Monday, October 22, 2012

The White House Replied To My Letter


A while back, I sent a letter to the White House regarding women’s rights. I mentioned that I was the spokeswoman for Rock The Slut Vote and described our mission. I forgot I even did this until today.
 
I know that it’s probably a form letter and Obama probably didn’t write it himself but I was happy to read that he has received other letters from people about women’s rights and I think it’s cool to know someone actually read it and took the time to reply. Below is the message:

 
 

October 22, 2012





Dear Kimberley:



Thank you for writing. I have heard from many Americans about issues affecting women, and I appreciate hearing from you.
 

My Administration is working hard every day to promote equality, enhance women’s health and economic security, and ensure women have the opportunities they need and deserve at every stage of their lives. From my perspective, these are not just “women’s issues.” When women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, this not only harms women, but families have to get by with less and businesses have fewer customers with less to spend. When a job does not offer family leave to care for a new baby or an ailing parent, this burdens both women and men. When insurance plans deny women coverage because of pre-existing conditions, it strains emergency rooms and drives up the cost of care for everyone. And when any American cannot fulfill his or her potential because of factors that have nothing to do with talent, character, or work ethic, we are all impacted.
 
The success of American women is critical for the success of American families and our economy. That is why I created the White House Council on Women and Girls during my first year in office and directed them to ensure every agency, department, and office in our Federal Government—with the policies they draft, the programs they create, and the legislation they support—takes into account the needs and aspirations of American women and girls. That work started with the very first bill I signed as President, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored basic protections against pay discrimination for women. In 2010, I created the National Equal Pay Task Force to facilitate inter-agency coordination in identifying and combatting equal pay violations. As a result of these efforts, for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has obtained more than $62 million in monetary relief since January 2010.
 
We are also working to equip women with the education and training they need to compete in today’s economy. Because women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs earn an average of 30 percent more than women in other fields, we are working to promote women and girls in STEM degrees and careers. In addition to passing the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is helping over 9 million students attend college, we also increased the number of students receiving Pell Grants by 50 percent. As a result of these increases, we are helping millions of students—including 2.3 million women—afford their tuition and reach for their dreams.
 
Additionally, we are working to expand opportunities for women by creating new jobs, supporting women small business owners and entrepreneurs, and promoting efforts to help women and men balance the needs of their families with the demands of their careers. Over the past three years, we repeatedly cut taxes for small businesses and provided over 16,000 loans worth more than $4.5 billion to female entrepreneurs. To promote workplace flexibility, we are working to make the Federal Government a model employer by adopting new policies on practices such as teleworking.
 
Finally, we are making significant strides in expanding access to, and improving the quality of, health care for women. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are now required to cover preventive care without cost-sharing, and in 2011, more than 20 million American women were eligible to receive services such as mammograms, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and prenatal care without co-pays or deductibles. As of August 2012, the covered services also include contraception and domestic violence screenings. By 2014, it will finally be illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to women because they have a pre-existing condition such as breast cancer or pregnancy, and insurance companies will be prohibited from charging women higher premiums than men for the same coverage. For more information on health care reform, please visit www.HealthCare.gov or www.WhiteHouse.gov/HealthReform.
 
I am also committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose while supporting policies and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, assist pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
 
To learn more about how my Administration is working to support women at all stages of their lives and careers, please visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/Women. Thank you, again, for writing.


Sincerely,

Barack Obama

 

Sunday, October 14, 2012

I Dreamed Of A Teapublican


 
 
Just before I woke up this morning, I dreamed of a Teapublican. I am aware of her via social media. I will call her Lisa.

I write for the political blog Addicting Info, and I utilize various websites and public Facebook pages for content. Lisa is one of the many Teapublicans I follow. She is also aware of me and has said some pretty nasty and scathing things about me, so my association with her feels more personal, even though we’ve never met.  While following her, I have learned a little bit about who she is. She has a pretty good sense of humor. She has sadness in her life, which she has made public. She loves to laugh. She loves her family. But because she is a Teapublican, she also picks on people – some celebrities, some political, and I will grant her they are fair game. But when she picks on them, she becomes quite nasty. She uses hatred to ‘entertain’ and it clearly works with her Teapublican following. They latch on to her negativity and when I see it, I feel anger. I get very upset with how divided we are as a nation.

I often use sarcasm in my articles and blogs when writing about politics. I don’t believe I have used hatred or been the ‘mean girl’ and I do make an effort to promote voting and making sure I am truthful, as well as backing up my work with valid sources. I have found that Lisa also uses sources but many of them are very much like FOX. She likes to source Breibart and Drudge often and they are not always – or even often – reporters of the truth. But I digress.

In my dream, Lisa and I attended some kind of conference. It’s a bit fuzzy, so please forgive the fact I am not super-detailed, but I think the conference was not political and it gave me a chance to view her as a woman, a mother and a person who might be a friend of mine if the parties weren’t so divided. In the last part of the dream, we were on a bench and she had a cute animal on her head (it made sense at the time) and I was cooing to the little critter. I looked at her and felt love (not romantic, just to be clear) but in that moment, I didn’t see her politics at all. I recognized that we have differing views but I genuinely felt love for her as a human being. I remember feeling so sad that we were unable to really connect because our political passions kept us on different sides and frankly, I cannot stomach the hate and lies she preaches to her loyal followers.

I wish to add that neither side—the left or the right—are completely innocent or perfect. If you are familiar with my opinion and writing, you know that I am often sarcastic and get in my zingers. I am not afraid to call out the trolls and I say it like I see it. Often the other side sees that as offensive. But I don’t lie and I don’t promote hate. Tea Party folks have called me an “ugly liberal,” “ slut,” and  “ baby killer.” I have been accused of being part of the left’s fringe and my personal favorite—on Twitter, a woman said I was a “disgrace to humanity.”  I have an agenda: I want people to vote. Of course, I want everyone to vote Democratic down the line on November 6, 2012 but more importantly, I want EVERYONE to wake-up and get their butts to the voting booths and let’s see what shakes out. It should be about what the majority wants.

Getting back to the dream: Before I woke up completely, I continued to dream about Lisa. I dreamed about writing this blog. A strong feeling overcame me and I felt like for some reason, even if only for me, I needed write about the fact I felt love for a person who in my waking hours offends me. It’s not that I think it will make any real difference or that all of a sudden, everyone will come together in love but maybe it’s just an exercise in compassion and an opportunity to not bitch about what ‘the other side’ is doing.

I’m sure as my lovey-dovey morning fog wears off and the caffeine kicks in, I’ll be back to reading her posts with my jaw on the floor and a complete sense of disgust. Before that happens, I just want to immerse in the idea that underneath it all, we all just want to be loved and happy. Maybe if Lisa were happier, she would see things differently. I don’t know. I DO care. And I hope the U.S. is able to overcome all that divides us. I believe with some real effort, we can —and with a second term for Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, we will. (Ha ha – had to get that in there!!!)

 

 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

You Have A Dating Story - I Want It For A Book

 
I’m collecting new stories on dating for a book. I want them to be from both men and women. You can be credited, use first name only or be anonymous .
 
IMPORTANT – All submissions MUST contain this release. Copy and paste it into an email (No word docs). Emails only. Stories that don’t have the release included in the email will not be used.
 
I agree to release all rights to ARK Stories and understand that the stories may be used in whole or in part for the purposes of publication, promotion and/or distribution in any manner. I understand there is no compensation for my story and that if published, my story will be anonymous unless otherwise specified.
 
Send your completed submission to: nsots68@gmail.com
 
I am looking for entertaining stories. They can be funny, shocking, sad, really romantic, weird, unbelievable, horrible but most of all they must be entertaining. Anything goes. For instance, a story you would share at dinner with friends. It can be a first date, a last date or any kind of date. BE DETAILED! Details are the most important part. I am accepting both hetero and homosexual dating stories. In fact, any sexual orientation. No one is excluded.
 
 
No word count. The most interesting stories will be chosen. You may also submit more than one story but please send them separately.
 
 
So send them in. Share this with your friends and thank you.
 

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Rave Reviews of CRAZY (A Thriller)



Crazy? You Bet!
by Jodi Ann Hanson


Retired actress Ann Werner has found her niche in writing psychological thrillers. With `CRAZY' her third fiction novel, Ann delves into the dark mind of a killer creating a tense storyline that has her reader afraid to turn the page for fear of the next gruesome scene.

Emily Simonson is on the road to fame. Once a struggling actress, she cast aside her hopes of being a starlet for the tools of a chef, becoming a rising star in the ranks of celebrity chefs. With a bestselling cookbook, a successful restaurant, kitchen store and appearances on morning television shows, Emily has the world by its tail; or at least she thinks so. Amongst her world of adoring fans she has developed an enemy; a crazed stalker hell-bent on taking away Emily's fame and her life no matter the cost.

When Emily receives a letter in the mail she opens the envelope to find a sheet of paper with the word `Bitch' cut out from magazines little does she realize that moment will be the last time she doesn't have to look over her shoulder wondering if she is going to wind up dead. That's the moment when the game of cat-and-mouse was started by the stalker.

When want-to-be starlets that closely resemble Emily begin being murdered and the graphic images sent to Emily and television stations, she is forced to acquiesce to the police and hire a team of bodyguards for protection. The police need to find the killer before he/she can get to Emily and enact the horrific murder they have promised.

With Emily Simonson, Ann Werner has created a character any reader can love and relate to. The fear that consumes Emily leaps off the page pulling the heartstrings of her readers making them want to protect her from harm. Ann nails the mad dialogue between the killer and `guardian' as they two conspire inside the killers mind giving the reader a glimpse of just how depraved that mind is.
The book could easily have been written as the typical slasher type horror, but Ann gives just enough gory detail to keep that from happening. What Ann has ended up with is a thriller that will keep her readers glued to the pages to see what happens next.

I recommend this book to anyone who loves to be dragged by the heels into a psychological game of cat-and-mouse. Whether you chose to root for the evil-doer or the victim you will enjoy the read.


Buy on Amazon: Kindle   Paperback

See all Amazon reviews HERE

Riveting and Intense
by E. Thomas Amazon.com


In the twilight world of post-dream Los Angeles, populated by failed actors and wannabe starlets, a serial killer stalks Emily Simonson. A rising culinary star, Emily is riding a wave of good breaks, from the success of her thriving restaurant to the publication of her best-selling cookbook to her increasing exposure on T.V.. Soon, though, she finds h...erself being harassed and tormented by threatening letters, grotesque packages, and worse. Who is doing this? And why?

CRAZY threads its suspense with claustrophobic and strangling tension, keeping the characters frantic even as it becomes apparent that the killer is among them. The escalation of atrocities only serves to heighten Emily's fear and loathing, which hits a fever pitch after the maniac starts targeting Emily's look-alikes. It stays there for page after riveting page until the final apocalyptic showdown.

I love the villain. Like the namesake book title, the villain is CRAZY. All the good stuff is here: voices in the head, psychotic self-centeredness, maniacal rationalizing, and even a touch of Satanism. The lockstep sequence of gruesome attacks is superbly paced, ramping up the dread in Emily's mind as she navigates their impact on her life.

CRAZY is more than just a cut-em-up. In addition to its obvious thriller/suspense designation, it's a little bit "literary", too. CRAZY, in true cross-genre fashion, combines the best elements of both. The author Ms. Werner, by dwelling on the effect of the maniac upon Emily's relationships, paints a fully-realized and three-dimensional portrait of her heroine. Emily is a strong woman in an impossible situation. Her friends Chris and Phaedra, her associates Monica and Gina, her watchmen Detective Walker and the hunky bodyguard Trevor, and everyone else in her life is of dubious influence. No one is above suspicion, but there are no easy discoveries. In true Hitchcockian fashion, CRAZY thus creates a powerful drama for the slasher crowd.

I thoroughly enjoyed CRAZY, and I am looking forward to Ms. Werner's next opus.



Buy on Amazon: Kindle  Paperback

See all Amazon reviews HERE

Friday, July 27, 2012

An Open Letter To The Women Of The GOP From A Liberal Woman About The War On Women


***WARNING: This post contains very, very strong language.


THE WAR ON WOMEN


The majority of GOP women say The War On Women is a liberal distraction. It isn’t real. They like to paint liberals as self-admitted whiny victims and maintain this “war” against us is a manufactured one. I will illustrate how this war is real and debunk the myth that liberal women look the other way when liberal men call any woman a name.

Rush Limbaugh launched a nine-hour attack on Sandra Fluke, calling her a slut and a prostitute and demanded to see her sex video. He lied and said she stood before Congress and complained that she was having so much sex she could no longer afford birth control and wanted it to be free.

The truth is that Ms. Fluke stood before Congress and addressed them politely and eloquently, and made the case that birth control should be available on all insurance plans. She made the point that it isn’t available through her current insurance provider. Rush Limbaugh LIED and passed it off as news, fully expecting his audience to believe what he was saying was truth. Not a joke or satire.


When GOP women talk about Limbaugh, they are quick to call out liberal women and say that we have said nothing about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a cunt. Or David Letterman referring to Sarah Palin as slutty and (making a bad, bad joke) that one of the Palin daughters was "knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez" at a Yankee game. Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” And last, Larry Flynt’s publication, Hustler, created the depiction of conservative, S.E. Cupp, in a mock-up photo to look as if she had a penis in her mouth.


GOP women – you are dead wrong when you declare liberal women have said nothing. I have. You can read what I said about all of it in this post. Additionally, I have tweeted to Maher and Schultz, expressing my disappointment with their choice of words.


There is a glaring difference though. These men who painted derogatory pictures of women by using shaming words were name-calling. Unlike Limbaugh, they did not spend nine hours lying about what any of these women did. There is a difference. Limbaugh has an audience that believes what he says is news and accepts it as truth. Letterman and Maher are comedians and everyone understands that they are not passing themselves off as newscasters.

That said, I don’t believe men should ever refer to any woman, no matter her political affiliation, as a cunt or a slut. These words are shameful and specifically geared toward taking away a woman’s credibility because of her gender. I appreciate the right to free speech but personally, I would prefer men, especially smart, prominent men, to refrain from using that language when referring to women. Why? Because it does no one any good.

White men, so far, have had a free pass on this kind of shaming epithet. If you wish to insult a white man, what do you call him? An asshole, a douchebag, a motherfucker? Of course there’s plenty more but none of these words hold the same, specific, incendiary connotation. Conversely, if you wish to use words to shame other groups, well, they exist and here are a few:

African-Americans – Nigger, Coon
Mexicans – Wetback, Beaner
Gay men - Faggot
Jews – Hymie, Heeb, Kike
Women – Slut, Cunt

These words are used only for shame and it’s wrong for anyone to refer to another individual this way. So your argument that liberal women stay silent about liberal men calling women names is a crock and let’s please move on to what the real issue is.


As a woman who champions women’s rights—including the women of the GOP—I will continue to do what I can with the platform I have to make sure we are all treated fairly.

Here are some questions I pose to conservative women:

Do you believe you should make the same money as your male counterpart is paid for doing the same job? If so, what do you have to say about the fact that every single Senate Republican blocked the Equal Pay Act? Seriously, you’re okay with that? If you are, why? What if your daughter gets a job in a company that pays more to a man doing the same work as she does? Do you think that’s fair? Did you know that when a woman makes less over her lifetime, she also sees less in her Social Security checks when she retires? Is that okay with you? And if so, why?


Do you think that pharmacists should have the right to deny you birth control based on their personal opinions? In Kansas, pharmacists have that right.


How many of you conservative women are single moms? Would you want the government to penalize you, calling your marital status a “contributing factor to child abuse and neglect?” Well, Republican Senator Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin introduced a bill that would criminalize single mothers. Do you agree with this? If you do, I’d like to hear why.


Now here’s one that may incite some anger but Ladies of the GOP who identify yourself as pro-life, please, please tell me how this can be? In Arizona, a doctor has the legal right to withhold life-threatening medical information from a pregnant woman, in case she may—may—be considering an abortion. So, basically she may DIE. The fetus may also DIE and the doctor doesn’t have to tell her in case she MAY want an abortion. Now I get that you are against abortion. But how can you be against it so much that you’d be willing to let a woman and/or her baby DIE in the name of a pro-life agenda? Can you understand that this is hypocrisy? How do you justify that? I would really like to know.

Every single one of these bills/laws was introduced by a Republican.

I would like to end this with an example.

A conservative, 35 year-old, married, pregnant woman with three children under the age of five finds out there is an 90% risk of her dying if she follows through with her pregnancy. If she dies, her unborn fetus would too. Her family would be without a mother. The father would be left to take over the responsibilities of both parents while grieving and explaining to his children that it was better that mommy died as a result of a dangerous pregnancy rather than have a safe, legal abortion and live. What would you do in this situation? What would you want your daughter to do in this situation? I can tell you right now, Rick Santorum’s wife who was faced with a similar problem, chose to induce labor, knowing the baby would die. She did not technically have an abortion. Here's an interesting point that Jezebel makes: "Santorum's even against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or even if the woman carrying the fetus risked death doing so. Karen Santorum would have died if the fetus were not removed, and labor was induced and not halted knowing that the fetus would not survive. How is this not technically "abortion?" In Santorum's world, it would probably qualify as infanticide."

Of course, once it was over, she and her husband wanted to make safe, legal abortions illegal, even when the mother and/or the baby are facing death.  You can also read this article in examiner.com about the choice the Santorums made. "Numerous sources report Santorum’s wife Karen had a second trimester abortion in October 1996. The Santorum’s, however, don’t like to describe it as an abortion. Instead, they call it a medically induced miscarriage. Yet for many, this is a distinction without a difference."

I am leaving the comments open and anyone may post a reply. I expect some angry responses, even some hate—all of which I will leave for everyone to see. If you choose to rebut this post with a hateful response, your true colors will be on display. I will not argue with replies that do not directly answer the questions I posed. I ask these questions because I don’t understand how you can deny that all women in this country are under attack. Our rights are at stake and I promise to do what I can to help change that. Not just for liberal women but for ALL women.

Thank you for reading and I leave you with a great song from two very strong, beautiful women:

Sisters Are Doin’ It For Themselves
“Now this is a song to celebrate the conscious liberation of the female state
Mothers, daughters and their daughters too
Woman to woman we're singing with you
The inferior sex has got a new exterior
We got doctors, lawyers (Yes we do), politicians too.”

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

5 Star Review of CRAZY (A Thriller)


Riveting and Intense
by E. Thomas Amazon.com


In the twilight world of post-dream Los Angeles, populated by failed actors and wannabe starlets, a serial killer stalks Emily Simonson. A rising culinary star, Emily is riding a wave of good breaks, from the success of her thriving restaurant to the publication of her best-selling cookbook to her increasing exposure on T.V.. Soon, though, she finds h...erself being harassed and tormented by threatening letters, grotesque packages, and worse. Who is doing this? And why?

CRAZY threads its suspense with claustrophobic and strangling tension, keeping the characters frantic even as it becomes apparent that the killer is among them. The escalation of atrocities only serves to heighten Emily's fear and loathing, which hits a fever pitch after the maniac starts targeting Emily's look-alikes. It stays there for page after riveting page until the final apocalyptic showdown.

I love the villain. Like the namesake book title, the villain is CRAZY. All the good stuff is here: voices in the head, psychotic self-centeredness, maniacal rationalizing, and even a touch of Satanism. The lockstep sequence of gruesome attacks is superbly paced, ramping up the dread in Emily's mind as she navigates their impact on her life.

CRAZY is more than just a cut-em-up. In addition to its obvious thriller/suspense designation, it's a little bit "literary", too. CRAZY, in true cross-genre fashion, combines the best elements of both. The author Ms. Werner, by dwelling on the effect of the maniac upon Emily's relationships, paints a fully-realized and three-dimensional portrait of her heroine. Emily is a strong woman in an impossible situation. Her friends Chris and Phaedra, her associates Monica and Gina, her watchmen Detective Walker and the hunky bodyguard Trevor, and everyone else in her life is of dubious influence. No one is above suspicion, but there are no easy discoveries. In true Hitchcockian fashion, CRAZY thus creates a powerful drama for the slasher crowd.

I thoroughly enjoyed CRAZY, and I am looking forward to Ms. Werner's next opus.
See all Amazon reviews HERE

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Should Voting Be Mandated?



***This post was updated on 12/23/12

I posed this question on my Facebook page recently and was surprised with the answers.

Most people said “no” and asked how it would be enforced. The reasons for the “no” answers were: “It would be like a dictatorship,” and that “We have the right to free speech and mandating the vote goes against that.”

Before I go on, I realize that voting will probably never be mandated, so this discussion/debate is purely hypothetical. I have made up my mind about it but am willing and interested to hear constructive arguments against it. I have been known to change my mind and can be convinced to look at things differently. I ask that if you choose to weigh in, you keep your point constructive.

Daily Kos came out with this article on 12/20/12. The fact that  Conservative George Will, is at all concerned with mandated voting only re-enforces my argument (in my eyes).

"George Will is very concerned that the Obama administration is talking about trying to make it easier to register to vote and vote, which Will sees as a slippery slope toward mandatory voting, which would be bad because "As indifferent or reluctant voters are nagged to the polls—or someday prodded there by a monetary penalty for nonvoting—the caliber of the electorate must decline." Along the way to that concern for the caliber of the electorate, Will quotes longtime bad guy Hans von Spakovsky and cites the example of Nazi Germany. Which should tell you pretty much all you need to know about this argument."

Opinions are like assholes and everyone has one, including me and frankly, I see it as a beautiful thing when people can debate without anger. So here's my argument in favor of mandated voting.

1. Free Speech.
I see voting more as a civic duty. We all live in this country and we owe it to each other as a national community to do what’s best for everyone. There are rules in place in school, your job and other organized groups. We accept these rules because we understand that when left to our own devices and lack of motivation, anarchy can ensue.

2. Dictatorship.
Right now, if you are called to jury duty, you have to go. Period. If you want to drive a car, the law says you need a license and requires a test that you must pass in order to drive. You have to pay taxes. Do you feel that this is a dictatorship? I don’t.

It would be quite easy to enforce mandated voting. Provide proof of voting when you pay your taxes. If not, pay a $50 fine. Those who wish not to vote—but insist on bitching about what the ELECTED officials do— would be contributing rather than just complaining about the state of things. I have heard some agrue that $50 is a lot of money for people who have low income. My answer - vote and save the $50.

44% of Americans DID NOT VOTE in 2008. Think of how much money could go back into the economy from people who choose to not vote and pay the fine. The money should be regulated to the benefit of our nation. Education, health care, infrastructure etc. and not go to gold toilet seats in the White House. In other words, rules in place so the money is not abused.

For those who complain about having to vote the lesser of two evils, consider this: You may not like your choices for president but one of them WILL win. The one who wins nominates Supreme Court Judges. These judges have a direct impact on your life. By giving up the right to vote, you throw away your shot at having any say in the rules you will be required by law to follow, as well as decisions like the 2000 election. SCOTUS decided George Bush was president.
 
The flaw: People may vote in order to avoid the fine but remain uneducated about the politicians and their policies. This happens anyway. Granted, there may be more uneducated people who vote but it also might make more people choose to actually understand what’s really on the table. And for the ones who choose not to vote, let them contribute instead of only whining about what terrible system we have.

No system is perfect and we already have too many flaws. Anything we do will come with problems and hopefully, as we see what those problems are, we can work to fix them in a way where everyone benefits.

I like to think of it this way: If you were a business owner and you needed to fill a position that pays $100k a year, vacation pay and health care, wouldn’t YOU want to be the one in charge of hiring?  It’s YOUR company. (I realize that bigger companies have managers who hire but they have been vetted by the higher-ups to make the “informed” decision so that the most qualified applicants be considered seriously.)

We are the ones paying the politicians. We allow them to collect healthy pensions. We allow them to create laws that we must live by. I believe it’s our civic duty to participate in employing those who will be our civil servants.
 
So there you have it. If there are holes in my argument, bring it. I am genuinely curious to know what you think.

Follow me on Facebook HERE