I want to work. Why won't anyone let me?...

I want to know exactly what I'm supposed to do.

I came east to look for work almost a month ago. I started putting in job applications even before I started the journey out here, and I've put more applications in since I got here. Nothing.

Well, not much. I've got a meeting scheduled on Tuesday with someone about some editing work, but as I understand it, that's a one-off deal, not actual ongoing employment. It's a good thing, but not nearly what I need right now, which is a steady job.

I've also not had any luck finding a place to live, because everyone wants to rent only to students or people who've already got work, even if they have enough money to move in. I'm in a motel right now, but I can't afford to do that for too much longer, and could soon find myself out on the street.

Except, you know, how am I supposed to look for work and go on interviews from the street? At minimum, I need a safe place to sleep and a place to shower and wash my clothes and hair on a regular basis. Yet, apparently, those kinds of places do not exist for people who cannot provide it for themselves.

Oh, and a phone. Don't forget the phone. Have you ever tried to look for work without a phone? No? Well, let me tell you, it's impossible. In fact, these days, it's well nigh impossible to do a job search without reliable access to the Internet, since that's the way most businesses take applications now - even fast food joints now often require job applicants to fill out an online application. Yet, I see and hear comments from people all the time to the effect that people who are poor don't deserve to have a cell phone or internet access, usually right after compaining that "those people" are too lazy to go out and get a job anyway.

What's the message I'm getting from all this? Plainly, that anyone who does not already have a job, how has fallen on difficult times for whatever reason, does not deserve a job.

This is making me very angry right now, especially since when I was growing up I was told over and over and over again that if I did the right things - got an education, stayed out of trouble, honored my parents, and remained ambitious - there would be a job for me and a roof over my head and at least enough food on the table to keep me healthy.

Apparently I was lied to. I resent that because, you know, I'm intelligent, I have a college education, I gave up my life for several years to take care of my dying mother (which was a 24/7 job in itself, but I also worked in a work-at-home job, and a good one, for the entire time my mother was ill and for nearly three years afterward, until I got laid off due to the poor economy), and then when I couldn't find another paying job I started doing volunteer work so that I would feel like I was contributing something to society.

But I guess that isn't good enough. I guess I'm supposed to just quietly go off somewhere and starve to death, or get sick because I don't (or soon won't) have a roof over my head, or fall victim to violence on the street, or just fall over from exhaustion because those with nowhere else to go are apparently not even allowed to sit down, much less have a place to safely lay their head to get a few hours sleep at night.

That is not the culture I grew up in. The culture I grew up in helped people get back on their feet and into productive work. Those in positions of leadership didn't attempt to game the system so that once people are down, they are denied a chance to get back up again, which is what seems to be happening now.

You know, I want to work. I don't want to die, cold and alone out on the street. But it looks very much like there are powers in this country who think that's all I deserve. Many of those folks, at least the ones in positions of power and influence, who are on the news and in the papers all the time, spend a lot of time standing up and proclaiming what good Christians they are. Well, as far as I can see, they never read their own scriptures, because the Jesus in the Bible I grew up with was all about helping people be the best they can be, and not putting a foot on their neck so that they have no chance to get up again.

This is my declaration to the people who don't think I deserve another chance, most of whom don't even know me, that I am not going to go quietly along with their program. If I can't find work because I can't do the minimum necessary to be a successful job hunter and then employee, I will kick and scream and let the world know exactly how hypocritical these folks who already have everything they need are when they praise God out of one side of their mouths and curse or ridicule those who don't have much (if anything at all) out of the other side of their mouths.

There is a scripture in the New Testament, in the Gospel of Matthew, chpater 25, verse 40, which says, "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." In other words, Jesus said that whatever you do to the members of society least able to help themselves, you have done the same to him.

Well, I've got news for the people I described above: If you consider yourselves such good Christians, how do you justify calling the poor and the unemployed the names you do? How do you justify just assuming that anyone who needs help getting back on their feet are drunks or drug addicts or lazy or stupid. Because, if Matthew 25:40 is true, then you just called the one you claim to worship a drunken, drug-addicted lazy idiot.

There's another scripture, one that I used to puzzle over, again a passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." That's Matthew 19:24, and I never could figure out why it would be so difficult for a rich person to go to heaven.

I get it now, after watching the behavior of certain leaders and opinion makers in this country who claim to be followers of Jesus but who appear to instead be following the Gospel of Gordon Geckko, the character portrayed by Micahel Douglas in the film "Wall Street", who famously said at one pont in the movie: "The point...is that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Funny, that. I don't remember anything that sounds remotely like that coming out of the mouth of Jesus in the Gospels. It also says in the Bible, in Matthew 6:24, that "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." With mammon, of course, being material wealth, otherwise known as greed.

And one other Biblical admonition, as long as I'm going there: In Matthew 7:12, it is stated as "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would do that men should do to youm do ye even so unto them." Then, in Luke 6:31, it is said this way: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." In less Elizabethan language, "Treat people the way you want to be treated." This has been known as the Golden Rule, a term that appeared in the late 1600s but was a part of ethics and morality for much longer.
Only, too many of those same politicians and opinion makers seem to follow the other Golden Rule - "Do unto others before they do it to you." In practical terms, what that seems to mean to them is, take everything you can from everyone you can, even those who can least afford it, before they put you in a position of not being able to gather more and more material wealth for yourself, in some cases more than you would be able to spend in several lifetimes.

I apologize for turning this into a scripture-quotation frenzy. And I apologize, too, for sounding as if there are not generous people in the world, Christian and non-Christian. I'm living proof that there is a lot of generosity out there, and I'm grateful that I've been gifted with some of that generosity, which I intend to pay back or pay forward, or both, at the first opportunity. But the fact remains that people - espeically the people I know - don't have much to give, and shouldn't have to give it anyway, because in many cases, they're just barely getting by and have troubles of their own.

My argument is with the people who try to stand in the way of other people's prosperity so that they can have more for themselves by making it more and more difficult for those who have fallen on hard times to return to prosperity, and who try to justify their obstructionism by waving their religion around for all to see, another concept that the Bible I grew up reading did not recommend.

Honestly. All I want is a job so that I can take care of myself and not have to ask family, friends, or the goverment to help take care of me. My family and friends cannot afford it, and some of those same people I was criticisng earlier want to fix it so that the governemnt won't be able to afford it, or be able to do it even if it can afford it, either. I don't want to "start at the top", and I don't want a palace to live in and a fancy car to drive. But I think every human being deserves a roof over their head and enough food on the table to eat, and a job to earn those for themselves if they are capable. Even me.

A deal is reached...but will they vote on it?

News organizations are now reporting that a deal has been reached to re-open the US government and to avoid default by the US government on its obligations. This is how CNN is reporting the deal.

According to these reports, the deal will fund the government through January 7 and raise the debt limit until February 7. Which is something, but not exactly a lasting solution to the arguments that have been going on. The Tea Party Republicans who had been holding the government hostage in order to try to defund or reverse the Affordable Care Act were thrown a bone in the form of strengthening verification for those receiving subsidies for their coverage under the ACA, apparently allowing them to claim some sort of victory for their efforts.

Of course, I'll believe all of this when I see it. But, it is also being reported that Ted Cruz, one of the leaders in trying to repeal the ACA, has said he will not attempt any procedural strategies or revisit his filibuster in an attempt to derail votes in the Senate and House, which could, it is said, come as early as tonight. However, Cruz did pledge to continue his campaign against the ACA.

What remains to be seen, if course, if John Boehner allows this plan to come to a vote in the House of Representatives, is how it will affect his Speakership in the House of Representatives. Basically, he has lost a fight that at least the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was seriously invested in. That wing of the party will not be happy with him. But he has also let this farce go on for much too long, and the moderates in the Republican Party, who have been warning about the dangers of taking the tack Boehner and the Tea Partiers have (shutting down the government and risking default) all along will not be happy with him, either. Both groups could well seek to strip him of his leadership position.

Like I said, I won't trust this deal until it is done, voted on, and the government resumes full operation. And I definitely don't trust the Tea Partiers not to try to pull the same thing in January if no lasting agreement is reached before then. Because, you know, I don't trust that wing of the Republican Party any farther than I can thrown two elephants sitting on a grand piano.

If this had been a real issue, this insistence they have on repealing the ACA, I might not have such a problem with this whole thing. But it really isn't. As I've said before here, the ACA was passed legally after lots of wrangling and some concessions by supporters of the program. It was signed legally by the President of the United States. It was even upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Additionally, the ACA's opponents have tried somewhere between 40 and 45 times to defund or repeal it. In all those times, they have not been able to muster enough votes to do anything near repeal. And yet, there they stood, stomping their feet like toddlers and obstructing the operation of the government unless they got their way.

That's just childish.

Not that the results have been childish. People's lives have been disrupted. Government workers were put on furlough, losing their pay, or worse, were required to work without pay. And when some worried how they were going to pay their mortgages and other bills, Representative Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico) suggested that they go down to the bank and get a loan to pay their bills. Let me suggest that Pearce, who is a millionaire, is a little out of contact with how the real world works. I suppose Pearce and those like him also didn't care much that the WIC program, which provide nutritional assistance for women, infants, and children who would otherwise have to go without certain basic healthy foods.

I have to admit that this whole episode has left me upset. I don't understand how our system allows a small minority of legislators hold the country hostage in an effort to get what they want. I also don't understand the mindset that has them do this and then some of them threaten that if the President did not knuckle under to their demands and the government went into default, that they would begin impeachment proceedings against him because he wasn't doing his job. This, after the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives changed the rules so that instead of any member being able to bring a vote on reopening the government to a vote on the floor, only the Majority Leader or his designee were allowed to bring the issue to a vote. So much for democracy.

We'll see what happens later today and in the days go come. I'm not monitoring the news right now; I'm sick of hearing about the whole thing. However things go, I'll likely have more to say as events develop.

JUST BY WAY OF A QUICK UPDATE: Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have voted to reopen the government and temporarily raise the debt ceiling. The measure passed the Senate by 81-18, while the House passed the agreement by 285 - 144. Of course, we get to do the whole thing over in January and February. It's more than I expected this morning, however.

The politics of hissy-fits...

Sigh.

I really don't want to write about politics today.

Actually, I don't really want to write about much of anything today. I've got horrible allergies, and for me that means that I feel like someone hit me in the middle of the face with a baseball bat. Well, as a matter of full disclosure, I've never actually been hit in the face with a baseball bat, so I can only imagine what it feels like. I have, however, been hit in the head with a baseball bat, and so I know how much that hurt. Extrapolating from that, I can imagine what it would feel like to get hit in the face. Also, my throat is sore.

However...

I have to say that I am very, very, very disappointed in the Tea Party Republicans and those who are so afraid of them in Congress that they went along with this stupid coupling of funding the government with defunding the Affordable Care Act. I'm disappointed that they would do this in the first place, and I'm even more disappointed that they are turning around and trying to blame the President and the Democrats for being the actual culprits in the government shutdown/slowdown/whatever you want to call it.

The Republicans are the ones who linked the two - the ACA and funding the government - in legislation. No one forced them to do that. They aren't willing to compromise, yet they turn around and blame the President and his party for not compromising. Which, of course, in the minds of the Tea Partiers, means nothing less than having Obama and the Democrats kneeling down and knuckling under and giving the obstructionists in the Republican party their way.

And, make no mistake, I'm not blaming all of the Republican Party for this, or even all the Republicans in positions of importance. There have been those in the party who have been trying to tell the Tea Partiers, the obstructionists, that they are not doing anything good for their country. But this small group (some estimates say that there are only 35 House members who are really dedicated to this course of action) will not listen, and are perfectly happy to hold the entire nation hostage in an attempt to force their agenda on a nation that clearly does not want it.

The thing is, the ACA was passed lawfully. It was signed into law by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Tea Party wing of the Republican party has tried somewhere between 40 and 45 times to defund or repeal the ACA and has not had the votes to do so any of those times. Yet they persist in their course. This says to me one thing: Their real aim is to be dictators and force their ideology on a country that does not want it.

This is not a course of action that comports with the values that the United States was founded upon.

Honestly, at this point, I can only conclude that the people who have pushed this course of action, Ted Cruz at the head of them, are acting like a bunch of five-year-olds who are convinced that if they just throw enough of a hissy fit, their parents will give them their way just to shut them up. I saw this sort of behavior on a more or less constant basis when I worked in retail. The kid would be screaming and crying and stomping their feet and, in order to get them to quiet down and stop being so embarrassing, their parent would give in and buy them the toy or the candy that they wanted. Which did (sometimes) shut them up for the moment. But, I can guarantee you, because the behavior was rewarded, they did it the next time they went to the store and they wanted something that it looked like their parent wasn't going to give them.

It's the same with the people who linked the ACA with funding the government. They are throwing a legislative fit because they haven't been getting their way. If the President and the Democrats back down and give them what they want now, the Tea Partiers will only throw a fit again, and take the country hostage again, the next time they don't get what they want. It is imperative that they not be encouraged in this juvenile behavior.

Ted Cruz and the others who have forced this shutdown on the country should be ashamed of themselves. They don't have the best interests of the nation at heart. They only care to take more power and wealth and attention for themselves, and the hell with the rest of us.

Yes, I am very, very disappointed in them. Not surprised that they would do this; it is in their character. They are, after all, authoritarians at heart. But, yes, extremely disappointed.

And...the Birthers are at it again

It looks like the birthers are not going to go away anytime soon.

Only this time their target is not Barack Obama. They aren't even railing against a Democrat or a liberal this time.

Instead, there are those insisting that Texas Senator Ted Cruz, part of the rightest right of the Republican Party and a darling of the Tea Party, is not eligible to run for president, as he is showing every indication of wanting to do. These people are contending that he is not a "natural born citizen", as the US Constitution requires to be eligible to hold the highest office in the land.

Here's the deal: Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a US citizen. He holds both Canadian and US citizenship. This, some people say, means that he is not eligible to be President of the United States, based on criteria outlined in the US Constitution.

Now, I have to admit that it's tempting to sit back and watch the Tea Party be hoist on its own petard. There is something satisfying in the idea of having them have to see how it feels to have one of their own accused of not being qualified. on this technicality, to lead the country.

I also have to confess that there are many reasons why I do not want to see Ted Cruz in the White House, not the least of which is the fact that he seems to think the comparisons that have been made between him and late Senator Joseph McCarthy, who led the way in causing so much misery in the 1950s as he saw a Red under every bed, are complimentary. He's been quoted as saying that the comparisons mean that he must be "doing something right." He won't go so far as to say publicly that he admires McCarthy's attitudes and tactics, but it seems clear that the assumption that he does admire Red-baiter McCarthy is not far from the mark. Also, the Libertarians like him, and I'm not a big fan of that particular political and social outlook on life.

But, as much as I'd hate to see Cruz elected to, well, almost anything, claiming on this technicality that he is not eligible to run is not a smart way to keep him from running. Unless there is a clear ruling from a court saying that to be considered a "natural born citizen", a person has to have been born on US soil, having a parent who is a citizen should be the standard for citizenship. Period.

Just as trying to make sure that only people you think will vote for your candidates can participate in the electoral process (voter suppression) is not a legitimate tactic, neither does trying to prove that candidates whose positions you don't like aren't eligible to run at all constitute an acceptable way to stack the electoral deck in your favor.

Not in the America I grew up in. In the America I grew up in, we were taught to play fair.

Taking a birther position in a case like this is not anywhere near playing fair.

In which Priebus threatens to flounce...

At this point, the Republican National Committee is just acting childish.

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the RNC has laid down a challenge to CNN and NBC: cancel planned projects about former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the Republicans will not "partner with" either network "in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor."

The quotes are from letters Priebus sent to the two networks, by the way.

So, basically, what the RNC is saying, "if you don't play by our rules, we're going to take our toys and go home." In essence, they are threatening to flounce. Kids flounce. Divas flounce. Responsible adults, and organizations run by responsible adults, do not flounce.

Of course, what the RNC is claiming is that the programs, a feature-length documentary to be aired by CNN sometime next year and a four-part miniseries scheduled to be shown on NBC in 2015, are really just elaborate campaign ads, efforts to promote Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign. Which I find kind of funny, considering that there is no indication at this point from Clinton or anyone else that she is going to make another run for the White House.

To their credit, both CNN and NBC have said they will continue to participate in the projects, while NBC has pointed out that the mini-series they plan to broadcast is under the auspices of their entertainment division and has nothing to do with their news division.

I think there a couple of things going on here.

First of all, this is just another attempt by the ruling right wing of the Republican Party to control the national conversation. This is nothing new. They have previously shown a willingness to do anything they need to in order to be able to define the rules of the campaign and control the information that the American people are allowed to receive. They want, specifically, to have the deciding say in where the primary debates are held, who can participate in them, who can moderate them, what questions are asked during the debates, and who can broadcast them.

The issue of who can participate in primary debates, which are between members of one party, is particularly problematic for the Republicans, who complained during the 2012 primaries that, especially early on, too many Republican candidates were allowed to participate, taking the focus off the two or three candidates in their party who the RNC wanted to be perceived as the front-runners. Here, again, the RNC's control issues are apparent, with them wanting to be able to decide even which candidates should be taken seriously.

This is not to say that I think all of the candidates among the Republicans in the last election cycle should have been taken seriously. Clearly, some of them were not only not really serious but not even close to qualified. But I also think that there were candidates who had serious qualifications who were quickly marginalized by the party leadership because they were not seen as sufficiently to the right. I think that during the primaries any candidate who can put together enough money, enough supporters, and enough media attention to be visible nationally should get to participate in debates, at least until the various primaries, caucuses, and state conventions start showing who the public considers to be the viable candidates by winning votes and endorsements.

The other thing, I think, that is going on, is an attempt to sabotage the existence of primary debates altogether. The Republicans, or the leadership, at least, have very vocally complained about the number of debates last primary season. I think the problem they see is that, in the debates, the candidates started to say what they really believe and, in some cases, showed themselves for who they really are, and in some cases (I'm looking at you, Rick Perry) how incompetent they really are to run anything, much less the most powerful nation in the world.

I think the Republican Party apparatus would be just as happy if their candidates did not have to participate in any debates, did not have to talk to the press at all, and didn't have to make any statements about where they really stand on issues. Look at the end of the 2012 presidential campaign, after the conventions. How long did Mitt Romney go without making any statements to the media at all following the revelation of "47 percent" comments that got him in so much trouble? The RNC knows that their candidates' positions on many issues do not resonate with many, many people in the country, including many, many Republicans. They realize that their candidates have a better chance of being elected if the voters don't know their candidates' positions on the issues.

There is a third thing going on, I think, around this attempt to prevent the airing of projects concerning Clinton. Ever since Bill Clinton was elected president, actually ever since before that election, the Republican leadership has made no secret of their hatred for the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill. I think something else they are trying to do here is to erase, to the extent they can, all mention of the former President and the former Secretary of State. It's kind of like the thing that used to happen in ancient Egypt, where an incoming ruler would sometimes to back and obliterate all mention of the former pharaoh by physically scratching his (or her; there were a few female pharaohs) name from every monument they ever had erected.

So, the Republican leadership are showing their asses again. This really should not be a surprise. But you'd think that they would at least hire spokespersons who can conduct himself like an adult, rather than employing people like Reince Priebus, who sounded like a child in a report about this issue, broadcast by ABC News, where he is seen saying that "we are done playing in the sandbox..." in relation to his demands to CNN and NBC.

Priebus might as well have thrown a tantrum, stomped his feet, and come right out and said, "Do what we want, or we're taking our toys and going home."

I have no words...well, just a few

Apparently, I am not capable of reasoned commentary today. I've been trying, for the past oh, forty-five minutes or so, to write something about the day's hijinks in US politics. Something, you know, coherent. But the only thing that keeps coming out of my fingers and onto my computer monitor is anguished but incomprehensible moaning and tearing of hair.

Because those people are insane.

The only other alternative is that it's me who is insane, but I refuse to believe that. Because, you know, I'm fine with disaster relief going to those whose lives have been torn apart by Hurricane Sandy. And because I don't think the solution to violence against women is to let the Violence Against Women Act, passed in 1994 and renewed twice, expire.

It would be slightly amusing - if it weren't so horrible - that some of those the House GOP leadership has pissed off in regards to not bringing a bill to fund disaster relief to vicitms of Sandy in a timely manner are members of their own party. For example, this statement of righteous indignation from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:



Now, I'm not a huge fan of Chris Christie, and I'm fairly sure that he has politidcal reasons of his own for saying what he said, but he still has the right of it here, and refused to pull his punches just because it was the leadership of his own party that is the problem. This is as it should be. It is ridiculous that Speaker Boehner, who was relected to his post in the House today, but only barely, would not even take Gov. Christie's calls over the issue.

There are things I have to say about all of this and more, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do it right now without the liberal use of profanity. The House GOP leadership doesn't want to help women who are victims of violent crime. They don't want to help people whose homes and livelihood were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Some GOP Representatives have said that they are quite willing to hold the government hostage by shutting it down over the budget and the debt ceiling. And, now, House Speaker John Boehner has said he will no longer negotiate one-on-one with President Barack Obama.

I think someone needs to remind the GOP leadership of a couple of things. First, while they maintain a majority in the House, they lost seats both there and in the Senate in the November election, and their presidential candidate was defeated by the incumbent president, the one they vowed to limit to just one term. Second, they need to be reminded that they work for the citizens, all the citizens, of their respective districts and states, and that they are there to serve them, not to carry out their own personal and political agendas.

Romney is just digging his hole deeper...

In a phone call to some of his campaign donors on Wednesday, Mitt Romney managed to dig his hole even deeper than it already was and has, in the process, started to turn even those who supported him in the election against him quite vocally.

Making excuses for his loss, Mitt first and foremost said that he thinks Obama won the election last week because he gave stuff to minorities and women. Essentially, this is his "47 percent" argument all over again. It doesn't work any better now than it did then.

But that isn't his only excuse. He also blames too many debates during the primaries, which "opened us up to gaffes and to material that could be used against us in general." He wants his party to cut short its primary process to avoid this.

My reaction to this? Mitt, if you hadn't made those "gaffes" in the first place and hadn't said things that were stupid and changed your positions on issues on a distressingly regular basis, maybe the Democrats wouldn't have had so much to use against you. Just sayin'.

Mitt also criticized the networks that hosted his debates with President Obama, saying those networks, including CNN and NBC, were just showcasing "liberals beating the heck out of us." If that was what was going on, Mitt didn't seem to be hesitating to give them plenty of ammunition to beat him with.

Meanwhile, at a meeting of the Republican Governors' Association in Las Vegas (what? they figure that after how the election turned out for them, their luck has to get better, and soon?) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour both rejected Mitt's assessment.

Jindal also said that the Republicans need to "make serious changes" and called for his party to "modernize". Of course, this does not mean that Jindal, or any Republicans on the right have had a change of heart about their core values, and it could well be that Jindal especially is mostly about positioning himself for a run at the White House in four years.

However, he did also distance himself from campaign remarks made by losing senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock regarding rape, comments which many found shocking and lost both men their races. He called those comments about "legitimate rape" (from Akin) and that if a woman gets pregnant from a rape "that's what God intended" (from Mourdock) "offensive and inexcusable."

No matter his agenda, Jindal is the first anti-choice officeholder, as far as I can recall, to repudiate these remarks, and he should be given credit for that. Jindal went on to say, "I'm pro-life. I try to follow the teachings of my faith and church [Jindal is a Roman Catholic], but I don't think we have any business trying to demonize those we disagree with. I think we can be respectful."

If I've never agreed with anything else Jindal has ever said (and as far as I know, I haven't), I completely agree that demonizing "the other side", on any issue, is the wrong way to go about public discourse.

For both sides, because I'm realistic enough to know that the left often doesn't hesitate to demonize, too. It's just as wrong when they do it. I'll call all sides for doing and saying stupid things. But demonizing anyone in an argument is not a productive way to win your oppposition over.

It remains to be seen exactly how seriously Jindal means his remarks, and if any others in the Republican right will follow his lead and repudiate the "I'm right and you're evil and God hates you" approach so much of the far right seems so fond of. But at least he, and at least for the moment, isn't following lockstep the "we didn't say anything wrong" line that Akin and Mourdock asserted in the wake of their comments.

Not that the GOP is really playing nice, even in the wake of their defeats last week, hurling very ugly charges over the recent attack in Libya. But that's another discussion for another post. Right now, I just want to believe that somewhere, some Republican politicians are becoming a little more reasonable. I really don't understand why they can't be...most of the Republicans I know in real life are really very reasonable people.

Really.

Enough, already...

Is there some reason why the media in this country can't at least wait a week or two before they start talking about the next presidential election?

The election was two days ago. Not all the absentee and provisional ballots have even been counted yet. But it seems like all I've been hearing and reading today are speculations about who will run for President in 2016.

Since Barack Obama can't run again in 2016, names from both parties are being mentioned as possible contenders. On the Republican side, and since few people expect Mitt Romney to make another run, the most commonly-mentioned names are Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Florida senator Marco Rubio, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

There are troubles with most of these names. The Romney campaign all but hid Paul Ryan in the last weeks of the election. I suspect that they did not trusting him to stay on-message. New Jersey governor Chris Christie made points for fighting so hard to make sure the residents of his state got the aid they needed after Hurricane Sandy, but he lost points among the hierarchy in the GOP and the Romney campaign for appearing to be too friendly to, and saying nice things about, President Obama during that time. Jeb Bush, the son of one president and the brother of another, still has questions hanging over his head in some people's minds (including my own) about just how much of a role he had in the electoral shenanigans in his state during the 2000 presidential election. I don't know much about Marco Rubio, so I can't say what his strengths or handicaps might be should he decide to make a run for the White House.

On the Democratic side there is, of course, talk that current Vice President Joe Biden might run for President next time. There is also much speculation, especially after Bill Clinton took such a vocal role in the Obama campaign this year, that Hillary Clinton might be thinking about running again in 2016. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's name has also been mentioned. Another name I've been hearing, although he is apparently considered to be a longer-shot as a candidate, is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarigosa.

All the speculation is interesting, I'll admit. But I don't really care right now.

What I do care about is hearing about how the Republicans in Congress plan to dial back their ideological rhetoric and start doing the business of the country rather than simply trying to obstruct any legislation proposed by the Obama administration in the name of trying to deny Obama a second term. Since that plan failed and he can't run again, continuing to hold up important legislation will only be seen as mean and spiteful.

I also want to know what the leaders of the Republican Party are going to do to disassociate themselves from the misogynist, racist, and classist rhetoric we heard so much of during the run-up to the election. How are they going to step away from the excesses of the Tea Party? I want to hear them say that, yes, Barack Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. And that it wouldn't matter if he was a Muslim. I want them to put a stop to this "birther" nonsense coming from the extremists in their party.

And, dear God, I want them to put a muzzle on Donald Trump, who holds no position in the GOP, but walks around like his money and notoriety give him some special dispensation to interject himself into the political conversation, to the point that he clearly retains only a tenuous grasp on reality.

I would also like the Republicans to step away from Rush Limbaugh, but I suspect that that's asking too much.

But, mostly, I'd love it if I didn't have to hear about politics at all for at least a little while. I'd like to see all the campaign signs down. And I'd like to pretend that the next campaign for California governor won't start ramping up in about six months, since it's just two years until that election. This is especially something I' like, considering that by the time that's over, the next campaign for President will be strating in earnest.

In the name of God? Really?

I'm really not what you'd call a religious person. Even so, I don't have a problem with religion in general, and while I'm agnostic on the subject of deity, I tend to lean toward their being some kind of power that we don't yet understand, some kind of organizing force, in the universe. Might just be the laws of physics, might be something more godlike, as many people define that concept. I haven't seen conclusive proof of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

At any rate, I don't go around dismissing or disrespecting religion in general or, usually, in specific.

I have my moments however, when I question the usefulness of some forms of religious belief, that some believers interpret as giving them the right to hurt, maim, and kill anyone who does not conform to their particular set of beliefs. So, stories like the one I read this morning on Yahoo! news, reported from an ABC News story, make me angry and sad, in turn. But mostly angry.

The story reports yet another incident in Pakistan where parents have been arrested for allegedly killing their daughter by pouring acid over her head and face, and all over her body. Then, then waited overnight to take her to a hospital, where she died in what was described as a "slow and excruciatingly painful" manner.

Her crime, as her parents perceived it? She talked to an "unknown boy".

Excuse me?

Yes, I know that rigid and strict interpretations of some forms of Islam regard a woman talking to, or even being seen with, a boy they are not related to by blood as a sin. One thing that has always puzzled me about these "honor killings", though, is that we never hear about the boys being punished for talking to the girl. But that's not the point here.

The point here is that people are going around killing, sometimes killing their own children, for something so trivial as talking to someone of the opposite sex that they aren't related to. That just isn't right. I don't care how ingrained in their culture or religion it is. It. Is. Just. Not. Right.

I'm NOT being anti-Islamic here, believe me. I would be saying the same thing if it were members of any other religion involved in something this stupid and horrible.

To make the point that this sort of thinking is not confined to Islam, let me remind you that there are people, advocates of what is called Christian Reconstructionism, who believe that the laws of the Old Testament should be enacted into secular law in the United States. This would include making such things as blasphemy (that would be cussing, among other things), adultery, children talking back to their parents, lying about one's virginity, apostasy (leaving your church or declaring unbelief in God), witchcraft, homosexuality, or bearing false witness in court, crimes punishable by death. Basically, they believe that anyone who does not conduct their life in accordance with the Reconstructionist interpretation of what God wants deserves to die.
Not that much different from many of the things that the most strict forms of Islam advocate, is it?

This philosophy also considers democracy to be incompatible with Christianity, by the way, and advocates institution of a theocracy in the United States. Just so you know where they're coming from politically.

And lest you think that this is just a small group of religious nut-jobs who have not had any influence on wider Christianity as it is practiced in the United States today, among those who have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism and the related Dominionist Theology, consider that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and D. James Kennedy (all of whom are or were very widely known televangelists, with large followings) all spoke admiringly and approvingly of books advocating this religious philosophy. The "father of Christian Reconstructionism", Rousas John Rushdoony, was on Robertson's "700 Club" television show several time.

Additionally, David Barton, a revisionist historian whose most recent book, "The Jefferson Lies", was withdrawn from publication by its Christian publishing house for being largely made up out of whole cloth, is an adherent of Reconstructionism. Barton has had a huge influence on the Christian Right and has been supported publicly by people like former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and broadcaster Glenn Beck. So, it isn't as if the views of Christian Reconstructionism haven't found their way into what has become widely recognized, if not precisely mainstream, religious and political thought in the United States.

The point that I'm trying to make here, although it's taking me a lot more words to do it than I had anticipated, is that while religion and religious believers have made wonderful contributions to the world, religion also manages, sometimes, to bring out the absolute worst, and most vicious, in human nature. And that part of religion, I don't believe, should be immune from criticism just because it is rooted in religious belief.

So, no, it isn't okay, no matter if you believe, as those parents in Pakistan apparently did, to go around killing your kids because they were disobedient in ways that are a normal part of human nature. Girls are going to want to talk to boys, and boys are going to want to talk to girls. What is not natural is thinking that this desire to socialize is a bad thing, to be prevented by whatever means necessary, including homicide.

As a trivial aside, by the way, while I was doing research for this post, I discovered that Rushdoony, the "father of Reconstructionism", grew up not far away from where I live now, in the small Central California town of Kingsburg. For some reason, I find that to be really creepy.

How many days left until the election?...

...because things are just getting stupider out there.

Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu said on CNN Thursday that he believes that former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired General Colin Powell has again endorsed President Barack Obama for a reason other than those Powell stated in an interview on CBS television earlier in the day.

The reasons Powell gave for his endorsement included his concern that Mitt Romney is a "moving target" on foreign policy issues and that he does not want to see Obamacare "thrown off the table." Powell also said that he supports Obama because the president got us out of one war, is in the process of getting us out of another, and hasn't gotten the country into any new wars, and that Mr. Obama's record on terrorism is "very, very good."

Powell's endorsement of Mr. Obama came even though Powell is a registered Republican.

And what was Sununu's take on the endorsement? He said that the real reason that Powell endorsed the Democratic Party's candidate for President is that they are both African Americans.

Now, this declaration from Sununu should not be surprising, considering earlier remarks from the former governor about Mr. Obama, including his comments that the President is "lazy" and that Mr. Obama needs to "learn how to be an American."

Of course, Sununu later moderated his comments about Powell's endorsement of Mr. Obama, allowing that he thinks that Powell endorsed the President because Powell supports Mr. Obama's policies. Neither the walk-back, nor the fact that it wasn't much of a walk-back and certainly not any kind of an apology for his earlier remarks, should be much of a surprise, given the Romney campaign and it's supporters' record of saying something outrageous and then pulling back without ever really disavowing what was said in the first place. It is a long record, much too long to reprise in full here.

The problem I have with all of this is that if someone from the Democratic Party got up on CNN and said that a prominent member of the Mormon church had endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy for president only because they are both Mormon, the Republicans would be out for blood, claiming religious bigotry and who knows what else. There would be outrage and angry accusations, at the very least.

How did Mr. Obama react to Sununu's remarks? He said in a radio interview today (Friday) that he would let Powell's statement stand on its own and that Sununu's remarks didn't "make much sense". Cool, calm, and collected. I doubt that we could have seen such equanimity from Romney, had the situation been reversed.

An open letter to Rush Limbaugh...

Mr. Limbaugh:

So, you apologized to Ms. Fluke for calling her degrading names just because she dared to speak her mind about the availability of insurance-covered birth control. Just because, you know, you don't agree with her.

So. I don't agree with you about a lot of things. Most things. Well, just about everything. Does that mean it's fine for me to call you degrading names?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

I also don't think your apology counts for much, since it didn't come for several days, and then only after calling her even more names and having some of your advertisers pull their ads from your show. I might buy it if you had used your "poor word choice" once, that first time. But when you did it again, on a completely different day, you lost the right to claim that you just used your words poorly, in the heat of your - what did you call it? - your "attempt to be humorous". What is ever humorous about calling a woman what you called Ms. Fluke?

There are things I could call you that you would find insulting. I won't do that, because I was brought up to believe that one just doesn't do that. Ever. And especially in public, in an attempt to gain ratings and earn money.

I am not personally an advocate, Mr. Limbaugh, of calling for people who do and say things I don't agree with to be fired from their jobs. Not even when their job is, as yours is, being a syndicated broadcaster who should know better. But, you know, I might be willing to make an exception in your case. You've been doing this for years, publicly assassinating the character of anyone you don't agree with. Even defenseless pre-teen or teen-age girls who did not ever ask to be in the public eye, but were only there because of the position of their parents. Yes, I remember what you said about Chelsea Clinton when she was very young and you insulted her looks in the very same venue where you insulted Ms. Fluke.

So, you know, Mr. Limbaugh, if you were sincerely sorry, you would take some time off and think about what you did, and what you do so often as part of your very privileged place in front of a microphone five days a week. You can afford it. Just think about what you do, how you seem to believe that anyone you don't agree with deserves to have their very reputations ruined in your attempts to be "humorous".

I'm sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, but I don't find you to be very funny.

Still, I'm not demanding that you be fired. All I'm asking is that you take a little time off and think, really think, about whether your part of the problem in broadcasting generally today, where character assassination seems to be completely accepted as a legitimate form of discourse, or whether you might be willing to be part of the solution by criticizing positions that you do not agree with rather than taking cheap shots at the people who hold those positions.

I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs, or the beliefs that you seem to think you need to espouse in order to keep your ratings. I'm just asking you to limit your criticisms to the ideas without assassinating the character of the people who express them. That is what civilized discourse is all about.

I'm old enough to remember when that was common practice in this great country of ours. You are slightly older than I am, sir, so you should be able to remember that time, as well.

Politics as usual?

I was going to write about my weekend today, now that I've recovered from it. No, nothing bad happened, it was just a fun, busy weekend. But after reading my usual news outlets, I changed my mind about what I need to say today.

And what I need to say today is that I'm really getting tired of listening to the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination trying to read each other, President Obama, and a lot of other people out of Christianity because they don't agree on their Christian theology. We have the evangelicals in the group insisting that Mitt Romney isn't really a Christian because he's Mormon. We've got the evangelicals bickering amongst themselves about which one is the "real" Christian. And we've got Rick Santorum, who seems to have some very peculiar hang-ups, being exposed as making a statement in 2008 that liberals cannot be Christians and saying, separately, that not drilling for oil and gas goes against Biblical principles because the Bible says that humans "have dominion" over the Earth.

I'm not trying to rob any of these people of their religious beliefs. However, I'm pretty annoyed that they seem to think they have the right to impose their various theologies on the rest of us. Which, by the way, Santorum is not even denying, with his statements that his religious views would impact the decisions he would make as president. Some of the candidates have been making some pretty strong statements about how they think President Obama is stomping on the religious rights of Christians, but they don't seem to have any compunction about privileging their religious beliefs over the religious beliefs of those who don't agree with them.

This all makes me kind of cranky, to be honest. Not that I expect any politician to exercise any sort of intellectual honesty, but I have to say it is pretty damn hypocritical for these guys (yes, it is back down to just guys now) to complain about having religious ideas they don't like imposed on them, while having no compunctions about imposing their religious ideas on others.

Then again, I don't think that candidates for secular office - and the Presidency is a secular office - should even be talking about religion, theirs or anyone else's. Whether they like it or not, the First Amendment clauses on religion, both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, are still in effect. This means that anyone is free to believe and behave according to their religious beliefs, but the government is not free to establish any particular flavor of those beliefs so that those who don't hold them have to live by them anyway.

Yeah. I'm ranting. To be totally honest, I think I've done very well to last this far into the primary season without a good rant about it all. And to be even more honest, while I don't love everything Mr. Obama has done during his term of office, he does not scare the crap out of me like the candidates for the Republican nomination do. This is not to say that I would never vote for a Republican for president, although that would be difficult for me to do while the Republican party is as far to the right as it is now, institutionally speaking. But I sure as hell would not vote for any of these Republicans.

What?...Just, What???

I'm having one of those seriously WTF moments, so please bear with me.

Today on my Facebook, one of my acquaintances there posted that they had become aware of a bumper sticker that asked those who read it to "pray for Obama" and then offered the Old Testament verse, Psalms 109:8, which reads,

Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

Some might find that innocuous, just asking for prayer that the president be out of office after not being there very much longer.

However, I wonder how many would still be comfortable with that sentiment if they saw that verse in its context. The verse starts out with the Psalmist, traditionally David according to the dedication at the beginning of the chapter, complaining that the "wicked" and the "deceitful" had spoken against him, have "rewarded me evil for good, And hatred for my love", and then launches into quite the tirade:

6 Set a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few,
And let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless,
And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg;
Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places.
11 Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him,
Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off,
And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

Clearly, the implication...no, not even implication, but overt call...is for the death of the "wicked" and "deceitful" person he is complaining about. By implication, that bumper sticker is calling for the death of the president, and for the ruin of his entire family, both now and in the future.

Aside from the violence called down on his family, which seems a bit like overkill to me; isn't it considered treason to call for the death of the president? Certainly, there were those during the time of Bush.2 who considered it treason to even criticize the president, let alone threaten him.

But the Psalmist doesn't stop there; he continues on:

14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,
And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be continually before the LORD,
That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;
16 Because he did not remember to show mercy,
But persecuted the poor and needy man,
That he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him;
As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
So let it enter his body like water,
And like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him,
And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.
20 Let this be the LORD’s reward to my accusers,
And to those who speak evil against my person.*

Um.

I did not vote for George W. Bush as president, and I did not support the majority of his policies. However, I never, ever prayed for his death. I hoped that he would have a nice, long, happy retirement as soon as he could legally be removed from office, and wasn't as hesitant as some to consider that he might have committed an impeachable offense. But I did not wish him harm, nor did I wish harm or unhappiness to his family, to his ancestors or to his descendants.

I find it incredibly disrespectful for people who portray themselves as Christians to call, even in this passive-aggressive way, for the death of the sitting president. I would find it incredibly disrespectful for anyone of any faith, or of no faith at all, to do so. But I was raised to believe that Christians are better than that. I don't believe that most Christians would do that.

So, I guess my question here is, What the hell is wrong with this (hopefully) small subset of people, that they feel entitled to wish for...no, advocate that people actively pray for...the death of someone who they don't agree with? I don't agree with a lot of people, but I don't wish any of them dead.

However, that post is going to be removed from my Facebook feed, because I cannot let such a sentiment remain on my Facebook page. I suppose that, arguably, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the person who posted that has a right to do so. I, however, do not violate that person's speech rights by not facilitating dissemination of her speech.

Additionally, I'm going to have to seriously consider whether I can keep the individual who posted it on as a Facebook friend.

*This translation, by the way, is the New King James Version, which I found at biblegateway.com.

What qualified this man to say this?

According to an article on Huffington Post yesterday, Tom Delay thinks that giving people unemployment benefits makes them lazy, no-accounts who just sit home and collect government money, not bothering to look for a job until just before their benefits run out.

Delay’s remarks came on one of the talking-heads Sunday shows on CNN, in defense of Senator Jim Bunning (Republican, of Kentucky) and his fillibuster blocking a vote on extended benefits for the jobless. Answering a question from the host of the show, Candy Crowley, in which she asked, “People are unemployed because they want to be?”, Delay said, “Well, it’s the truth, and people in the real world know it.”

Um. By what stretch of the imagination does Delay think he knows anything about the real world? Does he not know that most people who are unemployed do not qualify for benefits anyway. Those who were working part-time, in temporary jobs, or who are self-employed (that would include me) are not eligible. Additionally, you can’t just quit your job and receive jobless benefits; you have to be unemployed through no fault of your own.

Well, I guess you have to consider the source. Delay is, after all, under indictment on felony conspiracy charges involving campaign contributions, had to resign from his Senate seat due to the indictment, was tangled up with lobbyists for most of his political career, has promoted “birther” conspiracy beliefs which hold that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not legally eligible to be president, and believes that evolution should not be taught in the nation’s public schools because doing so leads to events like the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado in 1999.

I don’t even know what else to say. Delay has given every appearance of being a crooked politician with some fairly out-there views (not necessarily on the evolution issue, as lots of people believe pretty much the same thing he does; but the “birthers” are just plain loony). But he feels qualified to go around saying that people are unemployed because they want to be, and he expects us to all just accept his word on that.

Sorry. I don’t think so.