“Where I’m from, a vigil means burning the body and grilling some ribs.”
“Where are you from?”
“Missouri.”
5
Watching TV with my dad. The new Todd Akin commercial came on.
- Todd Akin: "My six-second mistake is well known, but..."
- My father: "No, Todd. It wasn't a six-second mistake. It was a six-second glimpse into your soul, and we found out just what a dark, evil place it is. Go away."
Why I will not be voting for Todd Akin.
Today, my U.S. representative lost any semblance of respect I might have had for him.
In case you haven’t heard, Todd Akin is currently trying to win a Missouri senate seat. A Republican, he is currently serving as the U.S. state representative for my district. Today, he said in an interview:
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
There is no medical basis for this comment. A study by the American Journal of Obstetricians reported that there are more than 32,000 rape-related pregnancies in the U.S. per year. As a reminder, Akin co-sponsored the 2011 bill trying to redefine rape as “forcible,” discounting forms of drugged rape, statutory rape, or incest.
Akin is challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill, the current incumbent. She released the following statement regarding Akin’s comments:
“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape. The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”
There is so much wrong with Todd Akin. As a Missourian, I have been exposed to some of the hatred and lunacy he has unleashed on this country. I have blogged about him in the past, but let’s rehash why I will not be voting for Todd Akin.
As a daughter, I would see my family’s business struggle under Akin’s plan for health insurance. My family co-owns a small business in Missouri which has seen its health insurance rates drop under Obamacare. Akin plans to cut this and force our rates up once again.
As a friend, I would see my gay friends and family members unnecessarily targeted. Todd Akin has repeatedly tried to constitutionally define marriage as one man and one woman. He has also voted against prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and against punishing anti-gay hate crimes. While attacking an individual’s right to marry is an intensely personal belief (one that I do not agree with), it is absolutely never acceptable for a political leader to prohibit the punishment of hate crimes.
As an individual, I would see my religious liberties stripped from me. Akin is a fervent supporter of “Christian rights,” including teacher-led prayer in public schools. He also co-sponsored a bill “recognizing Christianity’s importance to western civilization.” He has said that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God” and that we should use the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policies. He also believes God delivered his Republican primary win.
As a young adult, I would see my future devastated. Akin is a supporter of off-shore drilling and encourages drilling in wildlife preserves. He has also fought in Congress to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases while refusing to support alternative energy methods. In addition to attacking our environment, he has compared student loans to a “stage 3 cancer of socialism” and would fight to make it impossible for all but the rich to attend college.
As a woman, I would see my status denigrated to that of a second class citizen. He has voted to block Planned Parenthood centers from providing life-saving cancer screenings. He also believes the morning-after pill causes abortion and should consequently be outlawed. Not only does this show a complete inability to grasp basic biology, but it shows just how much he radically opposes women’s rights.
I cannot in good faith vote for a man with such blatant disregard for women, religious minorities, gays, and students. He is offensive and loves to pontificate about things he has no knowledge of. As a Missourian, I believe that Akin is entirely out of touch with his constituency and would poorly represent his state. A vote for Akin would be wrong both for Missouri and this country.
My parents went out of town about a month before I left for school, and my brother and I lived alone for a week. As we are both in the age range of 15 to 18, there was a lot of StumbleUpon and a lot of frozen pizza dinners. We did, however, spend one Wednesday with the golden retrievers at Castlewood State Park.
Back in the 30’s, Castlewood had cabins lining the hills above the river, and my grandmother’s family often spent their summers there. We have boxes of photos showing my grandmother and her sister sunbathing on the rocks, playing in badminton tournaments and relaxing in the woods. The cabins are long gone, but it’s still the same beautiful place with high cliffs arcing over the river valley.
As the weather dips below 50 degrees this week, I’m keeping this photo as the background of my laptop. The air smelled clean and clear, and we stood on top of the cliffs and watched the hawks ride the thermals. At the very least, it’ll remind me of a time when everything felt perfect.
"State senator Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield), who proposed SB 54, called social media a pathway to predation in an August 4 interview on the Mark Reardon radio show out of St Louis. “If you send a message back to the student and only between the two of you without a third party, that is prohibited,” said Reardon, confirming the terms of the bill. “Would this apply to a DM on Twitter?,” the host asked Cunningham. Apparently unfamiliar with the terminology, Cunningham replied “I’m not technological."
More about the Missouri Education & Social Media law. Wrote a long letter addressed to my representatives and figured I’d post it here for anyone who was interested.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing you, as a concerned citizen and voter, regarding Section 162.069 of Missouri Senate Bill #54, which states that, “Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.”
Not only does this law make a blatant assumption that most – if not all – teachers have ulterior motives, but it also assumes that the influence of teachers is a negative one on the lives of children.
Because I am 18, as the law states I cannot legally keep in touch online with the teachers and staff who have had such a positive impact on my life these past few years. My aunt works for the high school I attended, and under this law as I understand it, I am not allowed to be Facebook friends with her until I turn 19.
I, for one, have used private online contact with teachers I have grown close to in order to discuss everything from unclear homework assignments to asking advice in personal matters. If the younger generation is embracing social media, their educators should do the same and serve as role models on these sites. This law screams that the people of Missouri do not trust the teachers responsible for their children – a distinctly un-American presumption of guilty until proven innocent.
This law violates the First Amendment, as highlighted in this article. As ACLU of Eastern Missouri Legal Director Anthony Rothert suggests, the ability of teachers and students to communicate privately helps children reach out for help without fear of retribution if they experience bullying, need extra homework help, or are dealing with difficult home situations. In addition, the law does nothing to ban private face-to-face or telephone conversations between students and teachers, both of which are more private (and potentially dangerous) than online communication because these do not leave an electronic trail that can be used to prove inappropriate relations between a teacher and student.
I have seen teachers drive hours to support a student in a swim meet or mock trial competition. I have seen teachers forego time with their own family and stay at school from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. to sponsor student clubs and sports. I have seen teachers turn down high-paying administrative jobs because they wanted to stay in the classroom where they made the biggest difference in the lives of their students. Our educators are selfless individuals, serving their community by fostering positive relationships with the students they teach. Laws like these cripple those who dedicate their lives to the care of our state’s youth when we should be punishing the actual offenders. If a student feels uncomfortable in a relationship with a teacher, ideally they should have a different teacher or staff member in whom they feel comfortable confiding. Putting this ill-considered legal wall between students and teachers can only hinder any hope for positive student-teacher connections.
While the law obviously has good intentions, it was written without speaking to educators or students. Sen. Cunningham has no social media presence herself. I read (although I cannot verify this) that she admitted she first authored this bill five years ago. Five years ago, social media platforms like Twitter or smart phones like the iPhone didn’t exist. If the Missouri Senate is to pass a law concerning the internet, they would do well to speak with people who fully understand social media’s role in modern education. The law as it is is vague and confusing, and it is simply a mistake.
I suppose we can only hope that one day students and educators will actually have a hand in crafting the policies that concern them.
I have already signed a petition asking the repeal of this law, and I plan to contact the Missouri branch of the ACLU in their fight against it. Like most people my age, I know quite well how to work Twitter and Facebook, and I will be spreading the word to all of my peers. I beg you to take the wishes of the parents, teachers and students into consideration and repeal this misguided law as soon as possible. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Devan Coggan
More on Missouri’s naive and ridiculous teacher/student social media policy. Some highlights from the article:
According to Rothert [ACLU of Eastern Missouri Legal Director], other forms of electronic communication such as e-mail, SMS, and IM also fall under the ban. He said that the ability of teachers and students to communicate privately helps children who are being bullied, need extra homework help, or are dealing with difficult home situations reach out for help, without fear of retribution.
Rothert pointed out that the law does nothing to ban private face-to-face or telephone conversations between students and teachers, both of which are more private (and potentially dangerous) than online communication because they don’t leave an electronic trail that investigators can follow.
Another strange aspect of the law is that it bans communication with both current and former students, even those who are 18, the legal age of adulthood in Missouri. ”You can vote, but you can’t talk to your teacher on Facebook,” Rothert noted.
Glad I’ve graduated. I, for one, used Facebook to communicate with teachers regularly. It was great for clarifying assignments when teachers weren’t at school (and didn’t have access to school email or phone), especially over long weekends and breaks. As co-editor-in-chief of my school newspaper, my adviser and I used Facebook to communicate with my staff regularly. (It’s no secret that students check Facebook more than their own emails.)
It’s a communication site. No different than a teacher having access to a student’s phone, address or email. (Most teachers already use/access these things commonly.)
Missouri, can’t you put all this effort into Joplin relief or something useful? This law is archaic, and I can guarantee legislators didn’t make a significant effort to ask educators and parents about their opinions on the law.
Blue Springs. My home state has its issues, but it sure has natural beauty. Even if I end up moving miles away, my children will know what it’s like to tromp through the woods of Missouri with a couple of golden retrievers.
