Onward Christian Soldier

Most of us here in the U.S. know that Tuesday was a big night. Barack Obama was re-elected in a decisive victory over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the 44th President of the United States. However, the fact that the Democrats came out on top isn't the topic of this post. What this post is about is the Republican response to their defeat. Specifically, Facebook Republicans. In deference to inoffensive Republicans everywhere (I'm sure there are some, somewhere), I'm giving Facebook Republicans their own category.

Within moments of the decision, angry Republicans were posting hateful rants on Facebook. Bad losers are nothing new. What struck me was how many of them were self-professed Christians. One of my "friends" posted this on her Facebook Wall: "I had no idea I lived with so many uneducated people. (We) are considering MOVING out of this F*CKED up place." (It should be noted that many respondents to her post inquired as to where she planned on moving.) She claims to be a Christian. And what I thought was, if these are the kind of Christian values Romney and Ryan were fighting to protect and preserve, thank goodness they lost.

Christians were calling their friends "stupid", "dumb" and "uneducated" if they voted for President Obama. Ironically, most of the vitriolic rants I read were stupid and dumb and appeared to have been written by uneducated people. And this is a generalization, but it didn't surprise me a whole lot that so many of the rabid Romney ranters didn't seem that bright given the states that many of them hail from. It seems to me that the hypocrisy of so many so-called Christians was part of the reason that their candidate lost the election so badly.

Things have changed in the United States over the last several years. As Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union and a longtime GOP leader, stated on pro-Obama cable news channel MSNBC, the Republican Party "...is too old and too white and too male". I thought that was an interesting observation. When the demographics were sliced, diced and digested, President Obama simply appealed to a wider group of Americans. Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in this country and the Republicans didn't take that into consideration. It appeared that Romney's message was almost exclusively aimed at rich white men and, oddly, working class white men. Well, it's not 1980 any more. America of 2012 is more of a melting pot than ever before. Our leaders need to acknowledge and address that. And at least one leader is.

I was going to post the following before the election, but I didn't get around to it. I'm going to post it now, after the fact, so take it for what it's worth. If Mitt Romney had become the President of this country, I would've been mortified. I'd have been outraged, disappointed, scared, and just plain sad. But I would've supported him and given him my loyalty freely because I'm a patriot and that's what patriots do. I most certainly wouldn't have called my friends stupid or dumb or uneducated if they hadn't voted for Obama. I have plenty of friends who didn't vote for him, and they're all bright people. (They're wrong! But bright.)

This campaign seemed endless and was filled with half-truths, out-and-out lies and no small amount of drama. Election night was exciting, boring, frustrating, interesting and, ultimately, amazing. Romney gave a short, eloquent concession speech (albeit, about two hours later than he should've given it), and President Obama's acceptance speech was heartfelt and inspiring. After so much hand-wringing and angst, it was indeed a joy to emerge from the morass of campaign ads victorious.

Facebook Republicans that are out there licking their wounds need to revisit what being a patriot is all about. In this country, patriotism isn't about ethnicity or gender or economic standing or sexual preference. It's about being an American. And, right now, I'm proud to be one.

Veritas

Hey everybody! Long time, no see. My blog has been idle for a couple of months now, but rest assured, my mind has not been.

Most of what I'm going to share here today isn't particularly revelatory; it ain't anything you haven't read or heard or thought of before. But it's been swirling around in my head for a while and I wanted to bang this out before the election.

What I've noticed over the last several months is the television ads the various candidates have run. The fact that they're confusing, contradictory and misleading is a given. What bothers me most is that the majority of the candidates seem to be running ads about their opponent. And these ads invariably pull out some sound-bite, half-truth or bald-faced falsehood, and play it off as truth in order to make their opponent look weak, dishonest or plain ol' stupid. Which leaves it up to us to waste copious amounts of time trying to figure what's true and what's not.

The people who run these campaigns seem to think this strategy is a good thing. Like we'll all just believe what we see in these commercials and will therefore be more likely to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think these "attack-ads" and campaigns of misinformation make the candidates look cheap and petty. Instead of campaigning on their own merits, they resort to mudslinging to make themselves look good by comparison. It's the old "I'm not really good for much of anything but at least I didn't kill anybody" strategy. And I think it sucks. It seems to me the candidate's ad dollars would be better spent letting us know what they've done right rather than what their opponent has done wrong.

Most of us have heard talk of campaign reform at some point. My understanding is that it usually has to do with how funds are raised to finance campaigns. Well, I have a campaign reform suggestion of my own.

Self-promotion: Candidates may only run ads – tv and/or print – about themselves. They may not mention their opponent in any way, shape, or form. If an ad breaking this rule airs or appears in print, the campaign will be fined and will be required to print and/or air a retraction and/or apology.

Ad Cap: A set, limited number of television and print ads may appear during a campaign. If it is discovered that a candidate has run more than the allotted number of ads, the campaign will be fined and lose one advertising slot.

Truth in Advertising: All advertising will feature only truthful statements. An independent fact-checking committee will be formed to confirm the veracity of all claims made in advertising and if a falsehood is knowingly presented, the campaign will be fined and will be required to air or print a retraction.

Money Cap: A set amount of money shall be spent by both campaigns, and said amount will be far less than what candidates have been accustomed to. Once a campaign has raised the maximum amount of financing allowed, they will not be allowed to raise more. If it is determined that a candidate has raised more that the allotted amount, they will be fined double what the overage was.

This reform may or not ever happen, but I surely wish it would. I'm sick to death of having to slog through lies and innuendo in order to try to get to the truth of what the candidates stand for. This kind of campaigning may make the candidates feel better, but it doesn't serve the people at all. And isn't that what this all supposed to be about? Serving the people? It seems to me, most politicians spend far more time serving themselves.

The Idiocy Bandwagon

Wow. I think I finally figured out why our country is such a mess right now. So many of our elected officials are idiots. I don't know why it took so long for me to draw that conclusion with so much proof swirling around.

First off, anyone who's visited here a few times probably knows that I'd have to weigh in on this. I've railed about civil rights, gay rights, human rights, right of way, what have you. But this is probably the biggest 'right' (so far). It should also be noted that I'm usually way left of right.

Of all the issues that have piqued the public curiosity, first and foremost the economy, I would've thought rape was fairly far down on the list because it's so obviously wrong, period-end-of-story. But Senate hopeful Congressman Todd Aiken (R-Mo.) brought it to the fore. Here's what numbnuts said:

"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

And this man is married? To a woman? By the way, according to studies, pregnancy from rape occurs about 5% of the time, the same frequency as pregnancy occurs from consensual sex.

Aiken's comments made it clear that he doesn't have clue one about women, biology, psychology or what's involved in winning an election against a female incumbent. (She could be Cruella Deville on crack and still beat him.) But before we get into his mind-bending faux pas, I want to state my views clearly and for the record. I believe rape has no qualifier. Just like one can't be almost pregnant, or sort of black, rape doesn't come in degrees. A person is either raped or not. There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "forcible" rape. Rape is rape. Rape is defined as sexual intercourse by one or more individuals with another party against their will. There's no legal or moral distinction between "date rape" and "anonymous rape". Rape has been classified as a "crime against humanity" and a "war crime" in certain circumstances. The way a woman dresses or behaves has no bearing on whether unwanted sex perpetrated upon her is "justified" or her fault. That's it. No gray area.

I guess one has to admire the Republican party for their sorta-kinda support of Aiken. Republican Vice Presidential wannabe Paul Ryan distanced himself from Aiken immediately and then was called to task when it was revealed that he and Aiken co-sponsored legislation that would allow abortion only in the case of "forcible rape". Forcible rape. I thought to myself, "As opposed to what?" Ryan also referred to rape as "another method of conception". Let the backpedaling begin, Mr. Ryan.

Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Tom Smith also distanced himself from Aiken but stepped in his own pile when he affirmed that abortion should be illegal across the board, even for rape victims. Then he planted his other foot when he said pregnancy by rape is comparable to getting pregnant out of wedlock, as his daughter had done.

Apparently Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tx.) believes that women are more interested in important issues like economic prosperity and jobs. Rape and abortion rights? Bah! And lest we forget Mike "Chick-fil-A Day" Huckabee, who rallied Baptist clergy to remind us that "(...)Congressman Akin represents the mainstream of our values. He is the mainstream of our values." Um, not mine.

Then there's the political action committee Republican National Coalition for Life which endorses GOP candidates who advocate a strict no-abortion platform and are "unconditionally pro-life". So far, 40 House and Senate candidates have been endorsed by the group and, with months until the election, that number could go up. Akin-defender Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) made the list, though he admitted he'd never personally known a rape victim, pregnant or not. But way to support the cause, Steve!

On the other side of the road, former Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist supports, and has even joined in, the backlash against Aiken's comments. And, of course, the Republican party has vilified him as being "self-serving and overly ambitious". Toe the party line, bully for you. Step on it, and you're screwed.

Like so many other powerful terms in the English language, the word "rape" has been usurped by the public consciousness and used in ways that diminish it. Sports: "Omigod, he was safe! He was so raped." Business: "Dude, your bonus sucked! You were so raped!" Environment: "People, this land has been raped." (Yes, even green-minded people are guilty of misusing 'rape' to further their agenda.)

But in the context of humanity and civil rights, rape has but one meaning. There's no "well, let's look at the circumstances" issue here. Men can be raped too, but for the purposes of this blog post, I'm talking about women. Women can only be raped one way. I don't have enough room in this blog to explain to the likes of Todd Aiken and Paul Ryan – and those who blindly and ignorantly support them – what that means. It just shocks and disturbs me that men – MEN, young and old – who were lawfully elected to public office are so dense that they could take the stance that they have. And it shocks and disappoints me that there are women out there – regardless of religious or political affiliation – that either support these neanderthals or are seemingly indifferent to the ramifications of these views. (Apologies to neanderthals.)

Aiken is an idiot. That's obvious. Ryan is a somewhat smarter idiot because he's done everything he can to distance himself from Aiken and the "forcible rape" legislation that they co-wrote. Smith and Huckabee are just plain scary. And Kay Bailey Hutchison? You're a woman. How is any of this okay with you? And my female Facebook friends – how are you okay with this?

There's been an uproar ever since Aiken's comments went viral. What frightens me is that there's nearly as much support as there is outrage for the things he said. He claims he "misspoke", but people continue to support his allegedly misstated point of view. What does that say about us as a nation of humans? We Americans, as a philosophy, are still convinced that we're somehow superior to pretty much everyone in pretty much every way. Our economy is in the crapper and we're no longer a true super power. As inconvenient as those things are, they're recoverable. But what about our moral fiber?

I'll speak out to the Republicans because they're the ones who have freely put their heads on the chopping block (the smartest dumb thing they've done in a long time). Have any of you thought about the individual as opposed to your political rhetoric? Do any of you know a rape victim who had to struggle with not only her attack, but the far-reaching physical and emotional consequences? I haven't. I've known women who have been raped, but as far as I know none of them got pregnant as a result. I can't think of any circumstance that would allow me to feel comfortable or righteous enough to tell them what to do with their unborn baby if they were pregnant. Like abortion in general, I think it's too personal a decision to be left up to a mostly male government whose goals are increasingly self-serving.

If a woman is raped, she should be allowed to have a legal abortion. Congressman Aiken and Vice Presidential hopeful Ryan, I ask you: What is forcible rape? And what isn't? And how are women supposed to live with your interpretation?

Don't Wait for the Weight

Call this a cross-promotion. (TV shows do it all the time -- Magnum appeared on Simon & Simon and vice versa. They weren't super-great episodes, but it was still fun to watch Rick and A.J. duke it out with Thomas.)

My girlfriend Christy and I are trying to lose weight, and we're gonna do it. And it's not just about weight-loss, it's about eating and living better. We started a heart-healthy lifestyle last year but sort of, um, slacked. So we're re-doubling our efforts. I think it's a good thing and it's not as difficult or as restrictive as you might think.

So, to that end, I'm actively inviting (read: encouraging) you to visit Christy's blog – and take a gander. A few of us have vowed to make a difference in our own lives and, hopefully, in yours too.

Take a look, set a goal, and see if you can achieve your New Year's Resolution before New Years. Hey, it's a win-win. If you lose a little weight by Dec. 31, you can actually have fun on Dec. 31! And you won't have the pressure of setting a resolution on that penultimate day of the year that you're going to feel guilty about not keeping come Jan. 1!

Come on, it's a blog. If you cheat or choose not to do it, who's gonna know? But if you accept the challenge, you've got bragging rights in, like, August!

Yep. Here we go again...

EAT MOR CHIKIN...NOT!

I've come to realize that I question how many people actually understand the true definition of prejudice and discrimination. Through repeated exposure to images and ideas of discrimination, have we become desensitized to what it actually is? I realized that of all the people I've ever known in my life, I've known very few who were overtly prejudiced or discriminated against in any way. Chick-fil-A chief executive Dan Cathy's recent Christian-based anti-gay comments at first pissed me off in a there-they-go-again kind of way. The resultant furor over his comments encouraged me at first. Yay! This is pissing a lot of people off! And then I was appalled at the support he, and the restaurant chain, have received. Appalled and plain old disappointed. I'm disappointed in how narrow-minded and intolerant so many people in this country still remain. People seem to cling to ignorance (and stupidity) with a fierce determination that, to me, lacks explanation.

I discovered that many people I liked and respected are, in fact, hate-mongers with as little tolerance, compassion and sense as Nazi Germany at the height of its power and influence. Perhaps I've indulged in a little self-delusion because the reactions I've seen, on Facebook for example, took me a bit by surprise. The comments people have made made me think that they really have no idea what it's like to be discriminated against, or been a victim of bigotry or prejudice. I wondered how honest, God-fearing Christians could think it was okay to jail somebody because of their sexual preference? Granted, the Catholics had their Spanish Inquisition, and the Nazis had the Final Solution, Americans had slavery because blacks were inferior, women weren't allowed to vote; and hell, everyone was dumped on in this country during the Industrial Revolution. So, yeah, there's a history of egregious wrong-doing that was eventually righted. The Catholics got screwed in the U.S. right up until the 60s, and then a bunch of sick priests further sullied their reputation. Hitler lost, the slaves were freed, and women can vote. And Italians, Jews, Russians, Albanians and the Irish continue to fight amongst themselves (but they all seem to balance one another out in a sort circle-of-life thing).

So how is it, in this day and age, that we still haven't learned tolerance? How is it that so many seem to have forgotten the past and have no foresight toward the future? People continue to foist their twisted belief systems on others and hide under the white hood of free speech and the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't absolve you from having to think about what you say. Having the right to espouse bigotry doesn't make it right. And having the right to say whatever you want isn't the same as having the right to take action. When are people going to learn to be as respectful of other people's beliefs as they would have them be of theirs? When I read about either the gleefully ignorant ("Go Chick-fil-A!"), or the ignorantly apathetic ("I don't agree with their views, but I like their food. Go Chick-fil-A!"), I wanted to puke. It made me realize it's a lot cooler to be known as an American than to actually be one.

I don't think a lot of these people even know what the hell they're supporting. They're just jumping on the bandwagon like good little sheep and not even thinking about the actual, real-world ramifications of the words and actions that they're supporting. They're thinking of actual, flesh'n'blood human beings that their actions are affecting in a strictly abstract, academic sense. "These are other people who deserve what's comin' to them. But I don't know any of them."

History will demonstrate, as it has time and again, that the put upon and downtrodden will prevail and that their persecutors will be seen as the ignorant, provincial thugs that they are.

If all the groups that have been targeted for hate in our nation's history received the sanctions their persecutors sought, there wouldn't be anybody left.

Ella Mae

Ella Mae Blount 1912-2012

My grandma passed away yesterday. She was 99-and-a-half years old and died peacefully while asleep in her own bed. She was healthy and happy and clear of mind and spirit when she died.

After my mom called and told me Grandma had died, I unpaused the TV show I was watching and continued. I thought it might distract me from the news I'd just gotten. But it didn't. (Big surprise.) So I turned it off and I just...sat. My grandma and I weren't close, but neither were we distant. We simply lived across the country from each other and didn't communicate often. But I loved her dearly and I like to think that I was a decent grandson, especially during the last few years of her life.

As I sat on my couch, what I thought about was her life and her death. She was nearly a century old. A century! She was born just 9 years after Orville and Wilbur learned to fly. She witnessed the birth of commercial aviation and saw Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. She was around when a telephone still weighed about 4 pounds, only came in one color and didn't have a prayer of fitting into a handbag or a pocket. She had a typewriter and sent letters and didn't have a computer and never sent an email. She heard movies go from silent to sound and saw them go from black and white to color. She listened to radio and then watched television. She sang to herself and then got a phonograph and then a cassette player and then a CD player. (No iPod for Grandma, though.)

My grandma lived through World Wars I and II. She lived through Korea and Vietnam. She survived every disease known to modern man either because she never caught it or simply kicked its ass. She wasn't killed by a mugger or a drunk driver or a heart attack or a stroke. She was born in a time when it was nearly unlivable to be black in America and she saw the modern civil rights movement make life a bit better.

She raised 2 sons who then raised children of their own, who then raised children of their own. She was all of 5'-2", had a thick silver braid down to her butt, and I can't pull up a mental image of her face without a smile on it. She said her trick to keeping a clean house was to put things down where they belong. And she said that every disagreement isn't worth arguing about.

When I think about death, the idea of dying doesn't bother me that much. I think what frightens me is how I'll die. Will it be painful? Will I be alone? Will it take long? Will it be after a protracted illness while I'm lying in a hospital bed attached to machines and surrounded by strangers?

My grandmother died peacefully and painlessly while asleep in her own bed. That's how I could go. So for today, I'm not quite as frightened as I was.

Thanks, Grandma.