As The Last Chick Flies The Nest, Husband And Wife Must Decide Which Path To Take

Dear Tazi:

My husband “Montgomery” has decided that, now that the last of our children will be moving away to college this September, he would like to run for political office. He claims that it has always been a dream of his to be a statesman; I say it is a midlife crisis, as he has never talked about this dream in the 22 years that we have been married.

I have been a stay-at-home-mom ever since my children were young, and I have held onto the goal of opening my own patisserie [a bakery that only serves and sells pastries] since before the first of my three children were born. Before I got married, I earned a Culinary Arts degree from Johnson and Wales; my specialty was fine pastries, and I have continued to use my skills and education for personal celebrations as well as profit (I bake cakes and specialty desserts on a very small scale out of my home). To put things another way, my dream has merit! I have experience and a business plan and am prepared to carry out and follow through with my goals. Montgomery, on the other hand, has zero experience in politics – he’s never even put a political sign on our lawn or volunteered to assist a candidate, yet he expects to run a successful campaign for state congress. It is not that I am against him running for political office, but I do have a problem with this plan infringing on my dreams.

Over the years, I have taken my disposable income and put it into a money market account where it has grown into a sizable sum – enough to cover the cost of equipment for a patisserie kitchen and to pay for the first year’s rent on a desirable location. Montgomery has requested the use of this money as “start up funds” for his political campaign! He has promised that it would be written up as a loan, as opposed to a donation, so he could reimburse me with any campaign donations that he received “in excess of what is needed” to run a successful campaign. I was so upset at this request that I was speechless!

Once I found my voice I told Montgomery that there was no way he would be getting his hands on my savings – that while he was using his spending money to play golf with his friends and have a few drinks at the clubhouse, my spending money was earning me interest in the bank. I informed him that I already had plans for the money, and he threatened to use our youngest child’s college savings account to finance his campaign! What kind of selfish man does that to his child? After I flipped out on him, Montgomery apologized and said he would never steal from our child; he was just illustrating the difficult position in which I was placing him.

Tazi, do I – as Montgomery puts it – owe it to him as his wife to support him in his political goals? Am I being selfish by wanting to use my savings as I had planned? Montgomery has commented that if he wins his election my stock will rise along with his, and my business will stand a better chance of succeeding.

Signed,
Petit Four No Reason?

Dear Petit Four No Reason?:

I do not believe you are being petty, and you do have reasons for being upset with your husband and standing your ground. I understand your decision to put your dream of owning – and running – your own business on hold while your children were growing up. Those who own their own business will tell you it is the business that owns them.

Although your husband never spoke of his dream to run for political office, this does not mean that it has not long been held dear to him. Is he the type to express political opinions or discuss politics with others? Does he attend city/town council meetings? Has he – before this point – expressed a desire to effect change? Many people keep their dreams a secret, out of the fear that others will not support them.

As for your dream, it is obvious from what you say that you have done some long-term investing into it and are ready to make it a reality. This reality could be what is propelling your husband to launch a dream of his own – sponsored with your money. Your husband could be feeling insecure; as he sees you starting on a path that will require long hours away from him and your home, and eventually lead you to financial independence from him.

Often times when the last baby bird flies the next, so to speak, the parents go through the stress of rediscovering each other – and wondering exactly what they still have in common. Your husband’s sudden desire to run for political office would keep the two of you together for long hours (I am assuming you would be working on his campaign) without having to work to fill the empty time and space that the lack of children has created – there is never an empty minute when you are running a political campaign! Before you make any decisions one way or the other, I suggest you do the following:

1. Secure your daughter’s college fund so that it can only be accessed to pay for her college expenses. I do not care that your husband was only trying to prove a point – the suggestion, and his reasoning behind it, were both extremely selfish. It is not you who are putting him in a difficult situation; it is he who chose to put himself there through a lack of proper planning.

2. See to it that the money you have managed to save and invest over the years is also secure. As a married couple, the money technically belongs to both of you; however, from a moral standpoint, only an absolute heel would insist on taking half.

3. Sit down with your husband and openly discuss his goals. Find out how long he has wanted to run for office; ask him what preparations he has made towards the running of a campaign and, if he has not made any in the time he has been thinking about this path, ask him what has held him back. In other words, find out how risky an investment – of time or money – in his campaign would be for you. If you are not comfortable loaning him money, suggest he incorporate his campaign and take out a bank loan; or ask the local state political committee (Republican/Democrat/Green/Etc.) for funding.

4. Ask your husband why he feels that his personal goals are more important that yours at this point in time. It could be that all the years you spent as a stay-at-home-mom has left him with less respect for who you are and the goals you seek to achieve. Your husband’s flimsy excuse that your “stock will rise along with his” sounds uncomfortably corrupt, not to get into how downright insulting it actually is.

Elections occur every two to four years and even though it is only June it is considered by many too far along in the election year cycle to declare a candidacy. Your husband would do well to work as a volunteer this election cycle, just to see all that goes into running a campaign, and start planning his run for office the day after this year’s elections – that is, if he is still interested in running at that point.

5. With regard to your desire to launch a business, consider your local economy. Will it support such a specialized business as a patisserie? Or would waiting a few years until the economy further improves increase your chances for success?

If you would feel more comfortable having a mediator present when you discuss these matters, I would suggest that you make an appointment with a marriage counselor or a clergy member with whom you feel comfortable discussing such matters. Both are trained to moderate marital issues and to assist in keeping them from turning into marital discord. I wish you both all the best in your future endeavors…and look forward to trying your crème fraise!


Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Racist At The Coffee Shop Needs To Be Grounded

Ed. Note: This article is being reprinted in memory of Maya Angelou, who fought the erase the hate. May her legacy live on in us.

Dear Tazi:

I have a coffee-shop acquaintance that I will call "Archie". He is one of several who gather for caffeine and conversation, mostly political, at our local non-alcoholic watering hole. Most of us are white, retired professionals, but all races and walks of life are welcome and we do not discriminate on any basis - except for Archie.

Archie is a racist. The man jokes that he "won't even take his coffee black", and always quotes statistics on how the black people of this country are the root cause of all social ills. Abortion? [According to Archie] Black people have the highest rate of it. Poverty? [According to Archie] Black people make up the majority of the welfare rolls. Fatherless households? Well, you get the picture. Archie always has percentages and numbers to make his arguments sound believable; but is never able to remember his sources, always telling us that "the mainstream media will never tell you the truth. You need to read the alternate sources".

We - and other patrons of this particular coffee shop - tolerate Archie because he is the owner's father, and we do not wish to punish a young entrepreneur by withholding our business; but what Archie said recently about the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was out of control, and needs to be addressed.

As a group, we were discussing the Arab Spring, which led to a comparison of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, and the question of whether or not the Occupy Wall Street movement could be as successful as either - typical political debate - when Archie claimed that Dr. King was a "reverse racist" who hated white people; that the FBI was investigating him; that his PhD was honorary; that he wasn't even a real minister, that he had dropped out of the seminary; and that Martin Luther King was not his father's given name, so "how could he be a 'junior'?". A stony silence was the response we all gave, and as a group we all got up and distanced ourselves from Archie.

As I have said, we do not wish to patron another coffee shop; but we can't see ourselves rejoining Archie - who comes with the place - in political debate. Do you have a rejoinder with which I might present Archie? Educated debate does not work on the man, nor does presenting him with academically acceptable materials (which he considers "mainstream" and therefore biased). As a retired college professor, I find the man's ignorance astounding. I would like to ignore him, but that doesn't feel right; yet I am unable to reach him through traditional means. Might you have some ideas that I am overlooking? I am in my late seventies, and admit that Internet research is not my forte.

Signed,
The Professor

Dear Professor:

You get one paw up on your desire to educate, for it was Dr. King himself who said, "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." (By the way, his doctorate was not an honorary; he earned a PhD in Philosophy from Boston University in 1955. His Bachelors in Divinity was from Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, 1951). The other paw stays down, due to your tolerance of racism up to this point.

Where Archie is getting his "facts" on issues like abortion, poverty, welfare, etc. is questionable. I would suggest that you ask him to produce his sources the next time he decides to sound off on something. Use words he will understand: Put up or shut up! Raw statistics never tell the full story, nor the reasoning behind the numbers - they are just numbers. Whereas there is a crisis in the Black community with regard to absentee fathers and abortion (might there be a connection?); according to the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, white people actually make up the plurality of America's welfare rolls. Is the U.S. Government Printing Office too mainstream a media source for Archie?

As for Archie's comments on Dr. King's credentials, it appears he gets his information from very questionable, completely un-sourced articles written by authors with no searchable credentials. When I Google searched "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." and "not a minister", I found a hate-speech links sponsored by the ironically titled website "JesusIsSavior.com". When I did a Google Scholar search for the same, I found nothing. Ditto with a Lexis-Nexis search, JSTOR search, and other highly respected search engines. Does Archie consider scholarly journals to be "mainstream media" as well? If so, it would appear that his mind is closed to all sources but his own.

Snuggles,
Tazi

P.S. As for not wanting to punish the son for the sins of the father: While this is admirable, I am sure that there are others who are not so sympathetic. You would do well to complain to the owner. If enough people start taking their business elsewhere, he will have no choice but to "ground" his father.

Repost: Tazi's Corner #45 - The Stronger Man?

Dear Readers,

This week while nosing about I came across an assignment my Mommie has for a summer class she is taking (because she couldn't just graduate and leave it at that, could she? Sheesh!). The question posed was, "Who is the stronger man?" and gave the names of Senator John McCain and President Barack Obama.

The stronger man? As in who can bench press more? That would be a no-brainer, considering that Senator McCain cannot lift his right arm above shoulder height! Since I did not think that is what the point of this question was, I decided I delve deeper. I jumped into my yoga suit and gave this subject some deep thought.

Did I fail to mention that I do yoga naked?

In an effort to keep things civil, my first decision was to eliminate any political comparisons. I was worried that in doing this I might be left with nothing but two empty suits, albeit very expensive ones, but eliminating the politics actually made things a little clearer for me…in time. At the start, everything was still as clear as mud. Coming from a family with a long history of military service, I thought perhaps McCain was the stronger man simply because he has served in the military and Obama has not, but I quickly realized that this was unfairly prejudicial; Obama has served as a Community Organizer in some of America’s poorest neighborhoods, many of which resemble a demilitarized zone and present the same dangers of being in one. No, military service could not be the way to judge the stronger man. Without politics or service records, I was not left with much. This is when I realized what I had inadvertently done – I had stripped each man down to his bare skin (figuratively speaking), leaving nothing to judge but how comfortable each man felt in that skin. I noticed something startling: I have never seen Barack Obama sweat. President Obama is a raging basketball fan, so much so that he had a basketball court built in the White House…but has anyone ever seen a photo of him sweaty and disheveled from playing? The one sporting photo I have ever seen of Barack Obama was from when he was vacationing in Hawai’i and the press snapped a shot of him coming out of the ocean…bare-chested, dripping water and masculinity, looking tall, dark, and handsome and making women everywhere jealous of his wife Michelle.  I don't go for humans and even I am a little turned on! Compare this to a previous President, Bill Clinton; Bubba, as he was affectionately known, was often photographed while jogging…red-faced and puffing, sweat poring from his chubby body. He looked most unpresidential at those times, but he looked real; you could see that beneath the expensive suit there was a man who needed a shower after a workout, just like what Bill Cosby calls "regular people". He could also use some longer, more fashionable shorts... Barack Obama is not one to allow his “regular people” side to show; the one time he was photographed looking like “regular people” Americans complained about his “Grandpa jeans” and schlubby white crew socks, the ones he wore to throw out the first ball on Opening Day at a Chicago baseball game. The backlash from that photo op sent those Grandpa Jeans further back into the closet than a gay 5-Star General. As much as I respect the Presidency, I am afraid my President lives in fear of looking less than perfect at all times. Some would say his teleprompters would agree with me. On the flip side I decided to take a look at John McCain. Married to trophy wife Cindy some could say that he, too, is overly concerned about public image…except for his disability. McCain was injured in war, and cannot lift his right arm above shoulder height. While some would argue that war disabilities are seen as honorable, I have read (and published) enough letters from people with disabilities to know that the public looks down on them as a weakness and that the only “honorable” disability is the one you have managed to overcome. Take a look in the newspapers and look for a story about the veteran who lost both legs and resigned himself to a wheelchair because learning to walk on prosthetics was too painful. Didn't find that story, did you? As I was saying, McCain is disabled, and his disability is well documented. He has never tried to hide it; it is a part of who he is. He has never managed to overcome this disability; rather, like many disabled, he has learned to accommodate it. This is frightening for a lot of people because if a disabled person can learn to accommodate their disability surely we can, too? Humans, by nature, do not like to be pulled from their comfort zone. John McCain, by not hiding his disability, does this to a lot of people. While it is now common knowledge that FDR was in a wheelchair it was not common knowledge during his presidency. In fact, he did all he could to hide the fact that he was disabled, fearing people would see him as weak. While we like to think that attitudes towards the disabled have changed since the 1930’s, I fear the only change has been to expect the disabled to do more to try and cure themselves of their afflictions. This is why I think the fact that John McCain’s casual public acknowledgement of his disability – his imperfection, if you will – shows great strength. Greater strength of self than Barack Obama has shown. McCain has what author bell hooks calls “white privilege” on his side, but that is another argument for another article. To stay on point: Old rich white guy wins again. In closing, I would like to add that this assessment is not a criticism of President Obama, but rather an insight on societal attitudes. If has often been said that minorities (of color, gender, or handicap) need to work twice as hard to earn half the success of an able-bodied white man. I think the comparison of these two men illustrates that point. Can a black man be seen to sweat and still be seen as the most powerful man in the world? Something tells me that President Obama does not want to test those waters. --T.K.

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

FOX News Is Bad News For This Marriage

Dear Tazi:

My husband is a huge fan of FOX News. I am not. I also cannot respect his decision to get his news solely from a source that studies have shown makes people dumber. I have asked my husband to make our couple time a news-free zone - meaning that when we are both home, the television news is not on, and the Internet is not open to any news site. My husband has refused me this simple request, and has instead accused me of being "brainwashed by the liberal media".

My problem with FOX News would not be so bad if my husband did not prattle on about every single thing he hears on that station, insisting that all of the other news stations have their facts wrong and that only FOX News is correct. It has reached the point where I cannot read a newspaper in peace because my husband will argue that the local (and national) papers probably have the stories all wrong, and have added their "liberal slant to the facts".

Tazi, I am a woman of moderate to conservative political views, but my political views do not color every aspect of my life! I enjoy hearing and reading about stories of human interest, local activities, sports, recipes, etc. My interests are well-rounded, while my husband's are becoming more and more polarized the more he watches FOX News. We are fast reaching the point where we have nothing in common, and I am afraid that FOX News will be leading us to divorce court. Short of following through on my threats to leave him, how can I make my husband see this?

Signed,
Turned Off

Dear Turned Off:

To clarify, studies have not shown that watching FOX News makes people "dumber". Watching FOX News has not been shown to affect a person's IQ one way or another. Studies have shown that watching FOX News makes a person less well-informed, and that FOX News had the least accurate reporting of any major news channel, which would in turn affect a person's knowledge of current events.

A 2005 study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center showed evidence of why FOX News may be affecting your marriage for the worse. The study showed that people who watched CNN "prefer news that has more in-depth interviews with public officials" while the FOX News audience prefer "news that shares their personal views" and were "less likely to follow stories that are critical of the Bush administration". While you enjoy news that offers a broader view of the world and in-depth coverage of various aspects of life (from sports to recipes) your husband's world is shrinking to focus solely on the political. Making his view of the world an even narrower one is the evidence that the political views expressed around him must agree with his own. This simply is not a healthy way to go through life.

The question you need to ask yourself is if your husband has always been like this, with FOX News giving him a like-minded outlet, or has he changed since he started watching FOX News? Was there some sort of precursor that occurred to interest him in FOX News over other media outlets? Once you know the answers to these questions, you will be get to the root of the issue at hand: who is this man to whom you are married?

I do not like to advocate divorce, and I will not advocate it here. Rather, I will suggest marriage counseling. If your husband refuses to go, go alone - but let him know that you are going, and tell him that your marriage is in a precarious spot. If, in time, he still refuses to talk to a counselor (or clergy) with you about the state of your marriage than it would seem that his decision not to work on your marriage is made. At that point, only you can decide if you want to stay in a union where you are the only one doing the necessary work to keep it alive.

Snuggles,
Tazi

Citations:
Morris, J. S. "The Fox News Factor." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics10.3 (2005): 56-79. JSTOR. Web.

Adler, Ben. "It's Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider | The Nation." It's Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider | The Nation. The Nation, 21 May 2012. Web. 1 Feb. 2014.

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Tazi's Corner #74 - Where Did All The Civility Go? Also, Truth Versus Truthiness

Dear Readers:

With the dawn of 2014 many changes are taking place. People are making resolutions to improve themselves, so in that spirit I thought I would, too. However, since I am a cat it goes without saying that I am perfect, so instead of changing me I will be making a few improvements to my home.

A pet door, a self-cleaning litter-box, and window insulation!

A general, societal improvement I have been hoping to see for some time now is improvement in the political discourse among Americans. It used to be name calling was reserved for trolls on chat boards, but now it seems to have seeped over into other areas, particularly Facebook pages and other forms of social media. This week I noticed someone posting a comment on my Mayor's Facebook page, calling someone else's girlfriend "ugly" (click the link and scroll down to Dec. 24th for all the gory details). Said girlfriend was not there to defend herself because she was not part of the debate - her boyfriend had a couple's picture as his profile picture and some woman attacked because the boyfriend had made fun of this woman's shirt. While it was sophomoric to make fun of someone's clothes - and certainly not germane to the conversation - it crosses a line to bash innocent bystanders. When my Mommie tried to moderate, someone who disagreed with her judgement jumped in and told her to call the "WAAAAambulance". (She really should leave these things to me!).

Where has civility gone in the course of political discourse? I know people who have "unfriended" lifelong, real-life friends over differences of political opinion. I see people calling their neighbors "ignorant" and "uninformed" simply because they disagree with an opinion offered (solicited or not). Maybe it's time to apply some rules to political communications: As my Mommie learned as a college freshman, if you are going to have an opinion, make it an educated one!  Do not source politically polarized material; instead, look to find the original source of that material. Who was the primary researcher who wrote the story, quoted the people on record, and is standing behind the work? If this information is not available - or is of questionable repute - look elsewhere before you form an opinion. If someone has the letters "PhD" after their name, look to see which scholarly/peer reviewed publications have published their work! If you can't find any, that "PhD' may not be valid! In the age of the Internet, anyone can fake credentials and the average person is not going to bother to do a background check. (Someone once suggested I call myself Tazi-Kat, PhD! Would you believe that?)

Most importantly, before believing what you read online, you need to ask yourself: Am I believing what I am reading because it gels with what I want to believe? Too often, the truth gets embellished to make it a story people want to believe and (in the age of blogs and YouTube royalties) send viral. This phenomenon picked up steam after 9/11 and generally involved feel-good stories about those who survived the attacks; now, as Steve Colbert would say, the element of "truthiness" has infected so much more. This brings me to my next commentary...

Truthiness is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006).  This week, An Open Letter From An Alabama Mom started making the rounds on the conservative online newsletters. This letter was originally posted in a private blog (and re-posted with permission) where it was picked up by...other conservative sources. Not a single, solitary major news source has run with it - not even Bloomberg, the unpaid bloggers' paradise.

While Snopes.com confirms the validity of the source of this article in question (the Alabama Mom) it does not confirm the validity of what was written. While it may sound like I am nitpicking, this is a very important point; if you read the article from a neutral viewpoint, you pick up on some "facts" that don't sound like facts at all. To start:

This Alabama family was supposedly paying $380 a month for direct-pay (not employee sponsored) health insurance. This was not a catastrophic care policy, but full coverage for a family of four - parents and two sons, one of whom has ADHD - including prescription coverage and dental for all family members! She does not mention any kind of yearly deductible, so we must believe there is none if we are to believe her argument is truthful (simply because she rails against the deductible that she must pay under her Obamacare policy). Apples to apples and not oranges, right? If this sounds too good to be true, read on...

The ADHD medications she must purchase every month have an uninsured cost of $400/month. Alabama Mom writes that her new co-pay will be $55 before the annual deductible is reached and then "covered at 80%". This means that the co-pay will rise to $80 after the yearly deductible is paid. This just does not make sense. Now, before you get your dander up over the Affordable Heath Care Act and its perceived evils, stay with me just one more minute...

I would like to know how a family is paying $380/month for full family coverage (including prescription and dental coverage!) if a single prescription medication that costs $400/month is covered at close to 90%? 

Hold on while I do the math...

You don't have to be an Actuary to figure out that something does not add up here! Even if Blue Cross pays the pharmacy at a lower rate - say 50% of uninsured total - that would still mean the cost to Blue Cross for this one prescription is better than 50% of the monthly premium. Is Blue Cross hoping that the child does not have any visits with his specialist that will eat up the other 50% of that month's premium? Are they hoping that nobody else in the family will need a prescription or a cavity filled, or that the creeping crud that is invading their hometown will magically bypass this particular family? Or do things just operate differently in Alabama than they do in the rest of the world? (Please, keep all comments civil!).

In our quest to pummel the intellectual snot out of politicians we do not like and programs we disagree with, let's not fall to the truthiness that surrounds true fact. In failing to do so, we only weaken the argument being made and in hindsight, when the truth is laid bare - and it usually is - it is those who spread the lies who will appear to be ignorant and uninformed.

Snuggles,
Tazi

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with Bachelors degrees in Communications and in Gender and Women's Studies. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

A House Divided Needs To Tone Down The Debate

Dear Tazi:

I live in a house divided. My college student daughter (who still lives at home) has always had more moderate political beliefs than her very conservative father (my husband) but over the last few months, as Congress has become more and more contentious, so has the relationship between my family members.

I will admit that I have never been politically active, but I try to keep abreast of the goings on by reading the newspaper. My husband subscribes to the National Review and the Limbaugh Letter while my daughter prefers more liberal but mainstream publications like Time and the New Yorker. Both seem well-read, so when they go at it over the dinner table I find it hard to try and moderate between the two of them. I have tried to implement a “no political talk at the dinner table” rule, but they just move it into the den while I am trying to watch Wheel ofFortune and Jeopardy! Can you think of any way to put a halt to the cantankerousness between these two?

Signed,

Stuck In the Middle

Dear Stuck In the Middle:

Since your family has found a way around your “no political talk” rule you will need to find a way to get them to respect each other’s arguments. If they refuse to agree to disagree, I suggest that you implement a “scholarly source” rule. As a college student, this is something that may sound familiar to your daughter.

None of the sources your family reads for their information can be considered scholarly, regardless of their popularity or media success. A scholarly source is one that uses hard and fast research and interviews with certified experts in the field, and keeps personal opinion and political slant out of the news that they are reporting.

The next time your family starts bickering, ask them to name their source of information; if they cannot, then the argument is to cease until they can show accurately researched support for their case. This rule will serve two purposes: first, it will give you the peace and quiet you seek; second, it will make the arguments that do occur better researched and therefore more difficult to argue against, since you cannot fight facts (no matter how much you try). Eventually, they may decide that it is not worth all the effort required; at that point you can suggest that they take their argument to the local coffee shop where such debate is regularly welcomed, giving them some father-daughter time and you house to yourself during your nightly TV programs.

Snuggles,
Tazi

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with Bachelors degrees in Communications and in Gender and Women's Studies. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Tazi’s Corner #55 – Potential vs. Practice (A Labor Day Lesson)

Dear Readers:

I am   not a very political kitty, nor do I intend to become so; the purpose of this feature is not to judge, but to observe. However, I DO keep up on the political goings-on of state and country (I am an astute kitty!) and one thing I have observed is how dreadfully partisan politics has become. Why just this morning I was reading the Editorials over my Mommie’s shoulder when I read that a minority faction of the GOP (I will let you guess which one) has suggested a government shutdown in order to prevent the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) from being put into practice. This idea is Plan B, since almost 40 Congressional votes to repeal the act have been taken and gone down in flames. Now, I could rail about how Congress has more important things to do than take symbolic votes that they know will fail in order to curry favor with wealthy donors rather than do the actual work that is required to keep this country moving, but I won’t. Instead, I decided to look at the bigger picture and ask:

Are they crazy? How far up their butts are their heads that they can’t see how this plan would harm the average American? I’m a cat, and even I can see how this would affect me: Since the USDA is not considered an “essential service” food inspections would have to stop until the government started up again. Am I the only one who remembers the rash of animal deaths from infected pet chow? Do you trust your food provider to keep the strictest of standards without government oversight or do you think a government shutdown might prove a good reason to go back to growing your own food? (Locovores, feel free to chime in on this in the comments section on the validity of potential vs. practice on this concept). Now to my title point:

I often hear how someone will like (or dislike) something when it is merely an idea – something potential – but will rail against it (or champion the cause for it) one it has been put into practice. A relevant example would be Mitt Romney’s views on Mass Health and the mandatory health insurance act that he helped to pass in the state of Massachusetts when he was governor there, but now denounces as something bad. This program is the very program upon which “Obamacare” is based, and it seems to be working quite well. In fact, the fears that employers would potentially layoff employees rather than offer health insurance has proven false in practice; the truth of the matter is that there have not been increased layoffs due to mandatory health insurance laws and more employers are now offering employees health insurance than in the past (Politifact.com confirms it!). The cost of the program does not appear to be bankrupting the state; in fact, the Massachusetts economy is flourishing. Businesses have not left the state looking for greener pastures just over the state borders in Rhode Island (although I wish they would). As in the past, many Rhode Island business owners continue to set up shop in Massachusetts for its favorable business climate.

Several years ago I hopped in my Tazi Sack and attended a Meet the Candidates night at which candidates for the Rhode Island governorship were speaking. One candidate (who has a Masters Degree in Taxation, so you know he is well-educated!) was arguing that in order to bring back our economy we need to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. While personally I think this idea had great potential – no more “Made in China” tags on textiles! – I realized right away it would not work in practice. The Chinese have government sponsored health care, eliminating this expensive cost to manufacturers. Many manufacturing plants also offer employees housing, just like the American mill owners once did, as a part of their salary. While I am not suggesting we go back to the days when Americans sold their souls to the company store, I am suggesting that we need to think of some creative ways to compete with Chinese manufacturers; ideas that will work in practice and not just as a potential. Once upon a time union leaders had some great ideas on how to make both employees and business owners happy. Are there any great negotiators left? Or is it the business owners who have sold their souls this time around? (Tune in next Sunday for more thoughts on this debate!).

This Labor Day, I think we all owe it to ourselves and our country to try. Try what, you ask? Exactly. Just try. So often we are afraid to leave our comfort zone because it means putting the potential into practice, a time during which the hopeful risk failure and the naysayers risk being proven wrong. Try anyway. Then, try again. You will never get the taste of failure out of your mouth if you don’t work to overcome it. (My Mommie loves to tell her Chemistry students how she failed the subject back in high school because it shows that failure can be replaced with success the second time around).

Don’t like legislation that Congress has passed? Try to give it time, to see if it will work before you try to change it. Then, if it is the utter disaster you predicted (based upon nothing more than your political and/or moral beliefs), work to change it – not through empty and poorly researched rhetoric, personal opinion, or symbolic votes that you know will fail but through grassroots efforts to motivate and affect change.

Hoping for a promotion at work? Try taking a class that will make you more marketable. Start by trying to fill out the financial aid forms, if money is what is holding you back. Start by walking into the school’s Academic Assistance Center, if academic ability is what is keeping you from trying. The excuse that you lack the time or that there is a scheduling conflict has been made moot by the advances in distance learning programs.

This Labor day, vow to put your potential into practice. Take risks; it is individual efforts that came together in the form of a collective goal that built this country, let’s not let fear of the potential cause it to crumble.

Snuggles,

Tazi

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Tazi's Corner #19 - Texas to Secede?

Dear Readers,

I was hoping to write about a return to normalcy after the election for this week's Tazi's Corner, but discovered that normalcy is still a long way off...at least in Texas.

Over 100,000 (and counting!) Texans have signed a petition stating they would like for Texas to secede from the United States and return to being an independent country.  That’s 100,000 in a state of more than 25,000,000 citizens.  In other words, less than 1% of Texas is seeking to secede from the United States because it is unhappy with the political direction the country is headed.  Is 1% of the general public is all it takes to get a referendum on the ballot in Texas?  I know that is all you need to get the President's attention, which seems like an awfully low number.  My other question is – and please explain the answers if you know them - what gives this 1% so much power?  Are they the 1% who control the oil rigs?  The 1% who control the banking system?  The 1% who make Warren Buffet look like a pauper?  If they are, I say let them go…this could make for an interesting experiment.

However, I do wonder about the remaining citizens of Texas.  What if they don't want to secede?  Will they be forced to pack up and move?  Ugh...what a pain in the butt!  I hate moving!  All the digging out and packing...deciding to keep and what to toss...and then seeing your most prized possession - in  my case, a half-rotted chipmunk that I was saving in the crawl space - accidentally thrown out because someone doesn't realize it was something important!  [Ed. note: True story.  It was disgusting.  The worst part was that Tazi deposited it on his Mommie's favorite throw pillow, where it would not be missed].  I think I would rather just stay put and go with the flow than have to move again.  

I have read up (over Mommie’s shoulder) how Secessionist Texans feel that America is headed in the wrong direction, both politically and socially; I have read comments that the rest of America should be more like Texas!   I have read claims that Texas is #1 in the country for job creation; I have also read that the jobs being created pay minimum wage, which doesn't even bring workers up to poverty level wages.  I am trying to imagine how Texas would run itself if it was an independent country.

Texas has the highest rate of capital punishment in the United States.  Since it has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime (just to recidivism) it is safe to believe that Texas will remain an area high in violent crime.  This means that Texas will need to beef up its force of Rangers and other law enforcement agents, since the DEA, ATF, FBI, and other members of the alphabet soup that make up the Federal branches of U.S. law enforcement will no longer be assisting Texas in its capture of crazy ax murderers that wander the state (and you thought they only used chainsaws!) or the war against the Zeta drug lords who live just across the Rio Grande.  Texans, I realize that you value your right to carry a concealed hand-gun anywhere you please, and from the look of it that gun is going to be a necessity when the Zetas no longer have to worry about keeping their violent arguments south of the Rio Grande! 

If Texas secedes from the United States, it will also have to hire its own Border Agents and National Guardsman.  If Texas were an independent state, America would no longer work to keep undocumented immigrants out of Texas; rather, it would be working to keep Texans out of America.  Like all others who look like they were not born in America (i.e. our tan-skinned brethren), Texans would have to prove that they are United States citizens while moseying around on American soil.  I would pay to watch this, as would others so maybe Texas could work that income into its Federal budget, which they are going to need since they will no longer be able to depend on the U.S. Federal government for aid.  Any assistance to Texas would be in the form of foreign aid, and quite frankly Texas is not geo-politically positioned to assist the U.S., so any request for assistance may take a while to get noticed.

What does Texas have going for it if it secedes?  It has been argued that Texas is a rich source of oil, and Americans need oil.  Can you imagine the profits to be made, now that all that oil will be on the open market and not in the U.S. Reserves?  I admit, we are drunk on oil, but you need to remember that the State of Texas does not own the oil rigs.  Oil rigs and processing plants are privately owned businesses.  In order to earn any kind of income from them, the Texas government would have to tax these entities!  How well is that going to fly among the owners of these multi-billion dollar enterprises?  Isn't one of the reasons for secession the belief that Americans are overtaxed?  Just wait until you move out of Uncle Sam’s house, Texas, to see how high taxes can get! 

Another concern regarding oil is the Gulf of Mexico.  This oil-rich body of water does not belong to Texas, and if Texas tries to claim it they are going to wish that they had some kind of military to back up their actions – but they won’t, because the military is Federal; so all of those military bases in Texas (all 15 of them!) will actually be foreign bases, protecting the interests of the motherland, the United States. 

Texas, what is going to happen to your tourist trade?  When it became required for Americans and Canadians to use a passport to cross the Northern border, a lot fewer Americans decided to cross that border.  Passports are not cheap; I for one can think of a lot of things that I would rather do with my $140 application/renewal fee – like put it towards a vacation somewhere on American soil!  What can I do in Texas that I can’t do somewhere in the other 49 states?  Okay, I will admit that I cannot carry a gun to church in the other 49, you've got me there!

My biggest question of all, should Texas secede, is what would happen to the fence that the U.S. built on the Mexican border?  Will it be dismantled and carried, mile by mile, to the U.S.–Texas border, since that will be the new dividing line between the U.S. and its southern border?  Just think, it would reunite Texans living on the wrong side of the fence with the rest of their country!  [Ed. Note: There is a 50,000 acre area of U.S. soil that is on the wrong side of the border fence].  I suppose there are bright spots to secession after all. 

Another bright spot to Texas seceding would be that the U.S. trade deficit would be slashed, since Texas would now have to import everything it needs from the U.S. – one cannot live on oil alone, now can they?  Food, clothing, cars…suddenly Chrysler’s “Imported from Detroit” slogan makes more sense!   

Suddenly, it all makes sense!

Further question: Would the Texas Federal Drug Administration allow for imports of U.S. medications, or would they hold the strict line that the U.S. now does with Canadian prescription drugs?  Would Texas even have an FDA, or would that department be cut as a part of the overhaul to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary government bureaucracy?  I hear that in Mexico, Valium is an over the counter medication!  In order to compete, would Texas do the same for Oxycontin? 

Speaking of competing with Mexico, the first time Texas seceded it was from Mexico.  Texas remained independent for nine years before asking the U.S. to annex the state, due to attacks from Mexico (which tried to re-annex it); threats from the British (who still sought a presence on the continent, even after two failed wars); a failed attempt by Texas to annex New Mexico (in order to increase its mineral holdings); and a $10,000,000 deficit (that’s in 1840’s dollars!) that left the country financially unstable (you can read all about it – and more – at www.PBS.org/AmericanExperience).  The United States went to war with Mexico over the decision to annex Texas, and claimed not just Texas but the entirely of the American Southwest as spoils of that war.  Quite honestly, I think America is big enough without adding to our southern border.  Should Texassecede,  I say we let them fight their own battle this time.

Texas, are you sure you have thought this through?

Paw Slaps of Disgust to the 100,000+; Snuggles ot the rest of you,
Tazi

[Ed. Note: As of this writing, 19 other states are also seeking to secede, but Texas is the only state to get so many signatures on a petition, in so short a time, so as to seriously petition the White House with such a plan].

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Tazi's Corner #16 - A Plea For Higher Education Funding

Dear Readers:

As you probably know, my Mommie is a returning student at the University of Rhode Island.  I learn a lot from Mommie, sitting on top of her shoulder like a parrot as she tries to type up her homework.  I, too, want to learn as much as possible!

Recently, Mommie wrote a commentary for one of her writing classes, bemoaning the lack of proper funding for Rhode Island's institutes of higher education.  Realizing that Rhode Island is not the only state with this problem - and that this problem complicates the lives of out-of-state students, as well as residents - I decided that her column needed a wider audience.  Because my blog receives thousands upon thousands of more page views than hers (It's true!  I even have more Twitter followers than her) I have decided to post her commentary here in my Tazi's Corner forum.  I will be back next week with my thoughts on what was in my trick or treat bag; in the meantime, please give my Mommie your undivided attention.

Snuggles,
Tazi

In Rhode Island, a College Education Is Worth More than the State Offers

A Commentary by Tazi-Kat's Mommie

Talk is cheap. So is the Rhode Island State Budget Committee, at least from the point of view of a student at a Rhode Island public college or university. The Providence Journal recently reported that over the past five (5) years state aid to higher education operating budgets has been cut 30%, while expenses have risen 47%. Left with a combined average of 31% of operating expenses being covered by state aid, the Community College of Rhode Island; Rhode Island College; and the University of Rhode Island have been set adrift in a sea of financial turmoil, their only lifeline the tuition and fees that students pay to attend – tuition and fees that has been outpacing the rate of inflation for the past two decades. Why should this matter concern Rhode Islanders as a whole?

According to the Providence Journal’s “Reinvent Rhode Island” series, “Rhode Island employers are having difficulty finding employees with the skills needed for high-tech industries”. The chatter one hears coming from the General Assembly’s chambers suggests that the goal is to market Rhode Island as a highly skilled hub – the Information District, as it has been called. I cannot be the only one who sees a large disconnect between what is proposed and the reality that exists, can I? The one way to close this gap is the completion of a higher and/or specialized education, but Rhode Island citizens are being priced out of learning these skills due to the ever increasing costs of higher education that are a direct result of constant cuts to the same. We can no longer afford to put off funding higher education in Rhode Island; the Day of Reckoning has arrived.

Last year the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education (RIBGHE) chose to freeze out-of-state tuition at our colleges and university in order to avoid losing the students who pay this higher tuition rate. However, to cover the rising costs of education in the face of a short budget, in-state tuition was raised considerably for the 2012 – 2013 academic year – 9.5% at the University of Rhode Island; 7.5% at the Community College; and 4% at Rhode Island College. The New England Board of Higher Education reports that these increases come on top of tuition increases already made in recent years, resulting in an average tuition increase of 47% at the four-year schools from 2006 to 2011. Institutional records show that at CCRI, a two-year college, tuition has also increased by 47% over the same time period.

How is it possible that costs have risen 47%, tuition has increased 47%, state aid has been cut by 30%, and yet the colleges and university are not operating in a deficit? The answer is simple: class offerings have been reduced, class sizes have been enlarged, and student services have been cut. The result of these measures has been devastating to the state of public higher education in Rhode Island, with students being shut-out of necessary classes, due to a lack of availability, and receiving less personalized attention from faculty and academic support staff. Students are paying more and receiving less.

There are those who would argue that tuition increases are unavoidable yet, as has already been stated, the increases that have been implemented have far outpaced the rate of inflation; those who employ our state’s public college students did not offer 47% pay increases to help cover the added cost of their employees’ education. In fact, with the Rhode Island economy as depressed as it is, Rhode Island employees have been lucky to see raises at all.

Considering the changing demographic of our state’s college students, it cannot be assumed that students can fall back on their parents to assist them with the increased costs of attaining a college degree or vocational certificate; demographic breakdowns show that an average of 25% of our state college students are over the age of 25 (9% of URI enrollment, 40% of CCRI enrollment, 25% of RIC enrollment). Many of our state’s public college students are supporting families of their own. If the choice comes down to paying the rent or paying tuition, education loses. In a case such as this the Rhode Island economy loses as well, in the form of fewer employers choosing to locate within our borders. Even the most high-tech Engineering firm still needs Receptionists; Administrative Assistants; Sales and Marketing Reps; Security; Housekeeping, and other middle and lower-skilled personnel. This is in addition to industrial supplies needed to run the business, contracts that would be awarded to other local businesses.

Although it sounds cliché, there is much truth to the saying “If you build it, they will come”. The time has come for Rhode Island to build its economy by building its workforce. An investment in higher education will bring this to pass. RIBGHE recently announced its decision to hold the line on tuition for the upcoming academic year, but this decision must be accompanied by a sizable increase in state aid at a time when the governor has requested sizable budget cuts. Rhode Island’s State Legislators have proven that they can talk about the economic problems our state is facing; the time has come for them to show the people that they can do more than pontificate by providing a workable solution, starting with increased aid to higher education. As of this writing, Rhode Island ranks 48th out of 50 with regard to state tax dollars allocated (per student) to fund public colleges and universities.

It is short-sighed and self-centered to suggest that students who seek a higher education pay for it without state assistance. How many people are willing to purchase a home in an area where paved roads and city services are not a part of the package? How many homeowners would be willing to take out a mortgage if the interest on that mortgage was not tax deductable? These allowances are a form of government assistance to those who seek to achieve the American Dream, a dream that is more likely to be achieved through higher education. Just as homeowners pay taxes to pay their fair share of municipal costs, students also pay taxes with the expectation of receiving state-sponsored services in return. Just as home ownership improves the economy of a community so does higher education.

In the past, bond issues related to the funding of higher education have passed with an overwhelming majority of the electorate’s approval [Ed. Note to RI Voters: Gaige Hall looks like a pre-historic, crumbling dump!  Vote YES on Question #3!]. However, like student loans, bond money must be paid back with interest. We as a state must show good financial sense and fund our institutions of higher learning through proper budgeting, not borrowing , which in turn will have both immediate and long-term ripple effects for our state college students, starting with a lower student-debt load upon graduation. I plead with you as a Rhode Island citizen to write to your state legislator and demand an increase in funding to our state colleges and university. The future job that is created as a result of this investment just may be your own.

The writer is a 1997 graduate of Rhode Island College and a 2010 graduate of the Community College of Rhode Island, where she is also employed part-time. Tazi-Kat's Mommie is scheduled to complete her Rhode Island higher education hat-trick in 2013, when she graduates from the University of Rhode Island.

Tazi-Kat's Mommie wrote this commentary for her Public Writing class (URI Writing 303). The views expressed in it are her own, and have in no way been endorsed by her employer or by the University of Rhode Island; just by Tazi-Kat.

Sources:

Community College of Rhode Island Annual Tuition and Fees [1986 - 2012]. Web.  Rep. Warwick: Community College of Rhode Island, 2012.  http://www.ccri.edu/irpl/2011/pdf/Tuition%20and%20Fees%202011-12.pdf

Jordan, Jennifer D. "Higher Education Board Wants to Freeze Tuition at RI Public Colleges." The Providence Journal 28 Sept. 2012, sec. A: A1+. Print.

"The Numbers." The Providence Journal. Providence Journal Company, 01 Nov. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.  http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/11/tuition-hike-pr.html

"Rhode Island College College Portrait." Rhode Island College College Portrait. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2012.  http://www.collegeportraits.org/RI/RIC/characteristics 

Tuition and Fee Rates at New England’s Public Colleges and Universities, 2006-07 through 2011-12. Web. Rep. Boston: New England Board of Higher Education, 2011.

            http://www.nebhe.org/info/pdf/policy/2011_Tuition_Report.pdf

"The University of Rhode Island College Portrait." The University of Rhode Island College Portrait. Web.  N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2012. http://www.collegeportraits.org/RI/URI/characteristics

Who Do We Serve and How Do We Perform: It’s About Choices. Web.  Rep. Warwick: Community College of Rhode Island, 2012.

                http://www.ccri.edu/president/powerpoints/2012_institutional_research.pdf

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Tazi’s Corner Issue #16 – Binders Full of Women…And The Men Who Could Not Find Them

[Ed. Note: Scroll down the page for a clip and serve Paw Slap of Disgust to share with someone who richly deserves one!]

Dear Readers,

The other night I got stuck watching the Presidential debate.  I had no choice – my Co-Mommie was giving me snuggles when it came on the TV. There are few things for which I will prematurely end my snuggle time; food is one of them, politics is not.  I was happy that I tuned in because it gave me a chance to exercise my Paw Slap of Disgust – something one reader wrote to tell me I was not using enough lately!  I guess my yoga sessions are working.

Overall, I give the debate three Paw Slaps of Disgust on a scale of 1 to 5; but this is only because it looked like Mitt Romney and President Obama were about to start throwing punches at each other.  Now THAT would have made for a memorable debate!  As it is, I was half asleep from the quality snuggle I was getting when I heard a comment about how Romney went out in search of women to serve in his cabinet and found “binders” full of them.

Binders full of women?  How large were these binders that they were able to fit a full-sized human being, let alone several of them?  (Were these binders comfortable?  Are they the latest attempt at a solution to the housing crisis?  I need to know!  I am always looking for a new place to nap!).  However, of larger concern to me is this: WHY were these women not a part of the Romney Administration’s initial recruitment efforts?  Romney himself said they were as qualified as any man who had applied for the available cabinet posts, so why were these women a part of the second wave of recruitment but not the first?

As a cat, I spend a lot of time planning world domination – write in ­Tazi-Kat for President 2012 – and as a part of this planning I must spend a lot of my time observing humans while pretending to nap.  One of the more important things I have noticed is that politicians like to say things that voters like to hear…but then they surround themselves with people who reveal more about them than the politician would like.  I am not talking about extremes like President Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright – although this could be a good example – I am talking about the masses that make up a politician’s team, from his or her advisers straight down the campaign volunteers.  Who are these people?  How do they think, feel, and behave?  Most importantly, what kind of effect do they have on the important decisions that the politician will make?  In the case of Mitt Romney, I find myself questioning what kind of steering committee chooses only men to fill Cabinet posts. 

To his credit, Mr. Romney asked the same questions as I.  How come there are no women among the candidates?  If only men were found to be qualified to fill these positions, why is that so?  Were no women interested in working in politics?  As it turns out, there were “binders full of women” who were both qualified to serve and interested in serving in their state government – the problem was that these career women were still expected to be at home to serve the domestic needs of their families.  This conflict of interest is what disqualified them in the eyes of Mr. Romney’s people. 

Mr. Romney, at this point I would like to offer you my latest free product – a Print and Serve Tazi-Kat Paw Slap of Disgust!  It is extra large to make the printed version easy to read.  Please print several copies and hand one to each and every member of your Cabinet Search Team; the people who could not find one woman both qualified and interested in serving in your Cabinet. 

Just print, cut, and serve!

Maybe you do not realize it, but surrounding yourself with chauvinists leaves people questioning your own character.  Points to you for recognizing chauvinism and seeking to squelch it, but by keeping the chauvinists on board the only lesson you are teaching is that you value the importance of appearing to be politically correct.  You once said that you “like being able to fire people” for bad service; well, here’s your chance.  It’s time to ditch the backward thinking advisers who believe that a woman’s place is in the home first and the political world second, if at all.

I do believe that Mr. Romney is forward-thinking when it comes to accommodating the needs of women who must balance both family and career.  It makes me happy to see that he understands that not every person can sell their soul to the company store – regardless of their sex.  I hope that Mr. Romney allows his male employees to leave work at 5:00 PM so that they may go home to have dinner with their family or to catch their child’s Little League game.  I also hope that Mr. Romney is not pandering to women in the hope of securing their vote; I hope that he considers surrounding himself by forward-thinkers that realize that a woman can have both a career and a family at the same time, but only if they receive the support of their partners.  Most of all I hope that, if elected, Mr. Romney learns how to communicate a thought more clearly.  Binders full of women?  Bill Clinton must be drooling…

Snuggles,

Tazi

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

Teenager Finds That Tea-Party Ideals Difficult For Average Person To Reach

Dear Tazi:

Last Fall, my wife and I wrote to you about our teenage son "Joey" who, at 15, decided to turn against the beliefs he was raised with to join the Tea Party. You advised us to respect Joey's new-formed beliefs, and to go along with things - every step of the way. We took your advice and told Joey that we would be providing him with the support that was required by law (food, clothing, shelter) but that any extras - designer labels, his iPhone, and recreation - would have to be paid for out of his own pocket.

My wife and I also renegotiated Joey's allowance, basing the amount of work he does around the house on a fair-wage for hours worked system. The amount of chores he completes each week takes approximately one hour of his time. We decided that since the Tea Party is against "living wage" legislation that we would be paying Joey the Federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour). This actually resulted in a large cut to his weekly allowance. My wife and I decided to put the money aside and, at the end of this experiment or six months later (whichever was to come first) donate the money to charity. We offered Joey the opportunity to earn back the balance of his allowance by taking on extra chores at the hourly rate; with the overtime rate kicking in after only three hours of work (we considered the amount of time he spends in school and on homework to go towards a forty-hour work week). Joey leaped at this challenge, and immediately began to feel the bite of reality.

Once Joey had gone through his allowance savings, he started asking for extra chores; however, few were available. After the first snowfall, we offered Joey the opportunity to wake up an hour early (5 AM, instead of 6 AM) to shovel snow at the rate of $10/hour, but he chose sleep instead and was upset that I had shoveled the driveway and the walk by the time he woke. When he complained that this was unfair, I explained to him that when work calls the employee must answer; that this is a part of developing "a work ethic and a sense of morality" that he originally insisted the poor do not have.

When Christmas rolled around, Joey got a Jitterbug phone (which he is embarrassed to be seen using) to replace the iPhone he could not afford; as well as a few things he wanted, but nothing near the extravagant gifts my wife and I usually give to him. Joey was disappointed, but we explained that he is a "working man" now, which means he should be buying gifts for others as well as receiving. Since he did not purchase gifts for my wife and me, we did not give as generously as we normally would. During school vacation, we took him shopping for new clothes and sneakers - at JC Penney, where he was mortified to be seen purchasing store-brand clothing. My wife wanted to give in when she saw how upset Joey was, but I convinced her to keep up with the "tough love".

Due to a lack of snowfall, there were no (more) driveways to be shoveled over the winter and warm-weather yard-work does not yet need to be done. Last night, Joey asked me if he could "collect unemployment benefits" since "work has been slow". My wife and I responded that he was not eligible for unemployment benefits since he did not have enough work hours banked, but that he could try applying for T.A.N.F. benefits [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly known as "welfare"]. The look of horror on his face was priceless, when I explained to Joey that since he was a single man with no children he probably would not qualify for T.A.N.F. benefits anyway.

This morning, when my wife and I came downstairs for breakfast, Joey was standing in the kitchen holding a sign that read "Working Poor. Please Help. Need Gas Money for Carpool to Get to School". My wife and I plan to have a long talk with our son this evening (I am writing this on my lunch break), but we are pretty certain that this experiment has reached a concluding point. It has been a great success, and we just wanted to say thank you for the wonderful advice!

Sincerely,
Two Proud Liberal Democrats

P.S. We made Joey walk the two miles to school, just to drive home our point!

Dear Two Proud Liberal Democrats:

Thank you for writing back to me to follow up on your situation! I love hearing back from people who have had success with the advice I have given - it makes me purrrrrrrr like a kitten!

Although I cannot guarantee that your son will not continue to hold ultra-conservative viewpoints (which is his right, should they be his beliefs), I do believe that you and your wife have taught him the importance of having compassion for others, and not to judge someone until you have walked a mile (or two!) in their shoes. You have done your job as parents, the toughest job there is! Keep up the good work!

Snuggles,
Tazi

P.S. You went even further than I suggested! I didn't think to take away his iPhone or to restructure his allowance. Bravo!

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.

EXTRA EDITION: A (Hopefully!) Final Word On The Prayer Banner Controversy

Dear Readers:

I received this letter in the comments section of the student response to "Falcon Forever", and am printing it as a letter because I feel it sums up the entire issue of the Cranston (RI) High School West prayer banner controversy. Enjoy!

Snuggles,
Tazi

P.S. Of all the comments and letters I have received on this matter, the overwhelming majority have been against keeping the banner.

Tazi,

Never felt moved to comment, although I love your work on this blog, until I followed your coverage of the "Cranston prayer banner" story. I have my own thoughts on the subject, and unless you decide that you've devoted enough time to the topic and want to move on (which I've seen cats do quite easily, which is why I love them so much), you have my permission to post this as a separate letter as well.

I've seen a lot of people commenting on the story suggest that Jessica could have just ignored the banner, but it doesn't change the fact that it is completely unconstitutional to have any prayer in a public school, regardless of what religion it promotes. I don't think it's about whether or not she thought that the Christian underground was out to convert her, or if she hated organized religion and all its manifestations. I believe she just thought it was illegal to have there. If alumni of an inner city school gifted a block of crack to their alma mater, it would be illegal for the school to have it, and no one would disagree. She thought that this was illegal for the school to possess/display as well. There seems to be this idea that she was out to destroy baby Jesus and succeeded, which is missing the point. She was pointing out a technicality, and the circuit judge agreed. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

One complainant mentioned on Facebook: "The prayer is never recited; no one even knows the damn thing, except that it's up on the [expletive deleted] wall; and no one ever sees the wall, 'cause no one is ever in the [expletive deleted] auditorium, and when they are there, the [expletive deleted] lights are off!" If that is the case, then why make a big deal about it being taken down? She made her case, and legally she won, and if no one has ever noticed the thing before, then they shouldn't have any problems with it not being there.

Finally, a random thought from my past: When I was in the sixth grade, after the Pledge of Allegiance, we would recite what was called a "Class Code" every morning, and I still remember it by heart: "As sixth graders, we must be respectful of each other, always strive to do our very best work, cooperate as a class, treat everyone as we would like to be treated, and be an excellent example for the rest of the school." It's no Our Father, for sure, but it's a valid statement, perfectly complete and respectable with no religious inclusions whatsoever, unless you want to count the Golden Rule, which to be frank was repeated by many great minds before, during, and after the time of Christ. Without the appeal to a "Heavenly Father" and the "Amen" closing, I'm sure even Jessica herself wouldn't see a problem with a "class code" or "code of ethics" or whatever you want to call it based on the remaining words:

"Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West."

That's beautiful! And it doesn't offend anyone. I suspect the only reason Cranston West didn't make such a change when public prayer was no longer allowed in schools is because, based on the complainant's words, successive administrations have forgotten the prayer was ever there. And you know what they say about forgetting: "If you forget something, invariably it'll come back to bite you in the behind." That's what I think happened here.

-gdelgi

Tazi here again! Perhaps compromise can rule the day, and the opening and closing of this prayer/creed/code can simply be painted over so as to read as a School Code, as has been suggested by others. Cats don't usually believe in compromise - after all, whatever we want we consider ours - but we hate to see humans argue (the noise disturbs our inner peace). Thank you for sharing!

Snuggles,
Tazi

Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.