Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Conservative Liberals

I was just listening to MPR (Minnesota Public Radio for the uninitiated) and they were discussing the current divide between the two political parties in Washington.  The speaker (I have no idea who he was since I turned the show on halfway through) made the statement that a big part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten so conservative, and the Democrats have gotten so liberal.  

WHAT??!!

I am a liberal.  I am very, very, unabashedly liberal.  Most of the Democrats in Congress however, are not. 

Just look at the President.  Do people really and truly believe that he is oh-so-very liberal?  Yes, he may lean to the left, but he's nowhere near a full-fledged liberal when it comes to most issues.  He is fully willing to compromise any liberal beliefs that he has to get his job done and stay popular with the independents. 

Just because the Republicans have become more conservative, doesn't mean that the Democrats by default have become more liberal.  We seem to live in this state of equal time; where if there is one side, there must be an equal point of view on the other side.  If 'A' equals 'A', then 'B' MUST equal 'B.'  If conservatives love America, then liberals must hate it.  If Republicans like "family values" then Democrats must hate them.

I just really don't see how anyone can take an honest look at the Democratic Party and say that they are "more liberal" than they ever used to be.  There are a few tried and true liberals like Barney Frank, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, but on the whole, the Democratic Party has been inching to the right for quite some time now.  Our whole system has strayed to the right, and maybe that makes it look like the Dems are more liberal than they actually are.  Sadly, they are not.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Rick Perry: The New GWB

I'm really having a hard time with this whole Rick Perry phenomenon.  I simply can't wrap my head around how this country went through 8 years of pure hell under George W. Bush, yet half of the country seems ready and willing to jump right back under the bus.

Whenever I hear Rick Perry speak, I see GWB.  He's got the same swagger, condescending tone in his voice and inability to put together coherent sentences.  I heard someone on TV who's met him describe Perry as "dumb as a box of rocks."  That's pretty dumb.

My husband thinks it's due to the fact that half the country is functional retarded; sorry, "mentally challenged."  But I'd like to give people a little more credit than that.  Can't they see how Perry would just be reheated GWB?  Did anybody but the super-rich do well from 2000-2008?  Were soldiers better off? Were workers, women, children better off?  I don't think so.

Since when did having a nauseatingly macho attitude qualify you to be the president? Oh ya, since GWB.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

By the Numbers

My brother and I tend to call each other when we're out driving and we see interesting bumper stickers.  The other day, he called me and said he was sitting behind someone with a bumper sticker that read, "1 in 4 babies dies from choice."  We both thought that number seemed a bit off, so I did some Google-ing and found this at the Guttmacher Institute website:

"Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion."

So I guess that number was (fairly) accurate.

What interested me more, though, was the statistic I found right above that one:

"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended."  Wow.

So then I thought, I wonder what the stats are in Europe, where they are much more open about sexuality and provide comprehensive sex ed and easier access to abortion.

I couldn't find useful comparisons on the whole population, since I'm lazy and unwilling to go past the first page of Google results, but I did find a teen comparison on the Advocates for Youth Site.  According to their numbers:

"In the United States, the teen abortion rate is twice that of Germany and more than 1.5 times that of the Netherlands. "

You can read their full report here: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177

So what does this tell me?  Our abortion rate could be much lower than it is if we quit insisting on turning a blind eye to the realities of sex.  We seem to tell kids, "Sex is dirty, scary and dangerous, so you should save it for the person you really love and never give it to anyone else."  How realistic is that point of view?

Does it make me sad that our abortion rate is practically 25%?  I guess.  But not because I think "babies" are dying.  It's because I think many of the women who have been put in a position to choose abortion may not have had to do so if they had reasonable access to birth control and education.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

The Religions, They are a Changin'

I have three, count 'em, three, very cool cousins who have radically changed their religions in the past few years.  Two became Catholics and one is now an Evangelical.  If you're reading this, don't worry, I'm not talking about you.  The three I speak of don't read my blog.  One is on facebook, but he unfriended me, I'm assuming because he didn't like my confrontational replies to the BS he was posting. 

This really distresses me.  Not so much the fact that they changed their religions.  People are free to do what they want.  What bugs me is that these were three of my favorite relatives.  All of them used to babysit my brother and I when we were kids, and they were the cool, pizza-ordering, cartoon-watching grown-ups we really looked up to and admired.  As adults, I also really liked all of them.  They were just so cool and down to Earth and fun to talk to.  One of them used to call me when I was in the hospital with one of my Crohn's flare-ups and give me pep talks because he deals with a similar disease.

But now, it's as if they all made a radical 180 in their personalities.  With the exception of one, the other two have become totally different people.  They now seem to put the church and their new radically conservative ideologies above their friends and family.  One of those two didn't come to our annual family reunion this year.  I can only guess, since we don't really talk anymore, but I'm assuming it's because he didn't want to hang out with the rest of us heathens.

The other two were at the reunion, where I missed out on an apparently epic conversation on religion.  Another cousin, we'll call her "Jennie," filled me in on the conversation that took place after I had taken my kids home.  The discussion had turned to gay marriage.  To make sense of the conversation, you need to know that one of these guy's daughters is a lesbian.  When asked by Jennie if he would walk her down the aisle if she got married, he answered, "no."  When she asked the other guy, who is this girl's uncle, if he would come to her wedding if she decided to get married, he also answered, "no."

Their reasoning was that a gay marriage was not a "real" marriage because it was not sanctioned by the church, therefore it didn't deserve their respect or time.  Jennie pointed out to them that my marriage was also not sanctioned by the church, but my dad walked me down the aisle and they both came to my wedding (although, to be fair, that was in their pre-bible-banging days).  They explained to her that my marriage was also not "real," and by extension, I guess my brother's marriage and my parent's marriage are also not "real" because none of them were sanctioned by a church.  Although I might point out that all of those marriages are still going strong despite the absence of god, while many "real" marriages I know of have fallen apart.

What worries me the most about this phenomenon is, could it happen to me?  Could I hit 40 and all of a sudden decide to find Jesus?  That would be truly tragic, since I like my life the way it is now.  And I simply can't understand how finding Jesus causes you to lose your family if they don't agree with your new doctrine on life. 

It seems like an epic waste of faith.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

What's Wrong With Women Working?

When I was at the county fair a couple of weeks ago, I picked up some "literature" at a booth that's been a fixture at the fair for as long as I can remember.  It has about 50 or so small pamphlets on various Christian topics.

The pamphlet, entitled "What's Wrong With Women Working?" has provided several minutes worth of entertainment for me and my family.  It's an overview of the biblical teachings on women working outside of the home, and it is just precious.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes:

"The woman is to look to her husband for her food.  The husband is to go out and make the living.  Now we have a generation of weasels that are eating out of a woman's pocketbook."

"It is an abomination for 'Christian' colleges to offer career courses for women.  A young lady can learn all she needs to know about homemaking at home."

"Vital areas of the home such as cooking, canning, freezing, washing, ironing, cleaning, shopping, nursing the sick, training the children, helping their husband, etc., etc., are not passingly mastered.  They require full time."

Under the heading, "A Few Excuses for Violating the Scriptures," excuse number two is "My husband doesn't earn enough money."  The response to this excuse reads as follows:

"Maybe you're just trying to live outside his means.  Maybe you're living up more than he earns.  The answer to that problem is not to abandon God's instructions for the wife and launch out on a path of your own choosing.  You need to cut down on your high tone living.  The problem may not be that he doesn't earn enough.  It may be you are just spending it faster than he can bring it home.  Living above your means."

The last section of the pamphlet is entitled, "Dangers of Violating the Scriptures," and the "dangers" are simply priceless:

"1. Juvenile delinquency and dope heads.
2. Self sufficient women bringing home their own check.
3. The wife sees some 'sharp cookie' some 'Fancy Dan' over there on the job.  She begins to compare him with her own husband.  She has her own check.  Soon she doesn't need her husband any longer."

The "Conclusion" of the pamphlet is very succinct:

I have just told you a few things about what's wrong with women working.  There are many, many other things wrong with it."

It amazes me that many Christians today will laugh at that antiquated view of women in the workplace, and yet still cling so strongly to the "biblical teachings" on other issues such as gay marriage and abortion.  It's a typical example of conservatives and liberals alike picking and choosing scripture to support their already established points of view. 

Just one more reason I'm an Atheist.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Christian Republicans

I've been thinking a lot lately about the major contradiction in beliefs between Christians and Republican'ts. Let's examine:

Christians:
-Help the poor, sick, and "least among us"
-Never judge thy neighbor
-Give away your possessions so that the less fortunate may have comfort
-Be kind in spirit
I'm pretty sure these are the things Jesus preached, albeit in a more condensed format.

Republican'ts:
-What's mine is mine, and you don't get any
-Welfare is for lazy people
-Avoid taxes at all costs, even though it means poor people may go hungry
-Privatize healthcare so that only the rich can get medicine
Again, this isn't meant to characterize the entire GOP platform, but I'm generalizing here.

I really can't wrap my head around why these two groups are so intertwined.  Christians today seem to ignore the "help your neighbor" part and instead focus all of their energy on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which Jesus actually spoke about.

Ive heard some of these people tell me that it's the church's job to care for the poor, not the government's, but if the government has a much more effective way to care for the poor, say, through Medicare or food stamps, shouldn't they support that?  I mean, you can't guarantee that all people live in a place with a particularly helpful church, but you can insure that everyone in America gets help with Federal programs and public education.

Where is the connection that I'm not seeing here?

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Community Clinic

I have an appointment at the Mayo Clinic in the morning (nothing to worry about - just a routine follow-up), so I actually have a little bit of precious "alone time" here in my hotel room.  With no toddler to distract me, I can actually write in peace for once.

So here's what I've been involved with lately. 

Our local Planned Parenthood clinic is scheduled to close this month, after 40 years of service to the community.  In a small, rural town like mine, PPH was the only place people looking for affordable family planning care could go.  There are no other low-cost clinics anywhere near here, and if you're trying to get care with discretion, you can't count on the local medical center.  After all, you're definitely going to run into one of your mom's friends while you're there, who probably has access to your medical records and knows what you're doing there.

So for this community, PPH closing is a major catastophe, to say the least. 

For the better part of a year, I've been working with a local group based at the Public Health Department that's been trying to set up a teen wellness clinic.  A place that would offer family planning services, as well as other wellness services, to local teens.

When it started, the point of it was to supplement PPH's dwindling hours.  For several years now they had only been open a few hours a week.  However, with the announcement that PPH would be closing, our clinic project took on a whole new level of importance.

I had mentioned to my parents that I had been attending these steering committee meetings, and had talked to them a little bit in passing about what we were doing.  Last week, I was told by my mom that I should quit mentioning it to my dad, because he is very concerned that my involvement in this project will hurt our family business.

I don't take this as any kind of criticism on my dad's part.  I'm sure he's as pro-family-planning-clinic as the next guy.  He's simply being realistic about the intolerance for liberal ideas (or as I call them, "common sense") that can always be found in our community.  Even though this project won't have the name "Planned Parenthood," and even though it's a Public Health project, which I think is fairly uncontroversial, the mere fact that birth control will be available to (unmarried) people will invite the ire of the local conservative majority.

It just really saddens me that in this day and age, birth control is still a controversial issue.