Really, Gov. Perry? President Obama Is Waging A "War On Religion"?

To paraphrase GOP messiah, Ronald Reagan, well, there they go again.................

Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Perry, recently launched a television ad bemoaning the horror at gays being allowed to serve in the military while children supposedly cannot celebrate Christmas in school.  Gov. Perry, as if on cue, then laments Mr. Obama's "war on religion".  Of course, the lapdogs that are the right wing media fell in lock step behind Perry's baseless comments.

Where to begin, dear readers?  Perhaps I should give more than passing mention to the good governor's bashing of gay soldiers.  Of course, when GOP supporters boo an openly gay solider, why am I not surprised?  Still, I digress.  Yes, indeed, Gov. Perry, why should these able bodied, patriotic Americans be allowed to serve in the military?  Could it be because this country was founded on equal opportunity and due process for all?  What a horrific prospect, Gov. Perry!!!!!  Gays and lesbians in the military!!!!  Oh, the horror.  As that old saying goes, in the heat of battle no one cares whether the solider in the foxhole next to you is gay or straight.  They just care whether you can shoot straight.What I really can't understand is why so many gay and lesbian Americans are willing to fight and possibly die for a country where bigots like Gov. Perry are viable candidates for president and for a country that won't let them marry who they love.

Ah, and yes, the mythical war against Christmas continues....................  Again, Gov. Perry, this nation was founded on inclusiveness and equality.  Is it so horrible to have "holiday" parties and such, so that the children who aren't Christians don't feel excluded?  Isn't America about being a melting pot with respect and equality for all?  The Constitution that I have studied over the years certainly leads me to think so.  By the way, this would be the same Constitution that outlines the number of justices on the Supreme Court.  Based on your previous comments, you may not be familiar with it.

Somehow, in Gov. Perry's rather convoluted mind, this equates to President Obama waging a war on religion.  Some in the right wing media even suggested that the president attended church for the first time since Easter as a direct result of Mr. Perry's inane comments.  As if there is any relevance whatsoever to the frequency with which Mr. Obama attends services.  As I often say, sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car.

Interestingly, Gov. Perry, the Christianity that is practiced by President Obama appeals to me.  The Christianity that you apparently practice does not.  Perhaps that isn't God who you think is speaking to you, but someone who occupies a bit darker and (ahem) warmer locale.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Herman Cain Doesn't Recall A 13 Year Affair?

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand why politicians who have had infidelity issues seem to think they can run for office without their trysts coming to light.  Folks, I have taken a great deal of delight in lampooning former GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain, but this issue goes far deeper than him.  Gary Hart and Donna Rice.  Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, et. al., Larry Craig and male prostitutes who cruise airport gents rooms, Mark Foley and male teenage pages.  The list is as endless as it is sordid. 

I ask the question again.  Do these men think that their peccadilloes won't eventually come to light?  Was Mr. Cain really so naive at to think that Cynthia White, among others, wouldn't tell her story to the press?  Did Mr. Foley think his continuous inappropriate behavior with young male pages would never be discovered? 

Do these people think they are so powerful and untouchable that no one will sell them out?  Do they think they can be in public spotlight without their personal lives being scrutinized?

With exception of those who prey on children like Mr. Foley, a part of me wonders why we care.  Seriously, do a person's personal indiscretions really have in bearing on his ability to perform the duties he was elected to perform?  In Mr. Clinton's case, he was still a successful and popular president despite his marital issues.  Is this another example of American puritanism?

Frankly, friends, I have mixed emotions about this.  What do you think?

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Is Scott Brown A Male Chauvinist?

The latest kerfuffle emerging from the highly entertaining 2012 election year involves a spat between incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren.  In 1982, Sen. Brown posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine and used the proceeds to help pay for his education.  During a recent debate among the Democratic contenders to face Brown in November, a question was asked regarding how the potential challengers paid for their education in light of Brown baring all 29 years ago.  Much to the delight of the crowd, Ms. Warren responded that she "kept her clothes on".  After hearing of Warren's remark, Brown later retored, "Thank God."

Brown and Warren Spar Over Nude Photo Shoot

Was Sen. Brown's comment in bad taste?  Certainly so.  Is he a male chauvinist?  I find that highly unlikely.  To me, this was an off the cuff quip that most likely does not reflect any sexist attitudes on Brown's behalf.  (For the record, I have no issue with his posing nude either.)

However, I think this speaks to a deeper issue.  Why in 21st Century America are we still basing our opinions and forming judgements of women based on their appearance?  There is an old saying that basically says that men will listen to other men and then decide if they like what they hear, but men will look at a woman and decide if they like what they see before paying any attention at all to what she says.  I can't tell you how many times my criticism of Sarah Palin has been greeted with "Yeah, but she's hot" from my male readers.  Are we to base our opinions of Ms. Palin, or any other female in the public eye, on her sex appeal?  Have we not progressed beyond this type of Neanderthal thinking?

The fact of the matter is this, friends and frenemies.  Women are equal members of our society from the boardroom to the hallowed chambers of government to Wall Street to Main Street.  They deserve respect, dignity, appreciation, and equal opportunity.  What they do not deserve is to be judged in any way on their physical attributes.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

An Example Of Rick Perry's Hypocrisy

According to recent media reports, wildfires have consumed 3.6 million acres of Texas since December of 2010.  To put that in perspective, it is essentially an area the size of Connecticut.  Over 700 homes have been destroyed and at least four people have been killed.  Six of the ten largest wildfires in Texas history have occurred this year.  Isn't that an interesting thought?

Here is another interesting thought.  Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry has cut funding for volunteer firefighters, who respond to ninety percent of all wildfires in Texas, by seventy five percent.  While the fires raged, Perry left his underfunded firefighters to fly to a Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library where he proceeded, in his best tea party fashion, to bash "big government" while simultaneously praising "the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to protect Texans' lives and property" whose funding he slashed. 

Wow, Gov. Perry, it must really be difficult to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that.

Conservatives act as if the government is some alien, foreign entity when the Constitution (Are you listening tea partiers?) simply says, "We the people".  The government is us.  Among its other accomplishments, the federal government has, during our history, freed the slaves, defeated Hitler, built the interstate highway system, won the Cold War, integrated the South, put men on the moon, and killed Osama bin Laden.  Perhaps the next time an al Qadea operative needs taken down, the tea party and Gov. Perry can call one of their millionaire CEO buddies out of the executive suite to complete the mission.  Maybe Mr. Perry can ask the same CEO to hop on a fire engine and respond the next time his state catches fire.

Along those same lines, during the aforementioned debate, Mr. Perry praised, and rightfully so, the Navy SEALs who killed bin Laden while, in the next breath, stating that government does not create jobs.  For whom, pray tell, does Perry think the SEALs work?  BP?

(Special thanks to Paul Begala for contributing part of the material for this column.)

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

The Tea Party Is Cheering The Deaths Of The Uninsured

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand how the so-called Tea Party can be so callous that they are actually cheering the deaths of the uninsured.  Seriously.  It was repulsive enough when they lustily cheered Rick Perry's Texas execution record, but now they are celebrating the death of the uninsured.

Example number one involved an exchange at a Tea Party rally involving libertarian favorite Ron Paul (R-TX).  When asked about who should care for an uninsured thirty year old injured in a traffic accident, the Tea Party crowd actually cheered at the moderator's suggestion that the person in question die due to lack of care.  (Notice the classy sign being held by the Tea Bagger in the attached link.)

Tea Party And Ron Paul Cheer The Death Of An Uninsured 30 Year Old

Example two occurred during this week's Republican/Tea Party presidential debate.  While the aforementioned Gov. Perry was attempting to attack former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's healthcare plan, the Tea Baggers in the audience actually cheered at the idea of a twentysomething dying because he/she could not afford health insurance.  Yes, you read that right.  The Tea Party is happy about death by poverty.  Just when you think they can't be any more reprehensible...........  See the 9:23pm entry in the attached link.

An Uninsured Twentysomething Died? Hell, Yes!!!!!!!!!

And here is a very personal story from someone who lost an uninsured loved one to cancer.  I am sure my Tea Bagger readers either won't read this link, or will come up with some ignorant, inane "reason" why this man should have suffered like he did, and I can tell you on first hand authority that this is not an isolated incident.

Here Is What You Shameful Tea Party Hacks Are Cheering

Ladies and gentlemen, I just cannot fathom this.  The Tea Baggers are happy, nay---celebratory, because those who cannot afford health insurance may prematurely die.  Yeah, that is just great.  You scumbags make me oh-so-proud to be an American.  The biggest problem this country has right now is that all anyone cares about is what they have and how they can keep it.  If the other guy doesn't have it and has no chance to get it, who gives a damn as long as I can keep mine!!!!  Unconscionable!!!!  What is wrong with the people in this country???  Have we lost our compassion and charity??????  The Tea Party most assuredly does not represent the America that I love and am sworn to defend.  I do not recognize the America that they put forth, and I hope you don't either, dear reader.  Let us be sure that their despicable agenda is stopped in its tracks.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Is Congress Too Childish To Compromise?

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand why members of congress, who are allegedly adults, seem incapable of compromising with each other.  Take the "Gang Of Six" proposal to resolve the ongoing debt ceiling issue as an example.

Congress Curbs Enthusiasm for "Gang of Six" Plan


The numbers and statistics of this issue have been reported ad infinitum, and I shall not bore you with them again.  What concerns me about this issue, and so many others, is the absolute refusal of the two parties in congress to negotiate and compromise with each other.  The Republicans scream because the Gang of Six proposal increases taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  The Democrats scream because the Gang of Six proposal cuts entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid.  They seem to be totally unwilling to budge from their respective positions.

Well, you know what?  I'm a liberal.  I utterly hate the thought of cutting entitlements for the poor and senior, and God forbid the millionaires and billionaires in this country could pay just a bit more in taxes.  However, desperate times call for desperate measures.  As an American first and a liberal second, I think it is unconscionable for my fellow Democrats to utterly refuse to even consider modest cuts to entitlements, and I find it equally repugnant that the Republicans won't even consider modest tax increases on their millionaire buddies.  If nothing else, why won't they let the unnecessary Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire?  Why won't Democrats cut some of obvious waste from our entitlement programs?

My point being at when do these people stop pandering to their bases and do what is best for the country?  Are they so polarized and beholden to the far left and far right that they won't even discuss these matters?  Folks, I am far from an economist, but I can tell you with certainty that we are not going to get out of this mess by solely cutting spending with no tax increases any more that we are going to tax our way out of it without spending cuts.  We are all going to have to bite the bullet before the US becomes the next Greece or Portugal.  Are our elected officials more concerned with winning their next election than they are with the long term prosperity of our nation?

When I was a child, my parents taught me that adults compromise and negotiate with each other; not everyone gets everything they want all the time.  It seems like sound advice to me.  What do you think, dear readers?  If you and I understand this concept, why don't our elected representatives?  It all seems so childish and so shortsighted.  What happened to reaching across the aisle and working with the opposite party?  We are all Americans after all, regardless of party affiliation or political views.

I would like to urge all of you to contact your representatives and senators and tell them to grow up, talk to each other, compromise with each other, and work together to solve the country's problems!!!

On a completely unrelated note, I would like to express my sincere thanks to everyone who worked on the space shuttle program for the past thirty years.  American is proud of you, and your place in history in unquestioned.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Science Class Or Christian Indoctrination Class?

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand why state boards of education and elected officials insist on trying to inject their personal religious beliefs into public school science classes.  Tonight's articles are from the State of Texas, but this type of thing happens on a regular basis all across America. 
Texas School Board To Push For "Intelligent Design"?

Texas In A "Spiritual Battle" In Science Class?

I just don't understand this on many different levels, folks.  First, these are public schools.  It has been the law of the land for many years that religion is not to be taught in public schools.  Public taxes are not to be used for religious indoctrination.  If you want to teach your child about your religion, I have no issue with that.  Just please do so in the house of worship of your choice, in a religious school, or a combination thereof.  However, it has no place in a publicly funded school.

Another thing that bothers me is the amount of time, money, and resources that are utilized by the religious right to try to interject their views into public education.  American children continue to lag behind children in other industrialized nations in math and science scores.  Major corporation and health care providers have to recruit outside the US to find competent engineers, mathematicians, scientists, and physicians.  American children don't even know the history (the true history, mind you, not the Sarah Palin version) of our country, and, yet untold millions of dollars are spent trying to convert science teachers into Christian messengers.  Am I the only one that sees the connection between these things?  Perhaps if we actually taught our children math and real science (not "intelligent design"), we wouldn't be importing our engineers, scientists, and medical doctors from Europe, Asia, and South Asia.  (And yet the same people who want to inject religious dogma into science classes also bellyache about immigration, but, once again, I digress............)

Another point, ladies and gentlemen, why is there no thought whatsoever given to children who are not Christians?  I realize Texas isn't the most multicultural place in the US, but I can promise you that 100% of the population is not Christian.  Why is there no thought given to the Jewish child, the Muslim child, the Buddhist child, the Wiccan child, the Atheist child, and so on?  The lack of respect and consideration, to borrow a phrase from a dear friend of mine, is simply stunning. 

The lat point I want to make is that I am utterly baffled by how Texas Governor, Rick Perry, a Republican of course, can actually be considered a viable presidential candidate when he has been the driving force behind this nonsense over the past few years.  Will he try to do to American what he is trying to do to Texas?  Between that and recalling how tragically wrong things went the last time we elected a GOP governor from Texas as president, I certainly hope Perry's obvious presidential ambitions never get off the ground.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Are Bachman And Santorum This Ignorant?

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand how any person who wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate could sign the Family Leader's so-called "marriage vow".  (Pun intended, I am sure.)  Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't seen this pledge, its original text essentially stared that African American children were better off being born into slavery, where according to this right wing group, both parents were most likely to be present (unless of course one parent was killed or sold off by their owner, but I digress with those pesky historical facts again) as opposed to being born now into a single parent family. 

Read The "Vow" Here

Historically inaccurate, you say?  Outrageously offensive to African Americans, you say?  Insulting to single parents nationwide, you say?  Blatantly bigoted, you say?

Well, I say you're right.  However, Republican (of course) presidential candidates, Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum do not agree with you.  Both of these ultra-conservative candidates have vowed to stand by this pledge with Rep. Bachman being the first to actually sign the pledge and return it to Family Leader.

Now, this extreme right-wing organization has since backed off on this part of their pledge, but the rest of the document is almost equally offensive, mean spirited, and undignified.  Oddly, only GOP candidate Mitt Romney has had the decency to say so.

Right Wing Groups Back Off On Offensive Slavery Language

Mitt Romney Shows Some Class

My question, dear readers, is how Bachman and Santorum could actually agree with this pledge in any for, let alone its original form?  Do they really believe what was written, or are they pandering to the religious right that controls the modern day Republican Party?  Which answer to that question is less disturbing?  Do they actually think black kids were better off being born into slavery, or are they so determined to kowtow to the religious right that they will promise to follow and pledge or vow put in front of them? 

Is this what the Republican Party has become?  Is this what the right wing in this country has become?  If so, ask me again why I am a liberal and a Democrat.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Presidential Debates On Twitter? RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know what I don't understand?  I don't understand how anyone can actually think political discourse, up to and including presidential debates, should be conducted on Twitter.

Explain Your Position On Tax Reform In 140 Characters Or Less

True confession time...............  I have a Twitter account, but I rarely use it for anything but to post this blog and a "Song Of The Day" for my fellow music lovers.  When I watch people attempt to "debate" politics on Twitter, I never know if I should laugh or cry at the sheer absurdity of it.   For the record, "BHO is an idiot" and "Palin is a moron" and the other thoughtful insight you will find on Twitter do not qualify as intelligent political discussion, at least by my definition.

Now, it is one thing for common citizens and even elected officials to make 140 character statements about the issues of the day and current policy, even though Twitter itself is, by far, the silliest thing I have ever seen.  I mean, really, how can one express a logical thought or opinion in 140 characters?

It was bad enough that President Obama chose to hold a "Twitter Townhall" earlier this week (where he at least did not limit his responses to the 140 characters), but now there are discussion about a presidential debate on Twitter?  I wish I were making this up, but I am not.

Has political debate in this country really sunk to this level?  We are going to limit political discussion to a limited number of characters with no regard to grammar, spelling, or punctuation.  Seriously?  Have we really been this dumbed down as a nation?  The Lincoln-Douglas debates have regressed to...............Twitter.  God save us if this is the case. 

I was bemused by the gentleman in the article who said Twitter will essentially force candidates to "answer the question".  You don't say?  I can hardly wait to hear our potential future leaders explain their stance on the Middle East peace process, the tax code, the threat of terrorism, same sex marriage, etc. in 140 characters.  (I take very little solace from the fact that "multiple tweets" will be permitted during this proposed debate.  The whole concept is still sodding inane.)

I understand that media changes, and our politics have to evolve, but Twitter?????????????  May the Good Lord help us.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.

Rick Santorum Is Against All Abortions Except For His Wife's??

You know what I don't understand? I don't understand how Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, can be so steadfast in his assertion that abortion should be illegal in absolutely all cases and that physicians who provide the service should be prosecuted when his wife, Karen, is reported to have had an abortion.

Santorum Is against Abortion Unless HIs Wife Needs One

So let's see if I understand this. Santorum thinks women should bear the children of rapists and incestuous relatives while their medical doctors should be criminalized for providing abortion services. Santorum thinks that all abortions should be illegal even if the mother's health is at stake unless it is his wife's well being that is at stake.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Or is it?

Folks, as a pro-choice American, I am not too sure this story passes the smell test. Let me elaborate. Did Karen Santorum's physician intentionally terminate her pregnancy, or did Karen Santorum suffer irreversible premature labor resulting in the loss of her fetus? If it is the latter, Mrs. Santorum had a spontaneous abortion, what laymen refer to as a "miscarriage", which is a totally different matter than an elective abortion, which is the medically induced termination of a pregnancy.

The End of Karen Santorum's Pregnancy

Are Pro-Choice Activists Lying About Santorum's Abortion?

You know, folks, it is extraordinarily difficult to sift through the falderal on the internet regarding this topic. Frankly, I don't know what the truth is; and equally bluntly, if Karen Santorum had an elective abortion, I doubt very seriously if Rick Santorum will ever admit to it.

What I do know is this. If Mrs. Santorum did, indeed, undergo medically necessary elective abortion in order to save her life, Candidate Santorum has no right whatsoever to deny the right to the same life saving procedure to any other American woman.

What I also know is that if fellow pro-choice Americans are twisting, distorting, and/or spinning the facts of this matter into half-truths to suit their agenda, they are behaving unconscionably; as unconscionably as those who harass, intimidate, and threaten women entering abortion clinics. If we want reproductive choice to remain the law of the land, we must present our case factually and without the heated, baseless pretentious moral outrage often put forth by the pro-birth crowd.

Take one thing away from this, ladies and gentlemen. Pregnancy, sex, reproduction, childbirth, choice, and abortion are highly sensitive, personal matters. Can we agree that they are no one's business or concern but the mother, the father, their physician, and their God? If so, then you understand why I am a pro-choice American.

Peace and love, my brothers and sisters.