The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy!

The nation is in the final hours leading up to the United States officially hitting the debt ceiling and where do we stand?  What have we learned?  What have we gained during these 15+ days of government shutdown?  Is perception really our new truth in the United States of America?  The best media campaign wins out over empirical truth?  I suppose, it helps immensely to have the media bias in covering recent events on your side.

How’s this for perception:  President Obama has said that he will veto any bill which includes the Vitter Amendment (previously passed in the Senate, but yet to be voted on by the House).  The Vitter amendment would require that all members of Congress, the Vice President, the President and members of the Cabinet be bound by the new healthcare law and enter into the exchanges without the 72% subsidies the Obama Administration unilaterally (without a legitimate vote of Congress) added to the healthcare law after it had been passed into law. 

The above has got to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy!  President Obama and Democratic members of Congress absolutely refuse to be bound by a law which you and I, the ordinary citizens of this nation, are being forced to comply with.  What does that say about the quality of the product being delivered by Obama-care????

In my humble opinion, if members of Congress are willing to sign-off on this hypocrisy then America is as good as gone.  We will no longer be a true democratic republic.  Quite frankly, I’d rather flirt with default on the national debt –which will not happen for at least another month according to leading economists— than capitulate to the demands of a would be group of tyrants (i.e., who will not negotiate, period and furthermore have repeatedly demonstrated --with aide of a blatantly biased liberal media-- that the current administration thinks they are above any accountability to the American people*).  Obama-care is at best “taxation without equal representation” and at its worst it is the crossing of a line which will forever-more fundamentally transform our nation, as the momentum of this unruly behemoth drags our nation further on the down the road toward socialism and control of the individual for the “greater good.” 

To Democratic voters who repeatedly (mindlessly) state “We won the election and Obama-care is the law of the land”, I have only this to say.  Winning the Presidency of the United States does not establish the President as the supreme monarch.   Furthermore we are not a true democracy, we are in fact a Democratic Republic.  That is to say that “we the people” elect representatives to act on our behalf in government, via the Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate).  The latter provides a layer of insulation to prevent the uniformed masses destroying our nation.  The latter being said, it is readily apparent that way too many members of Congress these days are seriously neglecting to listen to  'the voice' of the constituents who put them in office.   Furthermore, as for this “law of the land”:  if you truly understood government in any meaningful way, shape or form you would readily acknowledge the fact that there is a distinct difference between a law that is “passed by Congress”, “signed by the President” and “upheld by the Supreme Court” and the healthcare law that has been subsequently modified by President Obama and his administration – thereby subverting a legitimate vote of Congress— in order to exempt the President, Vice President, the Cabinet, members of Congress, Big Business and Unions from being legally bound to participate in the new healthcare law in the manner which you and I –ordinary citizens—will henceforth be required to partake.

 

* It should be noted --since the mainstream media didn't do its job in relaying the entire story to the American people-- that in the early days of the government shutdown Republicans passed numerous concurrent resolutions to fund critical parts of government, sending them over to the Senate for a vote --in hopes of implementation-- but these concurrent  resolutions never saw the light of day on the Senate floor thanks to the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, acting on order from the White House/President.  So in essence it was the Democrats who were choosing to maximize the hurt inflicted upon the American people by keeping government shutdown (in particular the denial of death benefits to be paid to military families of U.S. soldiers killed recently in Afghanistan) ... though in truth, the shutdown was only a partial shutdown as 83% of government remained operational during the course of the "shutdown."

It should also be noted, regarding the denial of death benefits for surviving family members of soldiers killed in Afghanistan:  The President could have immediately rectified the Pentagon’s error in denying death benefits to these grieving family members with a simple stroke of his pen via an executive order. The latter case of death benefits being denied to surviving military family members is a perfect example of a situation where the use of the president’s power to use the executive order is entirely appropriate. The President, however, chose not to use his power of executive order, opting instead to wait for the U.S. House of Representatives to pass additional legislation that would clarify the intent of the previously passed “Pay Our Military Act” --which the House had passed in the early days of the initial partial government shutdown.


11/10/2013 Found another great petition ... LiveByYourLaws.com

All Creatures Great and Small ...

Image Source

Questioning your Agnosticism? I love it! Now there is a precipice worthy of taking a good long look over, if there ever was one. Life’s a journey and what a shame if we don’t question, learn and grow along the way, right? Think a wise man once said “The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

Abortion, Capitol Punishment, Euthanasia, Gun Control ( owning a gun and actually using it to protect your home and family) … hypocritical positions? I hear you, such is life … and here we are talking about LIFE. I think, most people don’t really want to take a stand one way or another. They don’t want to commit to the thinking and information gathering needed to make an ‘educated’ decision. Then again, there are many who leave educated thought at the door and let others do their thinking for them (which is scarier to me!?!) . So at least you’re willing to tackle your own hypocrisy and commit to some serious thought provoking engagement. This puts you ahead of the game in my humble opinion. And even when you think you’ve ironed all of the kinks in your reasoning, keep in mind that many of those who do take a stand “for” or “against” any one of the previous “life issues” stands a good chance of changing their positon –for or against-- when the truth of their “choice” is staring right smack in the eyes.

You would laugh at me. I catch spiders and bugs --that somehow wind up in the house-- inside glasses or jars and then release them outside.  Flies are near impossible to corner and bees pack a mighty punch with that sting, but I am a hypocrite too, I guess? You see, I just could not bring myself to catch roaches when we lived in Texas. They just scared the hell out of me for some reason? They are God’s creatures too, right? I would rather tackle a snake, tarantula, or scorpion than a roach any day the week. I’d often call Ken and make him deal with the roaches, which thankfully were never many. The other times, I just told myself I was giving them an express ticket back home to see their maker --which is a good thing right? ; ) I love it up here in Washington: I have not seen a single roach the entire four years that we have lived up here.

Anyhow, I look forward to seeing your thoughts on these issues unfold. Always have enjoyed the way your mind works. Do miss having your input in my life, but I am thankful that you are so committed to sharing your vision of the world via your blog. Take care of you!


Peace & Much Love to you …
~M



P.S.  Here's another sign you might appreciate? Took this photo while out on a hiking trail up here.  Made ME laugh, but maybe that's just me? ... Besides, all of the important "answers" (adventures) aren't going to be found along the well-beaten path to my way of thinking.


8/9/12
And HAPPIEST OF BIRTHDAYS TO YOU TOO!!! =)  XOXO  Peace, Love & Abundant Blessings in your  new year ahead. ♥

Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

“Where have all the good men gone?”  … [ And why are all the good women silent? ]

Image Source

To borrow a line of thought from an old, familiar song,"Where have all the flowers gone?" Sitting here today, the dark side of my nature wonders briefly ...for just a fleeting moment: if, in truth, there ever were any... But that thought all too quickly passes as my inner light gently whispers its never-fading hope that Peace and Love will prevail.  Thus, I shall do my very best to push aside the negative influences of my interactions with some men in my own personal life (the reasons for my dark nights and horrible nightmares) and try to be semi-diplomatic as I venture forth into the murky waters of the controversy of this day.

The word "hypocrisy" is ringing rather loudly in my ears as I try to compose my thoughts …

“Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” 
~La Rochefoucauld

Ah, Glorious Hypocrisy … The mantle of our American society in this day and age, especially, I would have to say.  Then again, thinking back to days long since gone by … before modern day birth control … images of brothels, whores, bastards and marital infidelity spring readily to mind so perhaps this hypocrisy is long-lived and deep rooted after all?

Why is it that whenever the subject of birth control comes onto the table the narrative goes straight to the sexual promiscuity of a woman who would want to use birth control in the first place? The fact that  women having access to birth control gives all the Viagra-addled men running around in our modern-day society an outlet for their drug-induced state aside … not all women who would use birth control desire this option as an enabler to be sexually promiscuous. Many women use birth control pills to regulate and balance hormones. A large percentage of women who choose to use birth control are married women who want to have a modicum of control over their reproductive health … women who want to have a say as to when they will have children, how many children they will have and the spacing of those children.  A woman being able to have a say in making these choices is empowered to have aspirations in addition to bearing and raising children. A woman who has a degree of control over her reproductive health can have a career, working outside the home if she so desires, and be able to compete on a more level playing field with her male counterparts.  A part of me wonders if this is the real threat to men like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and other religious conservatives who continually insist on bringing the narrative back to sexual promiscuity; they fear women who are empowered. Without birth control women can be kept in their ‘proper place’ and all that currently ails our misguided modern-day society would then be 'miraculously' healed? 

With the defeat of the “Blunt Amendment” in the U.S. Senate earlier in the week, the contraception mandate‘issue’ has evolved beyond being a “freedom of conscience (religious)” issue: now it’s a fiscal issue, right?  “We should all be up in arms that the government wants to use our 'taxpayer dollars' (*see below) to fund the sexual promiscuity of women!” shout the angry white men.  And I only say ‘white’ because as of yet, I’ve not heard any other men --or women for that matter-- shouting this rhetoric from their media pulpits.  Seriously? Do we really want to go there: the ‘moral test’ to determine valid medical conditions to be covered under universal healthcare insurance packages?

I find Bill O’Reilly’s argument in his on-air commentary this evening –“Talking-points Memo”-- that birth control and Viagra are not equivalent because, paraphrasing … “Viagra addresses a legitimate medical condition in a man and birth control does not do the same thing for a woman” … to be laughable, at best (albeit a shrill, mocking laugh).  Hormone imbalance is a medical condition, Mr. O’Reilly, and so is pregnancy.  It’s not apples and oranges as you dismissively suggested after all. And if, as you suggest, you don’t want “[your] my hard-earned tax dollars* used to fund [law student’s] sexual activities” or any woman’s sexual promiscuity, then why would you be okay with enabling and paying for  a man’s sexual promiscuity.  If a woman can abstain, so can a man, right? Why is a man’s need to engage in sex any more valid than a woman’s? You say you don’t want the government "in our bedrooms", Mr. O'Reilly, but to follow your line of reasoning we would need someone --dare I say, the dreaded government?-- to establish legitimate criteria for "enabling sexual activity" … that is to say, if you follow the argument that a man only wants to use Viagra so that he can have children verses using Viagra to support his extra-curricular activities.

Furthermore, on the issue of a ‘moral test’ to determine valid medical conditions to be covered under universal healthcare insurance packages: what about obesity? “Gluttony” is one of the “seven deadly sins", is it not? Under the ‘moral test’ line of reasoning, some would argue “why should tax-payer dollars (*see below) be used to pay for medical conditions that are the direct result of the bad choices made by individuals who indulge in overeating (e.g., type of diabetes caused by obesity,  resultant foot, leg, back problems, heart conditions).” There are likely a whole host of other medical conditions for which a similar argument could made. Can you see how the need to apply a ‘moral test’ in determining valid medical conditions is, in a truth, a rather weak argument at best and an extremely slippery slope in the long-run.

===>[* "taxpayer dollars" ...the accepted argument being that the cost for covered services is passed along to the public in the form of higher health insurance premiums, where carrying of health insurance is mandated by the Federal Government --“individual mandate”-- in “Obama-care.” Although, technically speaking, it is not ‘taxpayer dollars’, but rather money taken directly out of the insurance purchaser’s pocket. I think that the words “taxpayer dollars” are more of an attention-grabber, used for the express purpose of fueling emotions which often precludes logical thought processes. Furthermore, no-one is asking for anything to be “FREE”; women merely want access to affordable contraception medications and services, which healthcare coverage would undeniably provide. And if we are talking from a purely "cost" perspective here, I would venture that insurance companies would find little difficulty in producing a veritable mountain of data to demonstrate that the costs for contraception medications and services --specifically tubal ligation, hysterectomy and vasectomy-- are considerably lower than the associated costs for: 1) care during pregnancy, 2) delivery of a baby and 3) a new dependent to be added a healthcare policy after the delivery.]<===

I have to give the Democrats a lot of credit on this “contraception” issue … I have always felt that my interests as a U.S. citizen were best served by the Republican party. Even when my own personal issues were not adequately addressed by the Republican Party (hence, my referring to myself as an ‘Independent Republican’), I reasoned that the Republican Party was the greater-good for the country as a whole.  I even had a hand in converting my Democrat husband over to the Republican Party early on in our marriage.  My husband claimed, at the time of his conversion, that “The Democratic Party is not the party that it used to be any longer.” Sitting here today and watching the debate on this contraception issue unfold, I am beginning to wonder if  “The Republican Party is not the party it used to be any longer”? 

I just can’t rationalize the paradoxal stance of conservatives, so adamantly opposed to having the federal government infringe upon an individual’s or the Church's rights, having absolutely no problem turning right around and infringing upon the rights of women. Maybe, the times are once again changing? I have three daughters, who will one day soon venture out into the world to fend for themselves, and I have to think ahead and consider what will be in their best interests then as well as now. I know that contraception is just one 'issue', but individuals response to this issue speaks volumes about the attitude of larger groups within our country towards the roles that women should play in our society. Quite frankly, the conservative response to this issue is proving to be judgmental, intolerant --not to mention hypocritical-- frightfully condescending and dismissive to my way of thinking. This is a side to the Republican Party that I do not like and cannot find any truthful way to appreciate.  Perhaps, for the moment there are bigger issues facing our nation as a whole? Perhaps, I am wise enough to look beyond this "contraception issue" to the larger issues facing our nation for now, but I can honestly say that many other women, independents and moderates will not be willing to do the same.

My family and Republican friends will, of course argue, that I am "being used by the Democratic Party" by succumbing to this "hot-button" issue and that I should "rise above it" ... But how do you honestly rise above BEING A WOMAN? ... Aside from succumbing to suppression and denial by silently smiling and nodding congenially right along to the song of party & religious rhetoric?

As for Rush Limbaugh's radio comments on Wednesday: they are not worthy of my commenting here, as his remarks were not at all respectful to the law school student, Ms. Fluke --or women in general-- constructive to a meaningful discussion of topic at hand, or worthy of a news-focused, current events radio talk-show host commentator. The latter being said, Mr. Limbaugh's remark to the effect that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund video posting of the promiscuous sexual activities of women who receive "taxpayer funded birth control" ..."so we can all watch"?!? ... does begin to get at the heart of the true root of 'moral decay' in our society.

In closing, I am left wondering ... What does it truly mean to be a good woman?  Why are all the 'good women' --in the eyes of conservatives-- remaining silent (i.e., towing the party-line) on this contraception issue?  Am I willing to conform "for the greater good" in the short term? And if so, what will happen in the long term?

Alas, Timing is (once again) everything ... As tomorrow finds the State Caucuses upon us here in Seattle and surrounding cities throughout the State of Washington.






Follow-up:  On Where Have All the Good Men Gone?