Remember, remember, the 5th of November: Folklore and History

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,the Gunpowder Treason and Plot, 

I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot.Guy Fawkes, t’was his intent to blow up King and Parliament. 

Three score barrels were laid below to prove old England’s overthrow;By God’s mercy he was catch’d with a dark lantern and lighted match. 

Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring. Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King! 

Hip hip hoorah!

This is a pretty well-known poem detailing the events of the Gunpowder Plot,  and remembered every November 5^th in England, on Guy Fawkes Day. (There is a second verse to this poem, not as popular these days, that goes into killing and mutilating the Pope. Music and poetry is full of so many forgotten verses like that.) Guy Fawkes day has become a time to have an excuse for some fireworks, a bonfire, and some fun. 

But that's not how it all began.

The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt by a group of Catholics intent on unseating King James I from the English throne, so that his daughter, Elizabeth, could be put on in his place, and usher in a return to Catholic power in England.

Going back to King Henry VIII, there was a back and forth struggle on whether the state religion would be Anglican or Catholic. And after years of Anglicanism under Elizabeth I and James I, some catholic leaders were eager to revert back. 

So, on the day of the State Opening of Parliament, in 1605, when the nobles and king all came to the House of Lords to have their bit of pomp, outside their lives of pomp, barrels of gunpowder were secreted under the parliament.

36 barrels were placed. It was enough to destroy the House of Lords, at least. So have theorized how much more of the area around would have been destroyed as well, and how many more would have died that day.

George Cruikshank's illustration of Guy Fawkes
, published in William Harrison Ainsworth's 1840 novel

Guy Fawkes was the member of the conspiracy tasked to oversee the barrels under the streets. And when information was passed of the threat to parliament and king, a search was made, and Fawkes was caught, sitting on the evidence. 

Fawkes was an English Catholic who had gone on to served Spain as a soldier in war. He returned to England eager to overthrow the government. His efforts led him to join this plot. And that led him to be hung, then drawn and quartered.

The focus on Fawkes seems to come from his being caught in the act, drug from beneath parliament. It must have caught the imagination. Others fled London, and died fighting. 7 others survived to be tried along with Fawkes, and suffered the same fate. 

But Fawkes became the focus, with a holiday, a poem, and a level of praise and infamy that has lasted 4 centuries.

But the audacious plot he was involved in, a massive bomb to wipe out the monarchy and government of a major nation, seems to have gotten the historic blur.
It's like people talking about raping and pillaging. It sounds all old timey. But it means women were raped, people were murdered, homes were burned down, crops destroyed, and valuables and goods stolen. Their is nothing nice, fun, or funny in the term. But it's old timey, so...What the hell!

So consider Fawkes and King James. 

Guy Fawkes was clearly a amazingly pious person. After his mother married a Catholic man, he converted to the faith. And he left the country to fight for the strongest of Catholic nations against Protestant ones. Then he embraced the idea that his homeland needed to be brought back into the True Faith by any mean. The result of this was his agreement to a plan in which the government, the king, the queen, the princes, their servants, and anyone within range would die. It was a holy duty, to kill the Protestant king, and anyone who got in his way.

That is horrific. Magnitude of the slaughter. Not hard to feel how people were stirred to rage at the very idea of this destruction. The assault on the state, to wipe it out, and install a new ruler and a new religion. Not hard to appreciate the horror at how close they were able to get to destroying one's state and leaders. This was a monstrous plan.

But what of James? King James is a piece of work. If you've heard of or read the King James Bible, you know a small bit about this man. He was a very pious and worried man. He faced repeated attempts on his life as king, not just the Gunpowder Plot. And before that, all that back and forth plotting in Scotland, lead to his mother, Mary, being exiled, and his father, Darnley, suffering a suspicious death. He was treated as a pawn, to be shaped to act as a King of Scotland. And then, he was made the English King. 

Through his study of his Protestant faith he was drawn to become increasingly concerned of the threat of the Devil, and witches. He became convinced witches were acting to murder him, and was at one trial of a woman accused of such an attempt. He also personally oversaw the torture of women believed to be witches. In this time he wrote a book on witches for people to use, Daemonologie. It explained witches and advised on the hunting of them. These ideas also made it into his version of the bible, with a change to one passage to say, "Thou shall not suffer a witch." 

As King of England, James was interested in fully joining his Scotland and England. He also wanted to bring peace to England and Spain. Though he still maintained a religious and legal hostility to Catholicism. Still, in 1604, the war between the 2 nations ended. Then the plot came in the following year.

James can be a troubling figure, in how he was drawn into fear and paranoia of witches. His engaging personally in the torture of women is disturbing. His work has gone on to be used to bring a lot of suffering. 

But in the end what Guy Fawkes was doing was not to free England, it was a Mission from God, it was for the sake of God's Will, and that of the Church.


November 5th celebrates an almost successful mass murder and regicide by a group of religious fanatics.

What President Obama has done for the country.

Here's a nice brief review of a lot of what President Barack Obama has done in just one term. (Thanks to Josh Moschitta, Jr. for a brilliant job. - Always The Micro Machine Man to me.)





Imagine what he can do with another four years, and more support in Congress. See HERE.

Remember, remember, the 6th of November…No, really, REMEMBER!

It’s the 6th tomorrow. 

ELECTION DAY! 

If you haven’t vote, if you haven’t gotten involved…WAKE UP!!!

It’s time to get out to your polling place. Commit to voting.

As busy as the president is he’s gotten around to voting.

Yeah. He’s traveling the country, talking to everyone, dealing with natural disasters, AND…voting.

Michelle Obama does a beautiful job breaking down the numbers. A few votes on one block could tilt this election. Every vote matters. You matter.

And remember all the people affected by this election and benefiting from President Obama’s leadership. Including, but not limited to…

LGBT:

Women:

College students:

Latinos:

Republicans:

Those concerned about foreign policy:

Every tax payer:

Get out and vote by tomorrow. It matters. You matter. And to continue through recovery, and protect and guarantee the rights of all Americans, vote for Obama and help hold back a roll back of progress, reform, and rights.

We need you tomorrow.

VOTE.

The lies that Republicans live are still lies.

Republicans. They do love their big declarative statements. What is vexing about this is that so often when they do make their statements, it is so much bull. (When they are not, it's scary to realize they are serious.) But they do talk loudly, and carry their wiffle bat proudly.

We wanted the president to succeed./We tried to work with the president.

Republicans have tried to pretend that since November of 2008 that they had not been working and striving to disable the Obama administration from functioning  or that they've worked to sabotage programs and projects. It is a lot to expect everyone to forget what they've been up to.

Mitch McConnell - Make him a one term president.

Chuck Grassley - How he worked with the president, to slow down, and, hopefully, prevent Obamacare passing.



Again and again. They've striven to pull down President Obama, they worked to stop the stimulus  Obamacare, and anything else he supported. It feels almost pathological.

24 Policies that Republicans supported until Obama supported them.

Efforts going back to the inauguration.



Birth control only leads to sex and more abortions.

Conservatives have been wrong on birth control since...it was first come up with. Safe sex is a good thing. And more important, when people have access to contraception, they don't have unwanted pregnancies. And when they don't have unwanted pregnancies they are just that less likely to look to abortion. And what do I mean by that less likely? 75%. Approximately. That is a significant effect. But that won't change a think for Conservatives, will it?


Helping the poor causes them not to work.

Conservatives often push to be harsher and crueler to those that are in financial hardship. They love terms like Welfare Queens, to describe this vision of a race (and they are thinking of a race) of shiftless good for nothings stealing their hard earned money. If reality was so simple. Their are some who take advantage. But to say all or most are, is ridiculous. I am glad I haven't been put in a position yet to need help, but I also am so thankful to know it is there, if my situation was worse.

But to explain the ridiculousness of saying the social safety net makes the poor lazy, I hand you over to John Quiggin and Paul Krugman.


If you own a microwave/TV/cellphone/Computer/DVD player you're not poor.

It is sad how Conservatives loose track of time. A microwave is a sign of success in life? Maybe in the 1960's, but today they are basic AND cheap. It is a simple, fast, low cost, and space friendly way to cook. It is, sadly, how a lot of us cook, prepackaged food. And cell phones and computers? How are people supposed to get and keep jobs without, what are today, basic methods of communication, getting information, and learning? What seems to shock Conservatives is that the poor aren't living in shanty towns, with no power or front doors. Thankfully, most poor in the country are not in that situation. But still the Conservatives turn up their noses.

I've heard Hannity be in utter shock that the poor in America aren't living on rice and beans alone. He thinks the poor of America have it to good.

But that's the Conservative view. They look away when the real burden on the poor is in actual basic necessities.

... “the real everyday basics such as quality child care and out-of-pocket medical costs” are “squeezing the budgets of the poor and middle-class alike.” 

Hassett argues that safety net programs like “unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid” help families afford basic needs, further shrinking the nation’s income gap. 

...

Not having a place you can have your kids go seems like a big obstacle to being able to work. And getting sick, when you are poor, when you have no insurance, that's a nightmare.

But the real trouble is that someone owns a smart phone, and stares at it waiting for that business to call back to tell them if they got the job.

Conservatives can be so clueless.


Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to benefit everyone.

This is really an old gem for conservatives. The trickle down economy. If we allow the rich to pay less into the system, everyone does better. A rising tide lifts all boats. If it only reality was actually so simple, for the rich. But it isn't.

... 

The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth after Senate Republicans -- including the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell -- raised a litany of concerns with the paper's findings and wording. 

...

(Bolding added.)

Studies seem to find that Conservative conventional wisdom never holds up. The results show that when you cut taxes for the rich, the money they save stays with them. It does not filter into the economy, it is put aside, moved out the country, etc.

TPM:

... 

The study, which TPM and others reported on at the time, delved into the last 65 years of U.S. tax policy — specifically how marginal rates on high incomes and capital gains taxes impact decision-making. It concluded that reducing effective taxes on the rich does not generate economic growth, but that it does correlate with rising income inequality in the short term. 

...

It doesn't grow the economy at all. In fact it hurts those at the other end of the spectrum to the rich. This, as opposed to the benefit from people down the bracket, who use the money to buy goods they can now afford, or pay bills off. And as the quote notes, Republicans just wanted to silence this data. They don't like the facts, so they suppress them. Other times they ignore them.

It reminds me of an argument I saw between podcast host Sam Seder and a libertarian radio host. In it the libertarian was lecturing on how a business paying for health care benefits for women is bad for them. And Sam Seder pointed him to studies done that show paying out this little amount to help female workers actually was a boon to business, not a negative. But the libertarian wouldn't accept it. He just kept saying it was a bad thing, and Seder kept trying to explain that it was being studied and shown to be otherwise. Being offered such evidence, the libertarian chose to ignore it and keep to his economic belief.

That is something we see too often with conservatives. Taxes on the rich are bad, because. Spending on the poor is bad, because. It does a country no good if policy is set by ideology, and ideology alone.


These are failed ideas. And one Republicans after another rises to try them out yet again. And we pay.



If you want a bit more, here's a video with some Ohio Romney supporters. Listen to all the lies they've been fed. It is sad.

Why your voting matters in November - Head of the Class Edition

Let's talk education. Conservatives have been long eager to dismantle the Department of Education. They have also long worked to dismantle the teacher's union. They also seem none to friendly to public education in general, from where I sit. In fact they have come off as dismissive of the whole system.

So what do Romney and his folk want?

End the teacher's unions. It has been a refrain from Conservatives for years now. The idea has been to turn them into straw man villains, out for money and power. Unions aren't perfect, but they are the mechanism to ensure that bureaucracies and administrators don't roll over the teaching community or individuals, and to ensure that a general good can be maintained. So, teachers can work together, when they have their contracts violated and their hours expanded, pay cut, and new books for students denied. But workers having power and a voice in anathema to Conservatives. And, sadly, Conservatives have done a good job turning much of the country against unions, even some union members. When the workers have no voice, and the managers and executives have a booming voice (Hi, Citizens United!), whose interests are going to be met?


Vouchers. Ryan has been enthused about vouchers. And Romney has embraced them to . The trouble with this is much like with a Medicare voucher. It will only get you so far, in a country where everyone has a check to support their education kids, you'll have to cover the rest. Their are going to be a few Have's, and the rest of us will be Have Not's. There are still only so many "good" private schools and prestigious schools, and only so many seats in them. (Part of what makes them good, or seem good, is their exclusivity, control on who they accept, and student/teacher ratios) And these places will cost a lot more than a voucher covers (including travel, uniforms, special equipment, etc.).

And understand, the end game here is killing public education, leaving it all private and corporate schools. That will not be a good end for us peons. If you want a "good" education, you better have money, lots of it. When all there is is privately run schools, your costs will go up (That's how it always goes.). And even then, their aren't going to be a lot of slots, most of the rest will be left to the bargain basement education.


And of course, in these places, teachers will have no voice or ways to change things. And then there's the conservative/ALEC idea of privatizing teaching. It's a scary world that the GOP and Romney envision.

And at the university level, Romney has talked about rolling back loan improvements we've seen over the last 4 years. Loan reform has meant savings to students and families, and also a path to expanding Pell Grants that can be given. Romney seems uninterested in this improvement, instead repeating the unsupported idea that loans should go private, and all those costs for students and families that came with it should return as well. That will be great, for getting a few people richer, and either keep people out of schools or put them into deep deep debt upon finishing their studies. And that will be the result of Romney's thinking, more loans, unsubsidized at far higher rates. How does crushing graduates with debt help the work force? Romney and Ryan also seem uninterested in bolstering Pell Grants, they seem to dismiss them. The results of Romney's thinking would be a diminished public university system.


Privately owned and controlled education seems exactly what Romney and Ryan want.


How is this going to improve things for the students, or the country?



Well, we can do something about this. Vote.

For more information:

Here's some of the work President Obama has done on loans for students.

Why your voting matters in November - Obama Cares Edition

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney and the GOP is hostile to the health care accomplishments of the Obama administration.

That means, if they are given the power, they will dismantle what has been accomplished the last 4 years. And while many of us would have liked to have accomplished more, Republicans would like to push back what we have gained. We either move forward in the fight for better health care, or we let Republicans lead a retreat into diminished health care returns for the American people.

While I have noted some Republicans have become iffy about ending Obamacare, the mood and money is behind a full repeal, before starting over. And let's be clear. Republicans talk A LOT about repeal. They also use the word replace a lot to. But they have no replacement plan in mind. They just want to be able to go in front of the camera and announce the dreaded law is gone.

Their is a choice to be faced November the 6th. Let us not hide from that.

People will have to fear losing their insurance. 20-something kids are going to get booted from insurance. The elderly will lose access to many prescriptions. And all those that are getting on insurance, despite having a long term illness, will be out in the cold, alone, again. Romney and the Republicans will leave the American people in a dreadful place medically. Then Mitt Romney will start in with what he has actually planned.

Under the Romney budget proposal severe cuts would be made to medicare, regardless of what Romney or Ryan want to say, the Romney budget plan, and the Ryan one before it go after services like medicare and medicaid. Or as they are designed, they will need to slice deeply into these services.

So to help understand the impact, here is a nice map showing the benefit difference between Romney and Obama's plans. And here is a NYT editorial looking at differences.

Add to this the impact on the pro-life/pro-choice questions. The small investment in contraception through Obamacare has an amazing impact. We could see up to a 75% drop in abortions. Through the increased access to birth control, unnecessary pregnancies will be significantly reduced. No laws controlling women's bodies. No law criminalizing doctors. Just insure women can get the Pill...

...and the world changes...

...And Romney, the GOP, and Conservatism will do everything in it's power to prevent this. They will just criminalize abortion, and let women fall where they may. But no surprise there. That is how they seem to see all of out health care needs.

We deserve better than Mitt Romney and the Republicans on health care.

Vote.


And for your use, here's the BarackObama.com Health Care page.

Also, their is more to come with Obamacare:

U.S. Set To Sponsor National Health Insurance Plans Under Obamacare

The Obama Administration is preparing for the federal government’s impending role as the primary sponsor of two new multistate health insurance plans that will be available for individuals and small businesses to purchase under Obamacare’s statewide insurance exchanges in 2014. 

...

(Bolding is done by me.)

Why your voting matters in November - Heartbeat from the Presidency Edition

Paul Ryan.

Know him?

He could be Vice President of the United States. He could also, if tragic events occur, President of the United States...So, do you know him?

We have, oddly, not seen a lot of talk of just who Paul Ryan is in the last few months. It has been glossed. over. Perhaps the beltway media thinks it's...glossy view of him from the fawning talk of past years is all their is, no more work needed. But that seems pretty dumb. 

We, the voters, should be allowed to better know someone who could be president in a crisis.

Ryan has a long record to know. For the question of the rights of Americans, he's been a constant foe of the gay community, repeatedly supporting federal marriage amendments and laws, which would end all existing marriage equality in the country. Along with this he still supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He's also voted against the right of gays to adopt children. He's hostility is clear.


When it comes to the rights of women, he's not friendly. He has worked long to strip away reproductive rights. He wants to see Roe vs Wade struck down. More than that he has repeated gone after any support of Planned Parenthood. He is a constant enemy of reproductive rights.

More than that he has championed the idea of a personhood laws. This would declare the fetus in a woman a human, and abortion a clear murder. It would seal the fate of all women under his religious vision. Whatever women may want to do with their own bodies, Ryan knows that he knows better.

On to wider health care questions, the approach the Paul Ryan has for access to medicare is to cut it down and turn it into a voucher system. This would mean far less support for any of us in our old age. You get some money, and then you are on your own to find a private medical service that can get you by, if you can find the medical care you need. It would mean meager support to those growing old and in need of a social safety net.


In fact from medicare to medicaid to social security, Paul Ryan only sees services in need of cutting down. It would be a very harsh life for anyone who found themselves in financial trouble. This is following on a youth and education for Paul Ryan largely supported by social security pay outs after the unfortunate death of his father.


Ryan would continue this theme in his approach to education. Vouchers for your family. Then you can go try and find out what level of education you can afford, as you compete, with a nation of families many with more money, pushing by you into the good schools. And when you want to go to a university, Ryan is not fond of expanding federal loans to help students get in. Again, you are on your own.

That seems to be a constant with Ryan. It no doubt, in part, comes from his adherence to Ayn Rand's philosophy. He seems to be fond to see people make it on their own. He seems himself in this light, despite the fact his life story is largely the opposite.


You've likely thought on Mitt Romney as president. But also imagine this man as your president.

Paul Ryan.

He would be a nightmare.

Why your voting matters in November - Out and Equal Edition

The question of gay rights in America...Why is there a question of gay rights in America? That is a mad thing to be true. It is also very very conservative. (Hi, Log Cabin Republicans!)

The GOP continues to be hostile to the gay community. Opposing their access to basic rights others have, and condoning bigotry and intolerance...when they can get away with it. (Why can they get away with of this?)

And Romney is so different. He has his own history which can inform us all on how he'll react and handle gay issues, if elected.

Gay marriage.
Back on October 20th, Bay Buchanan, a Romney campaign adviser, makes it clear:

... 

Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage." 

...

Romney will support a FEDERAL constitutional bar on gay marriage. Seems simple enough. He will oppose marriage equality. Just like every Republicans is supposed to do. That is part of what it means to be a Republican. today. Reprehensible.

And be clear, Mitt Romney is the tip of the iceberg of a larger conservative move to prevent gays from having this simple right. Groups like the National Organization of Marriage are working hard to prevent state's from allowing marriage equality, and trying to lay down law to prevent equality from ever being allowed. The more legislative seats they can fill the more they can deny rights. And with Romney in the presidency, they can go much much further.

Gay couples, and their kids.
As governor, Romney failed to show much consideration for gay couples, and their families. When it became necessary to update to reflect that gay couple would need to have birth certificates that reflected the fact that parents were not just a man and a woman, Romney put his foot down. He did not care for having gay families around. It bothered him, and he would not help in the least as governor. He did not want them to have modified certification, or kids in gay families. THAT is Mitt Romney.

And you can add to being hostile to the changes, the fact he then decided to have his office personally review each case where gay couples sought birth certificates. He was a hostile political leader to the gay community.

... 

Romney’s interventions mostly resulted in delays awarding birth certificates for women married to same-sex partners who gave birth. Gay men seeking parental rights were required to take a different route, by obtaining a court order. By law, birth certificates must be issued within 10 days of birth, and in some instances, those deadlines were not met. 

...

He stood in the way of basic government services, to go after gays. Heck, he was slashing funding and support throughout the state, but paying to do this unnecessary work. That is how bad he was. And it's how bad he will be.

... 

“The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,’’ Romney said in his prepared remarks. “What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’ 

Romney also warned about the societal impact of gay parents raising children. “Scientific studies of children raised by same-sex couples are almost nonexistent,’’ he said. “It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole.’’ 

Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president. 

“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’ 

...

Here's some of the video of this.

This is no friend, he's an opponent. An opponent ready to make use of all the power of the presidency.

We should all be worried about that.

We all need to vote. Because, it wasn't until he left Massachusetts that things improved.

... 

Changes to Massachusetts birth certificates formally acknowledging children to same-sex marriages did not come into effect until after Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, assumed office. 

...

Republicans are eager to be the anti-gay party.

Think on that.


Republicans are eager to be the anti-gay party.


As such, they try and tar Obama as being pro-gay (Like it's a bad thing.). As noted here:

It's actually a compliment...but it's...supposed to be negative. Well, it is among conservatives. And that speaks so poorly of the conservative movement. Join us, GOP, in the 21st century.

And Obama is willing to run with support of Marriage Equality, unlike the GOP.

From GenJCChristian, the robocall ad in which Obama supports marriage equality (in reference to Washington's Referendum 74).

Hell, Romney and the GOP wouldn't put together an ad to talk positively about gay rights.



There are differences, between Obama and Romney, between Democrats and Republicans.

Look at how Romney looks at gay people. How will he approach the bullying of gays, the mistreatment of gays, basic partner rights, the right to serve in the armed services openly? Their are big differences.

Big differences.


Please, vote for a better America. Let us not go back to a Romney America.

3 DAYS Until ELECTION DAY/Early Voting is Closing *UPDATED*

ELECTION DAY is November 6th!


So PLEASE NOTE that at the end of Friday, the 2nd, Early Voting closes in:

• WISCONSIN
• Idaho
• Georgia
• Texas
• OHIO
• Utah
• ARIZONA
• COLORADO
• NEVADA
• FLORIDA

It closes on Saturday, the 3rd, in:

• Hawaii
• New Mexico
• D.C.
• Illinois
• NORTH CAROLINA
• West Virginia

It closes on Sunday, the 4th in:

• FLORIDA

I've seen that FLORIDA wraps up early voting on Saturday. A reminder of always double checking on vote deadlines. Get out and vote now!!!


*NOTICE ALL THE SWING STATES, or ones that is could be close in?

Take note, double check the hours and dates, and VOTE.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

I am seeing today either my source on Florida was wrong, I misread it, or the date was changed. ALWAYS check up on voting hours and dates in your so you won't be surprised. And get out and vote!

Why your voting matters in November - God's Own Party Edition *UPDATED*

Going back to the Vice Presidential debate, we saw how the GOP has chosen to see secular government. Namely, it shouldn't be, there should be no barrier keeping the church out of the state's business. And as a social actor, I can agree that religious institutions should have a voice to share their opinions, as they already do. What for Ryan and conservatives is the problem is the lack of undue deference to religion. Society doesn't bow and scrape the way it once did. And, sadly, religious conservatives, and most conservatives, miss this and want to see it again.

Conservatism has chosen to embrace a twisted worldview in the passed several decades that has placed it in confrontation with modernity and the rights every American should be able to access.

John Stewart put it nicely:

According to the Republican platform, and the man who wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency (Paul Ryan), if a woman wants to have a baby in vitro fertilization, she cannot. Rape? She has to.

This is how Conservatism has decided to look at society. Some things are God's will, and if you don't like how you are treated, how you are abused, or how you are ignored, tough. It's God's will.

And when you want science and medicine to help you, tough. It's God's will.

It is no way to govern.

How are they now trying to explain the rape comments now? To say that it isn't that God wants us all to get raped. It just wants us to suffer through a pregnancy that results. The pregnancy is the act of God. As Digby notes:

... 

I'm not a religious person so I can't speak to the theology here, but as a logical person I can only hold my head in my hands and moan. God doesn't make mistakes but he didn't intend for a rape to happen. It's God's will but sometimes bad things happen. All of this is supposed to be true simultaneously. 

I'm sorry, if it's God's will and he doesn't make mistakes then he must have intended the rape as well as the pregnancy. You can't have it both ways and say he is omnipotent and all powerful and let him off the hook on that half that equation while you insist that the pregnancy is inviolable because God intended it.  

...

The desire is to try and ignore horror and pain and try to spur out some virtue. But it can't be that clean.

Of course for the GOP, it doesn't matter how clean it really is. It is ideology. It is about pushing ends, regardless of means, or of side effects. It is cold and cruel.

But you utter your deity's name. You say a prayer. And you get forgiven for the suffering you bring...at least in faith. In the polling place, we can chose not to forgive. Choose not to let them push their vision of the will of God on us.

God's will. How can we accept this? God's will as law? How can we take comfort in attempts to place God's will into law? Whether it is one's own god, or the god of another? Should attempts to assert religious law be accepted?

As I understand it, if this was Islamic or Sharia Law, we would all be called to rise up and stand against the outrage. But to say laws against gays, or women, or atheists, or science are just the will of God...I guess that is different. At least it is for around 47% of voters in a presidential election.

How can this be right?

But for the GOP, and religious conservatism what is right and wrong is what they say it is. Even science must bend to it's knees before them.

Look at a grand example with Representative Paul Broun of Georgia:

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior." 

... 

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

This is a member of the House Science Committee. Really. Young Earth Creationism. Maybe he's a flat earther as well. But, no. He gets a prestigious placement. He freaking gets elected to office! Know who else is on this committee? Representative Todd "Ovaries Are Magic" Akin. This is who Republicans place in charge of discussing and guiding legislation in regards to science. Let that sink in please. People who shun science oversee science legislation. This is who the GOP have chosen to become.

From the environment to science to the social safety net, they've chosen to place the wolves in the role of sheep hound to a legislative flock. But, not to worry, God smiles down on this.

And if you don't do as they want. Fear God!

Mike Huckabee, a man who once tried to play moderate voice for the future has now has slid firmly into unabashed religious conservatism's nuttery has been trying to spread the fear for Mitt Romney.

Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire.

Test of fire. Recorded in eternity. You vote for Obama. You will burn in Hell.



The video does play the words in two ways. It shows metalworking, so you could say it is talking of the fire of the forge and longevity of crafted metal. But if you are good churchgoer. You know what Mike is saying to you. The image of fire behind a man is always clear, and has been for CENTURIES. And a good evangelical preacher like Huckabee knew it in making this propaganda.

Just the same as what is being said from some Catholic pulpits. Bishop Daniel Jenky, has already compared President Obama to Hitler, and now is having a shot at pushing voting as he sees fit. He lists out the ills of government, Obamacare mandates for coverage, abortion, contraception, etc. He calls the legislators who "enable" abortion guilty of grave sin. And then reminds us all of God's judgment and eternity. Then ends with:

I therefore call upon every practicing Catholic in this Diocese to vote. Be faithful to Christ and to your Catholic Faith.

Like with Huckabee the intent is clear. The protection or lack of action to end abortion, is a sin, and if you "enable" legislators to continue, how will God judge you? It is shameful. Pulpit bullies. And as the piece above noted, Jenky completely ignores the Vatican's call to have Congress act to help and protect the poor. Guess that isn't important to Jesus (He never mentioned the poor, right?).

We need to stand up to all these bullies. Bullying voters. Bullying women. Bullying gays. Bullying society.

America is bigger than any one religion. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. We all should have a voice and have out rights. Don't let them silence you, or others. Don't let them attack our freedoms.

Vote by November 6th. Make use of your right to vote proudly and defiantly.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Ryan has continued the religious panic.

... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) used some of the precious remaining hours of the 2012 campaign to reach out to social conservative voters in a town hall-style call on Sunday night, warning that "Judeo-Christian" values were at risk if President Barack Obama is reelected. 

"This is a huge election," said Ryan. "Please know that Mitt Romney and I understand the stakes. We understand the stakes of where this country is headed. We understand the stakes of our fundamental freedoms being on the line, like religious freedom -- such as how they're being compromised in Obamacare." 

The call was organized by Ralph Reed's socially conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. The call was originally scheduled for Oct. 25, but was then rescheduled for Sunday night. 

Ryan added that Obama's vision was "a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty and compromises those values -- those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us a great and exceptional nation in the first place." 

...

Western civilization is at stake folks. Christianity is in peril. This is what Paul Ryan is talking about as the election looms. Obamacare, gay people, educated ladies, modern society it all seems to scare Ryan and conservatives.

Why your voting matters in November - Emergency Mitt Edition *UPDATED*

As I write the east coast prepares for a likely battering from it is being called a "frankenstorm." (And the news media sighed, and knew it was love.) Ah, Sandy. (Que a Grease reference, if you got one.)

The government is at work as a result. FEMA is preparing. The states are gearing up. And local services are on the move. It is a nice reminder of just why we bother with this whole society/civilization thing in the first place.

But as we brace to see what the forces of nature have in mind for us this time around, it is worth remembering just how conservatives have been looking at and using emergency services in the United States, in particular FEMA.

You can look to earlier in the year when Mitt Romney was still trying to become the nominee:



He looked at the idea of a national disaster relief program, FEMA, and said it was just better to shunt it down to the states. Or better, turn it over to business.

How does this work then? Each states struggles to support it's own disaster situations and tries to recover as best it can, on it's own. As it is, particularly in events like Katrina, the states are in desperate need for federal aid to get running again. But, for Mitt Romney, that's just a money loser. Bye, Louisiana, we have to cut you off. It is a stunningly simplistic and ill-conceived approach to governance.

And, hand it over to business? What corporate force will we be giving this power to? How much will they be charging people who's businesses and homes have been wiped from the map for a box of crackers and a branded towel?

FEMA is EXACTLY the kind of thing the government is made to do. But for conservatives, that is a bad thing. It makes government look good, it makes people's lives better (after tragedy), so it is a hinderance to the conservative agenda.

Mitt Romney wanted us to ponder what we should keep in a federal budget. FEMA is not on his list of keepers (with plenty of other vital services). It should give us all pause.

Now, his campaign is trying to claim that he won't do that, kind of:

... 

"Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters," the Romney official said.

Romney says it is better to clear out this expense from the federal budget. So he wants to put it on the states to deal with and pay for. But he wants to be sure responders have the best resources and assistance to work...Which means it would be in the stay in the federal budget? So it will still be an expense problem. Or he will cut paying out, and that leaves states already struggling economically exceedingly vulnerable. Which answer is Romney's? Does any of this really make sense? ...Let's be honest, I doubt Mitt Romney even knows, or cares if it does. But these are lives and livelihoods he's playing with.

What Mitt has said quite clearly is that he will put in an across the board 5% cut, that will hit FEMA, come inauguration (If it comes to that.). It sounds good at a podium, so he promises it. What will be left when he's done?

Romney's stance also follows on a consistent conservative attack on FEMA and emergency preparedness. This includes the House Republican "success" in cutting 43% from grants FEMA gave to deal with preparation for disaster. Also, there's Eric Cantor's leadership to try and stymie FEMA disaster relief funding in the wake of disasters, to use as leverage to force cuts in government. (He also, oddly, pushed for aid to his own district, not very interested in cost offsets then. Funny, hmm?)

Eric Cantor:

"When a family is struck with tragedy -- like the family of Joplin ... let's say if they had $10,000 set aside to do something else with, to buy a new car ... and then they were struck with a sick member of the family or something, and needed to take that money to apply it to that, that's what they would do, because families don't have unlimited money. And, really, neither does the federal government."

There are few lazier economic arguments than trying to compare a family budget to a national economy. Yes, you can analogize. But only so far. They ARE NOT the same thing. A family cannot print money. A family cannot just make use of debt. And Cantor wants to talk about being wise about not buying a new car. Yet the man won't save a penny on forgoing new private planes and motorboats. (See, I can make B.S. analogies to family as well.) It's a sad conservative weakness. But the family analogy sounds nice, and if not thought on too hard it makes sense. If you actually study economics you realize though, the comparison is silly rhetoric.

But understand, this stupid comparison is how Cantor and the GOP think. To pay for Grandma to get a new house after the quake, they will pull you out of school and put the dog to sleep, but dad's still getting his new boat.

You can add to Romney and the rest of the GOP's games with numbers and lives, Paul Ryan's own game of maths. As he has tried to create his own vision of a proper conservative budget, he has put in vague yet massive cuts to spending which will have to include FEMA services. And he's made clear funding, post-disaster, aid would only be paid for if another part of the budget was axed to pay for it. So, if Atlanta floods, no new naval cruiser class...Sorry, that'd never happen. No heating allowance for grandma? That Romney/Ryan would sign off on. 

You'd hope they'd have more sense on this. But they seem only to see "big government" standing in their way. And that can't be allowed. So, look forward to Halliburton Luxury Emergency Services, and Koch Industrial Disaster Recovery. Because, conservatives love to give you choices...in who is going to gouge you on a basic survival support.

Now, some are trying to offer up defenses of what Romney has been saying, like David Frum:

Yes. He was evading the question. Why? Because he knew clearly answering it would make him look bad? Because trying to give a more populace answer would tick off the party base? Both of those answers?

What should we do with FEMA? Make it work. Simple answer. But that is not what the GOP plans. From Cantor to Ryan to Romney, FEMA is DOA in their eyes.

And while Frum wants to play at the dream of a Moderate Mitt. They both are part of a party and ideology that has made it clear they do not see disaster relief this way. Hell, Mitt seems to clearly see it as a way for him or his friends to make a tidy profit, off the suffering and tragedy of Americans.

That just is not right.

We, the American People, deserve far better than this lot.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Let's not forget what Mitt Romney has said on our other emergency workers, the police.

Greg Sergeant:

... Per CNN:  

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” 

...

Cut. That is always the Go To answer for Mitt Romney. Just cut it. When he became governor that is all he thought of. Education? Cut it. Hospitals? Cut them. Taxes? DEFINITELY, cut them.

And, as governor, when they had a flood, and the legislature wanted to invest to prevent flooding destruction in the future, Mitt said NO. He vetoed. That was his reaction. Sorry about what happen to Peabody, but he isn't going to spend millions to prevent some hypothetical future flood.

That is how Mitt Romney sees things. Of course, after days of dithering, Mitt wants to play nice. Of course he would support FEMA, he says now. But what of the waste of it? What of the immortality of it? He doesn't want it around. And, like with social security, medicare, and the rest, he'll try to sluff it onto states to pay for when he can. And, if he can, he'll just hand it over to corporate friends.

And what about repairs and federal investment prevention after events? Peabody, MA says it all. He is going to fight paying out and investing, like an insurance company trying to dodge a claim from a customer.

The Fourth Estate: Abandoned and up for demolition.

I have been watching the media coverage of presidential campaigns for years now. Hard not to. The press does love a good campaign to cover and talk about.

So, what is going so pear shaped this year?

The media is strangely oblivious of what is going on around it. Why?



There whole point is to dig things up, see events, and report on what is going on, what is wrong with what we may be hearing. But it seems to be a struggle for them to do this. They used to be so much more eager and capable of doing it.

Remember these guys?

Well, maybe not, depending on your age. But you should know some of them. They are all people that have campaigned to be president. And one thing they have all dealt with is trying to be consistent in what they said on the stump. Sure, their is some tailoring of speeches for audiences. Even some guarded words, which they may not want getting out. But they all had to work to show that they were stalwart, true, and consistent.

And when the media decided they weren't. They paid for it.

Gore told stories of his experiences, and sometimes he was a little grandiose, sometimes he was misheard, and sometimes his words were just twisted. And no matter how the idea was born, it was latched upon Gore through the end of that election in 2000.

Kerry was a legislator, going into an election with a long record. He tried to simplify an explanation of the bill process to explain how at one point in a bill's life he had supported it, but by the final vote the situation or bill had changed, and he then opposed it. And for that, he was declared a flip-flopper. And it was pinned to his lapel, to the end of that election in 2004.

All of these men have struggled to keep on the right side of the question of consistency and veracity. Heck, not just men.

Hillary Clinton four years ago had her troubles. There was were she stood on issues as they went through Congress. And there were questions about stories she would tell to illustrate her experience. And when their was variance or confusion, she was gone after.

It is something that happens. And every candidate fights to not be trapped in this media snare.

But not this year.

Oh, no, not this year. This year it seems that consistency, veracity, and what one says one moment to the next is utterly irrelevant.

Mitt Romney is a man that has blatantly this year been an animated shiller and sales men of Willard Mitt Romney, Presidential Candidate Extraordinaire. His opinion shift like sand in the windy desert. A dune of a principle can never be guaranteed to remain in one place for more than a day. He pushes for a crack down on women's access to contraception and/or abortion, then days later he is an earnest advocate for women concerned with protecting their rights. He wants to strongly move against a country as president, then days later he's talking about how he wants to be a soft touch with that nation. He talks about cuts to federal services, then says he'll be preserving them. He...it goes on...and on.

He presents SO MUCH material that you can use. Really, it is phenomenal. It comes at such a rate, I've had trouble blogging, getting lost in all the stories, turns, and pivots. It's like a snake on Ritalin.

But I am just a blogger. Journalist can do better. But most of them are not doing this. They cover the pivot, not as pandering, not as a possible lie, not as a flip or flop, but as words that could sound good and give Romney an uptick at the polls...

...

WHAT!

He's lying. It's that simple. He's shamelessly lying, and, you, the media, ignore it. Why? Is the horse race that important to you? Is the fabled role of the Fourth Estate so meaningless now? What has become of you?

Apology tour. Death Panels. Bipartisan Massachusetts. And so many more. All these lies.
Vague tax and budget plans. Phantom jobs plans. Shifting positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. Shifting positions on reproductive rights. And so much more. All this shadiness.

I...expect better. And if the media has a role in elections, it should not be as PR flaks, it should not be as court fools who sing and amuse, and it should not be as campaign year profiteers.

And if I have to tell what it should be...We are so screwed.