The other day I'm watching Rachel Madow interview Frank Rich from New York Magazine and they're in this deep discussion about the current strategy being deployed by Mittens Romney and his gaggle of hacks and it suddenly occurs to me that I'm watching a rerun of the brilliant 1984 movie Being There. The movie, based on a novel by the late Jerzy Kosinski, features the incomparable Peter Sellers as Chancy Gardner, a complete and total dimwit who only knows the world through a lifetime of watching television. Through ummm, chance and just dumb luck, the character ends up befriending the richest man in America, meets the POTUS, and as the movie ends, he's about to be called up to run the largest company in America by it's board of directors. Substitute Mitt for Chancy.
Now, to be clear, I am not calling Romney a dimwit. But as I sit watching all of these MSNBC pundits yakking away about the Romney camp and doing their best to decipher the latest anything being said, it's clear to me these people are playing chess while Romney and his crew are playing Chutes and Ladders. I mean, come on! Mitt and his band of bozos have yet to articulate anything with meaning. How will the deficit be reduced? What will he do about entitlement programs? How will he, the great job creator of yesterday, create jobs tomorrow? Oh yeah, by being a venture capitalist. The first thing those sharpies do after acquiring a business is ask how much fat can we trim (i.e. workers dismissed). It was NEVER about how many workers can we hire. The only economic anything from this guy to date is endorsing the Paul Ryan budget plan, which is, unbelievably, a plan to cut taxes further (especially for those rich mother-fucking job creators), give more to the Pentagon and starve social programs. OK, but there is just a couple of tiny issues with all that. Tax rates in the US are already at historic low levels and tax revenue is a 20 year low. You can't cut enough from Planned Parenthood or NPR to make the slightest dent in the deficit, and if cutting Social Security and Medicare is your solution for the deficit, you have NO chance of being re-elected. Don't forget Mitt, the tea-party is on Social Security.
During the primary and since he was the last moron standing, Mitt Romney has told anyone that will listen what a suck-ass person the other guy is and of course how the Prez has done nothing right, including saving GM and getting Bin Laden, which are both things he later took credit for. WTF? To date, Mittens has been only offering syrupy Americana and off-key singing of the national anthem to the masses at his campaign stops, and what a truly embarrassing thing that is to behold. Now I know Rachel and the others need some red meat, but it's bordering on pathetic when they and their guests spend agonizing minutes pondering what Mitt said in his latest speech, which is basically nothing. Just like Chancy Gardner, very smart people are doing their best to understand the deeper meaning of Mitten's blather when there is no deeper meaning. He's just continues to rehash the same shit as he did in the primary with no specifics, and it's just not possible to analyze it. Even the Republicans are starting to carp about his lack of anything concrete to say.
As I said beforehand, I do not believe Mitt Romney is a dimwit. But there are a host of other adjectives that work quite well, and I feel just a bit more authorized to offer them than perhaps your everyday political hack. You see, I've seen this type of creature before. My personal experience growing up in Utah and knowing many, many Mormons has afforded this point of view. In a peculiar twist of logic, many worshipers of God are actually quite convictionless. Their moral high ground is often a cover for a shameless, opportunistic pursuit of money and power, closet racism and for many men, a comfortable dominance over the fairer sex. I've seen it first hand with my own Father being ripped off repeatedly by his fellow brethren and the prevalent, unintended but impossible to miss attitude of authority toward women. Venture capitalism is the crowning glory of this - a soulless approach to taking advantage of the weaker in society; i.e. weaker companies with weaker workers and their weaker unions and doing it with other peoples money, not your own. Mitt Romney has displayed these characteristics over and over. Remember, he was once pro-choice when it suited his needs, a stance the Mormon church adamantly opposes, as it now oppose his heartless positions on immigration and slashing the welfare system budget. As I said, free of convictions that his own church preaches. But there is one area that Mitt Romney has no equal - lying with conviction. My God he's good. Most recently, his absurd accusation that the bankrupt Solyndra had provided money to the Obama Administration's friends and family was called out by even conservative people as a lie. Yet Mittens continued with it and even doubled-down in a later speech. In my view, this pathological lying is the old religious conflict between faith and facts. Again, being Mormon inevitably puts you in the position of having to accept faith trumping evidence - like carbon dating to establish the age of the earth (hint: it's more than 7,000 years old dude). The cumulative result of this nasty conflict is the ability to lie and to no longer feel any remorse about doing it. And when you grow up in the privileged class, this ability is reinforced from a lack of anyone calling you out on it. So the media, once again trying to play chess, spends bullshit time having to report about the lies instead of reporting on anything of substance that voters could use to make an informed decision. Taken all together, Mitt Romney is a very scary creature indeed. Which leads me to ask this obvious question: how could anyone want this lying, shallow, wooden, convictionless, money-grubbing douche-bag individual as the next president of our country??
I'll tell you who does. Join me next time as we explore further this nearly impossible to fathom concept of Mitt Romney being the next POTUS and then I promise to provide my dear readers with all the reasons he will not be elected; unless he happens to pick tea-party darling Rick Santorum to be VP and under this cover promptly tacks straight to the center and starts telling the truth. But he's too big of dimwit to do that, right?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Independent = Hipster Asshole
I'm an Independent. Yeah, I don't belong to the Republican or Democratic or Green or any other political party, nor do I feel the need to say I'm a member of any church or other organization where the powerful concept of independent thought and actions may be encumbered by the dogma and ideologies of that organization. Oh, and it also means, according to a friend of my daughter, that I'm a hipster asshole.
You see, for most of my life I have been unable to understand what is apparently a fact of life for many people - that based on their beliefs, they need to surround themselves with groups of like minded people. Now I'm not referring to the natural grouping of friendships forged through years of being friends, or family members that have been raised to believe a certain way where love and familiarity trump differing views. No, I'm talking about the next layer of acquaintances beyond that inner circle, and even layers beyond that. And so with this lack of understanding, I've found myself asking the question: why is this need to collectively believe such a powerful phenomena in people's lives? Is it simply a need to reinforce the belief, or just a mechanism for socializing with others or possibly nothing more than the wearing of some label because everyone else in your outer circle does? Hardly a day goes by where I don't read or hear someone proclaiming their point of view is not just right, but it's so right it makes your point of view absolutely wrong and by God I'm going to tell you so and then very likely ignore your rational response. It's manifested in the embarrassing name calling on Facebook, or in countless letters to the editor, or on the political evening talk shows and sometimes in just an overheard conversation. Is this desire to be right then a basic need of most humans, like eating and sleeping?
My declaration of Independence is, I suppose, along the same lines of needing to label a belief system. For instance, I have contributed time and money to a movement entitled "No Labels" that seeks non-partisan solutions to our hopelessly partisan federal government. But that's about as far as the conformance thing goes for me since the whole meaning of the word independent is, in a way, just the opposite of conforming. As an Independent, I will not necessarily accept the herd mentality on a given subject. While this approach to critical thinking is, in a way, a pipe dream since no one is really above being human and influenced by all life's lessons and experiences and the resulting effects on mind and body. But the thought of just saying "OK, I can't be bothered with definitively figuring this out for myself, so I'll just jump on board with this somewhat like minded bunch and ride it out" is not just perplexing, it's downright frightening! Of course for many people, it seems obvious to me that a political or religious point of view that runs pretty much with the herd is not a scary thing at all. Certainly every political leader finds they must embrace the dogma of their party (whether they believe it or not) in order to get elected. And religious leaders thrive on this "conformance of the masses" as it is often their occupation in life and collections from their believers helps pay the bills. But what to make of supposedly critical thinking people like scientists who claim to believe in God and Divine creationism, attend a church every Sunday that reinforces this idea and then show up at work on Monday to complete their carbon-dating project! There's comfort in numbers and like mindedness - can't disagree with that. But what about the rest of us that wouldn't join a country club that would have us for a member (thanks Groucho)? Why does this idea of just joining and believing seem so foreign?
When I was in my early teens, the church I was basically forced to attend taught several great and noble concepts for living. One was called free-agency. This is supposedly how each church member is able to make the greatest of all great choices - to believe or not believe in God. Of course, if you chose the latter, your free-agency was quickly circumvented buy all those who chose the former - parents who worked the guilt trip angle; siblings who questioned your love for them and friends who could no longer be your friend. As a result, the seeds of my independent tree were planted early and over the years every opportunity to be boxed in became another sprouted branch until one day I suddenly noticed the tree had not only matured, it was bearing fruit. And this fruit of independent thought was surprisingly good. I mean, how could a tree fertilized with something as bitter as cynicism and skepticism and other isms be tasty? Wasn't I doomed to live a reclusive, unfulfilled life by not joining in?
Apparently the answer is no. My early efforts to not be a joiner have been rewarded with the ability to see other points of view, and experience other facets of living and learning and to enjoy experimentation with things that someone had once warned me to stay away from. Of course, this someone had never actually experienced this thing for themselves. "Just trying to save you a little grief" is the response. But how can one accurately formulate a belief if it's just based on the experiences and resulting biases of others? Isn't this the wayward result of the mass Kool-Aid suicide that Jim Jones fostered on his bunch down in Guyana? And don't get me started on the myriad interpretations of the man-made writings of the Bible and how it's used to manipulate folks. And so as time moves on, I have come to realize that this independent thinking thing is actually of critical importance, and weirdly in harmony with that " free-agency" religious concept from so long ago.
So in an ironic twist, independence is freedom, and I must thank everyone along the way of life that inspired me to question everything which, in turn, provided the freedom of thought I now enjoy. All the tea party masses crying out for liberty and freedom have, on a basic level, already torpedoed their freedom. Ahh, but I made the choice to belong to this party a member will say and this choice was made as a free thinking person! Okay, then why the bullshit line about needing freedom? You just stated you have it. What you are really proclaiming is I need YOU to be like me or my liberty will be in jeopardy! Yes, the more of you like me reinforces me and in turn makes me more right!
Which leads me to being a hipster asshole. While this was said with no particular person in mind, the message is still loud and clear - belong to what I belong to or you're something less than what I am. You see by not joining in, you are sending a message that you're either above it all (too cool to commit) or afraid to commit. But the other option of choosing to not commit as a result of careful consideration doesn't seem to occur to those that have already committed. And so I am a hipster asshole, which is hilarious as hell when you consider the following: I will never, ever be labeled a hipster again under any circumstances as I'm a 50's something suburban white guy with little taste for fashion or style or whatever else lands one in the hipster category these days. But more importantly, I actually am an asshole, just an independent asshole who happens to be right!
You see, for most of my life I have been unable to understand what is apparently a fact of life for many people - that based on their beliefs, they need to surround themselves with groups of like minded people. Now I'm not referring to the natural grouping of friendships forged through years of being friends, or family members that have been raised to believe a certain way where love and familiarity trump differing views. No, I'm talking about the next layer of acquaintances beyond that inner circle, and even layers beyond that. And so with this lack of understanding, I've found myself asking the question: why is this need to collectively believe such a powerful phenomena in people's lives? Is it simply a need to reinforce the belief, or just a mechanism for socializing with others or possibly nothing more than the wearing of some label because everyone else in your outer circle does? Hardly a day goes by where I don't read or hear someone proclaiming their point of view is not just right, but it's so right it makes your point of view absolutely wrong and by God I'm going to tell you so and then very likely ignore your rational response. It's manifested in the embarrassing name calling on Facebook, or in countless letters to the editor, or on the political evening talk shows and sometimes in just an overheard conversation. Is this desire to be right then a basic need of most humans, like eating and sleeping?
My declaration of Independence is, I suppose, along the same lines of needing to label a belief system. For instance, I have contributed time and money to a movement entitled "No Labels" that seeks non-partisan solutions to our hopelessly partisan federal government. But that's about as far as the conformance thing goes for me since the whole meaning of the word independent is, in a way, just the opposite of conforming. As an Independent, I will not necessarily accept the herd mentality on a given subject. While this approach to critical thinking is, in a way, a pipe dream since no one is really above being human and influenced by all life's lessons and experiences and the resulting effects on mind and body. But the thought of just saying "OK, I can't be bothered with definitively figuring this out for myself, so I'll just jump on board with this somewhat like minded bunch and ride it out" is not just perplexing, it's downright frightening! Of course for many people, it seems obvious to me that a political or religious point of view that runs pretty much with the herd is not a scary thing at all. Certainly every political leader finds they must embrace the dogma of their party (whether they believe it or not) in order to get elected. And religious leaders thrive on this "conformance of the masses" as it is often their occupation in life and collections from their believers helps pay the bills. But what to make of supposedly critical thinking people like scientists who claim to believe in God and Divine creationism, attend a church every Sunday that reinforces this idea and then show up at work on Monday to complete their carbon-dating project! There's comfort in numbers and like mindedness - can't disagree with that. But what about the rest of us that wouldn't join a country club that would have us for a member (thanks Groucho)? Why does this idea of just joining and believing seem so foreign?
When I was in my early teens, the church I was basically forced to attend taught several great and noble concepts for living. One was called free-agency. This is supposedly how each church member is able to make the greatest of all great choices - to believe or not believe in God. Of course, if you chose the latter, your free-agency was quickly circumvented buy all those who chose the former - parents who worked the guilt trip angle; siblings who questioned your love for them and friends who could no longer be your friend. As a result, the seeds of my independent tree were planted early and over the years every opportunity to be boxed in became another sprouted branch until one day I suddenly noticed the tree had not only matured, it was bearing fruit. And this fruit of independent thought was surprisingly good. I mean, how could a tree fertilized with something as bitter as cynicism and skepticism and other isms be tasty? Wasn't I doomed to live a reclusive, unfulfilled life by not joining in?
Apparently the answer is no. My early efforts to not be a joiner have been rewarded with the ability to see other points of view, and experience other facets of living and learning and to enjoy experimentation with things that someone had once warned me to stay away from. Of course, this someone had never actually experienced this thing for themselves. "Just trying to save you a little grief" is the response. But how can one accurately formulate a belief if it's just based on the experiences and resulting biases of others? Isn't this the wayward result of the mass Kool-Aid suicide that Jim Jones fostered on his bunch down in Guyana? And don't get me started on the myriad interpretations of the man-made writings of the Bible and how it's used to manipulate folks. And so as time moves on, I have come to realize that this independent thinking thing is actually of critical importance, and weirdly in harmony with that " free-agency" religious concept from so long ago.
So in an ironic twist, independence is freedom, and I must thank everyone along the way of life that inspired me to question everything which, in turn, provided the freedom of thought I now enjoy. All the tea party masses crying out for liberty and freedom have, on a basic level, already torpedoed their freedom. Ahh, but I made the choice to belong to this party a member will say and this choice was made as a free thinking person! Okay, then why the bullshit line about needing freedom? You just stated you have it. What you are really proclaiming is I need YOU to be like me or my liberty will be in jeopardy! Yes, the more of you like me reinforces me and in turn makes me more right!
Which leads me to being a hipster asshole. While this was said with no particular person in mind, the message is still loud and clear - belong to what I belong to or you're something less than what I am. You see by not joining in, you are sending a message that you're either above it all (too cool to commit) or afraid to commit. But the other option of choosing to not commit as a result of careful consideration doesn't seem to occur to those that have already committed. And so I am a hipster asshole, which is hilarious as hell when you consider the following: I will never, ever be labeled a hipster again under any circumstances as I'm a 50's something suburban white guy with little taste for fashion or style or whatever else lands one in the hipster category these days. But more importantly, I actually am an asshole, just an independent asshole who happens to be right!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Hypocritic Oafs
My dear, dear readers, I am back! It's been a tough stretch of verbalizing my rants and I know the people who bear the responsibility of hearing them are wondering why the hell I am not at the computer unloading this shit to my trusty blog. This is certainly a good question for which I unfortunately do not have a good answer. Possibly, my absence has been the result of an overwhelming amount of material worth ranting about. One day I'm thinking this issue has to be the topic of the week and later that day I'm reading some other unbelievable story and pretty soon it's brain gridlock! But today, I really cannot take it any more. Today I reached some invisible quota of perplexing, annoying doublespeak from the political right in this country and I really can't take it any more. If just one more phony-ass Repube says something you know is complete, unadulterated bullshit, I might quit watching anything on TV except maybe Wipeout and reading anything but the Sunday funny papers. I might, you know, become more like THEM!
It is beyond my comprehension to comprehend how someone can live their lives in total hypocrisy and somehow delude themselves into believing this is fine. A telling article in the New York Times last week did a masterful job explaining this phenomena. In some ultra-conservative podunk town in the Mid-West, a number of liberty loving (i.e. Obama hating) people were interviewed for this article and asked about their contempt for people who are sucking the government tit for assistance to live. This country's diabolical march to socialism has them terrified. These people are all working multiple jobs and sacrificing and going without the niceties of life and on and on. There's only one problem - every person interviewed for the article was, in fact, accepting government assistance. Free school lunches for their kids, unemployment benefits, social security disability checks, rent subsidies, etc. That's right, every one of these unbelievable hypocrites is collecting money from the government, and every one of them has somehow, someway, convinced themselves that they're not and that's just fine. They're deficient on reality. They live a lie and do it with fucking conviction! One woman actually broke down and through a stream of tears "confessed" to accepting government assistance, as if the reporter had finally stuck enough burning cigarettes into her face and she caved. How can this be?
It can be because it's become a way of life for these people. They are unmercifully caught between their conservative outlook on social issues and the fact that the Republican party to which they belong has economically fucked them every which way but up. On one side there's Rick "the dick" Santorum declaring how Obama is getting America hooked on the "narcotic of dependency" and Mitty warning that government programs "foster passivity and sloth". Euwww, who wants to be sloth? The Times article went on to point out that the top 10 "most conservative" states as ranked by Gallup received 21.2% of their income in government transfer while the number for the top 10 most liberal states was 17.1%. That's right, the safety net is much more red than blue. Of course, this is not a big surprise for anyone that takes a minute to think about it. The most conservative states are also the more relatively poor states and have greater dependence on the safety-net of government programs, especially Medicaid. Contrary to the blowhard Gingrich's claim that Obama is the "food stamp" president, Obama has not expanded this program at all. Rather, the poor state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible, and low and behold a majority of these people are from red states. Those are, as Joe Friday would say, "just the facts Ma'am". So why on earth are these needy people voting for politicians who detest these safety-net programs and are campaigning to dismantle them? It's simple, really. The GOP is a master at exploiting social issues, and these legions of brain-dead conservative sheep simply vote against their own economic interests over and over again so, you know, gay people can't legally marry and Hispanics can't live the American dream. Many people remember the old hypocrite in her motorized wheel chair yelling about how Obamacare is socialized medicine in one breath and then telling the next politician that showed up to keep their dirty hands of her Medicare. Have they no dignity?
And then there's contraception, the issue of the 1970's that has suddenly exploded into one of the most fake outrage issues in recent memory. Oh, what hypocrisy looms here. Obamacare requires contraception to be available on healthcare plans that have federal government backing. Not on private plans mind you. But it seems that churches like the cheaper government programs, which is no surprise considering that around 80% of the revenue to the Catholic Church comes from the federal government, and they and their associated businesses like hospitals enjoy tax-free status through this association. But the Catholic Church preaches no contraception to their masses, and have since the dark ages when having a zillion kids was a game of numbers as most children didn't survive childhood and the more you had, the better the odds that some would make it to adulthood. But this concept seems just a little bit dated in 2012. So, the old white men leaders of the Catholic Church conjure up this fake outrage despite multiple polls showing that up to 98% of Catholic women use or have used birth control. Oh, no shit? Jeez, I thought that the much smaller families of Catholic leaning people these days just meant Mom and Dad weren't having sex any more. Are they all going to hell then? And what about the non-Catholic people working for these hospitals and schools that the quasi Catholic/Federal Government Church associates with? Are they screwed out of health insurance provided contraception because of where they work? The Republican leadership is going to shit in their nest in a very Terri Schaivo way if they keep going after Obama on this. Women of all backgrounds are already outraged, and they represent, to say the least, a fair amount of voters. So listen Bishop Olmsted, when 98% of your membership is breaking a rule, no greater hypocrisy exists than demanding that the rule be universally accepted and respected by everyone else in this country. Besides, you've spewed so much hypocrisy in your lifetime (covering up pedophile priests and hitting a pedestiran and leaving the scene of the crime, among other transgressions) that your allotment is up. Just slither away, please.
This hypocrisy is actually gathering momentum with the Republican candidates. There's Gingrich trying to appeal to family value conservatives against a background of souless wife cheating. How the fuck does this guy look in the mirror everyday and not just cringe? Mitt Romney told a gathering recently that he was an "intense conservative". This is a fucking lie and everyone listening to this moron knew it. His tale of how he was actually for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is more convoluted bullshit. This bunch just keeps spewing out lies, but somehow, someway, this has become acceptable to their loyal followers. Once upon a time, lying was discouraged, and I think telling the truth is one of those nic-picking commandments that Christians hold in high regard when it's suitable. But there is no longer any stigma to blatantly lying to people, and the people who practice this art know that those listening are simply co-conspirators, so bogged down by the weight of their own monumental hypocrisy that they can only listen and vacantly nod. This is not a recipe for success when hustling votes from Independents and other centrists of either party. As a result, the Republicans will fail to win the White House this fall, and with an uptick in the economy and the realization by a majority of people that Obama's first term was actually OK, they will lose the House. Then the Democrats had better show the days of rampant hypocrisy are over. If not, I will vote for Mitt Romney in 2016!
It is beyond my comprehension to comprehend how someone can live their lives in total hypocrisy and somehow delude themselves into believing this is fine. A telling article in the New York Times last week did a masterful job explaining this phenomena. In some ultra-conservative podunk town in the Mid-West, a number of liberty loving (i.e. Obama hating) people were interviewed for this article and asked about their contempt for people who are sucking the government tit for assistance to live. This country's diabolical march to socialism has them terrified. These people are all working multiple jobs and sacrificing and going without the niceties of life and on and on. There's only one problem - every person interviewed for the article was, in fact, accepting government assistance. Free school lunches for their kids, unemployment benefits, social security disability checks, rent subsidies, etc. That's right, every one of these unbelievable hypocrites is collecting money from the government, and every one of them has somehow, someway, convinced themselves that they're not and that's just fine. They're deficient on reality. They live a lie and do it with fucking conviction! One woman actually broke down and through a stream of tears "confessed" to accepting government assistance, as if the reporter had finally stuck enough burning cigarettes into her face and she caved. How can this be?
It can be because it's become a way of life for these people. They are unmercifully caught between their conservative outlook on social issues and the fact that the Republican party to which they belong has economically fucked them every which way but up. On one side there's Rick "the dick" Santorum declaring how Obama is getting America hooked on the "narcotic of dependency" and Mitty warning that government programs "foster passivity and sloth". Euwww, who wants to be sloth? The Times article went on to point out that the top 10 "most conservative" states as ranked by Gallup received 21.2% of their income in government transfer while the number for the top 10 most liberal states was 17.1%. That's right, the safety net is much more red than blue. Of course, this is not a big surprise for anyone that takes a minute to think about it. The most conservative states are also the more relatively poor states and have greater dependence on the safety-net of government programs, especially Medicaid. Contrary to the blowhard Gingrich's claim that Obama is the "food stamp" president, Obama has not expanded this program at all. Rather, the poor state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible, and low and behold a majority of these people are from red states. Those are, as Joe Friday would say, "just the facts Ma'am". So why on earth are these needy people voting for politicians who detest these safety-net programs and are campaigning to dismantle them? It's simple, really. The GOP is a master at exploiting social issues, and these legions of brain-dead conservative sheep simply vote against their own economic interests over and over again so, you know, gay people can't legally marry and Hispanics can't live the American dream. Many people remember the old hypocrite in her motorized wheel chair yelling about how Obamacare is socialized medicine in one breath and then telling the next politician that showed up to keep their dirty hands of her Medicare. Have they no dignity?
And then there's contraception, the issue of the 1970's that has suddenly exploded into one of the most fake outrage issues in recent memory. Oh, what hypocrisy looms here. Obamacare requires contraception to be available on healthcare plans that have federal government backing. Not on private plans mind you. But it seems that churches like the cheaper government programs, which is no surprise considering that around 80% of the revenue to the Catholic Church comes from the federal government, and they and their associated businesses like hospitals enjoy tax-free status through this association. But the Catholic Church preaches no contraception to their masses, and have since the dark ages when having a zillion kids was a game of numbers as most children didn't survive childhood and the more you had, the better the odds that some would make it to adulthood. But this concept seems just a little bit dated in 2012. So, the old white men leaders of the Catholic Church conjure up this fake outrage despite multiple polls showing that up to 98% of Catholic women use or have used birth control. Oh, no shit? Jeez, I thought that the much smaller families of Catholic leaning people these days just meant Mom and Dad weren't having sex any more. Are they all going to hell then? And what about the non-Catholic people working for these hospitals and schools that the quasi Catholic/Federal Government Church associates with? Are they screwed out of health insurance provided contraception because of where they work? The Republican leadership is going to shit in their nest in a very Terri Schaivo way if they keep going after Obama on this. Women of all backgrounds are already outraged, and they represent, to say the least, a fair amount of voters. So listen Bishop Olmsted, when 98% of your membership is breaking a rule, no greater hypocrisy exists than demanding that the rule be universally accepted and respected by everyone else in this country. Besides, you've spewed so much hypocrisy in your lifetime (covering up pedophile priests and hitting a pedestiran and leaving the scene of the crime, among other transgressions) that your allotment is up. Just slither away, please.
This hypocrisy is actually gathering momentum with the Republican candidates. There's Gingrich trying to appeal to family value conservatives against a background of souless wife cheating. How the fuck does this guy look in the mirror everyday and not just cringe? Mitt Romney told a gathering recently that he was an "intense conservative". This is a fucking lie and everyone listening to this moron knew it. His tale of how he was actually for the bailout of GM and Chrysler is more convoluted bullshit. This bunch just keeps spewing out lies, but somehow, someway, this has become acceptable to their loyal followers. Once upon a time, lying was discouraged, and I think telling the truth is one of those nic-picking commandments that Christians hold in high regard when it's suitable. But there is no longer any stigma to blatantly lying to people, and the people who practice this art know that those listening are simply co-conspirators, so bogged down by the weight of their own monumental hypocrisy that they can only listen and vacantly nod. This is not a recipe for success when hustling votes from Independents and other centrists of either party. As a result, the Republicans will fail to win the White House this fall, and with an uptick in the economy and the realization by a majority of people that Obama's first term was actually OK, they will lose the House. Then the Democrats had better show the days of rampant hypocrisy are over. If not, I will vote for Mitt Romney in 2016!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)