I am a devout Democrat even though I did vote for Reagan. The change that most of us worked for was to get the interest of the people to be put ahead of the interests of their institutions. We want something different - we want policies that encourage if not regulate this.
The administration is losing support in the healthcare debate because they just don't get a very simple fact: American's with insurance have been held hostage to the profit motives and unfair practices of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries for years - we don't trust them and we really don't want a solution that rewards them! I believe we would accept direct providers making a profit but to have what is basically an "adminstrative entity" operating for profit in the middle of the delivery chain is not acceptable.
We don't want Legislative games! We would have much preferred having every solution put to a yes or no vote before congress than the apathy inducing process we have watched where despite popular support we have scene myriad interests intervene in process to create change in appearance only.
As we look to 2010, I say it is time we throw out all incumbants and put new bodies in those seats. What we will get with such massive turnover will be chaos - but that will be much better than this Congress that has become too smart at playing games. Besides, think of the savings to lobbyists because they can start paying off our politicians at a much lower level.
Months ago I commented: OFA needs to start sending the message that what was started with Barack Obama's election must be continued - his election was not a silver bullet where with one perfect shot he would fix politics. EVERY election is important and has consequences.
I also commented that I was very upset with the new tactic by those who want to discourage Barack Obama's supporters e.g. supporting the fringe and tea-partyers with lies and exageration to activate their base to come out for the midterm elections. The prediction is for this midterm to be like other midterms e.g. only the disgruntled participate.
I hear people are getting discouraged because nine months have passed and President Obama has not brought the change he promised. Remember he said: change is about us not him. Look at how he has been treated by members of both his party and the opposition. Lobbying money is stronger than anything we have except our numbers. We can't help him if we do not vote to support him every chance we get. This is how we create change! Without us he has little power to accomplish anything on his own. In Congress both members of our party and the other party must know we support him and will turn out for him when asked.
Now I sit at home waiting for tomorrow night when I expect to hear how President Obama's election was a fluck because the change he brings is not the change WE wanted and this is why his support is falling. Tomorrow's win by Republican's mascarading as Conservatives will embolden them to work even harder against him and any change he may attempt.
I also hate being misused by the Democratic Party! We are bombarded with emails for support and solicitation constantly. We should be treated as an asset that can be exhausted and used when we are really needed which is exactly the same concept we are trying to communicate about our troops and war.
Its too late to ask you to go vote with me tomorrow but I ask you to not let another election go by without going to the polls.
Thank you.
Liberal's can use this myth-information (part 2; 08/13/09)
Although I respect what President Obama is doing by being so professional and walking his talk as he calls to our better nature; I think that liberals could start health care myths and rumours of their own. One very easy annoucement is that Republicans intend to cut the social programs of social security and medicare to reduce the deficit. They will be keeping tax cuts and enacting a new capital gains tax cut. They will be eliminating these programs to pay for the tax cuts.
Truth: Medicare is Not Safe Even With No Action (part 1; 08/09/09)
Many of those who are so vocal at town halls appear to be in the social security age group. They don't want their medicare "touched" by government. They don't want the program that works for them changed. The truth is that there is no "status quo" in the future for social security or medicare. Combine the numbers of those who will be eligible for social security with the ever increasing costs of health care and the truth about the government deficit becomes clear that it will increase one way of the other: health care reform with an increase now or do nothing with an impact later. I can hear the demonstrations of the future talking about how providing health care for my mother is putting a debt on the heads of my children. This is the message that is not being addressed.
Town Mauls (part 2)
I realized that the 47% against health care reform contains the 45.7% that did not vote for President Obama in 2008. They do not want the change that the majority (54.3%) voted for. They were against the stimulus and are now yelling for "less government invovement" in healthcare. They believe the economy can only be fixed through "tax policy" and are also firm believers in the doom that comes from a large government deficit. They are the other side and will be out demonstrating on anything the President does that they consider as "change". We do need to listen to them but we can't let them prevent us from taking action.
I think that we should give them the opportunity to ask questions but we can't let them prevent us providing information. Perhaps we should actively call them on their shut down actions e.g. let them speak: challenge their incorrect information and ask them what they are proposing as an alternative. When they can't offer counter proposals ask them why they think nothing is the better option?
Shock and Awe Town Halls: base activation for 2010 (part 1)
I am very upset with this new tactic by those who want to discourage Barack Obama's supporter. I hear that elected republicans are supporting this action because it will activate their base to come out for the midterm elections. The prediction is for this midterm to be like other midterms e.g. only the disgruntled participate. OFA needs to start sending the message that what was started with Barack Obama's election must be continued - his election was not a silver bullet to fix politics. Every election is important and has consequences. Lets start by looking at incumbants who are most vested in the status quo.
Why is government so inefficient? Because the “other side” (determined by the party in office) refuses to allow any division/department/program to be funded in order to operate adequately. The President asks for so much money to fund a program. The House and Senate each write a bill with their own pet projects in it. Then they reconcile the bills to get one that both can sign. During this process dollars are changed, removed, and added, yet the almighty anxiety of the “deficit” gets dusted off and trotted out. There was a time when business was better than government but that was years ago. That was before the decade of self-interest dawned on the US.
Now health care providers and insurers look more and more like the government e.g. pushed to do more with less. Add to that the fact that those at the top of government want to live the life of luxury like corporate leaders. They too who want more and more. Government employees used to get better benefits than the private because they earned less. Today our government leaders want more pay and the best benefits. Does it really matter who takes our money and gives us little value in return? I hate paying for either corporate executives or elected officials to live a life I won’t ever see. I prefer to give my money to the government to share among more like me than to businesses whose primary mission is greed and whose power is our purse.
Until we change ourselves those we elect to government we will not change anything because those at the top like it this way! We must stop accepting unchallenged incumbants and poor business practices.
Look at this example of government waste (I'm using very rough estimates but as my mother said: take care of the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves): Take Mike Pence who stated on C-span that the cost of his health insurance benefit is over $1,000 a month. The cost of a family health plan at my company is $800.00. Take the $200 difference times the 534 in congress (434 representatives and 100 senators) times 12 months. This is a measly $1,281,600 per year that my taxes are paying for individuals to have better benefits than me. Why not review the costs of health care benefits imbedded in our government and make them more like those of the common citizen?
Harry and Louise in 2009: Where is the picture of the crowded exam room with Maud lying on the bed, the doctor sitting beside the bed on a stool, and Harold standing off to the side looking concerned. On one side is Harold’s employer, his arms are around Harold’s shoulders. Standing next to the employer’s is his health insurance agent. The agent’s arm is around the employer’s shoulders. The agent is speaking to Harold. “Do you really want the government in here with us?”
I listened today to House Representatives give one-minute speeches. They all slipped the line “Where are the jobs” into their presentations. It was so obvious that this was a party strategy and subject of a talking points memo. Given the number of speeches decrying the stimulus plan, raising concerns about looming deficits, and taxing small businesses all as destroyers of jobs, I found myself wondering.
There had to be at least 25 speakers. If each speaker went out and helped even a small number of people create jobs for others then think of the ripple effect. It is not acceptable to allow any group to sit on the sidelines and cheer for defeat! They must be questioned about what they are each doing personally to create jobs through their elected positions. Yes, this is like the argument about “Republicans just saying no” but the creation of jobs is so important that no one can be excused from taking any action they could to create jobs. They can't get off the hook just by voting no and then hand wringing and naysaying. They have a fairly powerful job in their own right and how are they using it? How many jobs has Rep. Boehner personally saved/created in his district verses how many have been saved/created via the stimulus plan? It is up to everyone to get the citizens of our nation back to work not just the democrats in an elected federal position. It is also up to executives of global companies started here not just small businesses. No one should get a pass to sit on the side.
I was trying to put together a comprehensive framework to build a comprehensive committee for health care reform. As I was building this list I was amazed at how disproportionate the lobbying efforts are compared to the model. Take a look and make suggestions for changes. NOTE: when building the committee I advocate only looking for representation of sectors from 1.0 through 5.9.
Thanks - Janell Larocque
STAKEHOLDERS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM (created 07/14/09)
1.1 Public Health
1.1.1 CDC
1.1.2 FEMA
1.1.3 Research
1.1.3.1 FDA
1.1.3.2 NIH
1.2 Personal Health
1.2.1 Routine (Includes Wellness, Dental, Vision)
1.2.2 Emergencies
1.2.3 Chronic Care
1.2.4 End of Life Care
2.1 Urban and Suburban Care
2.1.1 Professional Office
2.1.2 Clinic
2.1.3 Hospital
2.1.4 Recipient’s Home
2.1.5 Rehabilitation Facility
2.1.6 Long Term Facility
2.1.7 Hospices
2.2 Local Health Departments
2.3 VA Hospitals and Health Care System
2.4 Rural Health Care
3.0 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY
3.1 Primary Physician
3.2 Specialists
3.3 Pharmaceuticals (Manufacturers and Pharmacies)
3.4 Laboratories (Equipment Manufacturers and/or Delivery Specialists)
3.5 Other Testing Resources (Manufacturers and/or Testers)
3.6 Other Treatment Resources (Manufacturers and/or Treatment Providers)
4.0 HEALTH CARE IMPACTED INSURER/INSURANCE PROVIDERS
4.01 Health Insurance Provider
4.01.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.01.2 Direct to recipient
4.02 Vision Insurance Provider
4.02.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.02.2 Direct to recipient
4.03 Dental Insurance Provider
4.03.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.03.2 Direct to recipient
4.04 Prescription Drug Insurance
4.04.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.04.2 Direct to recipient
4.05 Short Term Disability Insurance
4.05.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.05.2 Direct to recipient
4.06 Long Term Disability Insurance
4.06.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.06.2 Direct to recipient
4.07 Supplemental Insurance
4.07.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.07.2 Direct to recipient
4.08 Life Insurance
4.08.1 To employer (Third Party)
4.08.2 Direct to recipient
4.09 Specialized Short Term Health Insurance
4.10 Employers
4.10.1 Self-Employed
4.10.2 Small Business
4.10.3 Business
4.10.4 Government
4.10.4.1 For Career Employees
4.10.4.2 For Elected Officials
4.11 Medicare
4.12 Tri-Care
5.0 HEALTH CARE RECIPIENTS
5.1 Employees
5.1.1 Working Poor e.g. Full Time Low Income
5.1.2 Traditional e.g. Full Time Moderate Income and Above
5.1.2.1 Unionized
5.1.2.2 Non-unionized
5.1.3 Non-traditional
5.1.4 Retirees
5.1.1 Unionized
5.1.2 Non-unionized
5.2 Unemployed
5.2.1 No-choice
5.2.2 By Choice
5.3 College Students (non-dependent)
5.4 Veterans
5.4.1 Active duty
5.4.2 Reserve
5.4.3 Retired
5.5 Chronically Ill
5.6 Disabled
5.7 Mentally Ill
5.8 Elderly
5.9 Terminally Ill
5.10 Children
5.11 Pregnant Women
5.12 Victims of Sex Crimes
6.1 Schools, Educational Institutions, and Specialized Training Programs e.g. medical schools
6.2 Professional Organizations/Agencies
6.3 Manufacturer’s Trade Organizations
6.4 Credentialing Agencies
6.5 Regulatory and Standards Compliance Organizations
7.1 Abortion Practices
7.2 Birth Control Programs
7.3 Programs Involving Sexual Identity Conflicts With Sexual Physiology
7.4 Research Activities Using Stem Cells
Now the chant is "Oh My God, beware of the Deficit"! Don't stop lobbying, get it out in the open by taxing it and using it for the benefit of all and not the select few. Tax corporate expenses that become mony spent to gain special access and consideration by Congress. Corporations despite the rights they have been given are not people. The expenses are not reasonable and necessary costs of doing business. Put a registration fee on lobbying firms and lobbyists based on their revenues and income. Tax gifts, donations, and contributions made to members of Congress by lobbyists. Define the term lobbyist so as to include any bundler of campain contributions who seek preferance through the act of bundling.
Lobbyists are "spending" 1.5 million on health care to get their Health Care "wants" to Congress. Access to money gives them an unfair advantage over me - my "voice" is too small to be heard. In return for cutting me out of the government law creation process at least reduce the debt I have to cover.
In the current cycle of gov's absorption for public's emision why not also to push for long term restructuring for the benfite of the publick, by the mean of GovComCom?
This post continues the GovComCom as a solution for the current crisis
An excerpt from Federal Computer Week-------------------
Currently, about 100,000 employers voluntarily use E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot. Under an executive order issued by President George W. Bush, federal contractors are supposed to start using E-Verify in May, though business groups are challenging the order in court. Critics point to relatively high error rates in the government databases used to determine initial eligibility. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which jointly runs the program with the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 4,000 U.S. workers in every 1 million would be initially denied eligibility because of the database errors. Groups such as the Immigration Policy Center refer to E-Verify as “deeply flawed” because of the error rates and have warned of the danger of American workers losing or risking their jobs because of the shortcomings in E-Verify. They also said E-Verify would slow the impact of the stimulus spending.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, E-Verify is a defective verification system that puts U.S. CITIZENS out of work. 4000 errors out of every million is pathetic. If 5 Million people are screened using this system for stimulus jobs, that means that 20,000 applicants will be rejected because of this inferior program. Noone in their right mind would support E-Verify, unless they are working for the company that sells it.
On the issue of the stimulus package, there has been much discussion of whether the Republicans or Democrats are more effectively getting their arguments across. Regardless of your view on the stimulus, which party overall do you feel is having more success in winning the media war? Republicans Democrats *Don't know
my comments: I am so totally disenchanted with "party competition" that is only driven by "control issues" of both parties at the cost of what's best for Americans, that I have arrived at the point of thinking that for such a question to be discussed and "analyzed as "news", is a veiled effort, at best, to support and encourage contentioius competition between parties. As long as media wants to encourage this sort of nonsense as "news" it will be more difficult for we, the people, to all effectively work towards achieving a non-partisan mind-set; and for Legislators to do so as well, which IS necessary when it comes to them representing constituencies properly, rather than putting the desires of party politics, lobbies, and corporate conglomerates before the needs of constituents. Obama hasn't asked much other than to remind us of how government should be functioning (which at this point is lots of work to get back on track). But he has specifically stressed, and asked of everyone, that partisanship be set aside. So, and I don't have much respect for beltway bickering being presented as so-called "news" that clearly wants to fan partisan fires, and encourage contentious partisanship.
Unusual for a politician, Obama's reaction was to take the blame. In a round of television interviews, the president went out of his way to say "I screwed up". Overall, do you think this was a wise move? Yes No *Don't know
Another simplistic inquiry, with limited choices. Sounds like whomever is asking has been watching too many so-called "news" reports based on the sound-bite nature of the simplistic responses proviced .
Unfortunately, all wars mean casualties. Vice President Biden recently said there would be an "uptick" in casualties in Afghanistan as the conflict intensifies. What level of American casualties would you be willing to accept in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? A lot more casualties than the current level Some more casualties than the current level The current level of casualties Fewer casualties than the current level A lot fewer casualties than the current level No casualties whatsoever Don't know:
My Comments: Seems to me the question suggests that civilian objections can determine military actions. This may have some bearing currently and will undoubtedly have more influence the longer the problems exist. But, unfortunately, one can't root out the "bad guys" once military action has started, with either diplomacy, or manipulative "out-smarting" strategies and tactics that do not also include death of both the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Until and/or unless we can address the Pakistan involvement issues effectively, and eventually withdraw because we have done so, then our level of casualties is likely to increase, until we do figure out that Pakistan is a primary enabler of our terrorist problems in Afghanistan. For the most part every administration needs to take advise seriously from the military commanders in the theater, when substantiated with good reasons that are workable and in conjunction with whatever diplomatic efforts are making headway. (I am a veteran.)
Another simplistic response choice:
"With regard to Afghanistan, Politico reported today that “The Pentagon’s top military officers are recommending to President Barack Obama that he shift U.S. strategy in Afghanistan to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy, officials said." Considering the above passage, which statement best describes how you feel about the war in Afghanistan? The US must defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and leave a functioning democracy in Afghanistan The US must defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda; any stable regime will be fine in Afghanistan The US must defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda; Afghanistan can be left in any condition The US must pull out of the war in Afghanistan immediately Don't know"
My Comment: None of the above, again. It is not our business to enforce Democracy. It is our business to model why it is a good choice, and we have fallen down on the job. Just like in Iraq, no one is going to want to pull troops out unless we feel there is stability. Unfortunately in the case of Afghanistan, when we entered Afghanistan the Pakistan question does not appear to have been considered as important as it is in relation to providing a safe haven for terrorists . ( I am a M.E. specialist and knew along with many colleagues that the Pakistan issue was being neglected.) So we have a Pakistan issue that apparently was not taken into consideration from the start, and we seem to be undecided about whether or not Pakistan is intentional harboring of terrorists. The fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power complicates the issue, because it would be to our advantage to function on the premise that Pakistan is NOT harboring terrorists intentionally, even if that is the case. And of course whether or not the government is officially looking the other way regarding the terrorists, the people who live in the mountains who are protecting the terrorists and/or being intimidated by them, may be beyond the control of the Pakistani government. That region has always been inaccessible, and pretty much ignored as being the territory of brigands who are pretty much left alone. A cooperative deal (diplomacy) between Pakistan and U.S. to do something about them might be the best solution to allow us to eventually leaving Afghanistan as stable as possible . . .
Another inquiry which provides responses that are too simplistic:
Specifically with regard to Iraq, the Inter Press Service today reports the following: "CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting." If military commanders are in fact advising him to do so, do you think the president should modify his campaign promise to withdraw within 16 months? Yes, he should modify his pledge as the commanders suggest No, he should stick with the pledge he made during the election *Don’t know
I've been asked some survey questions, lately. I think the answers are so simplified they are limited, so I include a comment in the space provided. I want to post some of those questions here, hoping the administration is not viewing the choices so simplistically!!
"On the broader subject of foreign policy, leaders sometimes find it necessary to adjust their campaign promises having learned sensitive information they did not know during the campaign. If President Obama decides to modify his campaign pledges, having learned such sensitive information, how would you feel? I would forgive major adjustments to his campaign pledges *I would forgive slight adjustments to his campaign pledges I would not forgive any adjustments to his campaign pledges I didn't agree with most of his campaign pledges anyway, and hope for adjustments Don't know"
In 14 hours America will have someone in charge who represents all of the people. A man who has been poor, who knows what it is like. A man who understands the injustice of racism firsthand, not just from books.
Tomorrow, I will see my own dream come true. Four years ago I learned about this man in an article I read in The New Republic. I was stunned, later that year, when I watched him give 'The Speech' of a lifetime at the 2004 Democratic Convention. At that moment, I said I could not wait until he ran for President sometime in the future. The future arrived in February 2007.
Barack ran the best presidential campaign I have ever seen. The people recognized he was the best choice, and voted him in on November 4th.
Now, the streets of Washington DC are filled with millions of joyful Americans from all over the country, counting down the hours and seconds until we see power returned to the people. It has been a long journey, enduring the darkness and wickedness of Bush and his puppetmasters all of these years. It is almost at an end. And with its' end we are about to begin a whole new era, the era of Obama.
Barack we are behind you 100%. We love you. We are ready for you to lead us out of this catastrophe. Just tell us what you need us to do.
Barack Obama was adopted by Crows of Montana in May 2008.
See a slide show from the fomal ceremony on May 19, 2008 here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGBTlf
by: Timothy Egan
SALT RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION, Ariz. — Nearly 50 years ago, a Pima native took a Greyhound bus from this sun-roasted redoubt of Indian land to the winter chill of Washington, D.C.,to witness the first day of a young American president.
“When he came home, my father was so excited because John Kennedy stood up for him when he walked by him in the parade,” said Diane Enos. “The president stood up for an Indian! He couldn’t stop talking about that.”
Next week, Diane Enos will make the same trip, along with hundreds of other American Indians who hope that Barack Obama’s inauguration will bring the wind of possiblity to Indian Country.
In less than a week’s time, the Great White Father will be black. Amidst the euphoria and stirring of fresh ideas, there remains some suspicion.
“He’s still a politician and I’m still an Indian,” said Sherman Alexie, the National Book Award-winning writer, a Spokane and Coeur d’Alene native.
“They all look like treaty-makers to me,” said Alexie, paraphrasing the native musician, John Trudell. “I guess that’s the puzzling and I suppose lovely thing about Indians’ love of Obama. Many have suspended their natural suspicion of politicians for him.”
So often, they are invisible, these first Americans, or frozen in iconic images of the past. We see them in Curtis prints and Remington poses, or hear something attributed to them in New Age spiritual circles. Cool, Indians.
And then a new casino opens off the interstate or a pottery exhibit is unveiled, and we realize: ah yes, they’re with us still.
With Obama’s rise, Indians have allowed themselves to dream — some, even to fall in love. He was adopted into an Indian family in Montana last May, given the name “Barack Black Eagle” by the Crow Nation.
When asked about immigration concerns in New Mexico, Obama pointed to a handful of elderly natives in the front row of a high school gym.
“He said, ‘The only real native people in this country are sitting right in front of me,’ ” recalled Joe Garcia, who is president of the National Congress of American Indians. “You should have heard the applause.”
The epic struggle for natives has been to avoid getting washed away by the flood of dominant culture, where Indians make up less than 2 percent of more than 300 million Americans.
That, and the physical toll that losing this big land has taken on them. Indians die younger than most other Americans, suffer from higher rates of suicide, alcoholism, debilitating dietary problems.
The Pimas, who hold to this 52,000-acre homeland amidst the predatory sprawl of 4.2 million people here in the Phoenix metro area, have one of the world’s highest rates of type 2 diabetes — a consequence of the rough adjustment from their world to one handed down by Europeans.
Presidents come and go. They promise to uphold treaty rights and appoint somebody to oversee Indian affairs who understands that history did not end when Custer fell to his hubris. It’s ho-hum, usually, with a mournful shrug on the reservations.
But on the most recent Election Day, on the Navajo Rez, which spills into three states and is the size of West Virginia, high school kids held up Obama signs at intersections in the town of Window Rock, and cheered themselves hoarse as returns came in.
“I feel very elated,” said Joe Shirley, Jr., president of the Navajo Nation. “All of Navajo Country came out strong for Obama.”
Shirley says nearly half of Navajo families heat their homes with wood they cut themselves, drink water hauled into their homes in barrels and light their rooms with kerosene lamps.
Talk about stimulus: a billion dollars, one-seven-hundredth of what taxpayers are giving the financial institutions that caused the Crash of 2008, could bring much of Navajo land into the modern age, Shirley said.
But beyond the desire for urgent, fundamental infrastructure help, Indians look to Obama as a powerful narrative. People who were subjugated, with near-genocidal brutality, feel a kinship with people who were first brought here in chains, even though Obama is an immigrant’s son.
“There’s a bond there,” said Shirley. “Birds of a feather flock together. We try to teach that there are no impossibilities to Navajo people. His election speaks to the young especially.”
Cynicism is the poison of so many young people. In Indian Country, where despair is often woven into the landscape, it takes hold even earlier.
So when Diane Enos, who is president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, arrives in the festive capital next week she will have a teenage tribal leader with her.
“Obama’s life has been a journey to find identity,” she said. “That’s the Indian stuggle. And it starts with children.”
On Inauguration Day, the capital will host the likes of Ludacris and Chaka Khan, corporate titans and political giants, and balls too numerous to count.
Among the sea of Americans ushering in the president will be a small contingent of people who have clung to this continent longer than any other. And for once — if only for a January moment — they will feel like they belong."
