What the Heck is Going on in Charlestown?

Welcome to the House of Cards: Charlestown

Today, the News and Tribune posted a story of an individual identified as John Rogers, threatening "embarrassing" info he'll release about Charlestown Democratic Mayoral Candidate Treva Hodges unless she withdrawals from the race within 24 hours. Below is from an anonymous submission on another post. Could this be the embarrassing info? Only time will tell.

Apparently there is a video floating around featuring Hodges. In the video it is stated 
"...she (Treva Hodges) openly admits to adopting two children into a home that she believed was unstable. After she was raped, she left her kids in the care of the man that abused and raped her. She also claims that law enforcement refused to file a report when she supposedly reported the rape in the first place... So she has no documentation to back up her claims of rape. No rape kit, no police report, nothing. And if this guy is a violent rapist as she says, she placed her kids in harm's way just so she could get away herself?"

Is there a video? 
Is any of this true? 

Here is the link to the breaking N&T Store: 
https://www.newsandtribune.com/indiana/online-threat-directed-at-charlestown-mayoral-candidate/article_b2f2a8c4-f03e-11e9-a5a9-639e8296013b.html

What do you think?

Do you have the scoop?

Leave your comments below.

Time to Discuss Thougths on Abortion

To be clear, this is a touchy subject. It is steeped in religious, philosophical, medical impacts and opinions. However, I want to put some thoughts out there that I've had on my mind and have not seen put into the conversation. Maybe they have never been publicly written or maybe these are to taboo to discuss. Either way, I feel like they need to be discussed and be part of the conversation. I write this in hopes that it will give people on both sides of the debate something to think about. As a disclaimer, I'm not referring to instances of rape or incest. Everything I'm about to discuss is "oops, I'm pregnant" or "I'm not worried. If I get pregnant, I'll just get it taken care of" scenarios. 

ABORTION

I feel that I don't need to go into the depths of what it is, we all know. However, I feel it's important to point out that all the arguments for allowing women to have one is "the choice". It is not a man's place to tell a woman what to do with her body. I agree, 100%. Each person's body is their own.

When does a group of cells constitute a life? That is an interesting question. All life started from bacteria that evolved. Is a group of cells evolving into a full grown human a life? Why does the appearance of person in a different stage of growth change the fact that it is alive? Are we not continually changing as we age? What is the point in our growth we are, in fact, alive? 

"The choice" to have or not have the abortion. Some will say it is a woman's choice to proceed with an abortion, whether it be early or late, heartbeat or not. However,  I would like to add this to debate. 

Let's discuss "choices" that occur before even having to consider the abortion choice. 

1.) There is a choice to allow a man to enter her body. 

2.) There is a choice to ensure the man is using protection. 

3.) Even if the man does not, there are multiple contraceptives a woman can utilize to prevent becoming pregnant. Not including abstinence, I counted 13 on the Planned Parenthood website.

If a woman becomes pregnant, has there not already been ample opportunity to have a choice that prevents the creation of another life inside the female body? 

Once a child is conceived, I would like to put another thought out there. While the female body is the one to carry the child, there were two people to make it happen. Once the child is conceived, there are now 3 people involved if you include the child (or ball of cells depending on your stance).

Taking that into account, should the two consenting adults not be the ones who have to agree to make the "choice" to abort? The man made the choice to enter the woman if she chose to allow him. If the woman has the baby, then he is responsible for that child as a parent. Should that not still be the case if the woman wants to choose to not have the child? 

As I stated above, I know this will get some fired up. I'm ok with that. I did not read Chris Morris' editorial in the News and Tribune. I did see all the comments on Facebook and that is what really got me thinking about this. All I am trying to do is share thoughts that will make people think.

So many times we take a stance and not REALLY listen to someone else's point of view. I'm asking that after you read this, you read it again with an open mind. Try to put your personal feelings aside and consider a different point of view. Before you respond in the comments, truly try to remove any hate or malice you may have against those who don't agree with you. You may be answering from a point of principle never having had to make the choice. Maybe you have. Maybe you are the man who morns in silence the loss of a child you never had the chance to know. Maybe you are the woman who regrets having made the choice. Maybe you are the woman who celebrates it. 

Please leave your comments below. 

While this is a personal topic, please be respectful of those who have thoughts. 

Comments can be left anonymously if you choose. 

N&T: Our System is not "Busted" and Race is not the Reason for Low Racial Diversity

Monday Morning. 7:45am. 2/25/19.

I just walked into my office after starting a pot of coffee. The smell of fresh ground coffee beans fills the air as the sound of the hot, brown water starts to fill the coffee pot.

As I often do, I bring up the News & Tribune website to browse the latest local headlines. Today's have me tilting my head and wondering how these two articles land on the front page. The only thing I can think of is the N&T sowing the seeds of liberalism by misrepresenting the facts with one sided opinions. 

With that, I will offer a different set of opinions. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Canon says local politics is "busted"

Dale Moss wrote this piece about how Dan Canon thinks local politics is busted. He can't seem to figure out why he lost. In the article he is quoted saying:

"I went into it, from day one, to represent people against power..."

Let's think on that for a moment; people against power. What does that even mean? As I read through the entire piece, the only thing that jumps out at me is that this guys just doesn't get it. We don't live in a dictatorship. We live in a republic where we democratically elect our representatives. If you are working against the people in power, you are working against the majority of your neighbors who took part in a fair election. 

What Dan Canon stands for is everything wrong with our system, not the other way around. He simply wants to oppose the majority with "HIS" vision, not support "OUR" vision. 

Dan lost because he is only interested in the few, not the all. Dan lost because he ran a campaign of attacking his opponent. He lost because he just doesn't understand the simple life lesson that you will catch more bees with sugar.

So here we are, almost as year after he lost in the primary. He is still complaining about things being "busted". It's not busted. It is working exactly how it was meant to work. Change is slow. If he wants to change things, then maybe he needs to go about doing it a different way, be an educator. Honestly, the way he is currently going about getting people to support him is "busted".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low Diversity in Government

The next head scratcher is talking about how there is low racial diversity in local government. Oookkkaaayyyyy……..

On a date in early February, there is a filing deadline. People show up at an office and fill out a piece of paper to run for an office. They check box to show which political party they are with, where they live and such. Then in May, those who identify with the beliefs of that political party elect which from the group of candidates they want to run against the other political parties in November. In November, everyone comes out to vote for the ones they think will represent them the best. Some vote for a party while other for the person in each race.

Here's the key to all of this; there is low diversity in local government because very few people who may be from a (insert diversity) diverse background sign up to run for the office.

The even bigger thing to consider is not just who is running, but is that person running actually capable of being that elected representative? Just because they come from a specific type of labeled minority does not mean that diversity is an automatic license to know all things or be all things. 

Here is why I say that... Shawn Carruthers was elected in a community that arguably has the highest concentration of affluent, white people in this part of Southern Indiana. Do you know why they elected him? It's because of what he stood for. It's because he's a good man. It's because his message resonated with more people than his opponent. He didn't win the race because of race. He won the race because the people who elected him believed he was the best man for the job. 

Some will say the people elected a black man over a white man. I WOULD ISSUE THIS CORRECTION: They elected one man over another man. 

Here comes a truth bomb and I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THIS.... Most people do not see color anymore. Those who do, seem to be the ones to make sure to call you racist for not seeing color or call you homophobic for not supporting a gay man/woman for office. 

(DISCLAIMER: Yes, there are people to judge based on race, sexual preference, etc. I contend THOSE people are the real minority, the ones who judge based on race, religion, etc...)

People vote for who they know. They vote for who will do the best job. They vote for who speaks to their topics. The people who lose are the ones who are talking about things that don't matter to the ones they are asking for votes from. The fact there is low "racial" diversity is the same reason there is low "sexual preference" diversity, low "religious" diversity, low "gender" diversity, low "educational" diversity, low "insert diversity" diversity. 

In reality, those diverse people who could be a great candidate are not filing to run for office. If they are, and they don't win, I contest it's not because of (insert) diversity, it's because they weren't the best person for the job. If they were, then they did a poor job of getting people behind them which coincidentally is a key part of being an effective office holder. 

And again, this is all another reason our system is not "busted". 

What do you think?

Do you have the scoop?

Let us know in the comments below.