be allowed to hold an automatic uzi.

As it stands, I'm not sure I'd want anyone under the age of 16 trying out an automatic uzi, much less someone not in double digits. Furthermore, that seems like an advanced weapon, which would require more than a parents signature on a waiver and parental supervision. Parents don't have superhuman powers. Unless they are taking the place of the professional (hands on the gun and everything), "parental supervision" means bubkus when that gun goes off.

I'm thinking this was a combination of professional incompetence, legal neglect, and parental disregard for their child's abilities. Children trust the adults around them to know better, and in this case, it seems like none of them did. 

Also, any injury on a range is ultimately the instructor's responsibility. I'm more than a little upset that they have not mentioned ONCE how the child is doing after KILLING a man. Unless they are somehow implying that the child did it purposefully, they need to stop pitying the instructor and worry for the sanity of that child. Shooting a gun is traumatic enough. Seeing the aftermath of shooting one at a human is beyond most people's ability to cope.

I would love more information about this company's policies and the laws of Nevada regarding this situation. If you have any links, please leave them in the comments below for all to peruse!

A Fan's Tribute to Robin Williams: Find Your Light and Share It

I'm writing this evening in loving memory of Robin Williams. Of course, it's not as if I knew him personally. I never shook his hand. He never sat next to me at a diner booth and discussed world politics. No hugs or gestures of appreciation were ever exchanged.

Yet he touched me. His presence in this world has touched me so entirely that I can't stop weeping every time I see another tribute video. His daughter's letter, fellow actors and comedians posting their condolences, even a poignant quote from one of his many inspirational films just brings those big, puffy-eyed tears crashing down.

Well, here's my tribute. You suck, Robin. All your life, you've given to others. Your heart and soul laid bare in your work, your words, and your hidden moments of charitable kindness. But as your twilight years crept up on you, knowing soon it would mean that others would have to give back to you, you wouldn't allow it. Couldn't you give the world a chance to redeem itself? But for all your well-meaning, sir, I understand. I just wish I could have given even an ounce of that back to you.

I understand your dedication for helping others, even if all you can do is cheer them up. I understand your compassion for the underdog, and your passion for wisdom. Ultimately, it's possible I even understand your depression. I think it comes down to a very simple intention: pay it forward.

There are many demons of varying degrees in my family's past. Among them is alcoholism, thyroid disease, bipolar disorder, and depression. Yet, so many who have met a Walker Woman would say she "lights up a room whenever she walks in". This light is beyond enthusiasm or optimism; it's unabashed happiness, and it penetrates all armor. It's an inner glow unlike any other, and I instantly saw it in Mr. Williams. When I first saw him as part of his stand-up routine A Night at the Met, I knew then how he must suffer. We all see how he shines; how can you not? If ever there was an appropriate application of the term "whizz-popper", it would be proudly bestowed upon the crown of the late Robin Williams. But the nature of life is 'balance in all things'. Someone who knows and shares such abundant light must also know equal depths of darkness. Only the closest to him would see his darkness, of course, as the Walker Women know all too well. But we know no other way to suffer. We cannot suffer in silence. We must shine, and the consequence is unthinkable darkness.

Each of us suffers in this life, and Robin sought to ease that suffering in others. In the end, I think he didn't want help because he wanted our efforts to be redirected. Just as he shared his light with the world, so should we. Everyone has that light inside of them, by the way. It's the light that shines when your defenses are down, and you approach the world without fear of judgment or ridicule. You walk through the world with a sincere belief that you can make the world a little brighter; and it's contagious.

So, when you're done mourning, as I'm seven ten tissues on my way to doing, find your light. Breathe in that light, walk boldly up to a gloomy face, and make their day. Talk to a family member just to let them know you miss them. Even if you don't miss them now, you will miss the opportunity to tell them when they are gone. Visit a nursing home just to listen to stories long forgotten. Touch their hands and remember what it's like to risk embarrassment for the sake of someone's delight. Volunteer at a hospital, or, if you're really keen on feeling the love of Robin's legacy, volunteer at a homeless shelter. I'd suggest more drastic measures, but this isn't meant to be a social or political call-to-arms.

Or is it...

Yes, a social call-to-arms. For us to connect with compassion and laughter again. For us to include the aging in our young, turbulent lives. Most importantly, for us to live with integrity and compassion. Don't be afraid of caring too much! Don't be afraid of your light going to dark! Be afraid that your muted glow will never touch another.

And don't be afraid of crying. I'm sure Robin wasn't. I'm quite sure he knew all about crying. It's why he preferred to laugh. After all, doesn't laughter make crying worth it?


As a personal note to the late Mr. Williams - you don't really suck. I'm sorry I said that. And I'm sorry I never got to see What Dreams May Come (though, I laughed so hard in the theater when I saw Death to Smoochy that I swear my mother moved seats so no one would know we were related). I knew I was going to cry like a baby, so I've just been avoiding it for years. I think it's time to see it now.

Oh, Texas...

This has been a regular phrase of late. Ever since the big move from Denver, Colorado down to Dayton, Texas, I've been noticing more and more differences. Some so outlandish that it has elicited the aforementioned, "Oh, Texas" response. What else are you going to say when you drive 16 hours southeast, knowing you are still in the same country, and yet... very much not in the same country?

I can recall the first time it came rolling out of my mouth, "Oh, Texas". We were avoiding driving through Dallas by heading east towards Paris. Along the way, most small towns all seem to have working automotive repair shops, but also quite a few gas stations gone out of business. How backwards is that? They need upgrades for the vehicles, but not fuel?
I definitely "Oh, Texas"ed when I found out that gas stations in Texas give a discount on fuel if paid in cash. Why is that a benefit? So you have a better chance of making money off of food and drink sales?

There were also more churches through these small towns than there were eating establishments. Perhaps they need to feed their souls more so than their bellies? Now that can't be true. Texans seem to ADORE going out to eat. On that note, apparently barbecue baked potatoes are a thing here. In true "everything is bigger in Texas" form, these BBQ Baked Potatoes are HUGE!

This is approximately the size of the BBQ Baked Potato I was introduced to - HUGE! 

Two full scoops of meat over a meal-sized russet, plus any other toppings that suit your greasy fancy. If meat and potatoes are your thing, you can now have it smothered with barbecue sauce and cheese. Denver is all about their steak, for sure, but only in Texas would they look for more ingredients to induce a heart attack.

Now that we've settled into our temporary abode here, about an hour east of Houston, I believe I can safely summarize five common necessities of Texans.

5 Common Necessities of Texans
1) Trucks - Oy, do they love their pick-up trucks! And while Colorado is very well-known for having a large majority of SUVs and utility vehicles (Boulder in particular is known for its overwhelming number of Subaru Outbacks), Texas definitely leans towards the American-made, gas-guzzling pick-up. Now, it should be noted that most are not hauling anything, which either means it's a fad or people like having them in that once or twice a year instance where they would need a truck to haul something.
2) Beer - So much so that some parts of our family are wondering if we're related because I told them I don't like beer (mostly because I'm allergic to wheat). However, I did have to marvel at another "Oh, Texas" find: Wash-a-Beeria.

Please know the woman in the picture is not me, but she's translated my reaction pretty well.

That's right. A washateria, or laundromat, that offers food and, more importantly, beer. This seems like a neat way to make doing your laundry a little more eventful, but really? Someone's liable to shrink their sunday dress beyond decency with that kind of combination! Oh, Texas...
3) Guns - This one doesn't really bother me, as I was raised in Virginia, and have only ever lived in Colorado or Texas otherwise; all gun-friendly states. The only skills I was taught as a kid still ring true as Texan: riding horses and shooting rifles. But when every major establishment you walk into, including grocery stores, has a sign posted about the legality of bringing a loaded gun on to the premises, you know there is a standard here that is like none other. I won't lie, it's a little nerve-wracking.
4) Buffets - I'm not just talkin' about Golden Corral or Chinese buffets. They've gotten into a groove where everyone offers a buffet, especially for lunch. My husband and I visited the west side of Houston for a date day. We found an Indian restaurant that had good ratings, and wouldn't you know it, a lunch buffet. Don't get me wrong, it was good food, and a reasonable price. But... well... Oh, Texas...
5) Donuts - If there is anything Texans love most, it has got to be donuts. There are donut shops everywhere! Small town, down town, it doesn't matter. Mom 'n Pop, Shipley's, though no Krispy Kremes (well, not in the Houston area, anyway). This would be awesome, and fantastically indulgent, if not for my wheat allergy. But alas my desire to remain pain-free overrides my love of glazed donuts (which may well be one of my favorite things).

Maybe I can convince the donut-loving Texans to start making gluten-free options for us transplants? I think I could live in Texas if there were gluten-free glazed donuts available.

The only gluten-free glazed donuts I've ever been able to find, and they are sold frozen. Texas - your challenge has ben issued! Fresh, gluten-free donuts, available at your donut shops - GO!

But for now, I will just embrace the stares at Golden Corral when all I eat is the steak and salad.