The two-party problem

Many of my friends and family members know I'm yearning for a Republican candidate I can vote for. The closest I have come to voting for the big R was in 2008 with John McCain, and frankly that wasn't even close. Social conservatives and neo-cons have made the Republican pretty toxic.

It's not that I hate the Democratic party, but I am on the other side of the aisle when it comes to government size and spending. Of course the problem with this line of thinking is that Karl Rove and GWB's vision of a small government isn't much different than Barack Obama and Bill Clinton's vision of a large government; the spending is pretty close to being the same in non-stimulus years (a product of an administration drunk on essence of money-juice). So the proper response to all of those crazy problems we had to deal with in the wake of incredible fiscal irresponsibility (especially in the view of a Democrat) was to spend our way out of it, something I was begrudgingly on board with (given the size and scope of the problem, we had to do something, and damned if I knew what it was). And we're all familiar with the conservative refrain: Obama=Socialist.

Uncle Sam wants you driving one of his cars, writing checks at one of his banks, and using his health insurance. Are we saving the economy or headed toward socialism?

Now that's silly. The government trying to protect American wealth and conserve jobs is not socialism, especially given that these specific reactions were to very unique problems. If anything, this environment is closer to Corporatism than anything resembling socialism. But when I was lurking around the lefty blogs, this was a response offered by Liberal blogger John Amoto of crooksandliars.com (as well as the response given to anything even remotely bad that a democrat has done lately)

I'd like to remind Chris Wallace that Uncle Sam under George Bush gave us terrorist attacks, two wars, torture, illegal wiretapping, a stock market crash and almost destroyed the world's global financial markets and much much more in eight years. I could think of many more, but you get the idea.

Now, I'm certainly no GWB fan, but this cannot be the response to each and every hiccup this administration faces. It makes me angry that people think this is an answer to anything that is happening today. I mean (I know it's a long-shot, but,) what happens if in 2012, we all agree that Barack Obama is the worst president ever? No discussion, we just know, Obama is the worst president ever. What happens then? Is the answer still going to be "well it's GWB's fault!" That's just stupid, and it helps nothing.

EDIT::: To be clear, there are several Republicans I would -- and even a scant few that I have -- voted for, I meant for President. Sorry for the confusion.

A new day

I refuse to fall into the same mind set of liberal minded folks that believe Obama is the messiah and that he is going to solve all of the world's problems. I do, however, take umbrage with the fierce (and at times froth-mouthed) resentment that Obama has garnered before being sworn in. The weeks following 9/11 Bush's approval were up to around 90%. That means that 90% of this country stopped the petty bickering and rallied behind the leader of this nation. We are at a very important time in America's history, I hope we can see the same kind of unity under an Obama administration. I have my doubts. Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) calls the whole Obama inauguration the immaculation (a funny choice of words for sure). It's a simple jab at the Obama faithful. But you know, I've never heard Obama say that God hand-picked him for anything. It makes me wonder what Rush thought about Georgie Porgie invoking God (he can't mean literally can he?) for his reasoning to begin an unjust and immoral campaign to kill Iraq dead.

Has the pettiness returned? For sure. But the reasons why are clear. We saw the exit of a President who, while Governor of Texas, Executed developmentally disabled adults, permitted unfettered and unchecked use of wiretaps on a free nation, and showed a callous disregard to threats to American security.

My feelings towards Obama are a little ambiguous. I've read his words, listened to his speeches, and have looked into his voting record, he speaks my language on the political front (mainly that the devisive nature of American discourse slows the political process). However, one clear thing that stands out to me...He's a politician. Whether or not he was the best one for the job at any point in this election cycle, he is still one of the few with power that should not be given to any single person (Berlusconni, I've got my eye on you!!!). All that said, I am glad Obama is #44. There are worse people to have in office than a Constitutional scholar and lawyer. Besides, we should all want the same thing for all presidents: we should hope that they can steer the country in a course that leads us to prosperity, avoid destruction, and create a society that promotes the rights of all, not just the majority.

Thanks for the memories Bush. If nothing else it was terribly, terribly interesting.

~This Blogger is raged!!!~

Okay, so this Amish lady, Rebbecca, goes to an airport to apply for a job as a flight attendant. Her resume is amazing. She can (and does quite frequently) cook for 80 people, she's really friendly, and is used to dealing with "the angry English."

"I have to warn you, the job is not easy, you have to know exactly what the needs of each passenger are at all times. Your job isn't being a flight attendant, really it's more like being an indentured servant," says the interviewer.

Rebbecca insists that she can handle it.

"Great" says the guy interviewing her, "we have a spot open for you, come by on Monday to start your training."

That Monday the Rebbecca shows up, and she breezes through the training -- twice as fast as anybody has ever done it. Even the simulations go great: she foils the fake would be terrorist, serves another cup of decaf, and gives little Johnny a pillow all while keeping her bonnet perfectly straight.

"Wow" says the trainer, we usually make everybody go through three weeks of training, but we all feel that you're ready. Show up tomorrow for your first flight."

"Flight? I can't fly, I'm morally opposed to airplanes and everything they stand for." says the Amish lady.

"So why did you apply for the job?" asks the trainer.

"Well I figured I could do all of the things the job requires me without getting on an airplane," Rebbecca says.

"Without getting on an airplane? But that's what the job is! It's even the title of the handbook, 'Being on the Plane: a guide to serving people on a plane!' How did you expect to do the job properly?" Says the trainer.

Rebbecca retorts "well you can't make me get on the plane. Where's my check?"

Okay we all see the problem here. We all like Rebbecca, she's talented, able to do her job, and has every intention of doing her job unless it interferes with her beliefs. But the story presented illustrates the problem with executive legislation pushed through by the lame-duck administration recently.

You see, a new rule grants medical professionals of faith to withhold medical attention if it interferes with their religious beliefs.

Says Mike Leavitt secretary of the Department Health and Human Services: Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience

You see the problem with that thinking is that no one is being forced to choose between violating their conscience and their professional standing. This isn't Stalinist Ireland (just go with it, it makes sense). Nobody is forced into a professional career, these people spend tens of thousands of dollars to go to school in order to get into the lucrative business of providing medical care.

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

If I had gone to my job interview with Beans n' Cream and said "I will do everything except help people who arrived by car because I have the belief that cars are evil, and are destroying the earth," I wouldn't have been employed -- and rightfully so.

It's not like this shit sneaks up on you. You know exactly what you're getting into, and if you don't it's up to you to fix it by finding new employment.

My biggest problem with this sort of faith based initiative is that it always assumes people are doing good when it comes to making decisions in good faith. We live in a society that tries to level the playing field as much as possible for those that are playing the faith card. But it's bullshit. If someone is unwilling to give care based on their religious views, they are unqualified to hold the job. It's that simple.

The Freakin' (pissed) Deacon