TIME TO SCRAP THE

"FAMILY VALUES" rhetoric and go for what is far more important in life: "Personal Values". If politicians stopped trying to tell us
A) what a family must be (namely their version of a man/woman, 2.5 children, all white, and Christian - preferably Baptist or Protestant) and
B) that only the above type of Family is acceptable or recognizable under the Constitution *thud*, and worked instead on their own personal values, this country would become - truly- a kinder, gentler place to live, not to mention more financially sound.

It's been a rough political season so far, no doubt about it, and I'm already tired of being told who should have rights and who shouldn't; which religions are real and worthy of building churches and which aren't; of battling politicians who don't know American history (or bend it so far backward to fit their will that it disappears) and suffer from 'Foot-in-Mouth" disease, that the next year and a half scare the hell out of me! 

So yeah, maybe it is time to concentrate on PERSONAL VALUES. I honestly don't believe that the most popular Republican political phrase, "Family Values" has a place in Politics or laws and the phrase sure as hell isn't something to create a political issue out of in this day and age - if ever. Trying to legally define something so fluid, so subjective, is actually a monstrous and insidious thing to do.

On the other hand, I do believe that the phrase, "Personal Values" has a major seat of honor in politics. Those are the values, as a voter and a resident of this country - and world - that I'm interested in when it comes to the men and women I want representing me. And just what am I looking for in Personal Values? How about:

HONESTY

 

If a politician has done something wrong, do they have the character, the honesty, to step forward before there's even a hint of danger that their wrongdoing will be brought into the light? Are they, for interest, honest enough to fly against their own party, to say to their fellow party members, "You're wrong" and then vote their heart instead of how they're told to vote?

Can they be honest enough during campaigns to actually say, "Yes, I hate cauliflower, even though I'm here in the cauliflower capitol of the world" or "Yes, I believe that at a certain point, abortion is wrong, but I will never support taking the right to choose away from a woman even if it costs me your vote." 

Can they be honest enough to say, "Yes, we have the right to own a gun, to take pride in gun collections, but who needs automatic weapons or AK47's? Who needs clips that fire off 30 bullets in an instant or the kind of bullets that tear through the vests of the men and women charged with protecting us? And rights or no rights, I will support full investigations into those who wish to purchase guns, even at gun shows, prior to permission to buy." 

Do they value the kind of honesty that requires actually answering politically charged questions during interviews or debates and are they willing to divulge ALL campaign contributors and allow no hidden donators?

HONOR

Do they place their honor above their allegiance to an affiliated party? Do they have the required honor, following honesty, to take the necessary steps to correct mistakes and behavior? Because of their sense of honor, will they say no to those who would fill their campaign coffers in exchange for 'favors'? 

TRUSTWORTHY

    Can we trust them to listen to us, to actually represent our needs and wishes and, if those needs are contrary to what's best and constitutional, do they have the earlier mentioned honesty and honor to tell us; to educate us; to explain why they voted as they did? And if a good law comes along that they vote against - due to all the amendments added on that they would never vote for - will they be trustworthy, honest and honorable enough again to tell us/show us/educate us? Can we trust them to vote as promised and have no qualms in revealing said vote?

There are more characteristics, but this is a good start for any politician and, if we were to ask ourselves who, among the many we listen to everyday in this, our current hour of difficulty, have these "Values", would we be able to come up with any names?  

Even President Obama has let us down in some of the above when he finally compromised in the current 'negotiations' (now there's a laugh) regarding the debt ceiling by putting cuts to Medicare and Social Security on the table. There is no doubt that some reforms are required to make these programs run as smoothly as possible, but cutting the benefits is NOT the answer. Yet he did it. This shows a mental block that I just don't understand. He knows no matter what he does, they will say NO. NO NO NO. And yet...he can't seem to get the message. He's trying to take a high road where there is only one road to take: Push when it comes to shove and, like Theodore Roosevelt said, "Talk softly but carry a big stick". It's time for our soft-spoken President to lift the stick.

By the way, Personal Values aren't restricted to the politicians. Oh, no. Personal Values applies to the voters too! Politicians, even the honest ones (there's an assumption that there are some - somewhere), have a hard row to hoe and, in many cases, we're the reason. So what kind of Personal Values do we owe our Government? 

EDUCATION: 

This is the big one and the one where we most often fail our government. We fail to learn all we can about the men and women we're looking at to represent us; be it at city, state or federal levels. We fail to educate ourselves on how our representatives vote, let alone how many times they've even been present to vote. We're also lacking in our knowledge of the Constitution and our history, which in today's climate, can spell disaster. And it's so easy to find the Constitution (link taken directly from the White House site) and read it - so when was the last time you did?

BLINDNESS

We're often blind to the weaknesses of our Party and, as a result, we blindly follow its lead, even when it's against our best interest. No Party Platform is perfect and we all struggle to find the party that, on the whole, meets what we expect from government - but sometimes our Party goes astray. That's when we need some of the honesty and honor we require from our representatives - in ourselves - so we can take the 

blinders off.

RESEARCH

We often forget that everything we need to know is not to be found via our local - or favorite - news channel; but rather at our government's website, again, be it city, state or federal. 

Example:  The Federal Government website, which is the alpha and omega no matter where your search engine takes you first. This is where it all begins and will tell us all about our government; each branch - and has links to the House of Representatives where you can see all the votes, sessions, etc., and then the Senate  and even the Supreme Court. And yes, plus many more. Heck, in the left hand column, you'll even find a link to your State government!

GETTING INVOLVED

We really tend to fail here and it's the keystone to our Personal Values in just about every aspect of our lives. Apathy is the enemy. Assumptions? Also the enemy - a big one. We often assume everyone feels as we do and will go out and vote/educate themselves/research, etc., but we're wrong. Americans are, unfortunately, basically lazy and, like sheep, simply follow the footsteps of others. 

 And finally, one Value that fits both our government representatives and ourselves:
 

Equality.

I could have used the word Tolerance instead, but no one should just be 'tolerated' because we don't agree/understand them but deign to allow them to exist, no, Acceptance and Equality are far more important words and thus actions than Tolerance. We 'tolerate' the loud neighbors next door every now and then when they have a party, or we tolerate our husband's inability to remember to put the seat back down or pick up his socks, but we should never do something so negative - and downright dismissive - as to tolerate the color of one's skin, religion or sexual preferences. We should accept those things as we accept the sunrise because we should be seeing through the eyes of equality not tolerance. If we think we only have to tolerate those who are perceived as 'different', it's not too far a walk to a point where we start believing that our color/religion/family/sexual preferences are the only right ones and then, even the disagreeable word, "tolerance", flies out the window and only certain people become worthy of the benefits our country has to offer.

So yes, a kinder, gentler politics is the answer, not the rigid type we're being handed each day even though it seems wrapped in the American flag, Mom's Apple Pie, and of course, the all-mighty 2nd Amendment. 

Of course, kinder and gentler may be the way, but that won't stop me from  calling out politicians when they make statements like:

"Any ad that quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood!" or  

"My statements on Planned Parenthood weren't meant to be factual." 

No, Foot-in-Mouth Disease will still be pointed out - and as for the  flip-floppers? Still prime targets for the truth.

Would you sign this pledge?

You've heard of Iowa's "Family Leadership Pledge", right? No? Well, sit down and prepare to read the kind of idiocy that's unknown to us - usually. Now don't get me wrong, being faithful when married is something I believe strongly in, but to tell candidates in Iowa to sign this document or they will NOT receive their votes or even be considered? WOW. And trust me, there's a LOT more in this RIDICULOUS document than just promises not to be unfaithful if you're married and want to be President (or any other government elected position). Check it out, but trust me, it's long, but man, it's one hell of a read and worth your time.

Sorry to any Ohioans who are Democrats or normal Republicans but honestly, are there any left in Ohio or have they all been taken over by aliens?  

If you're feeling lazy - here are the highlights:

THE PURPOSE

(A Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY)

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.2

Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:

 Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African- American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.3

 LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents4 – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity. 5

 About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically-vulnerable families.6

 The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.7

 Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health. 8

The Actual Candidates Pledge

The Candidate Vow:

Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

 Personal fidelity to my spouse.9

 Respect for the marital bonds of others.10

 Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.11

 Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.12

 Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13

 Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14

 Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15

 Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16

 Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.17

 Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18

 Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19

 Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20

 Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.21

 Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.

The Vow of Civic, Religious, Lay, Business, and Social Leaders:

We the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* that no U.S. Presidential primary candidate – nor any primary candidate for the U. S. House, Senate, Governor, state or municipal office – will, in his or her public capacity, benefit from any substantial form of aid, support, endorsement, contribution, independent expenditure, or affirmation from any of us without first affirming this Marriage Vow. Furthermore, to uphold and advance the natural Institution of Marriage, we ourselves also hereby vow* our own fidelity to this Declaration and especially, to our spouses.

So help us God.

* NOTE: Or, “solemnly attest”. Each signatory signs only in his or her individual capacity as an American citizen and current or potential leader; affiliations herein are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily imply formal embrace of this vow or the sentiments herein by any institution or organization.

Signatories:

Name Candidacy or Title/Affiliation Date

___________________________         _______________

___________________________         _______________         

I'm thinking a TEST on AMERICAN HISTORY would be more in order, especially for the two females who seem bent on giving the rest of us a bad name.

Will our President sell us down the river?

Right now, our leaders are arguing over what to cut and what not to cut in order to deal with our debt ceiling (which, btw, has been increased, like, 16 times in our history, so it's hardly new to do so), and one of the issues on the table - and one that I'm feeling Obama is NOT standing firm on, are Social Security benefits (and of course, Medicare and Medicaid). But right now, my mind is reeling with questions about Social Security: Specifically the raising of the age at which one becomes eligible to retire and collect SS.

My mind keeps going from question to question, so I did some research.

First of all, we are living longer than in 1935 when Social Security was created by Roosevelt. Back then, the life expectancy for both sexes was 62.9 years (59.7 for men, and 63.5 for women) and yet, oddly enough, you couldn't retire until - are you ready? 65. Laughable, eh?

Okay, now go forward one generation (based on the above #'s in '35) to 1997 and the life expectancy was 76.5 (73.6 for men, 79.4 for women) and the retirement age? 67. Better than in '35, that's for sure. Now a man had almost 9 years ahead of him and a woman; 14 years+!

So that brings us to today and the projected life expectancy, which happens to be 79.5 (77 for men and...are you sitting down? 82 for women). This is a major improvement as it gives men 12 years following retirement and women 17 years! But it also gives credence to an argument on raising the retirement age. After all, why should we actually get to enjoy retirement longer? Who the hell do we think we are, anyway? Senators?

Obviously, the fact that we're living longer is a given. Health care was bound to improve - in spite of itself. In fact, I think we can thank both WWII and the Korean War for a good many of the improvements in medical treatments. But that doesn't mean our health care is anywhere near where it needs to be.

SO my mind asks another question: What is the quality of life for us and those of our children as they live those years between retirement and death if the age is raised? And with health care actually on the chopping block - combined with our refusal to meet the standards of the rest of the world in providing superior health care, well, it doesn't bode well, does it?

Then another question pops up: Who the hell can really retire NOW at any of the acceptable ages (62, 65 or 67) except the rich? So what do we really gain by raising the age limit? And do you have any idea how many city bigwigs and retired CEO's who do consulting STILL take their SS?? Maybe that's where we should start when talking SS reform?

My brain finally decided that we basically work forever, our health declines because we're at the mercy of health providers who are corporations and thus in it for profit, and at the mercy of the drug companies who create drugs for pennies and charge a 400% mark-up (and of course, they don't really care if their drugs work or how many side effects - because the idea is to get their drug on the market FIRST). And when we're finally ready and legally able to retire, our benefits won't be equal to the COL and we probably just had another crash and lost all our 401k's etc. and the company we worked for lost all our pension money...which reminds me....

There are also many loopholes that allow full pension payments AND full SS at the same time, meaning someone who is making, say, $50,000 a year off their pensions, can still, under certain circumstances, collect their full SS. There's another area where some work could be done, but yes, it would require real sacrifice because, come on, you really did pay into SS, so it's YOURS. And you paid into your Pension Plan/s, so it's YOURS.

Makes the whole thing a real conundrum.

So final question: What's the answer?

My choice: President Obama? Stand tall and firm. Don't give anything away but plan on reforms in the future to cover loopholes and improve Medicare/Medicaid. Otherwise, a cow could run against you in 2012 and they'd win. Trust me on this.

I've been meaning to add something about the Republican

Commercial Debate, specifically about Michelle Bachmann's remark about disbanding the EPA. So here goes the addition:

1. Why would a Republican (Tea Party) want to disband the EPA?

A: She'll say because it's BIG GOVERNMENT and the states should regulate their own environments and corporations that do business in their states.

2. What's wrong with that response?

A: States don't always have the interest of their citizens, let alone the environment or land, at heart. Especially when it comes to bringing in the all mighty dollar. And big business does just that. And if they can come into a state with no Federal shackles (EPA, anyone?), and make deals with the state, then guess what? That's what will happen. And when that happens, pollution will return full force to the states that have managed to clean up and uphold high EPA standards and even higher State standards, and worsen in those states who've managed to ignore or find loopholes in EPA regulations. What's breathable air and beautiful, safe lakes, rivers and ponds when you can line your pockets in the green stuff?

So the EPA and other Federal regulatory agencies will go the way of the do-do bird if 2012 sees a Republican (especially MB) voted into the Presidency. And the questions and answers will run approximately the same.

Are you starting to understand what small government really means to Republicans versus big government to the Democrats? One protects and one gives free rein to the states. I'm sure you can guess which does what, right? RIGHT?

Remember my post on DADT? (Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010)

Well, after all this time, did you know DADT is STILL in effect? And why, may you ask? Simple: The Pentagon has yet to ratify it. Gosh, what a surprise.

So things change while remaining exactly the same. Oh, there are small, quiet, court settlements for individual cases, and there's a pending motion in federal court that would permit all people to serve regardless of sexual orientation but then, the key wording was "Federal Court". *snort* I have little hope for the motion, nor much hope in the future of this country whether run by Democrats or Republicans.

All right, that's not altogether true - I could write a SciFi story on "Life Under the Small Government of Republican Rule" - in fact, I just might...if I can find the right hero to lead the charge to free the slaves....

Alas Alack!

I have tried to interest Rachel Maddow AND Jon Stewart in our party, but so far, no success. Anyone have any ideas? And how does one get their blog out there? Are there tricks to the trade?

There is only thing to say about the

Republican Presidential commercial debate held on June 13th in New Hampshire:I think the GOP overpaid for the commercial debate time!

There is no doubt that was not a real debate, but yes, an actual commercial for the Republican Tea Party. They were not attempting to provide Americans a chance to pick a Republican candidate but instead providing a forum by which several Republicans (whether they've actually announced their candidacy or not) could get their - for the most part - UNITED message out, on a major news network, and without having to use their campaign dollars to do it.

BTW: I say "for the most part" because Ron Paul was the only Republican old enough and ornery enough to tell the Tea Party to fuck off when it comes to some of his views, such as gay marriage. In his world, the government has no right to impose its (meaning the Republican Right) views on marriage on him and he would never impose his views of marriage on others. Like Lawrence O'Donnell, I agree that the longest Mr. Paul remains in the race, at least some truths will get out there.

So back to the debate:

In a word, it was bullshit.

Gosh, it feels good to write, 'bullshit' and know that no one can censor me by bleeping out the 'shit' part like they do on TV. *rolls eyes*

Some of the clues to its being nothing more than a commercial could be the chosen location; St. Anselm College - a private (as in CHARTER) catholic school. Why is that proof? Well, it's well known that one of the Tea Party Republican Party's big pushes is privatizing our education system (in other words, Charter schools). And truth be disclosed, they'd consider it a double win if all those Charter schools were Christian schools (okay, we know that's ludicrous but Right wing religious zealots can always dream...and they do)


Another clue was in Tim Pawlenty. A good many people, including the left wingers (of which I'm one, but one who isn't in agreement) saw Pawlenty's pale, lackluster response to why he didn't use "Obamy Care"  during the debate - as he'd bravely done the previous Sunday - as a "Just in case" move (as in, "...just in case Romney wins the nomination and then I could be his VP candidate") but come on, it wasn't a real debate, therefore, the gloves were on all night. If you play the debate (highlight 'debate' for a link to a video of the evening) over and over again, you'll see there's very little in-fighting, very few disagreements - but loads of head nodding and the usual repetitive, pedantic Tea Party Republican rhetoric regarding everything from "Obama Care" (they'll all repeal it); the National Deficit (they'll all cut taxes in spite of the fact that we're at the lowest tax rates since the 50's); and yes, each in their own way (a way that sounded oddly similar) would put DADT back into effect. They're also all in favor of more tax cuts for the rich, and all believe this will fix the deficit (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). As for the lone female, well, it was obvious that Michelle Bachman received the much-wanted, winning tea bag back stage, because she's the one who won the right to say this brilliant *rolls eyes* statement:  

"Every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America."

Oh, yeah, Michelle, damn that EPA and its stopping pollution by actually investigating huge corporations who have been poisoning us for years. *rolls eyes again - something I did throughout the commercial debate*.

So Michelle, what were you really saying? Were you saying that health be damned, environment be damned, cancer be damned in children, because thanks to the EPA, big business sent their business to third world countries where they can do ANYTHING they want in order to get their products made? Were you saying that now, those businesses can pay as little as they want to their slaves employees and pollute to their heart's content? And all because of the evil EPA? Is that what you meant? Did you really mean that God forbid those businesses should stay here and CLEAN UP THEIR ACT and then do their business in a responsible manner? Sure, of course, why do the responsible thing? Instead, we'll just kill the EPA instead.

"Go Michelle," she said without any enthusiasm whatsoever. "Go soak your head in an educational bucket," she added with great enthusiasm.

As you can see, there's a good reason why Michelle is the chairman of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.


In conclusion, any real discussion of who won or lost that particular debate is simply wasted words because no one wins or loses in a commercial - it's only later, like January, 2013, when we're watching either a Democrat or Republican taking the oath of office, that we'll know if this commercial worked.

Republican Americans, it's up to you now. Are you going to allow the rich, right wing control your representatives to the point that they don't dare speak up and stand for their real politics? Are you going to continue to vote against your own best interests because you love the rhetoric, or are you going to stand up and say "NO" to the Tea Party, a movement that's nothing more than a facade which uses all the right words but in reality (as the residents of Wisconsin and other states with new Republican Governors), intends to send us all back to a time before people CARED about each other.