Are Republicans relatable any longer?

There's a lot of talk about the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. They're losing the voting base and, because of dwindling support, are grasping at straws to be something meaningful. The religious part of their support has turned into a pariah for most people. Is it the GW debacle that has turned people off to religion and the GOP? They shifted too far to the right and narrowed their views too much for main stream voters.

So they chose an African-American as their chairman. A desperate attempt to draw in more minorities without alienating the male-centric ego and giving the white affluent male a warm fuzzy feeling. Too bad this guy is just a dancing monkey. His performance so far has been less than stellar and borderline embarrassing. But check out his latest effort to demonize the homosexual community and rally the money-men; he says that if you allow same-sex marriages than companies that once didn't recognize them or allow same-sex benefits would now be forced to. This would increase expenditures and reduce the bottom line.

I find this fitting for the party of religious kooks to reduce marriage to a monetary drain on society and eliminate any love and commitment in the institution. Marriage is one gigantic financial burden on companies now. So that's what is so sacrosanct, that is what is so important to married couples. While we all knew this to be the reason for matrimony it's nice to see the GOP finally saying it aloud. It's not the religious ceremony that makes marriage sacred but, in stead, the bottom line.

Way to go!

Freedoms are only for Christians

It's funny how people only believe in our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights when it helps their own cause. It doesn't apply to anyone else. You see, we have a First Amendment that states:

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You, my fellow American, are free to worship whomever, however, whenever, wherever, whatever you wish in this country that is The United States of America. The government is not allowed to infringe upon this right, according to the above First Amendment to our Constitution.

Unless you choose no religion. Or you are gay. You see, if you are no religion or you are LGBT you have no place in our country. You have no place on this planet and you have no place in humanity. Please understand that this is not hate for you and your lifestyle choices, this is hatred for your actions; hatred for your sin, if you will. Our Constitution is only for those who practice real religions; religions like NAMBLA, aka: Catholicism, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. All others, such as Atheists, Gnostics, Secular Humanists, Muslims, Scientologists and Wiccans practice heathen lifestyles and, because of this, aren't covered by the First Amendment. And Jehovah's Witnesses are only covered by a very thin thread.

Who decides these things? Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalists such as Devvy Kidd. This "christian" woman claims to be a woman who does not hate but, instead, is a woman who loves amazingly. Evidence to this claim is in her most recent article espousing such bullshit. In all of her christ-like wisdom she knows more than science and far more than any LGBT person on the planet. How did she come upon all of this knowledge and wisdom? By reading what many who are NOT CHRISTIAN would consider fiction; the bible. When you peruse her website you will, no doubt, become just as convinced that the only way to be a true American is to denounce and reject anything that is not christian. A true Constitutionalist such as herself knows that to be a real American and to stand for true First Amendment principles is to outlaw any lifestyle that is not the one proscribed by this woman.

I find it fascinating that anyone would read the First Amendment in this way and still consider themselves fair-minded and loving. Currently this way of thinking is on the fringe of American society. But there are still a great many people who think the way this woman thinks. We can only hope it remains on the fringe. Satan is subtle. And pretty. Maybe even a redhead.

Chuck

Not all christians are un-christ-like jackasses.

While it would be quite true to say that many of the religious horde are wicked and contradictory to the holy books they espouse, some of them are actually civilized. I know it's shocking but every now and then I come across one that might actually be like-able. And it's refreshing.

The other day I took part in an on-line dialogue with just such a person. A man that engaged in conversation with several non-christian folks and showed amazing respect for the other side of the story. Happily, I can report that those with whom he disagreed also showed respect for this man's opinions. It was an amazing back-and-forth and one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

It's good when people of differing opinions and set of religious beliefs can come together and not get all hot-headed but, instead, work toward mutual understanding while still remaining true to our beliefs and opinions. David C. is to be commended for his respect of others. He is one of the all-too-few that give religion a good name. Maybe one of the folks Lot saw that were worthy of saving from the fire and brimstone?

If you're not already reading Fannie's Room each weekday you really should start. And continue religiously.

Chuck

A change of topic, sort of.

Freedom of the press; an important part of our Bill of Rights. Our forefathers understood the value in allowing the press to run free and print good, solid news without repercussion from government retaliation. They saw this as a check by the electorate to keep the government in line. And for quite a great many years the media has done a fairly nice job in their reporting.

With the onset of web-based content print journalism is on the decline and many newspapers are falling into bankruptcy. This fact alone is scary and a travesty. There are still many people without the means to access on-line news and will become less informed and unable to make sound decisions or to fully participate in government. This, in turn, will allow our elected officials to run roughshod over the minority of society, those who are poorer and with limited means. And government does not have a good track record for equality and fair treatment of these people as it is.

But I'm finding it hard to feel any pity or sorrow for the print media itself. More and more often we are seeing journalists resort to opinion based solely on emotion with no factual evidence to support those opinions. Ironically, any facts on the subjects about which they write are usually opposite those opinions. Or any facts they do choose are one sided without well constructed arguments. What is left available to those seeking out print media is poor journalistic endeavor at best. News has become sensationalist, emotionally based fluff. And less and less of us are interested. It's a sad testimony to the industry when BOTH leading newspapers in the third largest metropolis in the United States are in bankruptcy.

What will happen with this important check on government gone? Like a room full of kindergartners with no supervision. Chaos.

Chuck

Our Constitution is in good hands.

The GOP is smarting. They are continually being trounced in elections and the country is telling them they are out of touch. And most of what we hear from the right is just that. The issues that matter to the American people right now are not the issues Republicans are talking about. In stead of relevancy they are engaging in hissy fits and acting like sore losers. And these tactics are losing them face, respect, and will lose them more elections. The people want solutions and bipartisanship. They want a government that works together to get things done for the people. But the Republicans feel that it's their way or the highway and they will simply pack up their toys and go home. For shame.

With Justice Souter retiring in June, the Democrats are able to appoint someone to the Supreme Court this year. I can't think of a more appropriate person to have this honor than our current president. Barack Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. He is not an "it's who I know" Ivy League MBA grad. Our President actually understands law and the high law of our land. He has studied it and practiced it and taught it to others. Who better to appoint an interpreter of that law?

Whether you like Obama or not, whether you voted for him or any other Democrat or opted for a Republican, there can be no arguing that he is perfect for this opportunity. What we must hope, though, is that the Republicans will not make this into yet another "Circus of Irrelevancy" that they have developed such a knack for. Of all the things they are getting wrong we wish for them to get this right. No current politician is better suited for this than the one set to engage in it.

I collective sigh of relief. Maybe we should ask him to nominate Fannie? She seems relatively even-keeled and with common sense. And she has a great sense of humor. We could use a good woman up on that hill. And how progressive would it be to not only have a woman, but a lesbian vegetarian? We'll just have to wait and see.

Chuck