Are State Lotteries a Swindle?

I'm not talking about the astronomical odds of winning. I'm talking about the basis used to justify State lotteries.

I remember before California voted to allow a state lottery. "The profits will go to education." The long-starved schools of California would get money from the state Lottery. Programs that had been cut would be resurrected. Field trips, bands, clubs would once again be available. It was an exciting promise.

The reality? The State legislature cut the education budget since, "They're getting money from the Lottery" Schools are just as financially starved (if not more so) than they were before the lottery was initiated.

I moved to New Mexico. Here, the lottery proceeds are not given to the schools. Instead, there are "Lottery Scholarships" If a student graduates from a New Mexico high school and attends a State supported higher education program, so long as they maintain an acceptable grade-point average, the state pays their tuition from the Lottery proceeds.

Better system?

Not yet.

The State legislature cuts funding to higher education, forcing the colleges to raise tuition. Last week, it was announced that if the tuition continues to increase at the current rate, in less than five years, the Lottery funds will not be sufficient to pay the tuition of all of the qualifying students.

Lotteries were promoted as providing suppplemental funding for schools. Instead, state lawmakers have found a way to justify cutting the amounts schools receive because they also receive "lottery money"

I don't know if this is happening in other states. I suspect that it is.

If so, we were all scammed by the lottery promoters. We were also scammed by our state legislators, and by ourselves. We thought that the lotteries would give the schools "something for nothing" Instead, the legislators are using the availability of lottery money to "keep taxes low" while our children suffer.

Secure Our Borders

In the on-going discussion of immigration policy, there has been a call to "secure our borders" What, exactly does this mean?

My home is secure. No one can peaceably enter without my consent. I am secure because I have walls and locks (and an alarm system)

So, is that what is meant by a "secure" border? Secure, because no one can enter without the consent of the country? Just how would the US go about securing our borders?

The most common concept appears to be a fence, running the length of the border with sensors and cameras and such to prevent anyone from entering without consent.

There are historic models that can be examined for efficacy. Hadrian’s Wall was built to secure the Romans from the marauding Scots. The Great Wall of China was built to secure the empire from the outside armies. In the 20th Century, the Berlin Wall was built, not to secure East Berlin but to prevent the citizens of East Berlin from emigrating to the West.

All three of these "Border Security" events failed in their purpose.

Why would one here be any better?

The Berlin wall appears to be the closest approximation to what is needed here. Are we willing to pay for a barrier of this magnitude? Are we eager to create "Dead zones" of land mines along our Southern border? Who will we hire, train and ORDER to shoot to kill people attempting to cross into our territory?

What do you REALLY mean by "Border Security" and what are you willing to pay?

It seems a bit disingenuous to call for a delay in discussing an over-haul of immigration until we "secure our borders" when we are not willing to either expend the necessary monies to build a barrier or to engage in the security behavior that would make such a barrier secure.

Let me re-phrase that last remark: Are we absolutely willing to post soldiers with “Shoot to kill” orders along our borders?

Why We Need The Draft

I blogged about it before. Were we opposed to US involvement in Viet Nam, or were we opposed to the draft?

PEW Research Center findings out today. Our "volunteer" army does NOT think that Iraq and Afghanastan are worth it. A large percentage enlisted due to the economy. Nearly 1/3 report PTSD.

Why a draft would be better:

1. If it were my child, my nephew (or niece, let's abolish sexism in military service) who was facing forced military service, I would be demanding clear objectives, clear goals, clear times to wind down our military adventures.

2. SEXISM When I was transferring colleges, before I received my acceptance from my new shcool, I received mail from various military recruiters. Because my name was relatively gender-neutral, they didn't realize that I was female. Of course, when I showed up at the recruiting station with the invitation to become a fly-boy, the recruiters were immediately scrambling as to why I couldn't. After all, they had said I met the basic qualifications. Of course, in 1973, they didn't state that the most basic qual was that I be male. I have read paragraphs describing the conditins that soldiers on the front lines experience with the plea, "No woman should have to serve under those conditions." Frankly, no HUMAN should have to.

3. When the Senator's son (or daughter) is likely to have to serve, the Senator is going to pay a LOT more attention to what is going on.

And those are essentially the very same reasons that absent a direct, identifiable, foreign attack of war on our country, a draft will not exist. We cheered when it was allowed to die. 40 years later, we ought to realize that we may have made a mistake.

FREEDOM!!!

I went to visit my mother. We went clothes shopping. She tried on blouses.

My mother is 94 years old. Roughly 5 years ago, she had a RADICAL masectomy. One breast FULLY removed. Her worry? She was afraid that they would take lymph nodes and that she wouldn't be able to swim her mile per week anymore.

She lost her ability to float in water after her heart procedure when she was 90+. Somehow, she lost her bouyancy. She is sorry she cannot still swim. On her 90th birthday, she swam her usual 1/3 mile.

Anyway, we picked out some blouses, and went into the dressing room.

THAT was when I realised that my mother (in most cases) no longer wears a bra.

HELLO!! She's 94, and only has one breast. Yes, she has a fill-in, but she really doesn't like wearing it.

At first, I was bothered. An old lady with only one boob, not wearing a bra?

OK, other than a slightly uptight daughter (that would be me) WHO is bothered/offended/ or even notices?

My mother is comfortible, society is satisfied by the fact that she is covered, WHO is offended/hurt??

SHE doesn't care how she looks. She's not looking to attract anyone of either sex. WHO CARES??

I need to loosen up. Actially, if I weren't terribly self-conscious about my appearnce, and wanting to still look either desireable or at least socially acceptable, I think doing without a bra would be wonderfully comfortable!!

But I am incredibly vain. I want to think that I look at a minimum acceptable, and (if you're very short-sighted) appealing, so I will continue to wear a bra.

Sorry waistline, you aren't going to share my chest measurement just yet!

Sometimes

There are times when I just want to reach out an hug everyone in my blogmunity. Linda is flying to Germany to watch the women's world cup. Laura is buying a new condo. Cynthia's daughter is getting married. (I last saw her when she was about 10)

I've never met Linda or Michael IRL, and yet they are as much my good friends as anyone I HAVE physically touched.

Tig is celebrating her party's win in Thailand.

I once said that one of the curses of the internet is that we are now subjected to EVERYONE'S opinion.

One of the blessings of the internet is that we now can connect with everyone we have ever met (and liked) and many people we like but have never met.

Pictures of me half-naked

This Tuesday, my girlfriend and I will go to Albuquerque where I will pose for pictures in which I will be half-naked. The positioning of my arms is important. My brests must be thrust forward, my back slightly arched to show a better angle.

Why, you ask, would a 58-year-old woman do such a thing? Who would be interest in seeing such pictures.

I honestly don't know who will be looking at those pictures. But I want them to. I hope they study thos pictures throughly and intently.

And I sincerely believe that most women of my age should be doing the same thing.

So, I'm getting my annual mamogram.

I just thought it would sound more exciting this way.

Do we Suffer from Collective Amnesia?

Two things brought this to mind.

On Memorial day (actually the Sunday before) I was watching a 60-Minutes interview with the (then) only recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor from the mid-East wars who was alive to receive it. He called himself an average if not medicore soldier and said that any other soldier would have done what he did. He made the comment regarding his fellow soldiers, "They all raised their hand and took the oath"

As it was meant to be, the story was touching and mildly thought-provoking -- "How heroic is the average man?" sort of item.

I recently finished reading H.W. Brands "American Dreams" This is a narrative history of the US since WWII. It ends in 2008.

Overally, the book is quite good at exxplaining what was occurring and some of the personalities and politics and facts and actions that influenced US history throughout that period.

I had purchased it because I had read his book "Traitor to his Class" regarding FDR and found it excellent and exciting.

I found, however, one glaring flaw. In discussing the period from 1963 through 1974, he mentions Vietman. He mentions the anti-war protests that almost tore the country apart. He mentions the shootings at Kent State. He discussed in passing how we became involved in Vietnam, the incident at the gulf of Tonkin, and the political corruption that plagued the South Vietnamese state.

What did he omit? What was the REAL explanation for the sometimes violent protests and demonstrations that beset the era? What were we really protesting against? And why is it that there are virtually NO protests today regarding our involvement in foreign countries?

He failed to mention in any sentence: THE DRAFT.

In retrospect, we were not protesting against America's sometimes mis-directed foreign policies. We were not protesting the attempt at "nation-building" We were not protesting the fact that the US was using military force to support a corrupt dictatorship.

We were protesting the fact that young men were being conscripted involuntarily and being sent oversees.

Look at the military 'adventures' the US has engaged in since the end of Vietnam. The protests today are political, and votes are taken in Congress. 500,000 plus do not assemble for three days on the Capital Mall to say "US OUT" Why not?

Today's military is purely volentary. In fact, given the state of employment in this country, the military is being selective about who may enlist. Today's soldiers are all willing to be soldiers.

It didn't used to be that way.

And I have to wonder, if we had a draft today, would we be involved overseas to the extent that we are?

I will not say that today's wars are any more or less moral than Vietnam was. But the fact that young men are not being forced into the military IS a more moral stance than we had previously.

Have we forgotten our outrage over Vietnam? Or is it that today we know that our brothers, our boyfriends, our sons will not be FORCED into the military.

Perhaps a volunteer army makes a voluntary war less morally repugnant.