Rick Santorum: We Can And Must Do Better

Once again I have to start another blog by qualifying my positions. I am a former Republican, who has never voted for a Democrat for the office of the presidency. I have voted for Democrats for other offices, such as John Yarmuth for congress, here in Louisville. I still consider myself to be fairly conservative on fiscal issues, but socially I've started going the other way. That is due to several things, one of them being the distaste I see from many on the right for the poor. And perhaps I should qualify that remark also. Maybe saying the right is to broad, how about the right wing? Most Republicans and conservatives don't fit that bill in my opinion. But, that element has over taken the Republican party and has become its leadership by being more energized and more involved than the run of the mill party member who is just trying to work, raise their kids, and have a good life. I have also started realizing that the right wing religious zealots (and lay-Christian, I'm not talking about you), who want to hasten the end of times by creating a theocratic government for our nation, are gaining way too much power and influence.This notion that homosexuals should be singled out to be denied civil rights under the law of this land is another problem I have with some on the right.

That is what brings me to this blog. There is a right wing zealot running for the GOP nomination for president that is dangerously close to actually getting the nod. His name is Rick Santorum. He is a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania (1995-2007) who was handily defeated for re-election in 2006, when the Democrats made huge gains in congress. Before I get into why it's a shock to me that the guy is doing so well, I want to say that Santorum does have a noteworthy positive attribute; he was for responsible tax policy. That's about the last time you will read anything remotely positive about Rick Santorum from me. 

I am shocked that this guy has made such a push in this race. Now, Mitt Romney may not be the most stable guy in the world when it comes to sticking to his gun on policy matters, but he is a fairly moderate politician. He has had to move right to run for the GOP nod and to fight off attacks from the likes of Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and former candidates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Ron Paul is still hanging in this race, but he is way into personal freedom and that just doesn't fit in well with the right wings view of the country and the world. Newt Gingrich (yes, THAT Newt Gingrich) is another candidate that has been courting the right wing vote. Both Santorum and Gingrich have played the game better than Romney in getting the right wing to back them. It's necessary. And it could very well keep the Republicans from making a real run at Obama in November. 

Here is the thing with Rick Santorum; he is a right wing zealot who espouses a belief system that is better off left at home and not put on display as the backbone of his campaign. But see, you don't get to know that unless you follow politics closely. Most people don't have the time to watch debates or do a thorough check up on the candidates. They hear water cooler talk. They listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. They turn on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC for ten minutes at a time and go about their day. What they don't get to see is what people like me (people who spend WAY too much time giving a damn about this stuff) get to see. And to be frank here, I don't want you to take anything above and apply it as credible information. I'd rather you check for yourself. And, anything I write after this sentence should also be checked on. How do you know I wouldn't lie, just to deceive you to my side? I wouldn't, but you shouldn't trust anyone to feed you information about important matters without checking up for yourself. 

I am going to give you a few quotes from Rick Santorum and make a few comments. I am hoping that this will spur you to do some checking around and find out who is wanting to lead this country and represent you. 

“It’s [contraception] not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative.”

Read that carefully. He believes using contraception is a bad thing. He is saying that there is a way "things are supposed to be" in regards to sex. Wonder where he got that idea? One would have to assume that Mr. Santorum doesn't think anyone should be having sex outside of being married. Now, it's OK if he wants to believe that, but what kind of leader will this person be to the normal human adult who is free to make their own choices as to how, when, and with whom they should have sex with? He won't be representing most citizens of this country or any other will he?

“I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

He said this about welfare reform while campaigning in Iowa. Could he have just said "poor people" or "people on public assistance"? Sure. But he chose to do what so many people do in a thinly veiled form of stereo-typing, and said "black people". Sure, there are a greater ratio of black folks on welfare within their population as opposed to white people, but still, there is just a high of a percentage overall of white people on public assistance as black people. Can a person who says this be trusted to even be honest with himself when talking about issues? Are black people the problem? If not, why use them expressly to make the point about giving someone else's money to the poor?

“I'm against discrimination for people who should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. If they can, and do their job, they should. But that doesn't mean that we should change the laws of this country......to destabilize the American family, to change the way we look at religious liberty in this country, to accommodate a different value structure.

It's not about them, it's about values. It's about what America's basic moral American values should be that would be reflected in the laws.

And so, I've taken the position that the moral values reflected in the laws should be the moral values that built this country, which is the Judeo-Christian values, and that the laws should try as much as possible to comport with the higher law and also should comport with what reason would dictate. And what reason dictates is that children need mothers and fathers. … Some say well, through technology, same-sex couples can have children. Well they can, through either adoption, or artificial insemination…but they don’t get the mother and a father.”

Could that stuff get any scarier? He obviously doesn't believe that someone who is gay should have the same rights as ANY OTHER American citizen. It's right there. Marriage is only a religious institution if you choose to make it one. The union between two people who want to make a life together should be protected as a civil right. There used to be laws against white and black people marrying. Wanna go back to that? Would that be a violation of family values and religious liberty? Certainly not. That is absurd. But, you can plainly see that Mr. Santorum isn't just saying those are his beliefs, he thinks that the nation as a whole should not pass laws that treat everyone the same. And there he goes with the comments on religion and their place in our laws. Many of the Founding Fathers, including the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence were theists, who believed in God, but didn't hold religious beliefs. And if they did, they did damn well to keep that sort of thing out of the documents that our nation was built on. This country is for all of us to make our way in. Not just the wealthy. Not just the white. Not just the heterosexual. Not just the Christian.

"Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" 

Here we can plainly see that he doesn't care about any other religion except the one that he is in bed with. It's OK to be a Christian, but you need to be the right kind of Christian. Can you imagine that? A right wing Christian zealot who thinks women should stay at home and raise kids and that gay people shouldn't be protected by the laws of our country is calling someone else's religion a cult. Pure insanity. 

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

So, here we are at the gay thing again. This one is easy pickings. He does not believe that you have the right to have sex with whoever you want to in the privacy of your own home. That sounds like to me that he is actually for making homosexual sex illegal. Is that what YOU want in your heart of hearts? No matter how you feel about homosexuality, is that what we need? Do we need to start down that slope of the government telling you what you should and shouldn't do in your home? 

Is it me or is this not the craziest stuff ever? How can this man be doing so well? I don't want this for my country. We need more freedom, not less. They already listen to our phone calls, and keep track of the websites we visit and what we post on the 'net. They already tell us what is OK and not OK to put into our own bodies. Are you willing to give them that inch and pray they don't eventually take the mile? I'm not. 

If this man gets the GOP nod, and all these things start running on commercials, the Republican party will be set back for years. Then, we'll be down to one party and won't that be sweet. One party knowing the people won't vote the other way. What kind of hell on earth will that be? Not having a real choice. The real Republicans and conservatives who are for personal freedom, equality, religious freedom, and the rights for all to make a life for themselves in this country, should be shouting this guy down. We need people who want to shape America into a place where we can all live, work, and play without fear of persecution or becoming second class. Aren't we coasting far enough down that road without hitting the gas?

What say you?

Whitney Houston: Death of a Star

I don't have much to say about the death of Whitney Houston, other than it didn't really strike me as surprising. She was once the darling of the pop music world and after her marriage to Bobby Brown, she seemed to start a long fall which finally culminated in her death. 

I have to admit, I'm not that big of a fan of life. I guess it's OK....it's the only thing I've got. I'm a lower middle class guy who just tries to take what is thrown at him. I make mistakes. I do some stuff I'm happy with. I do some stuff I'm not proud of. But, I try not to get into self-destruction. I have a family and I have to consider that I have carved out obligations for my life. Once you attach your life to someone else's well being, you really  have to be sure to evaluate your decision making. 

Houston had one child, a daughter, who is about 20 years old. Now, that's an age that should be able to deal with the death of a close relative, but still, not an age where she probably won't feel confusion, anger, and betrayal. I'm going way out on a limb and guessing that whatever Whitney Houston died of, at the fairly young age of 48, was mostly, if not totally her fault. You can't burn the candle at both ends forever. In this case, the candle only burned for 48 years. 

Not many people know who Joey Diaz is. He's a comedian that pals around with Joe Rogan, Doug Stanhope and some others. He did a pod cast with Joe Rogan last year and got into telling a story about how he used to be a middle man, selling cocaine to Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston. He said they took about as much blow in a week as anyone he'd ever seen. He said they would call him at all hours of the night for the stuff. Anyhow, I believe what he's saying. I also believe it's a glaring example of why Houston is in the ground now. Too much fast living and not enough down time. It's a tragedy for her family and a shame for the rest of the world. She had talent to spare and instead of an aging icon, she is now just news, soon to be a footnote in pop history. 

"it's better to burn out, than to fade away"

Neil Young

.

Schrodinger's Cat & The Universe....Heavy Stuff!!

OK, my cousin and I have this battle going on about what is reality and what is not reality. We are both right and both wrong. We still love to talk about it and have a good laugh at our own expense. I thought I would write a little bit about it, because I find it amusing. I also like the fact that neither of us can prove the other one right or wrong and since the totality of existence is only here for me, I am right and he is wrong. If he has consciousness, which I'm not positive that he or anyone else does, I'm sure he he is right for the sake of his own "movie". And, that's all this life really is. It's just a movie or a ride. It's all for YOU. When you expire, NONE of this stuff that you fret over, care about, love, hate, or whatever will never have mattered an iota. You will be gone, with no way to think back on it, or observe it. It's over. As Hitchens said, the party doesn't end, you just don't get to be there any longer. The next time you get pissed about someone cutting you off in traffic or some little piece of nothing like that, just think how at some point, you will cease to exist. Will getting cut off in traffic mean anything then? So why should it mean anything now?

Alright. I've already blown your mind, haven't I Sherman? The universe is vast.......huge......gigantic.......enormous....gargantuan....ginormous....

Skip that. There is NO word for the size of the universe. There are literally (or, "lit trully" for fans of Parks & Recreation, on NBC, Thursday nights) billions (actually infinite) of galaxies, stars....blah, blah, blah. 

What if, there were no life anywhere? What if there was no conscious life ANYWHERE? Would the universe still exist? I say no. Cuz says yes. 

My logic is this; in our observable solar system, we have not found conscious life. So, let's just say that's true. If life on earth were suddenly extinct, would this solar system matter as a tangible entity? I say no. If there is nothing to observe it.... If there is nothing to consider it..... If there is nothing to try to make sense of it.... it doesn't exist. Not in any sort of practical reality. If nothing can consider it on any level, it's not there.

Now, my cousin, (we'll call him "Chris") says, of course, it would still be there physically. Now, yes, I know that to be true. But it's not REALLY there, right? No living thing can consider it in any way at all. There is nothing that can claim to look at it, hear it, smell it, taste it, live on it.....nothing at all. No way at all to know it's there, because there is nothing to know that it knows nothing. Something can only exist if there is something else that can consider it in some way. 

Say we put a cat in a sound proof box that we can't see into (there's a name for this theory....Schrodinger's Cat) with a poison tablet and close the lid. Is the cat dead or alive? We don't know. So, the cat is both alive AND dead. It has not been observed, so no matter what has happened in the box, whether the cat has eaten the poison or not, it hasn't really happened, because it's not been observed.

Walla......up yours "Chris"!!!

You can respond on your own blog. Oh, that's right, you don't have a blog. Therefore, if no one can observe your response, it must not exist. 

I win!!

It's confusing and crazy, but I love quantum theories!!!

Here we go, droppin' science

droppin' it all over

Like ridin' around town

drivin' a Range Rover

Sound of Science--Beastie Boys

.

Star Wars: Phantom Menace in 3-D Sucks

It's high time I said something about another movie. This time, I'm going to tackle the fourth Star Wars film, which is really the first. Sure, it's been out on VHS and DVD for years, and most recently on Blu Ray, but this time it's different. You can go to the theater and see it in 3-D. But, I'll give you a tip; you can look at a piece of shit film as it was inteneded or you can see a piece of shit film in 3-D, either way, it's still a piece of shit. And this is from a Star Wars lover. 

I wanted to like Phantom Menace, I really did. There are parts of it I do enjoy, but there are not very many times where I feel like it fits well with the original trilogy. Why have prequels if you have to MAKE it all fit together and leave a bunch of questions and half assed reasons for things to happen later down the line? Oh..I know...money. 

First off, I have no idea how this thing is going to look in 3-D, but it really doesn't matter. It's a sorry piece of the Star Wars saga and unless he goes back and re-edits little Vader and Jar Jar, I have no interest in plopping down more money on George Lucas' table. They are his films. He can do as he pleases. But, if you have no interest in improving on your art (if it can be called that at all, I would say it's not), why wouldn't you just leave it alone. Oh...I know...again...money. 

When we finally get around to the original trilogy being released in 3-D, it will be the third time these movies have gotten a theater release. I support that, just to give new fans a shot at seeing them on a big screen. It doesn't mean I support all the changes or the 3-D concept though. For what it's worth, I'll cave in and say that the Phantom Menace is really just a movie for kids and making toys and not for big time science fiction fans. I'm not a big sci-fi guy, but I'm appreciating the genre a little more as I get older. I don't suppose I can say anything about this film that I haven't before. It's got a solid 45 minutes in it and that's about all. 

For the record, I will see films 3,4,5, and 6 in 3-D, should I be blessed to live that long. Those are the films that I think stay truest to form from the original Star Wars. George Lucas has done nothing but play around with Star Wars for decades. I wish he'd stop and just let them be what they are. Or maybe, we (critical a-holes) should just shut up and let him do what he will. They are his films. They are his legacy. Maybe I just don't want to be reminded that a couple of these films exist?

.

Forget the Alamo: Remember the Mix Tape!!!!

I don't know how many people took the time to make mixtapes back in the hey day of the cassette players, but I know that I was fairly addicted to the practice. The assembling of music in such a way that it conveys how you feel to another human being is special. Well, it is to me anyhow. I've given them as gifts before, because that's exactly how I saw a mixtape that I compiled for someone.....a gift. An expression of my feelings for them in a way that I couldn't create organically.

I remember digging through my dad's records (all of which are now mine....thanks dad) and writing down what songs I wanted to put together. I would write them down, file the records in order and then look at the list again to make sure it was just how I wanted it to be. When making them for myself, I was a bit more forgiving on how rigid I would be with my criteria. There seemed to be one or two songs that found their way on to almost every mix tape I made for myself, that just didn't fit.  If I were taking the time to make a mix for someone I knew, the criteria became much more clear and the rules got a bit more unforgiving. 

I am of the belief that you should use a 60 minute cassette. An hour is a good amount of time to invest in music without thinking it's sucking the usefulness out of your day. The 90 minute cassette was a blessing for my own mixes, but when making one for another person, I tried to stick with 60 minutes. Didn't want to wear out my welcome. Plus, the more songs you add, as I mentioned before, the higher the chances that you put one or two songs on there that you wish you hadn't. That shit can haunt you!

Creating a mixtape was always kind of cathartic for me. If I were having some troubles or needed to feel a certain way, I would fall back on my favorite songs to get my mind right. Or, sometimes, I'd just roll around in my own misery or discontent and make a mix tape that heightened my emotions. I saw, and still do see, a well planned out mixtape (mix CD now....blah) as an extension of who I was. I would take someone else's art and fashion it into something that made me feel a certain way. How many things in life can we do that with now? How many people slow down to actually put together a piece of "pleasure" for themselves or someone else? Sure, it's easy to burn a playlist, but I'm talking about compiling some songs and listening to them as you do so. There was a bit of magic to it. For those of you who do not understand, that's OK.....you just missed out. Or, perhaps you were out partying, working on your future, or getting laid, while I was sitting in front of a stereo system surrounded by tapes, records, pens, and pieces of notebook paper. That kind of paints a sad vision of my mid-teenage years, right?

I could write quite a bit more on this, but I think I'll stop here. I could go into the little rules that people like me made up. It was almost an art. Here's an example; always start out with an attention grabber and then one just a bit better than the first. After that you can slide back down and settle into a stream of good tunes that hold to a theme. Never end a side or a tape with a throw away song. Begin and end with songs that best convey your intentions with the tape. OK, so I didn't quite stop....but as you can see, there is a little bit more to it than what meets the eye of a person who doesn't get the concept. 

If you want to see a truly terrific film about romantic relationships, friendships, unfinished business, and how music connects those things for many people, check out "High Fidelity", starring John Cusak. It's based on a novel by Nick Hornby and has some great scenes involving how music makes us feel and how we can take that music and turn it into a love letter, a break up letter, personal manifesto, or just a thread of songs that can make your time driving in your car more enjoyable.

Here's a great scene of "Rob" creating a mixtape for a female journalist he met. She wants to do an interview and talk about his "Top 5" songs (which is another blog entirely....the "Top 5" thing....it's what we media geeks do) and he knows the best way to do that is to make her a tape. It's a really good movie. I highly recommend it. I'm pretty sure it's the first thing (and best thing IMO) that Jack Black was in. 

Well, there that is. I don't suppose there is much entertainment value for anyone to read. I do feel like the more nostalgic among us may get the itch to visit an old mix tape they have thrown in a box or in their sock drawer. So, if nothing else, perhaps I've sparked something in one of you that will lead you to either re-visit an old tape or maybe make a new one for yourself, a friend, or a loved one! Remember, you are making personal art out of someone else's personal art. Be respectful of the process!