John McCain was born for this role

Why all this personal criticism of John McCain because he may again block the Republican repeal and replace bill? Is he grandstanding? You bet your ass he is, but he is doing it on something that matters. He was born for this. He has cultivated the image of a principled maverick throughout his career. He stood for campaign finance reform when no one else did. He called for the surge when others were saying troops would be withdrawing. And on, and on.

Yes, there is some theater. Yes, he likes the limelight. So what? He is dong something. He is not going along with the party on a terrible bill just so all the jackasses who ran on repeal and replace can say they kept their campaign promises. Screw 'em.

Senator McCain's statement on why he could not support this bill made more sense than anything that has come out of either party concerning health care for a long time:

"I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will (affect) insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won't be available by the end of the month, we won't have reliable answers to any of those questions."

Oh, and by the way Mr. President, he is a war hero.

Learning disabilities are real. Any questions?

I tire of people, especially supposedly educated people, discounting or downplaying learning disabilities. A common misconception is that learning disabilities are just variants of behavior that need to be addressed, that the child must just learn to behave or think normally.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! When someone has a learning disability their brains work differently. You don't change that. You teach the child that the way they are is not wrong or bad. Then you give them the tools to function in a society built for "normal" people - those who are fortunate to have brains who work like the the majority of other people.

ADHD is probably one of the learning disabilities that is most often dismissed by the ignorant. I cannot tell you how often I hear educated people, even teachers, vocalize that ADHD kids just need to be disciplined to focus. That's like telling a deaf person they just need to discipline themselves to hear (See: What It Feels Like to Have ADHD).

The brain of an ADHD person processes information and makes connections differently. Though some suggest it may be outgrown, there are appearing more studies like this one which suggests that it is never outgrown. What most likely happens is people with ADHD learn to alter their behavior to make it more acceptable to those without ADHD. Many work hard at it, and succeed because they have worked harder that all the "normals" who consider ADHD people "spacey" or dumb. 

Oh how I wish that for one day I could change the world so it was fashioned for ADHD people - where they make the rules and set the standards for what is normal. That way, all of us "normal" people could see what its like to live in a society, educational system, and work environment not friendly to the way we think! Maybe I would do a day like that for every learning disability. Perhaps then normal people would show some empathy and not dismiss learning disabilities, and those that have them.

Why do people dismiss learning disabilities? Because people relate the behavior they see around them to how they perceive the world. When they see behavior that they consider abnormal or bad, they search for the most common explanation that makes sense to them. "That kid doesn't sit still or pay attention because they have no discipline at home!" That could be true, unless a medical specialist using scientific research that has been validated through countless observations, experiments and a peer-review process concludes, "No, this child has a learning disability that involves how their brain works." At that point the person has to abandon their folksy, home-spun, truism and defer to science and medicine.

You would think. Unfortunately, there are some people who cannot wrap their head around a scientific explanation that uses more than one catchy phrase to sum up a complex situation. No, they think their narrow experience makes them smarter than all the scientists and medical professionals so they ultimately fall back to their original conclusion.

Maybe they need to pay attention.

The Federal Government vs the State Governments: Choose Wisely!

I just answered a question on Quora about the federal government vs state governments. I don't think the author of the question meant to bash the federal government, but the fact that doing so is commonplace today shaped my answer. I get a little grumpy with those who think everything would be wonderful if the federal government would leave the states alone. Perhaps so, if you like the way things were back in 1859! I'm sure there are a few, but I don't think most of us would prefer going back to that, especially African-Americans, who would still be slaves, and women, who would not have the right to vote. Everything from the safety of our food and medications to our right to express ourselves would be affected. I think many do not realize just how bigoted and restrictive our society would be if the federal government never intervened in state affairs. The question and answer from Quora:

"If US citizens had to choose between their state government and federal government determining all of the laws and regulations of their state which would they prefer?

This one isn't even close! The federal government, primarily because many state governments and state courts have a horrible record when it comes to civil rights and matters of equal protection under the law - and not just Southern states, states from all over the country.

I don't know about you, but I happen to like the fact that whether I live in California or South Carolina no one can discriminate against me based on my race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I happen to like the fact that my wife cannot be denied a job because she is a woman. I happen to like the fact that my granddaughter has equal access to educational opportunities. I appreciate the fact that no religion, Christian or otherwise, can force its creation myths to be taught as science in the public schools. I like the fact that women have a right to make reproductive choices, from birth control to legal abortion.

I am also not fond of making segregation or slavery legal. I don’t ever want to see anything like this again:

None of the above would be guaranteed if it had been up to some of the state governments. No, really. I think today we forget the resistance that many states had to civil rights and equal opportunity. I think we take these rights for granted and don't realize that, absent federal law, many states would not guarantee these rights for all citizens.

Recently, it has been state governments that have attempted to ban abortion, prohibit gay marriage, and restrict access to voting. It has been state governments that have sought to give preferred government status to certain religions.

My state, South Carolina, has a particularly poor record. Historically, had the federal government not intervened and had the laws of South Carolina prevailed, segregation would still be legal, African-Americans would find it difficult to vote, fornication and homosexuality would be illegal (as it would have been in Pennsylvania and many other states) - not to mention gay marriage. There would be a religious test for holding office. Technically, slavery would still be legal.

Consider that without the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments there would be nothing to prevent states from allowing slavery, segregation, voter restrictions, or denying women the right to vote.

Without the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 women’s salaries would still only be 50–60% of men’s, instead of progress being made to 80%.

Without the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, state and local governments, employers, realtors, etc. could still discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Without the federal Title IX provisions women would not have equal educational opportunities.

Without Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, segregated schools could still exist in many states.

Without Roe v. Wade, abortion would still be illegal in much of the United States.

Also, nothing could prevent states from outlawing gun ownership or even hunting. Nothing could prevent a state from declaring a particular religion or denomination a state religion, or from restricting or preventing the practice of a particular religion. Those who want to restrict the power of the federal government must look at both sides of the issue.

I point this out because it is popular among some crowds to bash the federal government and dismiss its importance. Some portray it as a threat to individual freedom and liberty. However, history proves nothing could be farther from the truth. Those who claim the federal government is infringing upon their rights often mean that the federal government is infringing upon the privileges they have enjoyed over other Americans because of their race, religion, or socioeconomic background. In many cases, they simply mean that they disagree with the law of the land and would prefer not to obey it.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) the federal government has been the nation’s watchdog when local and state governments seek to deny any American their constitutional rights. So, to me, the choice is a no-brainer."

Or so it would seem!

Memorials to former slaveholders: How far do we go?

What will we put in place of the Jefferson Memorial? Ok, even in light of today's protest at the Jefferson Memorial, it's a little early to ask, and I hope we never actually have to address that question. It never ceases to amaze me how people no longer have the capability of recognizing nuance in complex situations. In the debate about how to deal with memorials to former United States leaders who owned slaves, nuance is everything.

One problem in this debate is many Americans have trouble with complex situations and make statements like, "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so if we take down Confederate memorials we have to take down memorials to Washington and Jefferson.”

No, we don't. There is a difference, and that difference should be discernible to people who know and understand United States history. People must be judged by their actions in the sociopolitical context of the times in which they lived. Washington and Jefferson recognized that slavery had to end, but compromised to mitigate the effects of slavery while trying to preserve unity among the newly form United States. No matter how bad that seems to our political sensibilities today, these men were on the cutting edge of applying the Enlightenment principles of equality and liberty to an antiquated, barbaric system that had existed for over 200 years. 

Over half a century later, leaders in the Southern States were willing to secede from the United States and go to war to preserve slavery and its future, perfectly comfortable with keeping people in bondage with no end in sight. Long after the families of Washington and Jefferson had freed their slaves, these Confederate leaders had rejected any notions of equality and liberty concerning slaves.

These Confederate leaders went to extensive lengths to make their case and rally average southerners to their cause. Though less than a third of southern households owned slaves, the wealthiest plantation owners stirred the emotions of non-slaveowners under the guise of state’s rights and by fomenting fears of unrestrained, "savage negroes" roaming the countryside and preying upon white women and children. They repeatedly warned non-slaveholders that freeing the inferior negro slaves would be an affront to their white nobility and a challenge to their God-given superiority. In their minds, even if white people were poor and uneducated, by God they were white, and that made them superior to the savage negro race (see Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought). 

After the war, some former Confederate Generals and political leaders sought to violently oppress former slaves, resulting in the KKK and other such groups. When Reconstruction ended, Jim Crow laws made discrimination and oppression the law of the land. It is that principle of perpetuating racism, slavery, and oppression which most Americans seek to stand against rather than honor or memorialize. 

The following are excerpts from a published address by State Representative John Townsend, a plantation owner form Edisto Island, SC, dated October 28, 1860. The language is typical of pro-slavery literature of the time, and very telling of pro-slavery views.

The Doom of Slavery

. . . the turning loose (of Negroes) upon society, without the salutary restraints to which they are now accustomed, more than four millions of a very poor and ignorant population, to ramble in idleness over the country until their wants should drive most of them, first to petty thefts, and afterwards to the bolder crimes of robbery and murder. . . .

It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges. The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro. In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be performed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.

Sadly, these sentiments concerning African-Americans have been passed down through generations and still serve as the basis of racism and white supremacy today.

Washington, Jefferson, and many others embraced the Enlightenment principles of equality sweeping through Europe and the colonies in the late 1700s. They and many other slaveholders knew the institution of slavery could not long survive, but they and other leaders opposed to slavery sought a compromise to preserve unity among the States, a unity that they felt was necessary for the survival of the country. The issue of slavery would have to wait. So would the liberation of the slaves they owned until the financial future of their families was secure. We may find it hard to understand such attitudes today, but remember that at the time women did not have the right to vote in all but one state, and would not have it for another 130 years. Different times, indeed.

By 1860, the issue had become stopping the spread of slavery to newly acquired territories and states. It was hoped by many that eventually, if slave states did not willingly abandon the practice, a constitutional amendment could be passed abolishing slavery. Even at this time, Lincoln, too, preferred compromise over immediate abolition. In his first inaugural address he made it clear that he had no intention as President of abolishing slavery in States where it existed, but would seek to prevent slavery from spreading into newly acquired territories or states.

The United States government along with state and local governments must preserve the complex history of slavery without honoring the most egregious defenders of the system and opponents of abolition: the Confederate leaders who sought to justify slavery and who compelled others to fight to keep the institution alive. Robert E. Lee is, unfortunately, part of that group, though any fair student of history must admit that he was not among its more radical advocates. In accordance with the wishes expressed in the will of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, Lee returned home in 1862 to free the slaves at the Curtis family Arlington home. The fact that the leader of the Confederate forces personally attended to that matter naturally drew criticism from fellow southerners. That act alone does not absolve Lee of his part in attempting to preserve a barbaric institution that had outlived the tolerance of the majority of civilized people, but it is an example of the complexity of the situation at the time. The National Parks Service, the caretaker of Lee's former home at Arlington House, maintains the home for its historic value, not as a memorial to Lee. No attempts are made to justify slavery or the Confederate attempt to preserve it. That is as it should be.