AMERICAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS PLAN AN ATTACK

I promise to leave this subject alone but I just ran into another article about the American Catholic Church and the election of the Obama/Biden ticket.

It appears that American Catholic Bishops are planning to “forcefully confront the Obama administration about its support of abortion rights”.

Obama did promise “to reduce abortion rates” but the Church said that did not count and it was anti-Catholic to vote for him. Can you see the lack of any common, human sense here; it is not OK to lower the amount of abortions in this country, an all out ban is the only acceptable path. That stance is not only stupid it flies in the face of reason and in the face of reality; how can lowering abortion rates be a bad thing?

They plan on confronting Joe Biden and his statement that he learned his values as a young man growing up Catholic in Scranton, Pa. The bishops will say that his values are unacceptable if they run contrary to Catholic teaching. They obviously assume that only their value system has merit.

Another bishop said “you just cannot check your principles at the door to the legislature”. What about the principle of freedom to live your life according to your desires and wishes; since when does the Church know what the hell is right for us to do. Their arrogance must be thrown right back in their faces.

Another bishop is attacking Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius saying she should stop taking Communion until “she changes her stance” on abortion.

Dr. Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats said the Church leaders need to tone their stance down because it was counterproductive and would alienate even more Catholics.

I say let them try their intimidation, real Catholics have principles and values and they sure don’t always match those of the Catholic Church, the Church they grew up in because their Church has lost its way when it comes to the rights of the individual. They cannot treat Catholics as just sheep in a very large herd.

CATHOLICS AND POLITICS IN AMERICA

Back to talking about the Catholic Church, Communion and politics.

During the recent election, abortion rights advocates (Democrats) beat the hell out of right-to-life, anti-abortion Republicans. In the State of Michigan, a majority of Catholics voted against the Church. So, does the Church excommunicate them, deny them Communion or what.

The first thing to understand is that the Catholic Church is not a democracy; it is a Vatican dictatorship – they make the rules and that is that. The only option Catholics have if they disagree with the Church is to leave and join another, more progressive, religion as many Catholics already have or remain silent and vote their conscience.

There is another option that is actually taken by quite a few Catholics and that is to remain in the Church but actively campaign for change. There are a number of Catholic groups that advocate for the right of priests to marry as well as allowing women to become priests. There is even a Catholic group that calls itself Catholics for Choice (pro-choice).

Recently, the American Anglican / Episcopalian Church suffered a number of defections on the issue of allowing gay priests; they already allow women to be priests. The defections were by those that do not support the Church’s gay position. I guess American Catholics could also form a separate Catholic Church but I have never heard of that happening or even being discussed; the tie with the Vatican appears to be crucial for all Catholics since the Vatican teaches that the Vatican (Popes) have ties all the way to Jesus (Peter being the first Pope) which is untrue but most Catholics believe it.

So what am I trying to say, that a majority of Catholics are basic hypocrites? They want to remain part of the Catholic Church but not follow the Church’s teachings? I must logically assume that these Catholics do not believe that the Vatican speaks for God and therefore any and all of the Church’s pronouncements can be challenged as the views of mere mortals that are also old and celibate men with no worldly experience with normal life on this planet.

This does not mean that all Catholics feel the same way and many are just sheep or lemmings if you prefer, but in my experience with Catholics, especially the old ones, I do not detect a belief in the need for absolute obedience to Vatican teachings. The Church has not helped itself in this matter by reversing some of their long held beliefs and practices after centuries. Remember the no meat on Friday rule; all children that die before being baptized go to either hell or purgatory, purgatory no longer exists (did it ever?) and how about cremation is not allowed because you will need your body intact for Judgment Day (bodies rot don’t they?).

I guess what all this comes down to is that the Catholic Church in America has a huge presence but that the members belong only out of habit because they were born into it. They attend Mass out of habit, standing and kneeling and accepting Communion, all out of mindless habit and because they were taught that if you didn’t attend the mind numbing Mass every week, you would go to hell – so there.

OBAMA SUPPORTERS GET NO COMMUNION!

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIEST: No communion for Obama supporters.

The story ran in our local paper. A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because he supports abortion and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

The Catholic Church, as well as other churches, has been very active in the last election. I mentioned proposal 2 (stem cell research) here in Michigan and how the church spent millions fighting the proposal in a underhanded, even downright dirty lying, way. The proposal passed anyway with a majority of Catholics voting for it despite priestly harangues against it at Sunday Mass.

A follow-up article mentioned that protesters outside this church were split into those who said the priest was anti-American for using religion to affect how people vote and then the ever present fetus worshipers praising the priest for his bold action against a person advocating personal “choice” when it comes to abortion.

Our Constitution spells out a legal separation of Church and State where the U.S. Government is prohibited from meddling in religion(s) in any way. The Constitution does not mention if Churches can meddle in the government. An IRS law does say that tax-free institutions cannot campaign for a specific candidate or they will lose their tax-free status. Just this year, several churches tested that law by specifically endorsing McCain against Obama. They are being sued by a number of institutions including Americans United for Separation of Church & State of which I am a big supporter. We shall see how the courts handle this.

The various churches that want to be involved in politics, state that politics or political candidates and political actions are an integral part of their religious practice so they are bound by their religion to engage in politics.

The Catholic Church, as an example, is hell bent on defeating any law or any candidate that allows for abortions; it is their religious duty to act. Of course they don’t feel as strongly about being a haven for pedophiles and doing something to protect children from their perverted priests.

The law states that individual priests and ministers can be politically active but not when they are representing the Church (at the pulpit). I really don’t know if you can realistically prohibit churches from meddling in politics and I am not sure if the government should, after all, they have been meddling in politics throughout history.

Lets look at the Catholic Church prohibiting accepting Communion (Eucharist) to Catholics that go against Church teachings; this will absolutely come up again because Vice President Biden is a staunch Catholic that supports “choice” when it comes to abortions.

More on the flip side…

IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BACK ON THE TABLE?

During the election, the Republicans were scaring voters by saying the Democrats will institute universal health coverage administered by the federal government and we know how that will work! Well that is scary and would be totally stupid and irresponsible but, after all, the Democrats have always called for socialized medicine like in Europe. Remember Hillary tried it under Clinton and was really slammed at the time; hope Democrats are not thinking of resurrecting that plan.

Obama did not advocate socialized medicine for this country, smart move during the election, but is he seriously considering it now that he has won? With no Republican opposition, he actually could get away with it but would the country stand for it?

If you have followed my thinking on this subject, you will remember that I supported a program that would offer a huge variety of health insurance plans that would be available nationwide. In this way, young people could get affordable catastrophic coverage and older, sicker people could still get affordable coverage because they could not be denied coverage. The only think needed was a mandate for “universal coverage”. This means you HAVE to be covered just like you have to carry auto insurance to drive.

You can go to my previous blogs for more detail but suffice it to say many believe this is the only way to go. Remember Romney instituted the plan in Massachusetts and we can learn from his early mistakes before we go nationwide.

Just recently, I saw an article in the paper saying that health insurance companies will support a universal coverage plan and will be willing to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions like cancer, etc.

The health insurance industry is huge and they were the ones who defeated Hillary’s socialized medicine plan by airing scare ads warning about the dangers of such a plan; they can do it again cause’ the nation does not like “socialized” anything.

Obama was not for mandated coverage for all but he was for mandating coverage for children. I am hoping that his original plan was designed to appease opponents of socialized medicine but give liberals at least something.

We shall see…

AUTO EXECS COME BEGGING!

Many people have been watching Detroit’s auto execs and UAW’s Gettlefinger, begging Congress for a bailout or what they call a “bridge loan”.

Members of Congress from both parties basically let them have it, right on the chin. Did you hear how House members scolded the auto Ceos for coming to Washington begging for money in the private jets?

I was happy to see that I was not alone in not wanting to give the auto companies tax payer funds. I have argued consistently that the auto companies should be allowed to restructure under bankruptcy protection and come out leaner, more viable and therefore sustainable.

Giving the auto companies’ money right now, without any restructuring, will be just throwing the money away since they will just need more and more to prop up an unsustainable business model.

That business model has to collapse; there is no other way. This is the only way UAW labor contracts can be voided and pension costs moved to the U.S. government for payment. Pension plans should disappear altogether and 401(k) s used instead.

Of course, Michigan politicians are fighting for a bailout because most of their supporters are car people. Mitt Romney, whose father was president of American Motors, has called for a “managed bankruptcy” and outlined how it can happen without “too much” damage to the economy.

The damage to Michigan would be great but once done, a re-birth would bring prosperity back. In the meantime, Michigan can diversify its economy from decades of an auto-only economy that did provide prosperity for many (in my family) but now cannot sustain a whole state.

My only fear is that in the new Democratic dominated Congress under Barack Obama, the Democrats will again open the money spigots without demanding “fundamental restructuring”, in essence, supporting a dying horse.

Since many Democrats currently are against an auto company bailout, my hope is that those same Democrats will remain fiscally responsible and not sink into their intrinsic socialism. I am also betting that Obama is just not a knee-jerk socialist but someone that gives these issues some serious thought and consults heavily with people in the know.

NO TO DETROIT AUTO COMPANIES!

To: The Canton Observer
Re: “Save the Big 3”, Nov. 13 Letters.

I have been purchasing and leasing Ford / Mercury products on an exclusive basis starting with my first car in the 1960s. I started with Ford because most of my family worked for Ford in some capacity or another and I stayed with Ford because I liked the product they offered. Unlike Jim Drozdowski in his letter “Save the Big 3”, I would never shame anyone into buying autos only from the Big 3 based on some specious sense of patriotism.

I would also go so far as to suggest that the Big 3, in their present business model, should not be saved because ultimately, they cannot be saved; it just makes bad economic sense to prop up companies that are no longer viable. To do so would be to reward gross mismanagement, incompetence and greed by both management and labor.

What would make sense is to allow the companies to reorganize under bankruptcy protection into viable, sustainable business models. Taxpayer money could be used to speed the process along.

Some critics are even saying that the management currently in place at the auto companies is incapable of performing the restructuring steps that are needed to make the companies viable again and are calling for an independent authority to step in. That may be another option to consider but pouring taxpayer money into firms burning through cash because they are not selling their products, is just plain irresponsible.

Big 3 AUTO needs to go bankrupt

Monday, November 10, 2008

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Big 3’s hopes rest with Washington”, Nov. 10.

The excellent article by Daniel Howes, “Big 3’s hopes rest with Washington”, Nov. 10, asks some very hard questions. Giving taxpayer money to companies that are burning through cash seems pointless at this time. Allowing the companies to radically reorganize under bankruptcy protection and then spending taxpayer money to help the new Small 3 get off the ground, makes a lot more sense.

A PLAY ABOUT A GAY JESUS?

Another Catholic moment…

In the New York Times (11-9-2008) an article appeared titled “THE PERILOUS INTERSECTION OF ART & RELIGION” by Clark Hoyt and concerned a Broadway or off Broadway play entitled “CHORPUS CHRISTI” by Terrence McNally.

The play is not new but the first time it was to be produced it drew death threats and threats of bombing of such intensity that the play was cancelled out of fear.

The play portrays Jesus as a gay man that had sex with his gay apostles but other than that conducted himself according to the Gospel stories in the New Testament.

This time around, there were no death threats but there was condemnation of the play by the Catholic Church but also anger at the New York Times for even reviewing the play; favorably at that.

A play is considered a “work of art” and is an expression of the artist and may or may not be liked by all but hey, it’s his expression and he has the freedom, by law, to express it.

What is the Church objecting to? Well, the Church considers homosexuality a sin and therefore cannot have its main man a homosexual even though the Catholic priesthood is reported to be rife with homosexuals attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons (pedophiles are also attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons).

BUT the Church’s official objection stated that it is IRREVERANT TO DEPICT JESUS AS SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH ANYONE. This made me stop and think.

The Church objects to Jesus having sex? OK, maybe sex outside of marriage? I don’t think those rules applied in those days and remember, there was no Catholic Church to make rules in those days.

Does it have something to do with priestly celibacy? If Jesus was sexually active does their insistence on priestly celibacy take a nosedive? I think historically, priests were allowed to marry but abstain from sexual acts during certain times (remain ritually pure) but when rich bishops started leaving Church property to their heirs, the Church ended the practice and celibacy became the law of the land.

The Church has a hard time defending their “tradition” of priestly celibacy. They keep referencing St. Paul but he did not know Jesus and really did not know much about Jesus so if he counseled celibacy it is because of his own weirdness.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE about Jesus or his life. All we have are Gospel accounts which are theological pieces and not historical pieces so we have no idea if Jesus was married or had sex or children etc.

When the DaVinci Code book and movie came out there was a big hubbub about Jesus, his wife Magdalene and his child. I remember clergy being interviewed about the subject of Jesus’ marital status and the answer was always “we just don’t know – everything is possible”.

So getting back to the play; what does the Catholic Church object to and why?

THE WAR ON BRAINS

This Sunday’s NEW YORK TIMES carried a lot of stories about the recent election as was expected; they were a pleasure to read. One caught my eye “OBAMA AND THE WAR ON BRAINS” BY Nicholas D. Kristof.

It was a continuation of what I brought up recently from an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Obama will hopefully end the anti-intellectual basis of Republican rule in Washington. I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that President W. Bush is the antithesis of an intellectual and based his rule on a perceived sense of moral superiority that he thought gave him a mandate from god and to hell with smart people and their stinkin’ expertise.

Kristof writes that many intellectuals in Politics tended to hide their brains so as to appear less elite and more like an average Joe. He also points out that intellectuals don’t always make good rulers either but he feels we should start changing the anti-intellectual tone in this country away from ‘I don’t need to know where every country is’ to one of “it’s good to be smart’ and ‘it’s good for this country if its citizens were smarter than they are now’.

And I agree wholeheartedly. My parents urged us all to get as much education as possible even though they themselves had little because they had little to no opportunity to get one. They prided themselves on knowing their geography and history unlike Sarah Palin that confused the continent of Africa with a country named Africa?

A recent poll in Michigan found that a majority of parents did not see a college education as necessary for success in life; they believed their kids deserved to be happy and have fun in life and not labor at getting a higher education other than their required by law, K-12 education.

In Michigan you could go to an auto factory job right out of high school and live a “guaranteed” good life and retirement life. It worked for a long time UNTIL NOW!

Obviously I do not think everyone should have a college education or even need one; Bill Gates never finished college. But I do think that our K-12 educational system is woefully lacking and lagging schools in Europe and Asia; a high school diploma does not even guarantee that the graduate can read or write.

I think there has been a dumbing down process in place in our society for quite a few years now and that definitely needs to be reversed. Barack Obama will be a great role model to blacks in this country instead of just basketball players and pimps but also to all Americans who hopefully will feel a need to inspire their young people to get smart and smarter still.

Mr. Kristof, even though inspired and optimistic about changes to come, still laments that we live in a country where people still believe the world in only 6,000 years old and that evolution is still just a theory and a bad theory at that and that the sun orbits the earth and not visa versa. I guess there is a lot of work yet to be done to get us all smarter than the average bear.

PALIN AS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL?

I know I said I would leave the political campaign we just went through, alone and move on to other things BUT there are some things that need discussing, possibly for future use.

I read the ultra conservative WALL STREET JOURNAL because, after all, I am very conservative when it comes to finance and economy issues. The Wall Street Journal has also amazed me by the amount of “other” viewpoints it allows into it’s pages.

This Saturday I read the article by Mark Lilla entitled “THE PERILS OF ‘POPULIST CHIC’ “; it definitely caught my attention.

Professor Lilla talks about “conservative intellectualism” of the past with such iconic figures as William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpatrick and he laments the demise of this conservative intellectualism with the Sarah Palin debacle.

The turn towards “populist chic” aka Sarah Palin, has taken conservatives away from elitist intellectuals to Joe the Plummer type of “anti-intellectualism”; Joe and Sarah know better how to run the country than someone with an elitist education or with any type of education at all.

Professor Lilla, a liberal, is sad to see this shift in conservative politics because it makes the country, as a whole, poorer for it.

To all my friends that saw Palin as their next president and battled all suggestions of her incompetence, all I have to say is that these scholars and other observers of our political society are basically saying what I have been saying from the start; picking Palin and then defending her was dumb. Not just a stupid move but an unintelligent move, meaning that real simpletons have taken over the Republican Party.

POPE PIUS XII: Saint or Nazi?

Another Catholic subject in the news is about Pope Pius XII also known as the WWII Pope and the Hitler Pope. My father who was a soldier fighting at Monte Cassino, Italy during WWII said that he actually carried this Pope on his Papal throne during a victory ceremony in Rome.

Pius XXII has been in the process of being made into a saint. The process takes a long time and after which, the person is deemed a saint and Catholics can then pray to this person with the expectation that this person is closer to god than your usual shmuck and can potentially, be in a better position to ask god to grant you the wishes of your prayer.

Anyway, this particular pope has some people questioning his behavior and actions during WWII that may indicate some collaboration with Hitler and his Nazi regime especially with regard to Jews and their treatment before and during the war.

I know that a number of books both critical and supportive of Pius XII’s actions during WWII have been written. I believe that the charge against the Pope is that he COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE TO SAVE THE JEWS FROM EXTERMINATION.

The whole point here is that Pius XII’s wartime archives (16 million documents) have not been cataloged by the Vatican and are not available to the public; the Vatican calls them secret.

Jewish groups are asking Pope Benedict to “freeze” the sainthood proceedings for Pius XII until these archives can be examined by the public to make sure that Pius XII is innocent of all war time charges of not doing enough to protect Jews from being taken to death camps for extermination.

I think that is a very logical request but the Vatican has already responded by saying that cataloging the archives would take up to seven (7) years and I guess they feel that making Pius XII a saint somehow cannot wait that long? That is total baloney and shows how the Vatican manipulates evidence and therefore history itself to place itself in a better light.

This is tantamount to “spinning” history by keeping facts secret, something the Vatican has done for centuries and even tried to do here in the States recently with their pedophilic priests.

I think Catholics should demand that the Vatican come clean!

CATHOLICS WANTING CHANGE?

It seems I am getting into a lot of Catholic issues all of a sudden.

Remember when I mentioned that a Catholic mass I had to attend (my father’s death anniversary) and how I said that the religious ceremony (mass) was so mind numbing that only brain dead people could attend every Sunday.

Well, this morning’s paper carried a lengthy article about Catholics that feel just like what I felt when I attended a mass. Here is what is more amazing, these people were not liberal Catholics but actually super conservative Catholics – what does that mean?

The article titled “Real catholic TV offers religion with edge” in the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 3, described a new “web-only” TV station produced in Ferndale, Michigan and found at:
http://www.realcatholictv.com/.

The main guy behind this effort is Michael Voris (47) who is very adamant about the fact that many Catholics and especially, catholic youths are leaving the faith in droves because it is so boring and lacks a relevant message. He blames it all on old people who control the Church and are unwilling to change anything to make it more exiting and appealing to young people.

Don’t get me wrong, Voris is not trying to reform the stale and unprogressive teachings of the Church; no he wants to present the age old teachings and beliefs in a new and hopefully, more exiting way.

I feel that Catholics are starting to feel jealous about all those mega-churches that attract thousands mainly because they have a message for them as individuals instead of repeating the same ole physical movements at mass, Sunday after Sunday after Sunday…

That was my point exactly and I am glad someone else is seeing what I am seeing but Mr. Voris is correct in believing that “The beauty and truth of the Catholic faith has been denied this generation by an older generation…of hedonistic, immoral egomaniacs with no moral compass”. That is pretty strong language but the Catholic Church has heard this stuff for thousands of years and it still muddles on and on and on…and prides itself for lasting this long.

I am in the midst of a new learning DVD course about religion that is not “about” religion but studies how the subject of religion among peoples has been studied. I have always studied the theology of a religion, how it started, how it developed and why but this new course is about why does religion exist and why do people desire religion.

This article about Catholics trying to change how their religion delivers its message is exactly what this course is about; what humans need out of their religion.

This is a big deviation from the old secularist campaign to show how religion is absurd and just superstition and cannot ever be justified by reason or science. This new approach admits that religion is a human construct because it is a human necessity and will not be negated in our society by convincing people it cannot possibly be real or in anyway true. More on this later but it has got me exited about a new approach to why is there religion.

AUTO COMPANIES NEED TO GO BANKRUPT!

Here we go again ladies and gentlemen, now that Obama is our next president, we need to make sure the Democrats don’t get too crazy trying to help too many people.

My concern today is the proposed bailout of our AUTO COMPANIES headquartered here in Michigan, my home state.

The current situation is that people have stopped buying new cars and the ones they do buy are fuel efficient foreign cars like Toyota and Honda. Since “leases” are no longer viable and not offered by most dealers, people want to “purchase” autos that are known to last a very long time such as Toyotas and Hondas. People who want to purchase an auto from one of the BIG 3 (Ford, GM & Chrysler) can no longer get a car loan; are you getting the picture?

For many years, a few people in Congress had tried to pass legislation mandating better fuel efficiency standards onto the Big 3 (others already met the standards). The Big 3 had powerful members of Congress (JOHN DINGELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE) who thwarted any and all attempts to compel the auto giants to think in terms of better MPG numbers. The Big 3 continued to make and sell their gas guzzling trucks and SUVs because that is what the public wanted and the Big 3 made BIG BUCKS on those models.

Barack Obama, speaking in Detroit at the Economic Club reiterated that Detroit must make more fuel efficient cars or suffer the future consequences of their actions or non-actions. Detroiters made fun of Obama and threatened to withhold their political support if he kept saying those crazy ass things!

Well today the Big 3 and their union UAW cohorts (now there friends?) came to Congress with their empty cups asking for handouts! The Democrats are saying that the country cannot allow the Big 3 to fail because the whole country would suffer. I say BULLSHIT to that!!!

The auto companies and the union had been warned a long time ago and just like the greedy bastards on Wall Street, these greedy bastards in Detroit were not heeding any warnings because they were raking those dollars and those benefits in, hand over fist.

If we are bailing out financial institutions why can’t we bail out these titans of manufacturing? Well, you may have a point there but their MUST BE STIPULATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES.

Congress has already allotted $25 Billion for re-tooling factories to produce fuel efficient vehicles. This can only go for that specific purpose. Congress should demand specific plans on how the Big 3 plan to manufacture these fuel efficient cards that the public will buy.

BUT the Big 3 also want another $25 Billion to help them through this trying economic time. I SAY – NOT SO FAST. GM, Ford and Chrysler are running out of cash. They are close to declaring bankruptcy and they should be allowed to do that. We cannot prop up a failing business. The companies must be allowed to re-organize under bankruptcy protection and emerge as small, efficient auto manufacturers.

The auto companies together with their unions must pay for their greed and their stupidity. I realize that this will be tough on my state and the people in the state that have for generations worked and prospered at the auto plants. There is no other way and the taxpayers will not put up with using their hard-earned money to prop up artificially, a business that has no legitimate reason to exist and operate under their current untenable business model.

John Dingell, the Congressman that has blocked legislation mandating better gas mileage for our autos is being challenged after 26 years as chairman of the Commerce Committee by another Democratic Congressman, Rep. Waxman from California. As much as I hate to lose a Michigan Congressman with such great seniority, he needs to pay for his lack of foresight.

Barack Obama is surrounding himself with all sorts of economic types including labor leaders, to help him grapple with our economic melt-down BUT he has to retain his own COMMON SENSE abilities to handle the auto dilemma.

He cannot allow taxpayer money to be pored into a black hole; he needs a plan, a plan that has a great potential to succeed and in my mind, the only plan that would work is to allow the Big 3 to declare bankruptcy and then stand ready to help the newly re-organized, smaller and smarted Ford, GM and Chrysler.

GOING BACK TO "NORMAL"?

This has been a hard fought battle and it divided the country down the middle. It was an emotional battle and it was a dirty political battle and it drove a wedge, in many cases, between friends and family members.

At the end, there was nobody to convince one way or another. I think minds were made up early on and then hardened to such a state that a civil discussion on issues could not be held.

I am not painting myself as someone that was always open to discussion; no, I am told I grew pretty loud and obnoxious during family political “chats” to the point that politics was a banned subject at all our social occasions. Why?

In my mind, opponents of Barack did not really prefer McCain; they just didn’t want Obama, a black liberal, to be president and not because of any real, specific issues. That is what I assumed when silly arguments about Barack’s citizenship, his rumored, incorrectly, Muslim faith and his associations with questionable individuals came up.

My brother-in-law said he was convinced Obama was a terrorist and all because the Internet was rife with rumor mongering by seemingly reputable people who emailed to their list and then individuals on that list forwarded the message to people on their lists, etc., etc.

These were not legitimate issues that could have valid differences of opinion; they were lies designed to appeal to people looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama.

The fact that political campaigns are getting so dirty and obnoxious is alarming and I don’t mean just the campaign for president. In Michigan, TV ads told blatant lies about candidates and proposals. A State Supreme Court candidate lost because the opponent’s ad accused him of sleeping on the bench during an important hearing, over and over and over again. I found out later that it was a lie from people that were at the hearing – is this legal?

I heard that in North Carolina a candidate’s speech was dubbed with a voice saying she does not believe in god and in North Carolina belief in god is mandatory for any office. The candidate is suing and I think more people should sue when they see their character besmirched by blatant lies or even manipulations of their image or their very words.

I think we should have a code of political campaigning conduct and instead of having “truth squads” investigate all claims by political propaganda and report their finding to the general public, they should be given the power to severely fine campaigns that are caught lying.

On the other hand, the Internet has definitely changed the way political campaigns are and will be conducted from here on in. The Internet cannot and should not be regulated and therefore any one running a political campaign must have geeks manning computers to defend against attacks from opponents.

Psychologists say that after the election, we must all let go and get back to normal. It will take me some time to just return to normal if for me, there ever is a normal.

WE WON, THE COUNTRY WON, THE WORLD WON!

Well I stayed up for the whole thing last night and it was worth it; we were part of history in the making!

McCain’s concession speech was a great speech and I think, reflected the words of the real John McCain and not the words of his handlers. It was gracious and heartfelt. I printed out a copy to have in my library – that good!

Obama’s speech to the huge, cheering and celebrating crowd at Grant Park in Chicago was classic Obama like only he could deliver. He seemed pretty serious at times knowing full well what is now ahead of him.

I am glad he won but now I will start to worry about what damage unbridled Democrats can cause to me, us, our nation, etc.

Monday morning quarterbacking has begun as to what McCain did wrong or what he should have done. I will always feel, since I was an early McCain backer, that he let people (former Bush people) dictate to him how the campaign should be run. He once knew better but surrendered his better judgment to so called pros that proceeded to blow it.

His pick for VP (Palin) was going to be either a brilliant move or a dumb decision; it ended up biting him on the ass.

His opting to attack Barack Obama on character with negative ads also bit him on the ass as people were clearly saying they did not like negative ads; stick to the issues.

The biggest factor in his demise was the sudden, historically unprecedented economic fall here and around the world. The change was instantaneous; Obama jumped in the lead and never looked back. Obviously, people felt more comfortable with Obama handling the economy than a guy who allowed it to happen.

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA LEGAL USAGE: The proposal passed big time with nary any opposition.

LEGAL STEM CELL RESEARCH: The proposal also passed but the battle the Catholic Church waged ($10 million) against it nearly defeated it. I am happy people saw through the Church’s flimsy and untrue arguments.

Have to call my friend in North Carolina. The state elected a Democratic Senator and nearly elected Obama by a fraction of one percent. Wow, now that IS historic!!!

FINALLY IT ENDS - I HOPE!

Well ladies and gentlemen, the end is near; tomorrow it ends – I hope!

I am a little apprehensive about the election, you just never know. I gave Obama my vote and so did my wife.

I am not a Democrat and I am aggressively anti-socialist. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and there is NO party out there that represents me. The closest one is the Libertarian Party but obviously they do not have a role in our political structure.

The republicans under Bush are not Republicans as far as standard and historic Republican ideology is concerned; I don’t know who they are now. The Democrats are predictably socialist-like but they have been all along.

I voted to return to Congress Thaddeus McCotter (Republican) even though I vowed not to because of his arrogant stand with Bush for the Iraq War. His last minute defection from the Bush camp where he stood against the “bailout” as socialism endeared him back to me plus I don’t want the Democrats to have unbridled control of Congress.

I would have voted for a Republican Senator but Carl Levin just has too much seniority and as we know, seniority gets you stuff. I hope the Senate remains even as it is now so really obnoxious Democratic bills like the “Freedom of Choice Labor Law” which is anything but, can be quietly killed off.

I notice on TV tonight that many and I mean many people are voting tonight using “absentee” ballots. It appears the lines are at least 4 hours long tonight, so I don’t know what they will be tomorrow. I think this election will hit a historic number of voters. I hope we make it way passed 50%.

I just talked to my sister who hasn’t voted in years because she was not moved – until this year – why – proposal 2 (stem cell research) – she had to vote YES and she is a very good Catholic – take that Catholic leaders; you don’t know your own members you twits!

The UNPRECEDENTED turnout, the unprecedented emotion means that Americans are up and awake and they are paying attention. I hope all this energy and interest means we have had it with our current government and we really do want a change and to me that can only mean Obama; I hope I am not reading this wrong.

McCain Campaign Reaches Out to Polish Americans

McCain Campaign Reaches Out to Polish Americans

This is actually a pretty smart move on the part of the McCain campaign. Poles tend to reside in a number of specific states and cities but not all Poles really care about their heritage or even keep up with what is going on with Polish-American relations.

One huge issue is the fact that Bush has granted "visa free" entry status to many Eastern European countries but NOT to Poland. Poland has had troops in Iraq from the very beginning and has suffered quite a few casualties but NO visa free entry into the U.S.

You may think this is so ungrateful on the part of the U.S. especially when Poland has been such a close friend and supporter of all things American for quite some time. I guess they don't hold a grudge against Franklin Roosevelt for selling Poland to Stalin after WWII and subjecting countless Polish generations to suffering under 50 years of Communist rule; but they still love us.

The visa issue is getting Poles pretty pissed but there are valid reasons for not granting visa free entry to Poles and the biggest one is the fact that many Poles came here on a visit and stayed for years and many are still here - illegally? I guess Poles were compared somewhat to Mexican immigrants who came here and took up jobs no one else wanted.

Anyway, I have to give McCain a star for reaching out to European immigrants - every vote counts.

THE VATICAN AND THEIR HOPELESS BATTLE

I came across an interesting article about how the Vatican is expanding psychological screening of candidates for the priesthood in an attempt to filter out potential pedophiles.

I guess I would have to admit that the Vatican is at least trying something but I maintain that the situation with priestly celibacy is so abnormal, so contrary to natural maleness that no matter what they do, they will NEVER be able to attract and keep NORMAL males.

I am not saying that men that never have sex are abnormal. What I am saying is that young virginal men who are thrust into roles of social and spiritual responsibility without being allowed to mature in their own sexuality, will, in most cases, evolve somewhat abnormally into an adult with a very real potential for some type of behavioral dysfunction.

The Vatican does acknowledge this as a problem when they specifically mention that problems with “confused or not yet well defined sexual identities” need to be addressed.
My question is how? Males have to grow into their sexual identity, they cannot just be told about it.

Vatican guidelines say priests must have a “positive and stable sense of one’s own masculine identity” and have the capacity to “integrate his sexuality in accordance” with the obligation of celibacy. I posit that this is practically impossible to do in a natural or normal way without messing up something in your psyche.

The Vatican is adamantly against homosexuality and considers it a sin yet they, as an institution, create the perfect attraction for homosexuals or at least youths that feel attracted to an all male society but don’t know why.

I will go back to my old argument that the Catholic Church’s insistence on priestly celibacy is without any religious foundation and was only instituted (yes priests were married in the past) when certain rich bishops were willing church property to their next of kin.

Catholic priests are becoming an endangered species and the ones in existence are all suspect so go ahead Vatican, keep doing what you have been doing and see what that gets you.

I predict that the only men priests in the future will be widowers or divorcees that do not want to re-marry or priests that have a nice woman in the parish that will be willing to service them for the greater glory of god.

RACISTS AMONG US!

I have touched on the role of racism in this election before but when it hits close to home, it roils me even more.

It is hard to find overt racism today because it is so déclassé but it is there none the less and very discernable if you give it some thought.

I have recently engaged in political discussions with a number of people and became convinced that the totally absurd reasons given why Obama should not be president (read: I am not voting for him) are there to mask their real reason: racism.

I can understand not voting for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; they are totally unfit for the presidential office and could not even run a dog pound, let alone a whole country. Voting for them would be absurd.

But here is Obama, raised white but with dark skin because his biological father was an African (Kenya) but did not play any role in his life. Obama has the energy and the brains to run this country but because his skin is darker than ours, he cannot be president?

It reminds me of Colin Powell and his recent interview. He defended Obama as a Christian and not a Muslim but he stopped and said what IF he was a Muslim, does that mean he cannot be president? This is America, since when do we have these standards (white & Christian) for the office of president. The Constitution explicitly says that NO religious test is necessary for any public office; the Constitution does not speak about skin color.

I guess I am frustrated because I just don’t understand their racism because to me it lacks logic or reason and must stem from a deep rooted emotion programmed by racist parents living in a racist society that generalized the negative traits of some blacks into a condemnation of all people with dark skin leaving no room for seeing people as individuals.

If you could see people as individuals you would learn that there are jackasses of every skin hue as well as angels and heroes.

I grew up in this generation, in a lily white, Polish Catholic neighborhood, white Catholic grade school and white Catholic high school except for one tall black basketball player that was recruited to help us win the state basketball championship. So why am I not a racist? Well how about that I had absolutely no reason(s) to be one, for starters.

I went into the U.S. Air Force when I was 18. I met not only people with different skin colors but non Catholics and even people that talked with a different accent – the whole experience just blew my eyes wide open – look, there is a different world out there. I am also cognizant of the fact that many that grew up like me did not have the opportunity to leave their little isolated piece of the world and experience the rest of the world and therefore were stuck in that one dimension forever.

I will look into my life experiences even more down the road to see why I turned out the way I did but for right now; I will remain puzzled as to why some in my generation turned out the way they did.

I can only hope that more white people vote for Obama because he is the right man for the office than those that will not vote for him strictly because he has dark skin.