BEING OLDER DOESN’T NECESSARILY MAKE YOU WISER

March 10, 2018

I’ve been quiet for a while.  We are inundated by everyone’s opinions.  It’s exhausting.  So I wait until something pushes my buttons.  This time it came in twos. 

The students of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reacted to their tragic loss by demanding that gun laws be changed.  A number of adults believe that their demands should be discounted due to their age.

First, it was Florida State Representative Elizabeth Porter’s statement:

“We’ve been told that we need to listen to the children and do what the children ask,” she said during a state House debate. “Are there any children on this floor? Are there any children making laws?" “Do we allow the children to tell us that we should pass a law that says ’nohomework’? Or you finish high school at the age of 12 just because they want itso? No,” she added. “The adults make the laws because we have the age, we has[sic] the wisdom, and we have the experience.” (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-porter-gun-control-parkland-survivors_us_5aa0801ae4b0e9381c152672)

Then it was an article in the Asbury Park Press, “Teens not wiser about guns, or anything else,” written by Jonah Goldberg.  In it he writes:

“My problem is with the resurgence of an old American tradition of celebrating young people as inherently wiser and more moral than adults. There are really three problems with the fetishization of youth in politics. First it’s based on a faulty premise: That young people have a radically or uniquely superior insight into political affairs.” (https://www.app.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/03/09/parkland-kids-dont-know-what-they-talking-goldberg/407872002/)

I am an adult who is infuriated by both statements.  Both parties are operating on a flawed assumption that being an adult automatically makes you wiser.  I’m sorry.  It doesn’t.

These students have every right to be involved in the political process.  They have the right to feel safe in their schools.  Cameron Kasky, @cameron_kasky, lashed out on Twitter:

“Try not to tell a student that they don’t know what they’re talking about when they’ve been locked in a room and they’ve seen their friends text their parents “goodbye.” I am part of the Mass Shooting Generation, and it’s an ugly club to be in.” 

They are angry and they have every right to be angry.  They feel betrayed by the very adults who are supposed to protect them.  The wise choice is to take up the cause themselves.

So are they wiser than adults?  I think the better question is, “Are the adults wiser than the kids?”  All you have to do is turn on the news to find the answer to that.  How many of these wise adults have been sullied by the political process?  How many of them have sold their souls to special interest groups like the NRA?  These teens haven’t been corrupted yet.  They are seeing the world through clear eyes and they don’t like what they are seeing.  My generation went through a similar experience.  We fought a war that this country had no business being in, that was killing thousands of our peers, and we won.  Can anyone say that our withdrawal from Vietnam was unwise?  

I have been impressed by the Parkland students.  They are erudite and well-spoken.  Like grown-ups, they do change their minds on occasion.  That shouldn’t be used as an excuse that their arguments are not valid.  They are holding their own when debating adults on this topic.  As a result, Florida has changed its gun laws and major companies are refusing to sell guns to those under 21.  

Goldberg stated that he found “…the most galling thing about adult partisans hiding behind kids is that it amounts to a kind of power worship.”  What I find galling is his hubris.  He believes that no adult could possibly support these students for any logical reason and that adults are blindly revering youth.  Wrong!  Adults, like me, have been supporting the creation of gun legislation for years.  Every time we attempt to get reasonable laws passed, we are blocked by the gun lobby.  These “kids” are getting the job done.  We applaud them and support them.

Goldberg sums up his article by stating:

            “Democracy depends on arguments that are not contingent on your age.  Lots of kids don’t understand that, but grown-ups are supposed to.” 

I applaud the first sentence and disagree with the second.  Democracy does depend on arguments that are not contingent on age.  Holding the age of these students against them is wrong and they do understand that. 

TAKE THEM DOWN

August 25, 2017

The number of voices that assail us daily has increased exponentially over the years, so I dislike adding noise to the cacophony.  I write when I feel passionately about an issue.  I cannot be silent now.  The conflict between white supremacists, neo-nazis, alt-right and those who opposed them at Charlottesville exposed an ugly side of this country that cannot be ignored.

The white nationalists and their sympathizers flooded Charlottesville, Virginia for the purpose of holding a “Unite the Right” rally to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.  Lee’s statue and the majority of others like it were erected during the Jim Crow era.  They were raised as an act of defiance.  Their originators wanted our government and African-Americans to know that they were in control.  They are offensive for this reason and they should go.

 

Think about it, where else do you see monuments to this extent dedicated to those who lost a war?  Eugene Robinson in his article, “To heal the nation, take down Confederate statues,” (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20170824/LOCAL1/170829833) reminds us that Robert E. Lee wouldn’t have approved, “I think it wiser…not to keep open sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

Mr. Robinson did well to remind us of Lee’s remarks.  President Trump said that the removal of these statues represent an attack on America’s “history and culture.”  No, it’s about not honoring those who fought an armed rebellion against our federal government and lost.  The Confederate States of America were dissolved in 1865, yet we still see Confederate flags.  Why?  There are those who won’t let go, who still resent losing the war.  For these people the monuments are a daily reminder of their loss.  They never made it to the final stage of grief, acceptance.  Lee had a point.  The war ended one hundred and fifty-two years ago, yet there are individuals still fighting it.  These wounds should have healed.  Instead they were allowed to fester. 

For others, there is a darker and far uglier explanation.  Our country’s diversity has always been our strength.  Unfortunately, there are those who perceive anyone whose skin color is not the same as their own as a threat to their control and supremacy.  On the eve of the Charlottesville rally, these individuals arrived at the statue of Robert E. Lee armed and carrying torches.  They shouted, “Blood and soil!” “You will not replace us!” “Jews will not replace us!”  This wasn’t about preserving history.  It was all about preserving white dominance. 

Vice News interviewed and followed Christopher Cantwell, a white supremacist, who was one of the leaders of the Charlottesville rally.  His comments were disturbing.  He advocated violence.  He defended the killing of Heather Heyer as justified.  He made bigoted comments about Jews and African-Americans.  Watching his interview and listening to his extreme racist remarks was stomach turning.  Cantwell and his ilk cannot claim that they are marching to preserve history.  They marched to spread hatred and bigotry.  They use these Confederate symbols as a rallying point for their own distorted views.  They use violence to make their point.  I was discussing this issue with a gentleman (I use the term loosely) on Facebook, recently.  He thought another civil war would be the solution, that it would rid our country of the “trash.”  He wasn’t talking about Cantwell and his breed, but anyone who opposed them.  I was stunned. 

My great-great-great grandfather and his four brothers fought on the Confederate side of the war.  He was the only one to return home.  These monuments do not represent what is good about the South and I have no problem with their removal.  They are symbols of hatred and bigotry.  As Lee recommended, these feelings need to be committed to oblivion.  This nation needs to heal and move on. 

When Passion Becomes Obsession

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Yesterday, this country suffered another mass shooting.  A gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a charity baseball game.  Several attendees were injured, including Representative Steve Scalise.

We’ve had a shooting per month so far this year.  Every perpetrator has been the focus of intense investigations.  The assumption is that they are all mentally unstable.  No stable human being kills another, right?  In this case, the gunman was a political activist.  He was unhappy with our President and members of the Republican Party.  He acted like many of us who are passionate about politics.  He wrote letters to the editor.  He voiced his concerns to his representatives.  He supported his favorite candidate by volunteering to work for the campaign.  Yet somehow it wasn’t enough.  One wonders what line of logic made him conclude that the only possible solution was to shoot innocent people.

As the investigators delve more into his history, they’ve found that the gunman had anger issues, but nothing to make anyone think that he would take his preoccupation this far.  There have been numerous statements by members of both parties blaming the other side for the rhetoric that has become so volatile.  Can rhetoric alone be to blame?

The man staked out the YMCA for two months before the incident.  He lived out of his car and gym bag during this time period.  He watched and waited.  He cancelled his membership the day before the shooting.  This doesn’t appear to be an act of passion, but a cold, calculated planned assault.  He was no longer the passionate political activist.  He had become a man obsessed.

So while there has been plenty of blame to be passed around, we have to take a hard look at the atmosphere that lead up to this shooting.

This election cycle has been the most vicious, the most divisive that I have ever seen.  The malicious language, the name calling, and the slurs came hot and heavy.  Both parties painted the other as evil and unfit to lead.  Every word, every sound bite was analyzed, escalated and regurgitated.  People reported feeling anxious.  Can you blame them?

The twenty-four/seven news cycle has created an insatiable demand for sound bites.  The advent of social media has increased this exponentially.  So now the networks are competing for clicks, as well.  Click bait headlines on Facebook and Twitter are often misleading or provocative.  The public often take them at face value rather than clicking on the link and reading the attached articles.  Although I don’t believe networks like CNN are “fake news,” there are fake news organizations.  These sites spew out specious, purposely misleading reports.  It is difficult to tell what is real anymore and this confusion adds to the unease.

Perhaps the worst offender is the public, the people we see every day on social media.  Social media can be a great place to discuss politics, but it has disintegrated into hate filled forums.  People now have a strong emotional investment in their political parties.  They are unwilling to listen and debate as adults.  The conversations degenerate into hate filled dialogues.  As a result, everyone feels invalidated.

Individuals like yesterday’s shooter are marginalized.  This vitriol fans the flames of their anxieties and insecurities.  They believe their voices are being intentionally ignored and rationalize that what they do is the only way they will be heard.

So is there a solution?  I don’t have the answers.  I do know that this country cannot survive another election like the last one.  I know that there will always be people who are on the edges of society, either by mental illness or isolation.  And we all know that the networks won’t be changing their financial model anytime soon.

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Jane Sanders, the wife of Senator Bernie Sanders, about this topic today.  Blitzer showed a clip of Senator Sanders calling President Trump, “the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country.”  Blitzer asked if Sanders had gone too far.  .  Mrs. Sanders emphasized that placing comments in context is important.  She blamed the media for fanning the flames.  Short sound bites don’t reflect the overall intent of the speaker.

Should the inflammatory rhetoric stop? Yes, but so does the finger pointing.  The media’s responsibility is to report and often what they report is incendiary.  When a political figure makes a strong statement, it is their job to relay it, but it does need to be placed in in context.

In turn, our nation’s governmental representatives need to dial it back.  In the interview, Jane Sanders made an excellent point.  She recommended that issues should be discussed without demonizing the opponent.  This applies to all of us.  Too many times we get caught up in the moment.  We spend way too much time on social media (and yes, as a blogger I see the irony in that statement.)  As a result, we make these topics an integral part of our day.  Passion and energy have their place in the political process, but we shouldn’t lose perspective.

So what can we do?  We need to spend less time on social media. We need to be scrupulous in what we read and not take everything at face value.  We can stop reacting to anyone who holds a different view than our own and when we choose to join a conversation we should do so in a responsible manner.  If the other party does not act in the same fashion, walk away.  It isn’t worth it.

The rhetoric has got to stop and it has to start with us.

Hamilton, Response to Asbury Park Press Editorial

November 23, 2016



My response to the Asbury Park Editorial, " 'Hamilton' shot itself in the foot"
(The online version of this editorial was titled, "Poor Staging by 'Hamilton.' ")


I am not an emotional person so I was surprised by my reaction to an editorial I found in the Asbury Park Press today.  It takes a great deal to tick me off, but for many reasons this editorial raised my hackles. The online version can be found at:
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/11/22/hamilton-mike-pence-trump/94294264/

The editorial appeared to have been written by an elderly dowager who was offended by a wrongly perceived lack of civility rather than by the editorial staff of a newspaper.  Considering everything that has been said and done during this election cycle I was astonished at the attitude and tone,

I felt that I had to respond.  At this point, I don't know if they will publish my letter or not.  They limit submissions to 250 characters, but the editor has the discretion to make exemptions.  I submitted two letters.  The first was around 450 characters.  I deleted the first and next to the last paragraph and submitted a second version.  The following is the first version in its entirety:

Re: Your November 23, 2016 editorial, ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot

There was a letter to the editor the day this editorial ran.  In it, the author called those who did not support President-elect Trump as “educated elites.”  I found it ironic, because your editorial, “ ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot,” came across stuffy, self-righteous and elitist.

The editorial stated that the message delivered by cast member, Victor Dixon, was a “major turn off” and that it was perceived as “inappropriate and disrespectful.”  President-elect Trump doesn’t know the meaning of either word.  He mocked John McCain’s service.  He ridiculed a handicapped reporter.  His comments about women, Muslims, Mexicans and Jews have been beyond the pale, yet we should be offended by a few actors expressing their concerns over their place in his presidency?

Yes, Pence took the high road in his response to their plea, but his political stances on women’s reproductive rights and his antagonistic history with the LGBT community are cause for trepidation.  This man supports gay conversion therapy and people aren’t supposed to speak out about that?

African-Americans are afraid of being stopped for traffic violations.  Muslims are afraid of having to register.  The members of the LGBT community are afraid of losing their rights.  People are genuinely frightened by Trump’s rhetoric and Pence’s positions. By speaking out, the cast didn’t just express their fears, but the fears of many Americans.

People were horrified by what happened in Ferguson, yet are offended by the cast welcoming Pence and asking for his help?  The purpose of protest is to garner attention for a cause.  Protest isn’t supposed to be pretty.  It is supposed to make you uncomfortable.  You can’t tie it up in a pretty bow to make it palatable or wish it away.  Gandhi showed us that you can protest peacefully which is exactly what the cast did.  So what this boils down to is that some members of the audience were offended by their approach? 

The editorial stated that, “ ‘Hamilton’ ” shot itself in the foot,” the implication being that by speaking out the cast did themselves harm in some way.  I saw no evidence of this on social media.  The majority of posts on Facebook and Twitter were supportive.  Thousands offered to buy tickets from anyone who was offended.  The show is sold out for over a year so financially there will be no impact from those who called for a boycott. 

We are fortunate to live in a country where we can speak our minds.  This isn’t about rudeness, but is about fighting racism and bigotry.  When given the opportunity, I will choose the latter every time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

WHEN NOT TO VOTE

October 22, 2016

I take my right to vote very seriously.  Your one vote not only affects your life, but the lives of millions.  So you might be surprised when I suggest that there are times when it is appropriate to exercise your right to not vote.

I have taken a great deal of heat for this statement in the past.  People drag out the cliché, “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain!”  I call BS.  If the two parties in this country cannot come up with one viable candidate that I can in good conscience vote for, then I have every right to complain and to complain LOUDLY!

Others are offended, “Men and women have died for your right to vote!”  I agree, but they also died for my right to protest. 

We live in a country where we have the right to not vote.  There are twenty countries in the world where voting is compulsory. The repercussions for not voting vary.  In Australia, you receive a letter demanding to know why you didn’t vote.  If you don’t give the electoral commission a satisfactory answer, you can be fined A$20.  In others, you could lose your passport or your driver’s license.  (Check out: http://www.citizencapitalism.com/2011/04/06/it%e2%80%99s-illegal-not-to-vote/ or http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-10 to learn more.)

This election cycle has been heated and divisive.  We are weeks away from the election and there are still undecided voters.  Many are so disgusted by the vitriol that they will choose to either not vote or vote for a third party candidate.

I understand how they feel.  This election the majority of us will not be voting for a candidate, but against one.  We will be voting for the person we perceive as the one who will do the least amount of damage or is the lesser of two evils.  There are those who in good conscience cannot bring themselves to vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate.  So what should be their course of action?

In the past a protest vote has had little or no impact.  I have voted for a third party candidate in the past and I have not voted.  I am a passionate political animal.  I truly want my choice to win when I pull that lever.  So although it has only happened a few times, I have made the decision to reject the main stream candidates.

At the time, I knew that I was throwing away my vote and that my action would have no impact on that election.  This one is different.  Not voting or choosing a third party candidate will have an impact.

I would rather see an uninformed voter not vote than one who votes for the sake of voting.  I applaud an informed voter who cannot vote in good conscience for either candidate.  I have no problem with someone choosing to vote for a third party candidate.  That is their choice.

However, as I said, this election is different.  I am asking that if you vote for a third party candidate, please be informed about the candidate you choose.  Don’t vote for them, because you feel you have to vote, but because you genuinely believe that they are the best person for the job.

Third party candidates have very little chance of winning an election.  However, this year, the margin between the two candidates could shrink dramatically.  A large third party vote could determine which candidate wins.  Please take that into consideration when you head to the polls.

Keep in mind that not voting has the same effect, but don’t beat yourself up if you choose to do so.  It is your right.  However, if you still feel you have to vote and can’t make up your mind, try this.  Throw a coin up into the air; heads for Clinton, tails for Trump.  Your reaction to the result is your answer.

Why not share the pumps?

May 19, 2015

The Asbury Park Press featured an editorial on May 19, 2015 titled, "Don’t eliminate full-service gas."  (http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/18/editorial-scrap-full-service-gas-stations/27547727/)  My response is as follows:

Why not share the pumps?

To the editor of the Asbury Park Press

(Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth has introduced a bill that would allow New Jerseyeans to pump their own gas without legal repercussions.  It would allow gas stations to have self-service islands.  New Jersey and Oregon are the only states in the country that do not give drivers this right.  Oregon is also considering a similar bill.)

I am amazed at the response this issue receives every time it is brought up.  One would think that Assemblyman O’Scanlan was proposing to introduce Ebola into the state’s water supply rather than allowing customers to have the option of pumping their own gas.

Your headline, “Don’t eliminate full-service gas,” was misleading.  The proposal does not take away full-service pumps, rather (as stated in your article) gas stations would be required to operate at least one full service pump for three years.  CBS New York stated “O’Scanlan said he is not trying to eliminate jobs,” and … “full service will still be offered if there is demand for it.”  That means a service station may have more than one full-service pump and that self-service pumps are not going away.  Attendants will still be required to handle the full service islands.  They will need to monitor the self-service pumps, as well. 

I don’t understand the rationale behind fighting this.  If a station has self-service as well as full-service pumps it will make the lines shorter for those in the full-service lines.  Another complaint is that drivers will be forced to stand out in the rain or cold while pumping their gas.  This is ridiculous.  They still have the choice of going to a full-service pump. 

The editorial states that if waits at the pump are a problem, the solution is simple: take your business to a service station where you don’t have to wait.  There is a flipside to this train of thought.  If this law goes into effect and you don’t like self-service, you can choose to go to a station that offers more full-service pumps. There is obviously a demand for full-service.  Station owners are not going to completely eliminate it if it would mean they would lose customers.

I rarely see every pump in use when I am filling up.  Often it is because there is no demand for them or they do not have enough attendants to cover.  Why can’t these pumps be self-service?  Why does this have to be an all or nothing situation?

The editorial’s author states, “Convenience to motorists is the main reason the law should not be changed,” but also says that full-service should be maintained for the convenience of Garden State motorists.  The author is contradicting himself.  The current law is being maintained for the convenience of some, not all.  Why not free up a few pumps and let those of us who wish to pump our own gas do so?

The Second Greatest Commandment (My Response to Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill)

March 29, 2015

Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40)

Last week, the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, signed “The Religious Freedom Bill.” 

“Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving it. It takes effect July 1.” (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/)

The proponents of the bill felt that its implementation was necessary in order to protect religious rights; opponents feel that the bill promotes discrimination. 

Twenty other states have similar laws, but none are as broad as Indiana’s.  CNN did an excellent job of explaining the bill: (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html)  Yahoo did a great job explaining why this bill is so different than the others.
(https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-115030098311.html?soc_src=unv-sh&soc_trk=fb&fb_ref=Default).

From the very beginning, people have come to this country in search of religious freedom.  It has become increasingly clear that some people feel that religious freedom means that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Proponents of this bill will tell you that they are tired of the government restricting their religious rights.  For example, the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations object to Obamacare, because it requires an organization’s health care coverage to include birth control.  I don’t understand the problem.  No one is forcing any member of these faiths to use birth control.  The government is not using health care laws to promote it.  It is a woman’s health issue.  If a woman wants or needs birth control, the government feels she has the right to have the option available to her. 

I feel that the implementation of this law and laws like it is the result of the legalization of gay marriage.  “Social conservatives have pushed hard for such measures across the country following recent federal court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in Indiana and other states.” (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/)  The Indianapolis Star is putting it mildly.  They were furious. 

Social conservatives want the right to refuse to do business with people or groups whose actions (in their opinion) are adverse to their religious beliefs.  The bakery discrimination case is a prime example of this thinking: (http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)  A bakery would not provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The bakery was a public business and Colorado ruled that it had discriminated against the couple.  This is what the Indiana ruling eliminates.  It allows the right to for a business to pick and choose who they do business with based on the owner’s religious beliefs.  It is discrimination, pure and simple.

These are public business transactions.  If you deal with the public, you are going to meet a variety of people who have different belief systems.  You can’t pick and choose your customers.

I must admit I don’t get this.  Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, gays are your neighbors.  To quote Jesus Christ again, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  I’m not seeing the love here.  He didn’t say love only some of your neighbors.  These laws are not brought out of love, but out of fear and hate.

Why is gay marriage so threatening?  It is about validation, power and control.  If a faith is valid, then gay marriage shouldn’t be a threat to it.  A gay person’s orientation becomes none of your business.  It has no impact on you or your beliefs.  However, if you are insecure in your faith, anyone who does not believe the way you do is a threat to it.  This insecurity triggers controlling behaviors, because the controller sees nonbelievers as invalidating the controller’s beliefs.  They need validation or their belief system breaks down.

I am not a fan of the way some businesses spend their profits.  A large number donate their proceeds to some questionable charities, but it doesn’t stop me from interacting with their establishments.  Their beliefs are their business as long as they do not break the law.  For me, it is a business transaction, nothing more.  Making a wedding cake for a gay couple is purely a business transaction, as well.  It does not mean that you approve of gay marriage.  It means someone is paying you to bake a cake.

It will be interesting to see how this will play out.  I wonder if these same businesses will start refusing Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist customers.  I would think that denying Jesus Christ as God and Savior is a much bigger deal than two people of the same sex wanting to get married.

What the social conservatives haven’t considered is that there is a flip side to this.  If you can discriminate, then so can anyone.  How would they feel if they entered a bakery to purchase a christening cake and were told that the owner wouldn’t sell them one because of their religious beliefs?  Or that their bakery is being boycotted for the same reason?

Governor Mike Pence stated that he will not amend the law to add protections based on sex discrimination (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-indiana-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-law/index.html).  Indiana is experiencing a significant backlash as a result.  Major companies have expressed their disapproval and plan to take their business elsewhere.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Matthew 7:1 states “Don’t judge or you too will be judged.”  Remember the second greatest commandment.  There is way too little love in this world.  Don’t judge someone based on whom they choose to love. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Update:

Both Indiana and Arkansas are revisiting their laws and amending them so that the LGBT community is not subjected to discrimination.