URGENT: Rep. Hildabrand wants to host a party called Con-Con

Hey Kansas in case you weren’t aware our state Rep Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee)  is making national news again with a big party he wants to throw.  It’s called Con-Con (Not to be confused with the Can-Can, a dance made very popular in France.)

You really need to check out that video – 1. That guy is really flexible. 2. Is that Piers Morgan?  3. I picked this video because of the patriotic colors.

Back to my point – Con-Con is short for the Article V Constitutional Convention that is allowed under our US  Constitution.  It is a little known provision of the US Constitution that allows for states to introduce NEW amendments to our US Constitution.  In order to do this 34 states have to agree to enact a new Constitutional Convention. Currently there are 17 and our Kansas is one – lead by..you guessed it Rep. Hildabrand. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/article-v-convention_n_2973821.html

Now I read the amendments being submitted and in 6 point font they seem to be all about balancing the budget.  Even I agree that balancing the budget is a great goal, however, the danger in this convention is that once it starts, our entire US Constitution is at risk of being edited and new amendments can be introduced and approved having nothing to do with balancing the budget.  Like what you ask?  How about things like the personhood amendment or amendments on illegal immigration or gay marriage – issues that our nation is deeply divided on. (Insert cheering and groaning depending on what side you are on.)

The drink of choice they will be serving at the party will be P-O-W-E-R.

The very first Constitutional Convention that gave us the document that we know and love. The number of Constitutional Conventions that have happened since…wait for it….ZERO.

Now Rep. Hildabrand is really starting to scare me and here’s why – there is a pattern developing of attempting to exert power over the Federal Government at the state level.

1.  Introducing the TSA bill that disregards the federal government security screening standards at airports so that Kansas has its own standards.

2.  Sponsoring the 2nd amendment protection act that finds any government regulations of the 2nd amendment “unconstitutional” and therefore “unenforceable”.

Now sponsoring Kansas exerting states rights to add or edit our US Constitution.

It may be for the greater good of balancing the budget, a goal we can all get on board with, however altering our US Constitution is serious especially when there is no guarantee that when this party kicks off  it can be contained.

Here’s an idea Rep. Hildabrand-if you want to be part of the Federal Government so much, how about if you run for a higher office?  Stop attempting to overreach the power of the state government.

I’ve included this letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger on his views of an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20543

June 22, 1983

   Chambers of
Chief Justice Burger
Retired

Dear Phyllis:

    I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.

    I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

    With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

    Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a “miracle.” Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.

Cordially,

(Signature)

Warren Burger

Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly
68 Fairmont
Alton, IL 62002

About these ads

Oh MO! Gun Ownership an Inalienable Right?

Another day…

another piece of paranoid gun legislation out of the heartland.

This from the “Oh my God, they might take our guns file”-

I give you from Senators Schaefer, Munzlinger and Kehoe from our great state of Missouri:

Here ye, here ye…SJR 14

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense
2 of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of
3 the civil power, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of
4 concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be
5 inalienable. The state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these
6 rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their
7 infringement

Some say inalienable, some say unalienable.  Some say tomato and some say tomato…I guess in print that doesn’t come out right, but you get my point.  For the sake of this blog piece, I’ll say inalienable like my political friends in MO.

Somebody give the Founding Fathers a quick ring, we are changing the Declaration of Independence and those three inalienable rights – from the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to now add -the  right to have lots and lots of guns.  I’m sure the NRA will provide more appropriate language when necessary.  Making the right to bear arms inalienable means that any regulation to the 2nd amendment by the Federal Government won’t apply to Missouri.  So if semi-automatic weapons are outlawed, Missouri is exempt (unless this ends up in court for years and years costing taxpayers tons of money while Constitutional lawyers try to figure this whole thing out.)

Anyway, yes I was a history major, but that was many years ago, some may say it was ancient history (insert laugh) so I went back and reread the Declaration of Independence.

Since the GOP is always rallying their troops with what “the founding fathers intended”, I thought it would be useful if I pointed out a few things to our Missouri Senators who want to add a new inalienable right.

1.  We already have three – the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  One could argue that we shouldn’t add another unless we have perfected the first three.  I wonder how the victims of senseless gun violence and gun accidents would feel about adding another inalienable right when their inalienable right – the right to LIFE wasn’t upheld?

2.  If we are going to secure a right to be inalienable  - how about if we go for a right that wasn’t that should have always been.  Example – slavery.  Until the Civil War, African-Americans were not free in this country.  It took a constitutional amendment to  guarantee their freedom.  If there is going to be another inalienable right – how about if we go for a biggie like that one instead of declaring a right that we’ve always had suddenly “inalienable”.  How about the right to life, liberty pursuit of happiness and never to hold another person as a slave.  Quick history 101 – Slavery was legal at one time in the great state of Missouri.

3.  This goes along with number 2.  While re-reading the Declaration of Independence, there is a whole lotta talk about men.  Not much talk about women’s rights.  If we are going to make a right inalienable, how about if we make equal rights an inalienable right?  Again, it is something that wasn’t at the founding of this great nation, so how about if we are sure we can never go back to that way again and make a women’s right to vote an “inalienable” right?  The right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal representation in a democracy.  I think we have a winner!

Just a quick reminder, it wasn’t all that long ago that women and minorities couldn’t vote, hold property or even hold certain types of jobs.  White men have always been allowed to “bear arms”.  It has not been suggested that guns been outlawed, only that certain types be regulated.  I haven’t heard of amendments that affect slavery or women’s right to vote also be included in “inalienable” rights.  It is curious that only a right that hasn’t ever been at risk of being taken away is the one suddenly that needs to be voted on to become “inalienable”.  The rights that have only really come to be in the last 150 years involving people being viewed as property and women not having a say in government are the ones not being introduced as “inalienable”.

The one thing that the three Missouri State Senators and the Founding Fathers all have in common is not that they want to make certain rights “inalienable” it’s that they are all…

white males.

It all makes sense now…

VAWA – KS and MO Reps for violence!

Dear Reps in Kansas and Missouri:

I am writing to those of you who voted against the bill known as VAWA.  In case you were confused on what you were voting for earlier this week, let me lay it out for you – it stands for VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT.

Here is the list of shame, I mean a list of people who voted against VAWA:

Representing the great state of Missouri

Rep. Blaine Leukemeyer – R

Rep. Billy Long – R

Rep. Ann Wagner – R (on the voting record it listed only as Wagner. I hope, and I mean seriously God I hope, I have the wrong Wagner.  You would be the only woman I found voting against VAWA).

Representing the great land of Oz

Rep. Mike Pompeo – R

Rep. Tim Huelskamp – R

From what I understand the Republicans who voted against VAWA said they disagreed with the bill because it extended protection to the LGBT community, illegal immigrants and Native Americans.

I guess violence against white women is bad, but gays, Indians and illegals – you’re on your own.  Suck it up people.

Quick question GOP – how’s that re-branding of your party as a more compassionate and inclusive party going?  Just curious.

Sorry..don’t mean to get off track.

I’m guessing that our KS and MO representatives voted against VAWA just because it went with our general Midwestern theme lately of upholding our 2nd amendment rights above all else.  We’ve got a pro-violence theme going on here in the Midwest.  VAWA just doesn’t jive well with that.  We wouldn’t want to look soft now would we?  We are a bunch of bad asses.

I just want to provide an extra gold star shout out to Rep. Huelskamp from my state of Kansas who was one of only NINE GOP Congressman who opposed the Violence Against Women Act in its entirety.  Well done!  One of nine.  That’s something Rep. Huelskamp.

Attention Kansas voters – file that one away in the things we’ll remember for the next election cycle.

Anyway, I think your GOP re-branding strategy is going swimmingly.  I can’t wait to see what is up next.  Maybe there will be some new bill about killing puppies and bunnies or making it illegal for kids to have ice cream that you all can get behind.

Keep up the good work.  The votes for candidates with a D after their name are counting on it!

Sincerely,

Aimee

 

Breaking: Abortion causes testicular cancer

Dear Kansas lawmakers:

I realize that you are getting ready to pass one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country.  House bill 2253 is under consideration. I read over this monster bill – 70 pages (zzzz…I mean well done!) and I think before you pass it, I wanted to take a moment to point out a few things you left out and some changes I would like you to consider.

From the bill:

(a) At least 24 hours before the abortion the physician who is to
perform the abortion or the referring physician has informed the woman in
writing of:
(1) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(2) a description of the proposed abortion method;
(3) a description of risks related to the proposed abortion method,
including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, risk of breast
cancer and risks to the woman’s reproductive health and alternatives to the
abortion that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision
of whether or not to undergo the abortion;

From the American Cancer Society:  Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

I would suggest you add to the bill:

a description of risks related to the proposed abortion method, including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, risk of breast cancer, testicular cancer, erections that can last up to four hours,  a decreased drop in blood pressure, contact your doctor if your erection last more than four hours or if your erection is painful.

Now you are also requesting that all abortion clinics add a visible sign to patients that reads:

It is unlawful for anyone to make you have an abortion against your will, even
if you are a minor. The father of your child must provide support for the
child, even if he has offered to pay for an abortion. If you decide not to
have an abortion, you may qualify for financial help for pregnancy,
childbirth and newborn care. If you qualify, Medicaid will pay or help pay
the cost of doctor, clinic, hospital and other related medical expenses,
including childbirth delivery services and care for your newborn baby.
Many agencies are willing to provide assistance so that you may carry
your child to term, and to assist you after your child’s birth.
I would add:  Unless we decide to repeal Medicaid and ObamaCare.  In that case, you are on your own!  Remember, Republicans believe in individual responsibly - Good luck and God bless!

To this section on coercion, my additions are in bold:

Furthermore, you should know that: (A) It is unlawful for any
individual to coerce you to undergo an abortion, but it is perfectly acceptable for the government to coerce you into not having an abortion.  It is acceptable for the government to use any means necessary including using misleading and even scientifically false medical information.  It is acceptable for the Kansas government to ignore the Constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court finding abortion to be a right of privacy  and attempt to make abortion illegal in the state of Kansas.  It is acceptable to repeatedly traumatize women who face a difficult decision of abortion by running unnecessary and costly tests by the abortion provider.  Coercion is the use of express or implied threats of violence or intimidation to compel a person to act against such person’s will;  It is acceptable to use threats of felonies and lawsuits for medical personnel by the state government to prove our political point regardless of federal law.  It is acceptable for us to be hypocrites when we write this type of legislation.  

Now my motto has always been go big or go home. You have done that with this bill!

Your science is amazing and I can only hope they teach this kind of science in public schools in Kansas.  It is right out of the Todd Akin science book.  From your bill:

the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique,living being

Call me crazy, I think pregnant women may dispute the word “separate” here.  Unless the fetus hangs out next to the woman (talk about awkward), pregnant women have the fetus living in their uterus.  However, I’m open for debate here.  Give me a ring if you find a pregnant women who has their pregnancy with the fetus hanging out separately from them.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but like your bill, I don’t want to put people to sleep.  I hope you take my changes to heart before you vote on your bill.  I can’t wait until you set a precedence for it being o.k. for physicians to deliver medically inaccurate information.  Maybe that means when I go to my allergists they can tell me that allergy shots will make me thin and my chiropractor will tell me that his adjustments to my spine will make me younger.  The possibilities are endless.

 

Rubio doesn’t deserve a pass for Watergate 2.0

Dear Sen. Rubio,

Well, I’m flattered. You must have read my blog about rebuttals not being memorable.  You gave a memorable speech!

I have a confession to make.  See after working an entire day, picking up my kid, cooking dinner, bathing my child, cleaning my house, dealing with a six-year-old melt down that probably was recorded on the Richter scale – I missed your speech.  I fell asleep in my modest, two-bedroom apartment in middle America.  I missed you telling me all the opportunities I have in America if I would just work harder, try harder and make it happen.

Turns out I missed much more than you stomping on my self-esteem…

I missed Watergate 2.0 (can’t take credit for this gem)

I watched the replay early this morning before work.

Senator Rubio – we’ve all been there.  We’ve all let nerves get the best of us.  It happened to me once when I was speaking at Kansas City’s Women’s Equality Day.  Yes conservative Kansas City, there is a Women’s Equality Day event held every year.  It’s sandwiched somewhere in between the “We Love Guns Day” and “We Hate Liberals” week.

Anyway, my stomach was flipping around like crazy and I was getting that hot-in-the-face feeling.  The lip licking began for me as well.   You know it’s all over then.    I didn’t know if I was going to throw up or run for the bathroom.  I made it through the speech, but I don’t remember much of it.  I don’t think my audience did either.  We’ve all been there Sen. Rubio.

All day I’ve been hearing people say ,”It’s refreshing to see that he’s just like us.”  and “Rubio taking a drink makes him more human.”

Not so fast Sen. Rubio…

Now I may sound harsh – not about the women’s equality part, but about the you’re not off the hook part.  We all agree that you are a smart politicians.  However, one of the reasons we can all agree that you were picked for the rebuttal of the State of the Union was   because of the “rebranding” of the Republican party.  We  all agree that you do not look like traditional members of the Republican party (see dictionary definition of GOP- white, older, men). You are a big fish in a small pond.   If you were a Democrat you would be a small fish in a big pond.  Lots of smart people are Democrats that reflect all different races, religions and sexual orientations.  Not so if you are Republican.  Therefore, you have a much larger chance of being picked for high-profile speeches like the rebuttal for the State of the Union.  This also means you have a much larger chance of being picked for other highly visible positions like Vice Presidential nominee or even Presidential nominee as this party re-brands itself.

See your speech actually  didn’t  say anything new about critical issues like women in combat or gay marriage that were discussed in Obama’s speech.  There was little in there about immigration – something that you brought up that is important to your family.  You may have been a minority giving the GOP rebuttal, but you were just a mouthpiece providing the same tired rhetoric that the GOP usually provides.  You just looked different from the usual GOP mouthpieces.  Don’t increase minimum wage, don’t raise taxes, blah blah blah…

Also, it doesn’t take a genius to tell you (trust me, I’m writing this) that the government WAS NOT responsible for the housing crisis in this country.  In fact, unregulated banks and mortgages were the problem for the out of control housing market in this country.

Thanks for humoring me – I was busting to make that point.

Back to my bigger point.  As a politician, it is likely that most of your words are written for you.  (I know America – next up Santa Clause isn’t real.)  We all like to believe that our politicians come up with these brilliant words themselves.  We like to believe that the speeches are crafted by your own hands, that this amazing political theater is of your own doing, but the harsh reality is that there are brilliant staffers and interns who are writing all these words, drafting all of this legislation and briefing all of you on what’s happening in your own halls.  It is not too much to ask that when you do have the national stage that you don’t screw it up.  It’s that simple.

To be fair, Obama stocked the room with victims of gun violence to prove his point about gun control.  I think it was brilliant, but I know the GOP hated every-standing-ovation-moment of it.  Ted Nugent most of all.  It is political theater and both sides are equally guilty or deserve Academy Awards depending on how much you love the system.

However, if an actor on stage can’t perform his lines, the audience doesn’t applaud him, because it makes him more “human”.  They boo his performance.  

Very few of us will ever have the opportunity to be on a national stage. Republicans will say it’s because we didn’t work hard enough.  Democrats will say it’s because we didn’t have enough opportunity.  Time will tell if the nation will forget this little blip of nerves.  You will probably have to endure SNL and Jon Stewart’s mocking for the next week. The GOP will continue to try to make this normal and try to humanize this response from you. I expect to see you on the late night show rounds laughing at  yourself.   I expect more.  It isn’t that you are Republican.  It is because you are a politician and I expect more from my politicians.

Politicians main role is to communicate.  Leave the crappy communication to people like me who don’t have much of a platform, don’t have staff and interns and who don’t get paid by taxpayers to do it.

Thank you and good luck in your recovery from this.  I don’t want to see anyone’s career ruined by a good sip of water!

Yours in quenching thirst,

Aimee

 

State of the Union and GOP Rebuttal – Game On!

The State of the Union is this week.  For those of us who love politics, it’s our Super Bowl, our World Series, our Olympics.  Ok, you get my point.  It’s a big freaking deal.  Obama is probably already practicing with his teleprompter and I’m getting ready as well.

How do I get ready for the State of the Union?

There is a lot to do.

• Will I eat popcorn or ice cream during the speech?
• The drinking game that I play has a special word that when said, requires everyone to drink. Is the word going to be…fiscal cliff, semi-automatic weapons, budget crisis?
• I’ve got to get my bet in on the color of Obama’s tie.  I pick red this year.

This is all serious stuff for a serious political analyst like me.  Then I get comfy in my favorite jammies and the games begin.  How many standing ovations will there be?  Will anyone on the GOP side get caught rolling their eyes?  Can I name that politician before the commentator names him/her?  Can I watch the entire speech without my ADD kicking in and I start changing channels to Honey Boo Boo or My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding?

After the big speech there is the rebuttal.  The rebuttal from the other party is the most memorable part of the State of the Union.  Think back through the years and all of the rebuttals.  For every State of the Union, there is a rebuttal.  Whether it is a Democrat or Republican as President, the other side always has a chance to make their points.

Remember, during the Clinton era there was the rebuttal by….oh it slips my mind right now, but I know it was great.

Then during Bush’s Presidency there was that one year that what’s his name did the rebuttal.  Oh I’m sure it will come to me in a second.  That was such a great speech.  I’m sure his name and that speech will come to me in a second.

Oh think about Bush senior’s time, there was….oh never mind.  The point is all of these rebuttals regardless of side make a memorial impression on the American people.  Picking the right person to give the rebuttal is key.

This is my take on how the GOP picked Marco Rubio to give this year’s rebuttal.

 

So Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, pulls out his Rolodex.  Gen Y – Google “Rolodex”.  Waiting…waiting…filing my nails…waiting..

Ok, we’re back.

 

So he pulls out his Rolodex to find names of who could give this year’s rebuttal.

 

We all know that the GOP has an image problem.  So Mr. Priebus needs to find someone who doesn’t meet that criteria.

First, no one 65 and older.  The person giving the rebuttal can’t be on Medicare since GOP is pitching a fit over Obamacare.  That cuts the Rolodex more than in half.  Oh who are we kidding, more than three-fourths.

Next step, no males or to be more specific, no white males.

Now the GOP is down to about 5 politicians to choose from that fit the criteria.

 

After a quick game of iney, meaney, miney, moe – they decide on Marco Rubio.  Hey that rhymes.  Not intentional – that was funny.

Since all of the previous rebuttals in the past 50 years, oh hell, in the past 100 years have been so memorable, I have some advice for Marco.  When it’s your turn, grab a mic and say,

“You know what he said?  We think the opposite.  Peace Out.” Drop the mic and walk away.

I dare you.  I’ll be watching, that is unless there is a compelling Honey Boo Boo.

Game on Washington!

 

 

 

 

 

Will it soon be illegal to eat dog in MO?

Republican John McCaherty, MO has introduced a bill to outlaw abortions based on sex selection or genetic abnormalities of the fetus.  This bill would allow for criminal and civil penalties to be brought against a doctor performing abortions based on  sex selection.

The Americans United for Life said this bill is necessary, because sex selection abortions have become increasingly common in “some Asian countries.”

Read that one again – “in some Asian countries”.

Just a few statistic to put this in perspective and then we will move on…

From abort73.com – a pro-life website:

• Number of abortions from the CDC in MO 6881
• Number of abortions at 16 weeks when a doctor can tell the sex of a fetus – 2.7%.
• Now how many of these abortions were from “sex selection” – my scientific opinion probably zero!

How do I know this number is probably zero?  I worked at a family planning clinic in the 90s.  Any person presenting to find out the sex of their fetus was TURNED AWAY.  ALWAYS TURNED AWAY.  No exceptions.  Now common sense tells me that a person seeking abortion would never say that they were seeking an abortion, because they were having a (insert boy or girl).  Silly common sense.  That’s like saying that a woman can become pregnant from rape.  Oh science – how you baffle me.

Moving on to other trends in “some Asian countries” that will soon be illegal in MO since they are setting the trend in 2013 MO legislation:

Eating yummy delicacies like -

• pig brains
• dog
• spiders

Enjoy more of these buffet options on this slide show:  http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/256007/

Come on MO representatives – we are counting on you to produce more bills to be sure that all Asian trends become illegal in MO.  The taxpayers have money to spare to be sure that trends like these and abortions from sex selection become a thing of the past in MO!  Way to spend taxpayer money wisely.

MO residents – be sure to call your representative and tell them how you support your taxpayer money being used to end all Asian inspired bills brought to the MO legislature!

 

 

Sex and Guns – MO leading the way in ineffective curriculum in schools

Yesterday I was featured on a Fox 4 News segment discussing a MO Senate bill requiring MO 1st graders to learn gun safety from the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Program.  I discussed how a 2004 National Institute of Medicine study found that the Eddie Eagle Program was ineffective at actually changing behavior when it came to guns.  http://fox4kc.com/2013/01/30/nra-gun-safety-school-program-drawing-controversy/

I have a feeling that regardless of any silly study showing the effectiveness of the program, MO is probably going to pass this bill and MO 1st graders are going to be singing this snappy tune all over MO classrooms soon enough.  ”Aimee, why so pessimistic?”

Can somebody say abstinence only education?

Ding…Ding!

That’s right boys and girls. Hey kiddos – keep your hands off each other while you read this post.

MO is one of only 29 states that doesn’t require sex education in schools and when it is taught they REQUIRE that sex education is taught with abstinence only education.

You may be saying to yourself,  ”What’s the big deal Aimee?  The only 100% effective method is abstinence.”

You are correct.  Keeping it in your pants is 100% effective.  However, a lot  of time  Johnny isn’t keeping it in his pants – this from my friends at the Guttmacher Institute:

•Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and male teens have had intercourse.[1]

Overall, abstinence only education has been found to be ineffective. Here we go again with these silly statistics on effectiveness getting in the way of popular opinion and big lobbying dollars. This time it’s from the National Institutes of Health from 2005:

Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates.

and it goes on..

These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S. In alignment with the new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and the Precaution Adoption.

Oh effective curriculum be damned.  Hell there is nothing better than sending my kid to school and making sure that they do nothing more than learn things that don’t actually mean a damn thing.

Good thing we aren’t leading the world in science and math.  We can continue that trend by raising children who can’t actually read these science-based studies from the National Institutes of Medicine and Health showing that the gun and abstinence only sex education doesn’t actual change behavior outcomes.  Well done lawmakers!

Now that we are also in a budget crunch, what other programs are you going to cut in our MO schools?  Art?  Music?  Let’s replace unnecessary programs like these with ineffective programs like Eddie Eagle and Just Say No To Sex. Does Just Say No To Sex have a snappy jingle too?

“You and Jenny like to dance

Just remember to keep it in your pants.

Kissing and necking may be in

but something that isn’t is showing some skin.”

Necking…I now 1955 called and they want their word back.  I know…I know…it needs work, but you get my point.

OUTRAGE – MO Senate proposing adding NRA curriculum for 1st graders

In response to the nation’s Sandy Hook school shooting, the Missouri Senate introduced a bill in December 2012 to provide gun safety instructions to Missouri’s first graders.  

SB 75 – This act establishes the Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training for Schools Program (ASIRT). By July 1, 2014, each school district and charter school must train teachers and school employees on how to respond to students with information about a threatening situation and how to address a potentially dangerous or armed intruder or active shooter in the school or on school property. Training must be conducted on an annual basis. Initial training must be eight hours in length and continuing training must be four hours in length. All school personnel must annually participate in a simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals, as described in the act. Program instructors must be certified by the Department of Public Safety’s Peace Officers Standards Training Commission. (Section 170.315)

 

Each school district and charter school must annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students, or use a substantially similar or successor program of the same qualifications. The purpose of the program will be to promote safety and protection of children and emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors must not make value judgments about firearms. Firearms are prohibited from the teaching of the program. Students with disabilities will participate to the extent appropriate. (Section 171.410)

Meet Eddie Eagle and dreamy 90210 heartthrob – Brandon Walsh from 90210 a.k.a. Jason Priestley.

The Eddie Eagle gun safety program is brought to you by none other than the National Rifle Association.

What’s so wrong about teaching 1st graders gun safety?  Nothing if “stop, don’t touch, leave the area and tell an adult” was an effective message.  Turns out that a study done by the National Institute of Medicine in 2004 comparing Eddie Eagle  and another behavior change curriculum on gun safety found that Eddie’s gun safety message didn’t do much more than teach kids to recite the snappy tune:

RESULTS

Both programs were effective for teaching children to reproduce verbally the gun-safety message. The behavioral skills training program but not the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program was effective for teaching children to perform gun-safety skills during a supervised role play, but the skills were not used when the children were assessed via real-life (in situ) assessments.

CONCLUSIONS:

Existing programs are insufficient for teaching gun-safety skills to children. Programs that use active learning strategies (modeling, rehearsal, and feedback) are more effective for teaching gun-safety skills as assessed by supervised role plays but still failed to teach the children to use the skills outside the context of the training session. More research is needed to determine the most effective way to promote the use of the skills outside the training session.

To read the entire study click here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14702451

Oops…turns out Eddie Eagle isn’t flying high when it comes to effective gun safety training.

MO Politicians – in a time when vital school programs are being cut due to budget constraints, does it make sense to carry out a program that has no evidence-based results?  If all my child is going to learn from Eddie Eagle is to sing a gun safety song,  how about if you fund better music programs so my child can learn other valuable music lessons and sing other fun songs?

A bill like SB 75 is nothing but a cosmetic fix that adds insult to injury, because it is sponsored by this nation’s most powerful gun lobby.  It embeds the NRA into our Missouri Schools.  This is not a fix, but a PR ploy by the NRA and sponsored by MO lawmakers.

I demand more from our representatives.  I am against teaching about gun safety in our nation’s schools, but I am even more against adding behavior-change curriculum that shows no concrete results for actual change.  Call your MO repesentatives and urge them not to vote for this bill.  Demand that any curriculum added to our children’s schools should only be added when evidence shows it can actually reduce gun accidents in children.  While you are at it, remind them to keep funding our school’s music programs.

Eddie Eagle can buzz off.  Brandon Walsh however…

Attention #NRA and politicians – idea to overhaul mental health you can’t ignore

Dear 2nd amendment advocates and pro-gun politicians:

I wanted to take a quick second to talk about something we both agree on.  Yes, I know it’s amazing that there is anything we both agree on, but in a time for unity in this country, I did find something.  The mental health system in this country is broken.  Your spokesman Wayne LaPierre said it many times that guns weren’t the problem and fixing our broken mental health system in this country is what needs to be a priority.  We definitely don’t agree on the first part, but we do agree on the 2nd part.  Quick note – LaPierre used the word “lunatic” repeatedly to describe the mentally ill in this country – step one might be to stop using the word “lunatics” to describe our mentally ill.  A little sensitivity training might go a long way.

Anyway, not to get off track.  We both agree that our mental health system in this country needs an overhaul.  There was a report released from the Committee on Population that compared US life expectancy rates to those of other similar nations.  We ranked #16 in life expectancy versus other nations:

The USA ranks at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and general disability.

From the Committee on Population: The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for US women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia, and much of Western Europe.

So…injuries and homicide was listed.  We all know LaPierre’s famous statement, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  I’m still waiting on my bumper sticker by the way.  What is interesting in this report is injuries – intentional injuries specifically –  a.k.a. suicide.

The number one way that men commit suicide – GUNS – handguns to be specific.

Now we will never if the men who committed mass shootings were suicidal and decided to kill innocent lives as part of their suicidal mission, but what we do know is that suicide in this country is reducing our male life expectancy.  We do know that men are four times more likely than women to have successful suicide attempts.  We do know that handguns play a major role in suicide.  We do know that in domestic violence death can be linked to homicide of the victim and suicide of the murderer.

To ignore these statistics is to be irresponsible to the commitment to “overhaul our mental health system”.  To ignore this is to ignore the big elephant in the room.  To get into someone’s head who is mentally ill to find what the triggers are, get them adequate counseling and monitor their medication to prevent further tragedies and suicides is one difficult if not almost impossible task unless effective mind reading is a new medical advancement.  Reducing the number of guns that get into the hands of people with mental illness is something that is very possible and a very good start.

Millions of lives depend on solutions like these.  You can’t ignore statistics.

Thanks for keeping all options on the table to help solve this American crisis.

Yours in keeping people alive,

Aimee