It is fascinating to me to watch Congressman Barney Frank, a gay man, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, openly gay also, introduce and support legislation that has a moral and social conscience. And to then watch the self-proclaimed legislative Christians vote against it. It has always been so. There is little or no correlation between morals and religion. Watching Jews and Moslems fight over land that they proclaim God or Allah gave to them is a current case in point. Who is there to represent the people who occupied the Israel-Palestinian area BEFORE the Moslems and Jews came? In the U.S. we pound our chest about our democratic ways, even as our nation's history and current developments are horrible in the treatment of the people who occupied this land before the coming of Europeans.
Recently the current Pope venerated bishops who deny that the Holocaust took place. That is especially disturbing inasmuch as the Vatican did so little to defend Jews during the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, a case has been made that the Pope actually was in concert in some of this persecution. Morals?
Don't kid yourself, it is not just Neanderthal Rush Limbaugh and other obvious anti-intellectuals who explicitly express hope President Obama fails; every Republican dinosaur secretly hopes the same. The last election scared Republicans because it gave a large majority of votes to Democrats. Personally, I don't give two cents for either party. But to "hope he fails" is literally unpatriotic, to use the phrase Republicans like to throw around. The neocon criticisms and use of "unpatriotic" has our new president wearing an American flag in his lapel, much like the swastika was required to be displayed there during Hitler's regime. It is scary. Right-wingers act out more like fascists all the time.
Now let me see if I have this right. The right-wingers, who like to parade around as "family" folks, seem to think that it is OK to unite in keeping progressive legislation from being passed that will help our kids and grandkids financially, with health care, etc. Oh, that's right, they may not be among the rich, so they don't get tax breaks while the economic future of the U.S. goes in the tank. Patriotism means tax breaks for the rich, no restrictions on big corporations, spend like there is no tomorrow on the military [much goes into the sewer], and for goodness sake, don't fix our crumbling infrastructure because that will just give work to the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, like Bush, veto help for veterans. OK, so we need a socialistic bail-out from time to time to help our major corporations overcome their mismanagement and lousy, greedy direction. Bush and the Republicans championed this socialistic bail-out when they were in power. Now it stinks. They didn't cut anything during the last 8 years except veterans benefits.
Yes, the young woman probably should have been given better counseling before doctors surgically inseminated her. Yes, the woman probably has no idea what lies ahead of her with 14 kids. Yes, she has no visible means to support all those kids. Yes, this will be a burden beyond her comprehension. Yes, octuplets means she faces tons of health care issues with all those kids. Yes, we do not see a father in the picture. Yes, tax money will have to be spent.
HOWEVER, the reactions by all the goody-two-shoes have been astounding. Many of the judgments against her in our holier-than-thou society have indicated that she should be shunned or turned over to a battery of psychiatrists. Lands sakes, what kind of woman is she? Imagine, the right-wingers and fundamentalists who parade around against abortion and stem-cell research, now acting as though God has selected them to stand in and reject the woman's decision to keep her embryos to term. Oh, they will cover their self-piety by stating someone is to blame for not advising her correctly. Perhaps, but what do we now do with the children? Should we make them to suffer for our secret desire to shun her? And how much of our pious harrumph is tied to her being in need of tax-supported welfare? How much is tied to our yelling, "No more taxes!" and now being faced with a woman with 14 kids? And did you notice, she doesn't even look Caucasian?
"Bravely" standing in the way of a greatly needed stimulus-employment package, the Republicans scream that they will block any new taxes or major involvement by the federal government. Meanwhile economists of the right-wing and the left-wing keep telling us that the federal government is the only entity large enough to rescue our nation's deteriorating economy. And this means taxes. Everybody knows that unless the federal government steps in, private enterprise is going down the tubes effecting every American. Just like stubborn George W. Bush, the Republicans will never admit their mistakes and will stick to their guns even if it means the collapse of the U.S. economy. Some patriots.
Oh, some corporations will survive. The Bush administration saw to that. Bush-Cheney protected the Halliburtons, the petroleum companies, the pharmaceuticals, and other personal friends. But their protection of greedy businesses, notably banks and financial institutions, have caused them to fall flat on their face. The stupidity and greed of corporate CEOs is absolutely amazing. Insight and intelligence left the corporate culture during the Reagan years and became fully atrocious during the Bush administration. All the while, Bush lauded the corporations just like he bragged about the excellent job being done by his administration after Katrina, and how he strutted on an aircraft carrier announcing "mission accomplished." Reagan-Bush years were abominable.
Yes, the Republican Party, you know, the one that loves to strut its patriotism and family values, is embarked on a "gotcha" campaign to see that Obama fails, no matter how much it hurts America and Americans. The simplest and most cruel policy now is to stop any attempt at helping people in the U.S. and turning around the economy. Though it was the Republican Party that got us into this mess, they now want to sabotage any try at solving the dumpster economy they created. Solving this monumental problem would be tough enough if both major parties worked together, but it is much, much more difficult when one is hell-bent on practicing economic terrorism simply to make a selfish point. Yuck!
Let's make one thing clear: the economic morass we are now in began with President Ronald Reagan, and was amplified in destruction by ignorant and selfish President George W. Bush. Neither of those men had the aptitude or principles to sit in the White House. Favors were doled out to corporations. Financial institutions went off on a tangent as regulations were lessened. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been simply thrown away, first to support the illegal Contras, and then to support an illegal war in Iraq. We have no idea where all the weaponry used in these two wars went. Much of it went to supply terrorists. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanstan continue to be killed with weapons made in the U.S.
In many ways we are still in the era of alchemy and witch hunts. Unless you believe that the Bible is the actual word of God, many so-called Christians will defile you and think you horrid. These people know better than science, better than your strange religious beliefs, better than history, better than logic, better than anything. If you point out that what they are saying is totally against any insightful or intellectual premise, they will tell you, as they are painted into a corner, that they KNOW they are right and take in on "faith." How's that for a glorious cop-out?
"Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based." -Ambrose Bierce
If the federal government helping people in danger of losing their homes is socialism...
If a progressive income tax in which wealthier people pay a greater percentage of their income is socialism...
It was George W. Bush who proposed, and obligingly received from a Republican Congress, a federal government bail-out of banks, financial institutions, etc. It is Barack Obama who is called a Marxist and Socialist when trying to do the same. The big difference: Democrats crossed the aisle to help Bush, the Republicans won't do anything to help Obama. The other BIG difference: it was the Bush administration that caused this financial melt-down. Greed-capitalism has failed us. And Obama has been stuck with the bill; and with Republicans in Congress who show their cooperation and patriotism by voting in unison against whatever Obama proposes. Republican agenda: do not allow President Obama to succeed. Republican agenda item #2: take the easy route and predict failure about everything...and then ensure that happens.
The Bush administration inherited a federal budget surplus when it took office. Think how far we have spiraled downward since then. And all the financial failure was done in secret. Calling bank bail-outs in 2009 an act of socialism is amazing, considering that there were over 400 bank failures and bail-outs during the Bush administration! Where was the cry from the conservatives then? What is further amazing is that the Bush administration [and a prior Reagan administration] gave huge corporations like banks and financial companies the most favorable federal playing field imaginable and they still could not succeed over the graft and greed. What kind of financial CEOs are capable of this much failure?
Watching President Barack Obama addressing Congress clearly indicated to me how long it has been since we had a president adequately equipped to handle the office. The current debacle in the U.S. developed over several previous administrations. It did not happen overnight. And with each man addressing the nation, Congress, or a large gathering, I have always been amazed how limited and sometimes outright inadequate have been our presidents.
Moreover, it has been apparent for a long time, perhaps even going back to the McCarthy fascist scares, perhaps even back farther with American industrialists supporting Adolf Hitler, that we have had a president not beholden to big business and corporate behemoths. Yes, since FDR and Truman the pickings have been slim.