I’d never thought about it much before, but Confederate history is part of my family’s history, too.  My maternal grandfather’s family originated from the southern states.  My aunt recently forwarded to me a history (written by a cousin) of my great-great-great grandfather’s Civil War service — in the Confederate army. And he’s not the only ancestor who served on that side.

I’m always interested in family history, but this case is a little different. Is it something to be proud of, or should I be ashamed? I have no idea. I don’t think I can even frame it in those terms. For one thing, I didn’t know the man, and I don’t know anyone who did (he died in 1909). So I know nothing of his motivation for fighting in the war.

Great-Great-Great Grandpa Russell served in the 42nd Regiment of the Mississippi Volunteers.  In his pre- and post-war life, he was a farmer with a wife and children (14 children with two different wives!). He never rose above the rank of Private; he was probably just one of many ordinary men in Mississippi.

No doubt Russell thought he was doing the right thing by serving in the army, whatever his reasons were. But thinking it’s so doesn’t necessarily make it right, no matter how sincere you are.

My cousin included the text of a letter Russell wrote to his wife. He wrote with obvious affection, which is good to see:

My dear Melvina I will have to close as I havnt time to rite more  I will have a chance to send this by hand by one of the 17 Miss.  I wante you to write if you pleas for I havent recvd a letter from you sence in June…

But he also says this:

I am so vary tierd of the way we have to liv lying in brest works I haven’t had but 2 clean shirts in 2 months I am vary black and dirty and stink as bad as a negrow…

Ouch.  So he clearly also shared the prejudices of his time and place in history.

And that leaves me with mixed feelings. While I certainly recognize that Russell was wrong in saying things like that (believe me, I winced while reading it), and that the Confederacy was wrong in defending slavery, I don’t hate or condemn my ancestor for it, either. And while finding out more about family history is fascinating, I don’t feel like celebrating this part of it, either.

I do have to agree with the view that it’s a good idea to know history, though. Not just so that we won’t repeat it, but so that we understand who we are as a society, and how we got to be this way.

On that note, fellow blogger Gunfighter will be taking a look at some incidents in Confederate history in a decidedly non-celebratory way. I’m interested in seeing what he has to say. You might want to take a look as well.

Norris has decided to uncover the dirty secrets of the health care reform bill on Townhall.com. The first dirty secret is about parenting.  Norris is outraged that the government would fund “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.”  He thinks this is equivalent to “the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.”

Oh, Chuck.  You’re making me read the actual bill again. Hang on.  Where the heck did I put that thing? It’s over 1000 pages long, you’d think I could find it around here.

Here we go. Subpart 3, Support for Quality Home Visitation Programs. Um, I just don’t see it, Chuck. They use the exact words “voluntary home visitation.” It doesn’t say anywhere that parents shall be required to participate. And even if parents do participate, and then they find that the home visitor’s ideas of parenting don’t line up with their own, they’re free to drop out of the program.

I know, because I’ve taken part in this type of program. Shortly after our first child was born, we were told that we could have a visiting nurse come to our home to check on the baby and answer any questions we might have.  As new parents, we thought that was a great idea. The nurse weighed and measured the baby, and gave us some advice on feeding and sleeping and preventing diaper rash. We didn’t agree with all of it. We took what was useful and left the rest.

We also participated in a weekly visitor program when our baby was a little older. Someone came out once a week to see how we were doing, and provide support in any way she could.  Mostly she was someone that we could talk to about our challenges, parental, financial, etc.  – like a mini counseling session. She even brought us free diapers and baby food a few times.  When we didn’t need this any more, we dropped out.

Now, I could see arguing that the government doesn’t need to fund this. Parental support can also be provided by extended family, churches, and non-profit organizations. That’s a reasonable argument. But Norris’s argument is that the government would be taking control of our parenting decisions.  He calls this voluntary home visitation program “Obamacare’s home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America.”  And that’s just not in this bill.

Oh, you can argue that it could happen.  The government could use this legislation as an excuse to take things further.

But that’s a big maybe. I mean, I could decide to go out and kill someone right now. But I’m not going to.  And if I did, you’d do something about it, right? Just like, if the government did become truly dangerous, I think we’d do something about it.

Instead of a reasonable argument, Norris is using scare tactics, and that’s not cool.

What will you have for us next, Chuck?

Government involvement in health care has been a hot-button issue in the U.S. for years — at least since Hillary Clinton tried to reform the system in the 1990′s, if not before.  Many people, especially online, become furious at the thought of government involvement in health care, or at the idea of not providing health care for all.

Part of the problem is myths and misunderstandings. There’s a lot of misinformation out there, and for some people, if it’s on the internet or on the radio it must be true! So they’ll spread the misinformation further and further, until it turns into fear and anger.

Myth: The current health-care reform bill will result in government-run health care and/or socialized medicine.

Not any more than in the current system. People will still be able to keep their private and employer-paid insurance.  A public option is not government-run health care either. People would still be getting health care through private insurance companies, hospitals, clinics and physicians, like members of Congress do.  The government would not actually be running hospitals and clinics (except for the Veterans’ Administration).  They would just be paying the insurance bills.

Myth: Pages 16-19 of the current health care reform bill say that private insurance will be outlawed!

This myth is circulating right now on blogs and in blog comments. I haven’t found anything about this from a reputable media source, and I’ve also read pages 16-19 myself (you have to view it in PDF to get page numbers). Nothing in the bill outlaws private insurance. In fact, this section is all about protecting people’s existing insurance plans.

Myth: The government is going to tax our employer-paid health benefits in order to pay for this program.

I heard about this on Facebook. I’m not sure how widely this myth is circulating, but I do know that President Obama has stated that he will veto any bill that removes the tax exemption for health insurance premiums. So I don’t think there’s much chance of this happening.

There are probably more examples, but the best way to avoid falling for a myth is to do your own research. Don’t just believe what you’re told (even what you’ve read here). Get the facts. Read the actual bill. Be informed, regardless of what your opinion is. I’m not 100% in favor of this health care reform bill; I’m more a fan of single-payer health care. But I do want to know what’s going on, and I want to know the truth.

Read the full text of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, at govtrack.us.

But should he be part of this historic inauguration?  Many people say no, although I don’t see the decision changing at this point.

Obama says that we can “disagree without being disagreeable”, and apparently thinks this choice shows that he can work with people even if he disagrees with them on some issues.

I’m okay with people having different beliefs.  If Rick Warren believes gay marriage is wrong, fine!  Rick, feel free to not marry a man.  Feel free to not conduct weddings for same sex couples.  But why do you have to impose that belief on the entire state of California?  Because that’s what Proposition 8 did.  Legalizing same-sex marriage in California did not require anyone to participate in same-sex marriage if they didn’t want to.  But Proposition 8 outlaws it for everyone anyway.  That’s one of the biggest reasons why it is totally and completely wrong.

So that is why I disagree with the decision to have him offer the invocation at the inauguration.  Not because his beliefs are different from mine, but because he insists on imposing those beliefs on others.

What should be done about this?  Although I wish Obama had chosen someone else in the first place, I don’t think Warren should be removed from the agenda or pressured to step down.  I don’t see that as a loving response, and it would likely cause even more polarization and hurt feelings.

I do think it’s good for us to continue this discussion.  I do appreciate that Obama restated his commitment to equality for gay and lesbian people.  Obama did state before that he was against Proposition 8 (although in a lukewarm fashion); I’d like him to specifically recognize that he and Warren differed on that issue.  I’d like to hear Barack Obama really recognize the frustrations of people who oppose Rick Warren’s selection, rather than just defend his choice.

Disagree without being disagreeable?  Yes!  But don’t forget the disagree part — it’s still important.

That is so true — mean-spirited political comments don’t hurt me personally, but they do hurt.  I didn’t realize it was my soul, until Daddy Kaos brought that up. And I think maybe not just my soul, but our collective human souls.

My first response was to want to point out the misconceptions and errors, and argue the facts.

I don’t think that will do any good.  I’m pretty sure I couldn’t convince the authors to believe me.  If you are interested in knowing the truth about Obama’s tax policy, here are some links.  Check them out for yourself and make up your own mind.

• http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/index.htm
• http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html
• http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23780.html
• http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

There’s another reason why I’m choosing not to argue right now.

We need to get out of politics as usual.  We need to “shake up Washington” (McCain).  We need “change we can believe in” (Obama).  That doesn’t mean we need to replace Republicans with Democrats or vice versa.  It means we need to get away from the politics of fear, and away from the oppositional model of politics.  As long as we’re pitted against each other, we’re going to have a hard time working together for the good of all.

I’m deeply troubled by some of the political posts I’ve been reading.  These posts are on blogs I subscribe to via RSS, because the normally non-political content interests me.  I believe these posts are spreading incorrect information, but I’m also troubled by the level of anger and fear that I sense in them.  I’ll likely have more to say about this later, but I need to gather my thoughts and feelings so that I can be constructive about it.

But why do I need to say this here at all?  This is TechnoEarthMama, not PoliticoTechnoEarthMama.  Can’t I just stay out of politics.

No.  I can’t ignore something that DOES affect other aspects of my life.  As a mother, I want to know that my children will be OK living in this country in the future.  I don’t want more wars.  I want them to have food, shelter and clothing.  I want them to have an education.  As a compassionate person, I want this for other people’s children, too.

As a person who cares about the earth, I want to have a government that supports and enforces sound environmental policies.  I want a government that recognizes that we need to get OFF the oil bandwagon, and that more drilling is not the answer.

I could probably come up with some technology-related concerns, too.  The only thing coming to mind now is that we do need to be free to use technology and the internet for communication, and for expressing whatever we want to express.  I don’t want to see that right abridged.

So politics does matter to TechnoEarthMama.  What I need to figure out next is how to express my concerns without alienating others, which is what some of these posts I’ve read are doing to me.

You see, I don’t think there are people out there just itching to vote multiple times to swing the election.  And I think that if they are, they’ll have a hard time doing it.  The systems and laws we have in place actually work.  Salon’s Andrew Burmon recently interviewed Lori Minnite, an expert on voter fraud from Barnard College, and she says that “From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters — voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident — the voters that Republicans warn about.”

So what’s all this about ACORN submitting fraudulent registrations?

It’s true.  ACORN even admitted to it. They knew about it before the registrations were submitted.  State or county laws often require organizations who are registering voters to turn in ALL off the registrations they collected, even if they know them to be fraudulent.  ACORN flagged the problem registrations before turning them in.  They were completely honest and upfront about it.

Did ACORN encourage people to submit fraudulent registrations? No.  Not as an organization, anyway.  The problem is greed and lack of work ethic.   According to ACORN, “there have been several times over the past ten months that our Las Vegas Quality Control program has identified a canvasser who appears to have knowingly submitted a fake or duplicate application in order to pad his or her hours.”  It’s about money, not politics.  It’s still not good, but it does not point to an Obama conspiracy to steal the election.

This is the truth.  There is no voter registration fraud problem.  People associated with the McCain-Palin campaign and with the Republican party are stirring up fear, just like they do with the rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim, or when they insist that Obama hangs out with terrorists.

And people believe these things.  And they get angry.  And when people get angry, bad things can happen.

Here’s where I got my information.  Please pass it along.  People need to know the truth.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/15/voter_suppression/index.html

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=76934

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/10/10289_the_acorn_controversy.html

I’ve actually met one.  I stopped at a convenience store for a drink, and the man behind the counter asked me if I’d watched the debate.  He said he just didn’t know whether it was even worth voting this year.  “They’re both just so radical!” he said.

That blew my mind.  I don’t see either candidate as being particularly radical, but in this man’s mind, they are.  He’s a man in the middle.  Both Democrats and Republicans are too radical.

He also said he likes Biden, and he seemed indifferent to Palin, although he thinks a Biden-Palin ticket might be interesting.  Somehow I don’t see that working out.

It does make me wonder, though, whether there is a better way.  Our current two-party system (which was not set up in the Constitution) pits adversaries against each other.  It inhibits true cooperation.  Even when politicians are “reaching across the aisle” it’s still about getting something for the party.  That’s where all those evil earmarks come from — they compromise and put these things in to get people to come together and vote on an important bill.

What if there were true cooperation in our government?  What would that look like?