A Hiatus

For anyone who has been reading this blog and not Rainy Day Thoughts, I wanted to let you know that until after our November 2012 election, this blog is more or less going to be closed down with all political thinking moving to Rainy Day Thoughts .

There are several reasons for this but the main one is I feel the coming election is too important to not write about the issues in the blog that gets the most traffic. We in the United States will be looking again at issues we thought we had long ago settled-- at least on the left. They are all back and in full force.

So Things goes on a hiatus until then. If you are interested in my thinking on politics and issues (as well as countless other things) and haven't been there, please bookmark

Rainy Day Thoughts 

and not only visit but comment-- agree or disagree with the subjects. I think a healthy discourse is good and that takes openness but also to stay away from nastiness or threats. I have felt we did that here and know anybody coming from here to Thoughts will treat it likewise.

You know we on the left don't always see things the same way; but when we openly share our thinking, I believe it helps strengthen us, and I do believe we need to be strong to keep our country strong.

Likely after the election, I'll be posting here again as I do like to generally keep Thoughts out of politics-- except when it matters so much.

Some might think these issue are only about our country but they really are not. The world is going through a huge transition both economically, climatically and socially.  Who knows how it'll all end up but we need to be thinking about these things and the long-range consequences. I really appreciate the regular readers here as mostly you are people who do care about politics a lot. Hope you join me in Thoughts for a lot of discussions between now and November.

Really? You really want to go there???

At one time I would have thought our country was moving ahead on social issues, with more willingness to let individuals make their own moral choices where it came to sexuality where it didn't harm others (i.e. no rape or sex with those underage). It seems that was wrong. We've regressed to a point that this can happen:

Contraception Hearing

To be honest, no matter how low I thought Republicans had sunk, they keep surprising me by going lower. For a woman like me, born in 1943 and who came of age just as the pill was coming into general use (Right before I got married, I got my first prescription for the pill from Planned Parenthood along with my first pelvic health exam), this group, using the argument of freedom of religion, going after the right for women to easily get birth control, it has me shaking my head. Obviously, since right wingers want power, they somehow think shouting freedom of religion and making birth control questionable morally is a winning issue. When this bunch isn't busy using religion, they turn to patriotism to take away the freedom of others. Fascism at its finest.

If I say that my religion says I should do drugs to talk with my god, will the Republicans back me? You can bet not. How about if my god said I should blow up a building? No way.  But somehow where it comes to giving women control over their own bodies, that's an area they must take a stand. Seriously???

Since the same number of Catholic women use birth control as do non-Catholic women (also have abortions) the all male hierarchy of the Catholic Church has not convinced even women in their church. Yet they want to allow their businesses to deny women contraception as supposedly being about religious freedom (obviously theirs not the women who might want to buy it). And this is about right wing religious fanatic businesses which has included pharmacies refusing to sell contraceptives.

Religious freedom means you can choose to not use a contraceptive if you want. You can have twenty kids if you want. But it doesn't mean you can deny your children insulin if they are diabetic. There are limits to how we see religious freedom. When someone's religion dictates bigotry toward another race or gender, it's no longer just about religious freedom.

Religious freedom should mean freedom for and from religion.

The Republicans, wanting power, think Americans will buy this religious angle as a way to deny women contraceptives and push the Catholic Church's religious rules onto all of us. They see it as a winner to hurt Obama with religious folks. If it turns out it is, which I find unlikely, what does that mean we are as Americans?  Are we heading back to a Puritan era where religious leaders dictate all of our choices under threat of law?

When Obama compromised on the birth control by saying the church didn't have to pay for the contraceptives, but an insurance company still did, that wasn't enough to satisfy those like Issa, who is having a hearing on the subject, hearing that denies anybody a voice who doesn't take the Catholic Church's position.

Hey, I am fine with people like Santorum and Gingrich to be Catholic. I support their right to gather together with other believers; to believe that wine turned into blood for the communion; believe their Pope is infallible when he puts down edicts like about birth control; for them to believe religious leaders should not be married. I support Mormons to believe they can turn into a god on another planet someday. I wouldn't even care if they wanted to go back to polygamy (if it wasn't forced onto women). It doesn't bother me that Mormons like to baptize dead people because I don't believe it has any meaning that they do it.

What I am not fine with is putting those religious beliefs and rules onto the rest of us or even their own people by force. Then it is no longer about religious freedom. It's a dictatorship run by the same old boys who used to burn witches and stone to death gays. The word freedom doesn't fit when someone wants to force their religious values onto everybody under the law. The only freedom that person values is their own.

how birth control makes religious zealots sad

Social Issues to determine the election?

Sometimes I get so mad at politics and what I see happening that it is soooo tempting to quit reading about it. Then I remember what is at stake for us as a nation. Here's the latest where Obama supposedly blew it with the religious types over birth control and the Catholic Church.

Huge kerfuffle and a chance for right wing nut jobs to say Obama hates Christianity. He gave in on it in a way that gets what he wants but lets Catholic universities and hospitals pretend they aren't paying for it. Some will say it's another of his sneaky deals, but it makes sense for those who prefer to look idealistic while they look the other way from what is really going on.

The Obama Deal on Birth Control for political advantage for both

Here is the issue and why this matters. Women have for a long time said it's unfair that insurance companies cover Viagra and other such drugs while they do not cover birth control for women. Neither are a disease. One is covered since it's for men. The other hasn't been. The Obama administration said insurance must cover birth control which opened the door for this problem.

The cries that this is about freedom of religion make me so mad I could spit-- and I don't spit. What the Constitution offers is freedom to choose a religion. It does not say that religion then is immune from the laws of the country. You cannot do a lot of things in the name of your religion but many claim you can like say using drugs.

The Catholic Church, of which I legally probably still am a member if a fallen away one, has seen itself above the law in another issue. When the Bishops would discover a priest had been molesting boys, what did they do about it? Turn him into the police to face our laws? Nope, they'd pay off victims and parents, and move him where he could get a new shot at doing it. They considered themselves above the law and who knows in what other ways.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean religions should be able to go into business, which a university, hospital, and insurance company certainly are, and ignore the laws of the land. Well the righties like Santorum would make what the Catholic Church has for moral laws legally binding for the rest of us. That's what he's talking about when he says it should be all right for a state to totally ban birth control if it wants to do that. As president, he'd be just fine with that. Who knows, since the majority of our Supreme Court judges are also Catholics, maybe they'd be fine with that too and not just for a state but the nation.

Obama found a solution that fudged its way into getting what he wanted for women and letting the Catholic Church stand pompous and righteous above the fray. It won't stop the front runners for the presidency from claiming that Obama hates all of Christianity and his trying to get birth control insurance coverage is evidence.

Interestingly enough with the country picking up, the Stimulus actually showing it worked (talk to your own financial planner if you don't believe it), jobs improving, this election turns out it will be about social issues more than economic. The Republicans think that's good news for them. What do you think? Okay with you to block gay marriage, turn abortion back into an illegal act, block people from buying birth control, end any right to die with dignity, and whatever else the Catholic Church dictates to its own members to be part of our legal system under a Santorum presidency? It's what he's got in mind to retrieve the destiny of our country or so he says.

These right wing, religious, supposedly all Christian guys will immediately end health care for all which will be cheers from those who have it and cries from someone with a child who has a chronic condition that will mean they can never buy insurance for themselves. Three of the four appear to feel they should attack Iran. From what I can tell, all want to lower taxes for the rich even further. Environmental or financial regulations-- bad bad bad. Business should have free rein and for Paul that even means blocking a person of another race from eating in your restaurant? Rights of property supersede anything else, right?  And as for your private life, well to stay in good with God, the church should dictate those choices-- their church, not yours, of course.

The thing is-- wasn't freedom of religion also meaning freedom from it. Obama didn't interfere with the Catholic Church's dictates that birth control is a sin. In their church they can say what they want. He was trying to make them function as a business when they go into business. The screams of religious outrage were heard all across the nation enhanced by zealots like Santorum and frauds like Perry.

You know, we as a nation, do give churches all kinds of benefits like not taxing their income or buildings. Why we do that is beyond me but we do. So here we have a religion that has gone beyond worship into profit and it wants the country to give it a wash where it comes to rules.. If they don't like the rules, they don't have to go into the business, do they?

Nobody is forcing people to buy birth control devices or pills.

Some good things

Some good news-- Prop 8 Unconstitutional  Now it will head to the Supreme Court and anybody's guess for what that will mean given how that court has done on other issues.

The Komen controversy should not be over even though the veep behind it has resigned. There was a reason that woman was hired. There have been a lot of other questionable things about them not being the best, most effective tool for fighting breast cancer. Their fight to block anybody from using-- for the cure-- is only one example of their desire to make money for their upper management people and gain power more than find a cure for cancer. Find other places to donate for breast cancer research.

The good news there is that Americans cared about Planned Parenthood and maybe are beginning to get what the right will do if they gain power in terms of individual rights. Right wingers talk a lot about how important freedom is-- but it's only their freedoms they respect. I think this is all good for the race for President as even though people are concerned about jobs, they also don't want to go back to the Fifties for back alley abortions.

And I do think Americans support gay rights for marriage. Whether the Supremes decide one way or the other, this is a change that is coming as more and more Americans see it makes sense.

We on the left are not trying to tell people who don't believe in abortion to have one. We are not trying to say they must marry someone of the same sex. We are trying to tell them that their religion should not dictate our choices. Hopefully there are enough of us who do remember the back alley days and do respect that marriage should be between two consenting adults and not someone else's church.

The Reagan Rule

Part of the time I want to laugh at right wingers for what they buy into. Doesn't it seem funny in a sort of dark sense? The leaders convince their voters to buy into the best advertisement and think they are thinking for themselves. Then they are convinced by the ads and speeches that they did.

So Romney says that Obama doesn't deserve credit for unemployment at 8.3%. On the other hand, when unemployment was at 10%, he did deserve credit. I always want to say to a Republican-- seriously, you take this guy seriously?

The following link was kind of a good look at whether he will do what Republicans most want when he gets in office. And what they most want according to the right wing pundits is end health care for everybody. So like your kid has leukemia and has had good results with the treatment, but if you change jobs or lose your insurance, that child can forever after be denied health insurance based on prior condition. That's a little something the health care law changed. Gone with the whisk of a pen if Romney gets in.

According to the righies, he also will immediately adopt Paul Ryan's plan for SS and Medicare which means if you were counting on it when you get old or frankly even now-- don't.

Finally pro-life rules will finally become national and abortion will once again happen where it should-- in back alleys. That's what the country will get with a Romney presidency.

Well not so fast according to this pundit.

Will Romney owe conservatives if he wins?

Pretty much I'd say there is no clue what he'll do once he gets in office. He has been totally unpredictable all of his political life. As one rightie supposes-- he's used to obeying and that's what he's done best. So who does he obey next January?

Romney said he'll go to war with Iran-- assuming Israel doesn't settle that matter first. Will he? He's also going to balance the budget  which makes it hard to see how you fight that enlarged war but then maybe this is back to voodoo economics.

Finally something interesting I heard which if you don't chuckle, you have no sense of humor. It was about capital gains tax rates and how we should stop calling it the Buffett Rule to make sure we have fairness in all tax rates. We actually need to start calling it the Reagan Rule. Republicans are already trying to spin this one:

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it." Ronald Reagan-- 1985

What do you think Romney would say to signing a law that set tax rates so that all income was treated equally? I'll believe he'd might do anything other than deny it for the good of the country the day he reveals the rest of his tax rates back say 10 years and we find out he paid even 15% for all of them...

About the only ones who can do justice to what is happening in this country right now are the comedians like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. It's laugh or cry!

Romney's Mask

What Romney said is he didn't have concern for the poor because they had all these safety net programs. He is trying to walk all the way around that statement now; but IF you read the whole context, it's even worse than the single sentence alone.  He simply doesn't get it on a ton of levels.

Romney seems to believe or lied about it that there is a safety net out there that lets people live a life of poverty with dignity. Heck if you have food on the table, scanty though it might be, that's enough, right?

The thing is, many aren't in those so-called safety nets. You hear their stories every day. BUT even if they were, doesn't he get it that it's not a good way to live. We do have a problem in this country with poverty but also with ignorance among the 'haves' who have no compassion for those who don't.

The poor need help to get out of poverty, to find work that enables them to live an independent life. Does he realize how many are living without that today? Living from job to job but without security, with no benefits? Living without enough insurance or any to cover disastrous happenings? Those who are rich or have insurance as part of a good job really don't get it what it's like to live with such insecurity.

Now I won't say he doesn't as a person care about the needy. The thing is what kind of programs does he believe in other than through his religion? He donates a lot, but most of it went to a religion that dictates you must donate.

Andrew Sullivan brought up something interesting on Romney and why he seems so inauthentic to many of us. He said it's referred to as the Mormon Mask. Not every Mormon out there wears it; but those who rise in the church, as Romney has done, they do wear it as you know if you have been around them. It is trained into them; and you do not become a Stake President or a Bishop, as Romney has done, without it. They are basically prototypes for what success must look like.

Reading some of what he did when he was a religious leader in his community, yeah, he was out there with the poor-- dictating what they must do. As Bain did when it would take over a company and demand their values which they saw as the ones that led to success.

The Mormon Mask which is doubtless a human mask also that he uses anywhere he can be observed, probably explains the flip-flops. He will say whatever he must to to be accepted, to fit the role he must, and to gain personal power.

Who knows what he would do once in power except he has said he doesn't believe in entitlements. He had to say that now, of course, since he needs the nomination in a party who doesn't believe in them-- even if they get them themselves.

Rush Limbaugh got the problem from the right with what Romney said, why they don't trust him. Those like Rush do not want a safety net for anybody. They consider it to be the problem in this country. When they don't consider something else to be it--

Marco Rubio supported Romney heavily in Florida probably with the hope he will be selected as his running mate. Here's what Rubio believes about personal freedom--  Marco Rubio-- America cannot fulfill its destiny unless it ends abortion. Basically what he is saying is that American must accept a religion's definition of its destiny (which would probably be Romney's view too even though different religions).

That is what Republicans want to give this country-- the very dictatorship over personal lives they claim is the threat from the left.

Who is Romney behind his mask? Can we take a chance to find out? Independents and dissatisfied lefties better look long and hard at the alternative before they sit this next election out!

Update: I just had to add. *drum roll* Trump just endorsed Romney. So that will give him seven more votes...

Hohum, it's Romney... Big surprise.

It is hard to have much enthusiasm for writing here because I am mostly disgusted by the whole thing. Florida proved money talks but what does that tell us about the future of politics in this country? The way Gingrich blew the last two debates makes me wonder if he got paid off. It's not as though I am a Gingrich fan. Yeah, I get that he's not reliable but seriously, Romney is?

I do like what I hear about Obama's direction for the military where it's more strategic strikes by groups like SEALs and Delta Force. They go in, go fast, and hit what they want for the most part. There will be failures but a better alternative is to ignore the terrorists and pirates? Or send in our whole military?

It's clear that this direction for the military is not just Obama's idea. It has been used more and more under him though. Is it all pluses? Not necessarily considering this is often very secretive which enables a government to do things the rest of us might not approve. Still the alternatives don't look good to me.

Right now it looks like Romney will be the Republican nominee based on money and backing of the establishment. They have done the same number on Paul and Gingrich that they did on Perot years ago.  If anybody looks close to changing the game, there are ways to deal with them. Money comes first. We won't like what comes next.

It doesn't have to work-- the money that is. Americans can quit paying attention to those slick ads. They could but so far, they aren't. Whose fault is that?

For anyone with the energy to read more about who Romney is-- [Romney-- I'm not concerned about the poor]. Yeah, we hear and believe you, Mitt. You're not concerned about the middle either, but they just have more votes!