Thursday, October 25, 2012

What's Up With That #6 Taboo

O.K., here's what I don't get.  Mr. Romney is proud to be of the Mormon faith.  He has been Mormon all his life, as is his family.  He'll say, and rightly so, it has shaped his life.  Yet, no one else is supposed to bring up the fact that he is a Mormon, and his beliefs might be built on his experiences as a practicing Mormon.

Why is this taboo?  What's up with that?

In my 58 years of life I can count on one hand the number of times I have missed church.  The only times I don't show up are if I am throwing up or something disgusting like that.  If I'm on vacation, I go to church.  Always have, even as a child.  I have been a member of the same denomination the whole 58 years.

I'm not saying this to sound saintly, but to make the point that it has shaped my life.  Everything I think, or do, how I spend my money, or where I volunteer are all based on my experiences of being a member of my denomination.

So I would think that Mr. Romney's outlook on life, his opinions, belief system, all that kind of thing, has been formed in the bowels of his religious upbringing; a religion that doesn't allow people of color or women to be in the church hierarchy or have positions of power.  Take a look at their website and check out the leaders.  The First President and all the twelve Apostles are the whitest looking bunch of middle aged to elderly males I have ever seen. An organization couldn't have more testosterone or be more vanilla.

My husband and I went to Nauvoo for a day trip a few years ago.  After touring some of the buildings and hearing how mean all the non-Mormons were to the Mormons ad nauseum, we went into the visitor's center for a talk by a Mormon tour guide.  A member of the audience asked why Mormons discriminated against women in the church. The spokesman said that Mormons respected women, and their purpose.  He then pointed out the window to a garden filled with statues of women in various poses; women praying, courting, teaching children, and one called "Fulfillment" that has a woman sewing a quilt.  Most of the statues had women with children.   He told us that women had their place and they should be content that their sole purpose in life was to marry for eternity, have lots of children and be fulfilled as a mother and wife.  He said that the fulfillment provided by such things was all a woman needed.

We slowly backed out of the building and left Nauvoo never to return.

If that is a person's belief and it makes them happy then good for them, it's a free country.  But, could being raised in a religion that teaches that kind of belief not affect your attitude on women?  Really?

The Mormon church also doesn't have people of color in any position of leadership in the church because the leaders have to trace their genealogy back to the apostles and according to the Mormons, the apostles were white guys.

I'm thinking while looking at the church leaders that some creative genealogy must have been involved.

Mr. Romney has not shared how these beliefs have helped to make him who he is today.  Why does everyone shy away from asking him?

If I could ask him questions, I'd ask him if he agreed with those particular dictates of Mormonism.  I'd ask him if he could separate his religious beliefs from his political life.

No one minded asking John Kennedy those kinds of questions.  When he ran for president he made a point of saying his Catholic beliefs would not affect how he governed.  That didn't stop people like Pastor Dunn from Grace Presbyterian from preaching to his congregation not to vote for a Catholic in the White House.  But now, it's frowned upon to mention the "M" word. 

I know I'll get some flak about this so if you want to comment and tell me it's a shallow post, go ahead, I don't agree with you.  Hey, I just want to know "What's Up With That"?

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

What's Up With That #5- Hipocrites

Four years ago at this time, I and everyone I knew were being bombed with crap from nut-case, fundamentalist Christians screaming that President Obama wasn't a Christian.   Day in and day out ad naseum, we were told that Christians shouldn't vote for him because he wasn't religious enough.

Where are they this time?  I've received nothing.

Might this be due to the fact that Mitt Romney is, dare I say it, a Mormon?  No one seems to mention the elephant in the room.  Fundamentalist Christians don't believe that Mormons are Christian, in fact, they consider and teach that they are a cult.

So, how can they throw their enthused support behind a Mormon?  I guess they hate Obama so much that they'll forgo their principals to get him out of office.

I'm surprised I'm not hearing the screech of, as the Dilbert comic strip once put it, "Paradigms shifting without a clutch."

Ouch, their little brains must be throbbing.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

"What's Up With That # 4 More, Women Hateing Republicans

OK, I've not posted for a while, life getting in the way and all that.  When I did my last "What's Up With That?" rant about Republicans hating women,I thought that I was done with the subject.  I mean, I commented twice on the women hating antics of certain members of the Republican party, we get the idea, subject closed.

To my surprise, as the long, hot, dry, summer painfully wore on, more mind boggling comments were made by our conservative friends.  These comments were so blatantly sexist I could only pick my jaw up off of the floor, shake my head, and exclaim, "What's Up With That?"

As we all know by now, Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for senate in Missouri justified his argument against providing abortions for raped women by claiming that the body has a natural defense to getting pregnant in cases of “legitimate” rape. (As opposed to non-legitimate rape, what ever that is.  Wow, our bodies are very discerning.)

Of course the poo hit the fan after that thick headed comment.  The National Republican Party disavowed any connection to Mr. Akin, his comment or his views.  What else could they do?

That's all well and good, but then they nominated a Vice-Presidential candidate who not only made similar comments, but co-sponsored a bill with Rep. Akin to redefine rape as "forcible rape". (Once again, as opposed to non-forcible rape.)  I guess if you're not violently forced to have non-consensual sex it doesn't count.  So sorry to all the rape victims who were "roofied".  Too bad, you're out of luck!

With that in mind, can we really believe the Republican Party doesn't in their "heart of hearts" agree with Mr. Akin?
These aren't the only idiotic comments being made by Republicans. These guys have friends who say things just as idiotic as they do! Republican Congressman Steve King  said and I quote, "I've never heard of a woman getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest". 

Really? What is wrong with these guys?  Is Mr. King endorsing statutory rape or incest?  I'm not sure the point he's trying to make.

In their rabid frenzy to stop abortion at all costs they are sacrificing women on the altar of their agenda.

They claim to love and respect women, but I don't see it. 

Monday, June 18, 2012

What's Up With That? #3

I really do believe that Republicans hate women. 

It sounds crazy, and I've given it a lot of thought, but the evidence is becoming pretty strong.  In any and all situations they take every one's side except women. 

They mess with reproductive rights attempting to send us back to the bad old days siding with male church hierarchy, they vote against the Reauthorization of the Violence against Women Act siding with God knows who (rapists and abusers?), and now they block the Paycheck Fairness Act.  What the heck is their problem?  Did a woman scare them as a child?  Do they have mommy issues?

Republicans filibustered Democrats’ effort to pass a bill that would have opened up far more avenues for women to sue businesses when they suspect pay discrimination.  The legislation, known as the Paycheck Fairness Act, would shift burdens of proof toward businesses to defend their pay decisions, and would give women the right to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It would allow women to file a class-action suit and would make them specifically have to opt out of the class.

All I can say to that is "Whoo hoo"!  It's about time.

Democrats fell more than a half-dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to head off the filibuster, but said they’ll force the Republicans to vote on it again in the walk-up to this year’s election.

Like I've said before,  I remember when my mom found out in the 1970's that the man who held her managerial job previously, received a salary twice as large as hers. She confronted her boss and he said,” Why do you think we hired a woman? We can pay you less.” She went to the State’s Attorney for justice and was patronized, and informed, “that’s how life is”.

That whole frustrating ordeal was a real wake up call to the inequities in the male female dynamic in the world.  She wasn't a feminist before, but she started to turn that direction.

I've known many women since who have suffered financial discrimination in the workplace, which is why companies don't want you sharing the details of your salary with your co-workers.  They don't want you to know you're being screwed.

Who 's side are they taking against women? Those poor sad corporations and businesses. My theory is that if corporations and businesses did what's right in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about law suits. And yes, it was said during the Republican Primary contests, "Corporations are people", but evidently not female people.

Friday, June 15, 2012

What's Up With That #2

Here's another "What's Up With That" moment.  I shake my head in wonder.

Who in the world could be against the Senate Bill S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 .  Simply put, it was a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.  I mean really, who is FOR violence against women?

Apparently 31 Republican Senators are.

Here is the "Roll Call" of shame of the "Nays" from the April vote:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)

Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Could the "Party of NO" be so out of control that they'd actually take a position of insensitivity to violence against women just because the original bill was signed into law by a Democratic President?

I had a friend who was wearing a tee shirt from the what used to be "Women's Strength" in Peoria.  The shirt said "You can't beat a woman".  She was at some event downtown and a complete stranger walked up to her and whispered in her ear, "You wanna make a bet?"  Then he leered and walked away. 

Until that type of climate for women is gone, bills such as S. 1925 are necessary.

Monday, June 11, 2012

What's Up With That #1 Addendum

Before we leave the subject of the wealthy versus the shrinking middle class, I need to say one more thing.

After the last blog was published, I read yet another editorial in the PJS about Fat Cat Unions destroying the economy.  You know, those wealthy teachers and road workers who suck so much money out of state budgets.

I know what they mean.  I see those evil teachers, after having to take classes and in most cases get their Masters to keep their jobs, getting so rich off our tax dollars that they almost quit their second job.  You know, the one they have to take to make the mortgage on their middle class home.

(If you want to see what happens to non-union people in the teaching profession, go to a food pantry some time and see the day care workers and teacher's aids standing in line because they get paid so little they can't make ends meet.)

I see those road workers, after spending 12 hours a day in the broiling heat or freezing cold, hopping in their  BMW's and going home to their mansions.  Or, maybe it's a Chevy truck and a house in the suburbs.

Unions gave us five day work weeks, paid vacations, benefits and much more.  Without them, those things will go away, for management as well as union workers.  If you find that hard to believe, Caterpillar is a prime example.

Every time they take something away from union workers, they take it away from management.  If union workers lose some vacation days, so does management.  Lose health benefits, so does management.  And so it goes.  If they no longer have to provide union benefits because their are no unions, soon no one will have them, and the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom will become a chasm.

I suppose that will work out alright.

The wealthy can live in their mansions on the hilltop,and the peasants and serfs can live below, looking up at the rich and serving their every need.

Friday, June 8, 2012

What's Up With That? #1

Have you ever just sat down and thought, “What’s up with that?’  I do it more and more as I get older.  The world is a mysterious place that never ceases to amaze and boggle my mind.  I know why the phrase “WTF” is prevalent in today’s social media, it seems apropos for many situations.
Most of these WTF moments cause me to rant and rave in the privacy of my own home.  But, my husband is getting tired of listening to me, and ultimately, what’s the fun of a one man audience?
So, I’m going to share some of my “What’s up with that?” thoughts one at a time, and see if writing them down helps the fog to clear.
The first phenomenon I would like to ponder is the recent trend of people (many of them middle class or lower) falling over themselves to be apologists for the rich.  God forbid anyone makes a suggestion that the rich aren’t paying their fair share, or corporate heads are overpaid, or are screwing (I couldn’t think of a more polite word) their employees.  Don’t even think of mentioning corporations who don’t pay taxes, or getting rid of tax breaks for the rich.  Katie bar the door!  You’d be smashed into smithereens by masses of people stampeding over top of each other to stick up for those “poor rich folks”! 
I read the editorial page, and am amazed at the letters defending the wealthy top percent.  God love ‘em, I didn’t realize they needed the help.  However, I do understand that if some of their tax breaks disappear they might be forced to keep their third vehicle a year longer, or maybe have to do some of their own lawn work.  My heart goes out to them.  Maybe Willie Nelson could organize a rich-aid concert.   
A friend told me that she didn’t think the rich should pay more taxes because they were “job makers”.  Really?  They were in hog heaven during the Bush administration and how’d that work out?  Just where were those jobs they made?  Can anyone say India and China?  They sure as heck weren’t here!
Meanwhile as the old depression era song says, “The rich get rich and the poor get poorer”.  The income gap is bigger than ever before, and the middle class is shrinking.   Union jobs, aka good jobs, are disappearing and budgets, state and federal, are being balanced on the backs of the middle and lower class, while the rich just skate along fat and happy.  Just look at Wisconsin.  Their shrewd governor was able to convince a majority of the state that their problems came from those awful teachers and road workers.   Of course he just winked at the wealthy, while giving them the old secret handshake.  I can hear the CEO's now, their little mouths salivating while they rub their soft white hands, “Let’s move to Wisconsin, we can pay the non-union workers a pittance, and make record profits for ourselves.   Whoo hoo!  “Can anyone say bank account in the Cayman Islands, and a winter home in the Bahamas?
So, next time you feel like being an apologist for the rich, just remember, the rich have no intention of being an apologist for you.