Sunday, September 23, 2007


Yesterday, my brother was on a roll about how Bush isn't at fault with his response to the people of Louisiana after Katrina. Then, he said, "Senator Craig would still have his job, if he were a Democrat." He went on to mention that Clinton had sex in the Oval office and kept his job.

He missed the point entirely. Craig did not lose his job for having sex. He lost his job because he approached an undercover officer for sex in a mens room at an airport. Further, Craig has publicly supported anti-gay legislation and when you've done that, you don't want to get caught trying to have sex with a man in an airport bathroom. It isn't the sex itself, it's the fact that Senator Craig is a hypocrite.

Then, my cool headed brother ranted and raved that Craig's fellow Republicans have deserted him and they should've stood by him. All right and what would they gain with that?

Fred Thompson is against an anti-gay marriage amendment. He wants one that would prevent one state from imposing its laws on another state. The Religious Right have gone shopping for another candidate because they want true anti-gay legislation and this isn't it. (I'll rant about the amendment Mr. Thompson is proposing on another day.)

Republican candidates believe - and probably rightly so - that they can't get elected without the support of the Religious Wrongs. This is one of the reasons I don't vote for Republican Candidates, I can't stand their pandering to the Religious Wrongs. So, what would make my brother thing that Republicans will stand up for Craig? And, why should they take a risk of offending the Religious Wrongs and lose their own jobs for a hypocrite like Craig?

Now, Craig probably shouldn't have lost his job until he was convicted -- rather if he is convicted. We still have innocent until proven guilty in this country. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't have tapped the right foot of the person in the next stall in the first place. Maybe, if he has gay tendencies, he shouldn't have voted against gay rights and he could be living his life openly and wouldn't have to look for sex in bathrooms in the first place.

But, then he would have integrity and that's something we seem to have lost in this country a long time ago.

God Bless

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Ann Coulter - Redux... And other thoughts

So, I'm watching Bill Maher's HBO show (Real Time with Bill Maher), which I rarely watch, but it happened to be on while I was awake. He began a discussion regarding Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot. He wanted to know why she would do that.

David Kuo (author of Tempting Faith) said in answer, "He talks about the poor. And for Republicans, Ann Coulter said it, he's weak. The idea of caring about the poor, taking care of the poor and talking about these issues is weak."

How can taking care of the poor mean that you are weak?

Jesus spoke of the poor more than anything else. Would the right wing call Him weak? Does the right wing really think that?

And -- I'm not blaming the right for this entirely -- when did the world get so mean? No one wants to do nice things for other people anymore. Maybe, I'm just in a bad mood tonight, but it seems to me that the world is getting meaner.

On the same program, Maher had as one of his guests, Deepak Chopra. Chopra mentioned that he had lectured in the Soviet Union during the cold war. Maher said, "A lot of money, I bet." Chopra countered with "Oh, yes, of course." Maher said, "You're a spiritual leader, but you like lolly." Again, Chopra came back with a good line, "I'm a prophet, spelled P R O F I T." At least he's honest.

Finally, Dennis Troha. I don't have anything to say about him, but my blogs seem to get more comments and notice if I just mention his name.

God Bless

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

John McCain

While I understand the need to reach out to conservative religious leaders, I will not be supporting John McCain in his bid to become President in 2008. I like John McCain, but when will the Republican Party stop bowing to the extreme right wing that listens to people like James Dobson?

We do not need a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in this country. Gay marriage won't hurt anybody's marriage. And, we don't need these extreme so-called religious people having such a large say in our political campaigns. Now, I'm not sure, but isn't Dobson's so-called family group considered non-profit? (I could be wrong here) If it is, shouldn't they lose their status once it becomes clear that they are butting in on the political sphere? I think so.

I have to say, that I like John McCain, but I'm very disappointed in him. He should try reaching out to the disenfranchised conservatives who want smaller government, less taxes and more fiscal responsibility than reach out to the extreme who preach hate.

God Bless

Labels: , ,