Friends, we are truly fortunate to have today another great example of why we require a third party to contest elections in this country. In todays papers across the nation, "Retro"Rick Santorum finally came out. Came out against, one of the guiding principles of our nations Constitution, the separation of church and state.
Eschewing two hundred plus years of American Constitutional thought; "Retro" Ricky has decided that you and I would be better served living under the direction of his church. This very question of religious interference in politics nearly derailed the candidacy of our first Catholic President John F. Kennedy half a century ago. But in todays American reality, some very misguided voters are actually of the mind that we would do well to surrender our political fortunes and futures to a collection of people who live and breathe the past.
Don't be mistaken, this guy is a serious contender for the nomination for President of the Republican Party. Certainly Barry's hoping he gets the nod. If the planks in his platform were any narrower, Ricky would be walking the line of sobriety like a drunk driver for a cop, one dopey foot plopped down in front of the other, tripping over his own toes. Just as he trips over his outmoded ideas vainly attempting to attract voters other than those who sport a third grade education. Which if you've heard his latest pearls of anti wisdom regarding education being for the elite, we can see quite clearly where he's headed with that. People with little or no education are far easier to lead than those who can think for themselves.
This is a candidate who insists that his views on women's health issues are relevant in some way to life in the twenty first century. Heck the proposition that any of his views are consistent with the ideals, that we as Americans have fought and died for throughout our history, is a long stretch of the imagination.
"Retro", this nation was founded on the principle that no man or woman can be compelled to follow any religious belief system not in harmony with their own. Freedom of Religion as enshrined in our Constitution, and Bill of Rights implies that your beliefs are yours to live with, because you voluntarily without coercion whole heartedly agree with the doctrine and dogma of that faith. Your efforts through candidacy for President on behalf of religionists, is nothing but an assault on one of our forefathers most cherished freedoms.
Fortunately for you too many Americans are blissfully ignorant of what happens when church usurps state. Personally I think of two places where this currently occurs, and I would never reside in either place, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Hunger Games: When Fiction Becomes Reality
When literature begets reality, as in the case of Captain Nemo's submarine from Jules Vernes "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"; we witness one persons creative thought become another's actuality. In the case of Suzanne Collins and her trilogy "The Hunger Games", we have another fine example of reality possibly following the imagination of a writer.
"The Hunger Games" depicts a future North America now known as Panem (Latin for bread) run by a despotic, un-elected President Snow a character akin to Pol Pot, former leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Rather than the 50 states we're all familiar with; the country has been divided into 13 districts and a Capitol, from where the government controls everything: where you live to how much food and clothing you'll be allotted. Seventy five years in the story's past, the districts had rebelled resulting in the total annihilation of District 13 and occupation of the remaining 12 Districts by government forces known as "Peacekeepers". When the rebellion is crushed, the Capitol institutes what becomes known as "The Hunger Games" where 'tributes' two boys and two girls from each district aged 12 -17, are selected by lottery to compete in a nationally televised death match, ending with one survivor known as the 'Champion'.
About now you're wondering where I'm going with this analogy of fiction begetting reality. In our country we have a law referred to as the "Posse Comitatus Act". This act was the result of Congressional compromise which led to the swearing in of President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, though he neither won the popular vote or the requisite number of representatives in the electoral college. To pull off this compromise Republican leaders in the Southern States demanded and received the above titled act as compensation for their acquiescence. In essence the act says that under no circumstances are federal troops to be deployed as a occupying force on our shores.
Why did the Southern States want this bill so badly? Because following the Civil War's end in 1865, our nation entered into a period known as Reconstruction.
Part of this so called 'Reconstruction' was the long term stationing of federal troops(Peacekeepers?) as a occupying force that the rebellious Southern States had chafed under for 10 years following wars end. Added to the bill in 1956 by Congressional act was the Air Force, with the Navy and Marine Corps following suit by D.o.D. directive, not Congressional legislation. So theoretically D.o.D. could without Congressional approval reverse this voluntary restriction of force application. Also not included under this law are the National Guard or the Coast Guard, as neither are under direct control of the Department of Defense. Coast Guard is now under direction of the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Guards are directed by governors in their respective states.
So why the civics and history lesson?
In our nations last defense spending bill the Posse Comitatus Act was suspended.
With the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan our Air Force and CIA have to reposition their vast fleet of sophisticated unmanned drone aircraft. Guess where? Here. The Air Force now wants the Federal Aviation Administration to rubber stamp their request to fly drones in civilian American airspace. Why?
In the novels, the Capitol and District 13 use an insidious weapon referred to as "hovercraft", deadly silent predators able to surveil, then swoop in on the un-suspecting from above, either obliterating or abducting their human prey in the paralyzing grasp of a mechanical claw.
As yet our drones, at least that I'm aware of, do not have the "abduction" capability so vividly rendered by Ms. Collins in "The Hunger Games", but they've clearly proven to be more than capable with regard to the locating and liquidation of the unknowing.
Our question then becomes:
"Why is our Capitol in Washington D.C. setting the table, so to speak, for the possible surveillance and occupation of American cities and states by federal military forces?"
If we are shackled to a government which is thoroughly controlled by two firmly entrenched parties of thieves then how do we as a citizenry respond?
If we are shackled to a government which is thoroughly controlled by two firmly entrenched parties of thieves then how do we as a citizenry respond?
American Reality Party
Monday, February 20, 2012
Health Care Reform For California Prisoners
A few days ago my Mother brought an article to my attention in our local newspaper The Sentinel, about one of our State Senators Michael Rubio, and legislation he introduced aimed at reforming and curtailing some pretty outlandish medical benefits provided to the prisoners of California.
For some of us this will be a pretty ho hum topic, for those of you like myself who are married to a spouse with a congenital issue that has dropped her into the disability bracket of life, it will be anything but. To the group who should find this interesting, I would also add those of you who are now receiving Social Security and Medicare.
Apparently prior to this legislation SB 1079, and until it passes, we the taxpayers of this state have been on the hook for some pretty expensive cosmetic procedures for prisoners that have no life threatening conditions. Shall we start with what I believe to be the most egregious example, the instance that brought attention to this issue? Yes, yes I think I will, because the sooner I get this out, the sooner I can shower and scrub away the film of disgust I'm feeling.
In one of our many prisons here, I think we have more than anywhere else in the country, resides a lovely young murderer trapped in the body of a man. He/she wanted a gender re-assignment surgery, performed at the state's expense, and to be transferred to a female prison. YUCK! Shall we all be thankful just this once that the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco had the good graces to deny this? Yes , oh yes we should.
O.K. I know there are people out there who do feel as though they were assigned the wrong plumbing when they were constructed in the womb, I totally get it, and feel for those who go through life wondering what they really are. If you're a free man/woman and wish to undergo that mutilation be my guest, but I'll be God damned if I'm going to help pay for that mess.
Among the other treatments that our incarcerated are allowed to receive are: acupuncture, vasectomies, tattoo removal, cosmetic surgeries of all types, breast augmentation.... Excuse me but if I or my wife want any of those procedures,( I don't need boobs, and she doesn't need a vasectomy) it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands. And that's AFTER Medicare, IF they would have paid anything at all because for the most part these are purely elective surgeries addressing no life threatening condition.
On top of this, and not addressed in SB1079, is the fact that when a prisoner becomes ill, our prison medical teams and outside hospitals who provide treatment are compelled to provide Brand Name Pharmaceuticals exclusively. The only exception to this rule is when the brand name is no longer in production. Those of us out there that spend several hundred dollars each month on generic maintenance drugs for our loved ones should really like that, right? And why are pharmaceuticals not included?
Is it because the doctors lobby in Suckramento isn't as strong as the pharmy boys? H'mmm.
Reality in California is, if you need a medical procedure done on the cheap (I mean free), so that you can avoid medical bankruptcy; commit a crime. But do the paperwork quickly, due to our prison overcrowding, if the crime you commit isn't that serious a felony you won't be behind bars long enough to receive that vasectomy and new boobs you so desperately desire.
For some of us this will be a pretty ho hum topic, for those of you like myself who are married to a spouse with a congenital issue that has dropped her into the disability bracket of life, it will be anything but. To the group who should find this interesting, I would also add those of you who are now receiving Social Security and Medicare.
Apparently prior to this legislation SB 1079, and until it passes, we the taxpayers of this state have been on the hook for some pretty expensive cosmetic procedures for prisoners that have no life threatening conditions. Shall we start with what I believe to be the most egregious example, the instance that brought attention to this issue? Yes, yes I think I will, because the sooner I get this out, the sooner I can shower and scrub away the film of disgust I'm feeling.
In one of our many prisons here, I think we have more than anywhere else in the country, resides a lovely young murderer trapped in the body of a man. He/she wanted a gender re-assignment surgery, performed at the state's expense, and to be transferred to a female prison. YUCK! Shall we all be thankful just this once that the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco had the good graces to deny this? Yes , oh yes we should.
O.K. I know there are people out there who do feel as though they were assigned the wrong plumbing when they were constructed in the womb, I totally get it, and feel for those who go through life wondering what they really are. If you're a free man/woman and wish to undergo that mutilation be my guest, but I'll be God damned if I'm going to help pay for that mess.
Among the other treatments that our incarcerated are allowed to receive are: acupuncture, vasectomies, tattoo removal, cosmetic surgeries of all types, breast augmentation.... Excuse me but if I or my wife want any of those procedures,( I don't need boobs, and she doesn't need a vasectomy) it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands. And that's AFTER Medicare, IF they would have paid anything at all because for the most part these are purely elective surgeries addressing no life threatening condition.
On top of this, and not addressed in SB1079, is the fact that when a prisoner becomes ill, our prison medical teams and outside hospitals who provide treatment are compelled to provide Brand Name Pharmaceuticals exclusively. The only exception to this rule is when the brand name is no longer in production. Those of us out there that spend several hundred dollars each month on generic maintenance drugs for our loved ones should really like that, right? And why are pharmaceuticals not included?
Is it because the doctors lobby in Suckramento isn't as strong as the pharmy boys? H'mmm.
Reality in California is, if you need a medical procedure done on the cheap (I mean free), so that you can avoid medical bankruptcy; commit a crime. But do the paperwork quickly, due to our prison overcrowding, if the crime you commit isn't that serious a felony you won't be behind bars long enough to receive that vasectomy and new boobs you so desperately desire.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Still Arguing for a Third Party...
Throughout this multifarious election campaign we're shackled with, I'm reminded time and time again why I felt the need to begin venting via this blog.
On the one hand we have an incumbent President, who rode to office on a wave of excitement and hope; promising what they all do: change, prosperity, national pride...Whose true focus has been to raise enough money to ensure his re-election. Then on the other hand we have a wildly unelectable trio of very wealthy oligarchs left standing after the church circus sideshow the Republican Primaries are. Mitt, Rick, and Newt. Or is it Moe, Larry, and Curly the Three Stooges with cash and corporate backing?
Either way America, the 66% of us who do the heavy lifting in this country slopping the trough for the other 33% who feed from the tax crib; lose.
All of you still mesmerized by the lie that the Reagan administration was: small government, low taxes... still can't wrap your minds around the fact that the federal government grew under Reagans watch dramatically. Taxes were lowered for sure, but only for the wealthiest 3%. Under Ronnie's direction the deregulation of our banking system began at a rapid pace. Rules and regulations put into place after the Great Depression fell away; allowing the banks and a variety of savings & loan organizations to unleash a slow building tsunami of economic destruction that we're still witnessing today. What I mean by 'still witnessing': it's not over. We have yet to reach the aftermath stage, the wave has not rolled back into the sea, it's still surging inland quietly, persistently, without warning to those it will claim next.
First it was PATCO, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. When they had the audacity to strike protesting out-dated equipment and working conditions, Uncle Ronnie summarily fired the entire group and decertified their union under the guise of national security. Resulting in a corps of ill-trained overworked, poorly equipped, and still un-represented workers trying desperately to do one of the worlds most mentally demanding jobs.
Throughout the ensuing decades a drum beat of demonization directed at organized labor has grown progressively louder, drowning out the voices of fact and reason; favoring those who benefit most from this rightward swing of the pendulum.
Corporate America.
If you think for a moment that the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to donate to election campaigns as individuals was not politically motivated by the right wing of the Republican Party then you missed the bus entirely. There is no shelter and you're drenched in a down pour of propaganda. This court, more than any before it is polarized along party lines in such a way that judicial independence has become an afterthought for the people who occupy the bench. Some justices even openly attend functions given by entities with business before the court. Though maybe not illegal in the strictest sense, it certainly is at the very least a conflict of interest. Given that neither justice sees the need to recuse themselves from the case following this demonstration of partisanship does nothing but cause alarm, disgust, and revulsion.
So, faced with the reality that the leaders of both parties are only engaged in a battle for the procurement and maintenance of power. That the partisanship they exhibit is merely a tool of electability, pandering to our basest instincts, while barely concealing the contempt with which they view those they use.
How do we move forward?
With corporate interests bankrolling both parties, who now control us as never before through the Patriot Act, and the latest defense spending bill which suspended Posse Comitatus; our last and best hope for rolling back this wave of fascist government is to form a third party. Those of you who feel as I do must recognize the fact that the suspension of Posse Comitatus is tantamount to a declaration of war against every free thinking citizen of this nation.
Monolithic power in the hands of a rotating cabal of thieves is not democracy friends.
On the one hand we have an incumbent President, who rode to office on a wave of excitement and hope; promising what they all do: change, prosperity, national pride...Whose true focus has been to raise enough money to ensure his re-election. Then on the other hand we have a wildly unelectable trio of very wealthy oligarchs left standing after the church circus sideshow the Republican Primaries are. Mitt, Rick, and Newt. Or is it Moe, Larry, and Curly the Three Stooges with cash and corporate backing?
Either way America, the 66% of us who do the heavy lifting in this country slopping the trough for the other 33% who feed from the tax crib; lose.
All of you still mesmerized by the lie that the Reagan administration was: small government, low taxes... still can't wrap your minds around the fact that the federal government grew under Reagans watch dramatically. Taxes were lowered for sure, but only for the wealthiest 3%. Under Ronnie's direction the deregulation of our banking system began at a rapid pace. Rules and regulations put into place after the Great Depression fell away; allowing the banks and a variety of savings & loan organizations to unleash a slow building tsunami of economic destruction that we're still witnessing today. What I mean by 'still witnessing': it's not over. We have yet to reach the aftermath stage, the wave has not rolled back into the sea, it's still surging inland quietly, persistently, without warning to those it will claim next.
First it was PATCO, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. When they had the audacity to strike protesting out-dated equipment and working conditions, Uncle Ronnie summarily fired the entire group and decertified their union under the guise of national security. Resulting in a corps of ill-trained overworked, poorly equipped, and still un-represented workers trying desperately to do one of the worlds most mentally demanding jobs.
Throughout the ensuing decades a drum beat of demonization directed at organized labor has grown progressively louder, drowning out the voices of fact and reason; favoring those who benefit most from this rightward swing of the pendulum.
Corporate America.
If you think for a moment that the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to donate to election campaigns as individuals was not politically motivated by the right wing of the Republican Party then you missed the bus entirely. There is no shelter and you're drenched in a down pour of propaganda. This court, more than any before it is polarized along party lines in such a way that judicial independence has become an afterthought for the people who occupy the bench. Some justices even openly attend functions given by entities with business before the court. Though maybe not illegal in the strictest sense, it certainly is at the very least a conflict of interest. Given that neither justice sees the need to recuse themselves from the case following this demonstration of partisanship does nothing but cause alarm, disgust, and revulsion.
So, faced with the reality that the leaders of both parties are only engaged in a battle for the procurement and maintenance of power. That the partisanship they exhibit is merely a tool of electability, pandering to our basest instincts, while barely concealing the contempt with which they view those they use.
How do we move forward?
With corporate interests bankrolling both parties, who now control us as never before through the Patriot Act, and the latest defense spending bill which suspended Posse Comitatus; our last and best hope for rolling back this wave of fascist government is to form a third party. Those of you who feel as I do must recognize the fact that the suspension of Posse Comitatus is tantamount to a declaration of war against every free thinking citizen of this nation.
Monolithic power in the hands of a rotating cabal of thieves is not democracy friends.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
How Wacky Can Religion Get
Normally the religion topic is one I don't find that interesting, except of course when one wishes to impose his superstitions on me, then I become a little more than interested.
Then I become confrontational. Are you hearing me "Retro" Rick Santorum?
I suppose the descendants of Simon Wiesenthal feel the same way. After they had to confront the Mormon Church regarding the posthumous baptism of Mr. Wiesenthal's deceased and very Jewish parents.
So, not only do the living have to bear the harangue of proselytizers, they also hound the dead at their graveside. No rest for the weary, right? I mean really, fighting over dead people? The Mormons believe that they can offer baptism to the dead, and that the departed souls can choose to either accept or deny the invitation. Ties right in with a angel bringing Joe Smith "special" glasses so he could read a ancient tablet he dug up in a field in America. Which oddly enough cannot be found, Joe must have hidden it pretty well, along with his "special" glasses. Really, an ancient tablet found in an area where the indigenous had no written language? Let's say it all together now: "SCAM"
Of course all of the other churches are up in arms over the pilfering of their departed souls; having proven to be irrelevant to the vast majority of the living, and have beseeched the Mormons to cease and desist from the appropriation of any further deceased, famous or not. I guess the rules have changed, now when they keep score, it appears that the team with the most dead people wins, right?
Then I become confrontational. Are you hearing me "Retro" Rick Santorum?
I suppose the descendants of Simon Wiesenthal feel the same way. After they had to confront the Mormon Church regarding the posthumous baptism of Mr. Wiesenthal's deceased and very Jewish parents.
So, not only do the living have to bear the harangue of proselytizers, they also hound the dead at their graveside. No rest for the weary, right? I mean really, fighting over dead people? The Mormons believe that they can offer baptism to the dead, and that the departed souls can choose to either accept or deny the invitation. Ties right in with a angel bringing Joe Smith "special" glasses so he could read a ancient tablet he dug up in a field in America. Which oddly enough cannot be found, Joe must have hidden it pretty well, along with his "special" glasses. Really, an ancient tablet found in an area where the indigenous had no written language? Let's say it all together now: "SCAM"
Of course all of the other churches are up in arms over the pilfering of their departed souls; having proven to be irrelevant to the vast majority of the living, and have beseeched the Mormons to cease and desist from the appropriation of any further deceased, famous or not. I guess the rules have changed, now when they keep score, it appears that the team with the most dead people wins, right?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
How Relevant is the Church Today?
As the Republican Party continues it's desperately flailing (or is that failing) attempt to repeal "ObamaCare" by playing the "Religious Rights" card; the past few days here in the U.S.A. have revealed a stark disconnect between the Church of Rome, it's American hierarchy, and the vast majority of citizens who describe themselves as Catholic.
For those of you not aware of the issue; it is, and it always seems to be (sounds of yawning inserted here,lol), the right of a woman to choose when and under what conditions she will conceive a child. The Catholic faith among others forbid the use of abortion or contraception under any circumstance, including incest and rape. "ObamaCare" dictates that when a church employer provides health insurance to it's employees, that insurance plan cannot exclude contraceptive devices or pharmaceuticals.
H'mmm I think we have a conflict brewing here folks...
Bearing in mind that not all employees of the church are Catholic, and that not all Catholics strive for large families, this mandate at least on the surface, seems entirely reasonable. To me.
Predictably the Church feels differently.
Not only the Catholics, but virtually every established religious faith has voiced their vehement displeasure with this new law, and are working feverishly with their allies in Congress to rid them of what they perceive to be the greatest threat to the continued relevance of their respective orders in this country.
"If women of our faith are allowed to choose how many children they will have; what happens to our church if they choose to have none?"
In America the reality is that traditional church structure has lost its ability to regulate behavior through rigidly conformist societal coercion. In example, a recent segment of NPR's "Talk of the Nation" fielded calls from Catholics representing two sides of the conversation: those who defy church doctrine by actively using birth control, and those who accept church instruction unquestioningly. Not surprisingly the number of Catholics using birth control in America mirrors very closely the numbers of women in the general population also using contraception. A clear majority of American women choose to exercise their reproductive rights through the regular use of contraceptives. Period.
So the first question becomes: Why is it the governments job to enforce church doctrine, when the church itself has so miserably failed? And thus the second question: If the church has to rely on a government to enforce it's doctrine on people who don't share those beliefs; how relevant to society is the church?
Speaking as a person of faith without affiliation to any church I find myself questioning the validity of any man's claim to a moral imperative that places himself between me and God. What I have witnessed in my fifty one years of life, is that people seeking power over others are the fiercest apologists for organized religion. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist... all have had their fair share of hi-jackers using corrupted tools of their faith to bring misery and subjugation to the masses. Recognizing the fact that gullible, superstitious people constitute the easiest flock to lead; we have been cursed throughout history by those who will use the existing differences and rivalries of faith based factions to further their own selfish goals.
Be they patriarchs, politicians or Popes, ultimately it all comes down to relevance. That relevance is decided by you.
For those of you not aware of the issue; it is, and it always seems to be (sounds of yawning inserted here,lol), the right of a woman to choose when and under what conditions she will conceive a child. The Catholic faith among others forbid the use of abortion or contraception under any circumstance, including incest and rape. "ObamaCare" dictates that when a church employer provides health insurance to it's employees, that insurance plan cannot exclude contraceptive devices or pharmaceuticals.
H'mmm I think we have a conflict brewing here folks...
Bearing in mind that not all employees of the church are Catholic, and that not all Catholics strive for large families, this mandate at least on the surface, seems entirely reasonable. To me.
Predictably the Church feels differently.
Not only the Catholics, but virtually every established religious faith has voiced their vehement displeasure with this new law, and are working feverishly with their allies in Congress to rid them of what they perceive to be the greatest threat to the continued relevance of their respective orders in this country.
"If women of our faith are allowed to choose how many children they will have; what happens to our church if they choose to have none?"
In America the reality is that traditional church structure has lost its ability to regulate behavior through rigidly conformist societal coercion. In example, a recent segment of NPR's "Talk of the Nation" fielded calls from Catholics representing two sides of the conversation: those who defy church doctrine by actively using birth control, and those who accept church instruction unquestioningly. Not surprisingly the number of Catholics using birth control in America mirrors very closely the numbers of women in the general population also using contraception. A clear majority of American women choose to exercise their reproductive rights through the regular use of contraceptives. Period.
So the first question becomes: Why is it the governments job to enforce church doctrine, when the church itself has so miserably failed? And thus the second question: If the church has to rely on a government to enforce it's doctrine on people who don't share those beliefs; how relevant to society is the church?
Speaking as a person of faith without affiliation to any church I find myself questioning the validity of any man's claim to a moral imperative that places himself between me and God. What I have witnessed in my fifty one years of life, is that people seeking power over others are the fiercest apologists for organized religion. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist... all have had their fair share of hi-jackers using corrupted tools of their faith to bring misery and subjugation to the masses. Recognizing the fact that gullible, superstitious people constitute the easiest flock to lead; we have been cursed throughout history by those who will use the existing differences and rivalries of faith based factions to further their own selfish goals.
Be they patriarchs, politicians or Popes, ultimately it all comes down to relevance. That relevance is decided by you.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Freedom of Religion!?
Let's see a show of hands from those of you unfortunate enough to hear one of the thankfully few, and rare speeches delivered by John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives? Now we know why he performs so infrequently, preferring to manipulate, seldom seen and heard from behind the curtain.
Clearly the man is not a fool, but merely another feeder pandering to a power base, he surely represents in name only. One need only look at the blood shot eyes and bulbous burning red knob protruding from above his copious maw to realize the man likes to drink. A lot. Please, do tell us John as a dedicated public servant dividing your time between Ohio and Washington; how is it you're so tan? Neither of the locales above are known for their tan inducing sunshine. Spending a few weeks and Super Pac dollars in the Florida sun Johnny? Gauging the looks of your visage is akin to the New Years Eve countdown in Times Square; how much longer until that ball drops?
Boner is exceedingly cunning, dangerous for sure, as we have come to expect from the mob boss mentality permeating positions of leadership in government. We find ourselves with a Speaker who is characterizing the Christian Taliban argument against abortion as freedom of religion. Whose religion exactly? When the writers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights enshrined Freedom of Religion as a basic human right, that proclamation also ensured Freedom From Religion. At least Boner's interpretation of it. With the experience of having lived in a country dominated by one church, the Church of England, our forefathers rightfully proscribed the possibility of there ever being a National Faith. For this I am grateful, being a Christian with a direct personal relationship with our Lord and Savior.
Now we have a minority movement charging forward with one goal. That goal is to bring a rigidly conservative Christian theocracy to America. Battling against gay marriage, abortion, contraceptive rights, and just about any other issue not directly related to living their own lives. These people have distorted the public conversation in such a way as to bring only gridlock and polarization to the political process. Not to mention the resulting societal divisions occurring along religious lines. Isn't it enough that we haven't dealt with race or gender inequality? Do we really need to add another ingredient to the stew pot of public discontent?
So here's the solution, leave your personal religious beliefs at the door when you check in to vote. Believe me few of us really care what your faith requires, nor is it any of our business. Likewise, my faith and belief system are not in need of your inspection or consent. Demand that the candidates vying for your votes leave the faith based pandering in their respective houses of worship, so that they will not be dissuaded from the hard tasks at hand leading the greatest republic the world has ever known. Endlessly debating a fifty year old Supreme Court decision is not in the best interest of the nation. Having the ability to choose does not in any way infringe upon the religious rights of anyone; in reality removing that right does indeed have the very effect Boner insists he is protecting.
Clearly the man is not a fool, but merely another feeder pandering to a power base, he surely represents in name only. One need only look at the blood shot eyes and bulbous burning red knob protruding from above his copious maw to realize the man likes to drink. A lot. Please, do tell us John as a dedicated public servant dividing your time between Ohio and Washington; how is it you're so tan? Neither of the locales above are known for their tan inducing sunshine. Spending a few weeks and Super Pac dollars in the Florida sun Johnny? Gauging the looks of your visage is akin to the New Years Eve countdown in Times Square; how much longer until that ball drops?
Boner is exceedingly cunning, dangerous for sure, as we have come to expect from the mob boss mentality permeating positions of leadership in government. We find ourselves with a Speaker who is characterizing the Christian Taliban argument against abortion as freedom of religion. Whose religion exactly? When the writers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights enshrined Freedom of Religion as a basic human right, that proclamation also ensured Freedom From Religion. At least Boner's interpretation of it. With the experience of having lived in a country dominated by one church, the Church of England, our forefathers rightfully proscribed the possibility of there ever being a National Faith. For this I am grateful, being a Christian with a direct personal relationship with our Lord and Savior.
Now we have a minority movement charging forward with one goal. That goal is to bring a rigidly conservative Christian theocracy to America. Battling against gay marriage, abortion, contraceptive rights, and just about any other issue not directly related to living their own lives. These people have distorted the public conversation in such a way as to bring only gridlock and polarization to the political process. Not to mention the resulting societal divisions occurring along religious lines. Isn't it enough that we haven't dealt with race or gender inequality? Do we really need to add another ingredient to the stew pot of public discontent?
So here's the solution, leave your personal religious beliefs at the door when you check in to vote. Believe me few of us really care what your faith requires, nor is it any of our business. Likewise, my faith and belief system are not in need of your inspection or consent. Demand that the candidates vying for your votes leave the faith based pandering in their respective houses of worship, so that they will not be dissuaded from the hard tasks at hand leading the greatest republic the world has ever known. Endlessly debating a fifty year old Supreme Court decision is not in the best interest of the nation. Having the ability to choose does not in any way infringe upon the religious rights of anyone; in reality removing that right does indeed have the very effect Boner insists he is protecting.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Susan G. Komen Defunding Planned Parenthood???
So the superstitious amongst us have reared their empty ugly heads again. Small but vocal, like the Moral Minority before them, we have a contingent in the Susan G. Komen Foundation declaring war on a woman's right to choose. People who have forgotten the horror of back room abortions and the unnecessary loss of life resulting from that era, are still pining for a fictional time in history that never was. Once again we have people so distracted from the real issues we all face they feel compelled to cram their religious leanings down America's collective throat like so much rancid cod liver oil.
When, Dear God, when will your believers en masse, receive the blessing of common sense. The endless debate of these personal choice issues is nothing but divisive subterfuge foisted on us and latched onto by well-meaning but ultimately misguided simpletons.
If your believers truly follow you and your message of love and forgiveness; then why do we find them overwhelmed with the task of castigating others for lifestyle choices they don't have to live with? Why Good Lord, are we persecuted by amateur judges straining to meet your perfect example, only to crash in the fiery flames of their only too human hubris? If they do love and, respect you; would it not be wise to ask them to leave the judging up to the Master?
Lord we've had this conversation before, you and I have a personal relationship requiring zero input from any other human, so I'm going to lay it out for everybody else.
When an organization you favor is taking your dollars to promulgate ideas not consistent with your own, it is incumbent upon you to take actions that will have these former receivers of your money, vainly searching far and wide to replace them. If the SGK Foundation will allow itself to be hi-jacked by a tiny collective of narrow minded self serving sanctimonious Bible thumpers, those of you who do not agree with this change in direction must be heard. Defund the SGK, let's see how long they can go without all the 5k walks, and Yoplait lids. How long will the charity trough feeders hang around when the well runs dry? When can we expect to see their bloated bureaucracy cave into common sense and steer clear of the ridiculous religionists attempting to co-opt everything good and right that this foundation once represented?
When, Dear God, when will your believers en masse, receive the blessing of common sense. The endless debate of these personal choice issues is nothing but divisive subterfuge foisted on us and latched onto by well-meaning but ultimately misguided simpletons.
If your believers truly follow you and your message of love and forgiveness; then why do we find them overwhelmed with the task of castigating others for lifestyle choices they don't have to live with? Why Good Lord, are we persecuted by amateur judges straining to meet your perfect example, only to crash in the fiery flames of their only too human hubris? If they do love and, respect you; would it not be wise to ask them to leave the judging up to the Master?
Lord we've had this conversation before, you and I have a personal relationship requiring zero input from any other human, so I'm going to lay it out for everybody else.
When an organization you favor is taking your dollars to promulgate ideas not consistent with your own, it is incumbent upon you to take actions that will have these former receivers of your money, vainly searching far and wide to replace them. If the SGK Foundation will allow itself to be hi-jacked by a tiny collective of narrow minded self serving sanctimonious Bible thumpers, those of you who do not agree with this change in direction must be heard. Defund the SGK, let's see how long they can go without all the 5k walks, and Yoplait lids. How long will the charity trough feeders hang around when the well runs dry? When can we expect to see their bloated bureaucracy cave into common sense and steer clear of the ridiculous religionists attempting to co-opt everything good and right that this foundation once represented?
Please continue your phone call as you run me over...
Today marks the third time I personally have nearly been hit by women talking on their cell phones while driving. Everyday I take my 3 big, beautiful dogs on a four mile jaunt around the development we reside in. A "lady" driving while on the phone in her blue BMW 3 Series crept into the crosswalk I and my dogs were occupying, brushing the head of my chow chow Blue. She only stopped when I yelled "Get Off Your F---ing Phone." At which point I assumed an apology for her actions was in order in the form of: "Gee I'm sorry I nearly hit you and your dogs." No, her reaction was to completely ignore the fact we were there; we must have appeared as a mirage, a six foot four inch 210 pound mirage with three 80 pound plus dogs, or something of that nature, because she just kept on talking without a care in the world.
America this is the world we live in today; people so wrapped up in their own existence, they think they're only accountable when they actually hurt, kill, or maim someone. Then just let the insurance companies, lawyers and other tragedy feeders take the lion share of any settlement while the injured party receives a prepaid phone card for their pain and suffering.
Another example, our daughter was hit by a woman driving a pick up truck on Friday January 13th while riding her bicycle home from the Post Office. This "Lady" was so distracted with her call, she did not stop until a passerby(thankfully) pounded his fists on her truck door, getting her attention as our baby girl(she's 23, but she's still our baby) lay tangled in the wreckage of her bike under the front end of this hulking F-150. Our daughters screaming bloody murder in hopes of saving her own life, apparently wasn't enough to trigger a conscious reaction. At this point "Lady" jumps out of her truck clutching her cell phone in a GI Joe Kung Fu grip, yelling "What Happened?" What happened is that "Lady", like so many of you, really believes her multi tasking capabilities are on par with a fighter pilot. Believe me, precious few of you have that capacity, please quit deluding yourselves.
After my wife and I arrived,"Lady" went on to tell us how she was having trouble learning how to text with her daughter. Really? Having trouble texting while driving? My heart goes out to you poor dear! Hear me now believe me later:
Girl on Bicycle vs. F150 Driven by Woman Talking/Texting on Phone, not a fair fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)