Why I am not Republican

(Reason #1938743)

Texas immigration bill has big exception--CNN.com

"Those who hire unauthorized immigrants would be in violation of the law -- unless they are hiring a maid, a lawn caretaker or another houseworker."

BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING, Y'ALL. And national security!

Such bullshit!

I suppose illegal immigrants are totally okay as long as they're serving Americans? the white man? Indentured servants, slaves, doesn't matter. It's abhorrent.

The fact that these brainless, self-righteous dickheads were voted into office at all makes me weep for society. Which is funny, because I've some neo-con friends who would agree, but on a different premise. "O my gawd they want to take away my guns!"

These people should not be voted in. Period.



*Yes, I understand the bill can't possibly pass--at least, I hope to god not. The article states that the bill could undergo some "modifications." I also understand that this, like others, could be simply symbolic--lookit us, being all patriotic. I further understand that not all Republicans/conservatives are on board with this crap. But that doesn't change anything. It, like so many other bills I've heard introduced as of late, are far scarier than anything Glenn Beck could make up.

Conservative Faith and the Literate Female

An interesting tidbit I learned a few months ago.

When more opportunities become available outside of child rearing, most women delay motherhood and have fewer children. In fact, birth rates are lowest in countries where income is high and women are provided with education. This information provides a clear direction for public policies attempting to decrease population growth rates: improve conditions for women, including increasing access to education, health care, and the job market, and provide them with the information and tools that allow them to regulate their fertility.*

Makes sense, yeah?

Our planet's population is currently inching (though quickly) toward 7 billion people, and scientists disagree on how much more Earth can take. A U.N. report estimates it is around 10.3 billion--though a theoretical estimate is around 20 billion (briefly, this population of humans, however, would likely require the obliteration of other species as we'd need all the photosynthetic plants we could get--couldn't have competition for resources).

That said, the growth rate is projected to slow down rather considerably by 2050--but this may be an indication we are nearing capacity. I won't go into my amateurish overview of what this may or may not mean, but capacity is capacity. I don't want to be squished--besides not handling crowds well, there are health hazards to be aware of as well that we don't currently deal with. And you know, lack of food and resources because too many of us tend to think we're going to last forever.

But you know, money is powerful. Love of money is the root...ok i'll stop.

So perhaps Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't entirely off base when he said this...shit I can't find the quote (help?). But I do remember him saying, some years ago, something to the effect that in the near future, the population growth will not only steady but decline and we cannot allow that to happen. So, you crazy kids, have more babies. You covenanted, after all.

God will not be mocked.

Anyway, I could go on but this is the basic jist. We're growing too fast and using up far too many nonrenewable resources and those who seem the least willing to accept this are the conservative zionists.

(Hi, Glenn Beck)

While there isn't much concern about the growth rates of developed nations as its the underdeveloped nations that struggle hard with their growth rates re: their quality of life (you know, the ones we're preaching abstinence to), I can't help but think of the LDS and other religious groups such as the Quiverfull Movement who are still working hard on multiplying and replenishing the Earth. So, y'know, keep those girls in the kitchen. Keep building huge families. Education is for teh men.

I realize this is hardly the only reason (if one at all) for the patriarchy, and I'm hardly advocating anything by way of controlling family sizes--but the inherent control factor regarding women concerns me greatly. It's like a few of my commenters said: girls should be given choices. Real ones. Not "You have free-agency ladies, but if you don't do what we tell you to God will smite thee and you'll be unhappy forever for not fulfilling your divine role!" And I wonder now, too, if this education thing is part of keeping the rebellious in the house.

Oh god! If they go to school they'll likely stop having so many goddamn kids! Quick! To the batcave!

SO this crap of barefoot and pregnant, keeping teh house clean and dinners prepared and the kids well-groomed and all that other crap is preached day in, day out. All this bullshit about gender roles has been magnified over the past few years. Women who aren't happy at home stay home because that's "their place." They have no choice, not if they value their eternal souls. And it's not just the Mormons who teach this.

I mean, damn. We're multiplying and replenishing a little too well. They have to know that. Give the girls a break.

What do you think?



*Biology: Science for Life With Physiology. 3rd Ed. p. 355

New CHI, whatev

So the CHI (Church Handbook of Instructions) has been updated. And changed. To avoid making this post even longer while hijacking another's post, I will redirect any interested and uninformed peoples to Project Mayhem's post.

The following was initially purposed as a comment on Irresistible (Dis)Grace's blog post today, but I thought y'know, I wax on and on. I'll just post a response here:

I tend to agree with those opinions that state this is more a matter of saying things in a different, seemingly more open-minded way as to corral those on the brink into coming back, if even for a little bit. Those who have left the church and still feel the sting tend to be cynical and suspicious--I fall under this umbrella. But at the same time, who knows. I don't necessarily feel the need to explore this all that much because it won't change a damn thing for me. I've no plans to go back, even if they suddenly receive another convenient revelation about how gay people are totes okay with god and all this bullshit GBLTQ members have dealt with for decades upon decades is mere "policy." Y'know. Like with the "Lamanite" members until fucking 1978. Because, despite what they may tell themselves, that's not entirely why I left. While I believe in gay rights and find the church's actions reprehensible, I left because of what it represented.

The change is rather interesting following Packer's talk (heavily edited following actual talk, of which you can see here) considering that as Irresistible (Dis)Grace discusses, conservative opinion is given free-reign while any iota of liberal opinion is gasped at. Nobody knows if Packer received any sort of behind-the-scenes chastising, and if so we'll never hear about it. And the membership wouldn't care--too many agree with him. Too many don't see the problem. But the liberal members do. The questioning members do. Those on the brink of inactivity or even lesser activity do. That said, I think this new, nuanced version of the CHI may appeal to both in the active and to those who have their first real doubts.

But, y'know, if it's real progress it's progress. It won't do much for me as a person who doesn't necessarily believe in god anymore and sees far too much ill to come of any sort of mainstream religion--be it mainstream Christianity or Mormonism. Even if the church does liberalize by way of GBLTQ issues, it's going to take a LONG time for the more conservative membership who make up the vast majority of the church to accept it not only in their minds but in their hearts.

Maybe one day we'll get to the point where it's a lot like the relationship the church has with its women, separate but equal, and the active gay LDS community will chomp at the bit to convince both themselves and outsiders--I dunno. They do that now. At least at first. But the more they feel accepted and supported, the more they'll fight to stay in despite the basic and fundamental life experiences they will be denied as a result. Because the ultimate goal is to bring people to god and to live for death. Because God only loves those who keep his legion of commandments even if it makes them miserable enough to kill themselves.

So, separate but equal? Maybe that's how one could describe the situation today. But who knows. It isn't any better, but try telling a fully indoctrinated member that.

Not a deep post, but funny. Haha funny.

So I'm sitting here, eating my salad, getting ready to take my boy to school and I decide out of boredom to look up the profile of a girl with whom I had a bit of a tiff some months ago over me making fun of Glenn Beck.

She took it personally. Even said so.

I know, shock.

So I look her up today because, while we struggle to get along, I don't have all bad feelings for her. She amuses me more these days than not. And, you know, I run into her sometimes. I can't be all mad and whatnot--not worth it.

Anyway, she's a "very conservative" LDS Glenn Beck tea partier. Got that?

Her status the other day:

"Why do schools teach collective obedience rather than individual responsibility?"

I dunno, H. Why does your church teach the same?

A reply?

"For a long time now school has been a system of indoctrination, not education."

/facepalm

They go on to bitch about government. No surprise. While I agree with my limited knowledge that government is fucking up our education system, it's likely not for the same reason this girl thinks.

I just found the irony amusing.

Especially when you consider that "big government" has a striking, striking similarity to how the LDS church is structured.

End LDS rant.

Banned Books Week: Speak

So Dawn Embers just wrote of this fucked up article by a fucked up guy who has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Have a punching bag nearby. You'll need it. Especially if you've read the books (I've only read Speak and I want to strangle this man)

That said, there is some humor to be had in this grown man's word choice. "Female parts."

Sigh.

(btw: "female parts" = her butt. yeah)

You know what pisses me off about this? The irony. This is a book about a young girl who was raped at a party and doesn't feel she has any power, even to tell her parents or her best friend about it. She has been rendered silent from her trauma.

Things that have happened to far too many young girls. (one is far too many)

I had a lesser thing happen to me that rendered me silent--which is what pissed me off about my friend's reaction to the book. She was pissed because the girl wouldn't speak. WHY DIDN'T SHE DO ANYTHING?

I swear, it makes me seethe.

These are the people who want to ban books like this. "Keep her quiet!" they say.

To make it worse (and I don't glory in pointing this out, but hell) this is a man telling her to keep quiet.

I've read Speak and nothing this man says about the storyline rings quite the same. I'll admit a certain inability to retain information when I read--but seriously. I'm looking. This shit ain't there. Not like he says it is.

He's also mad because the kids think the adults are losers. Uhm, does he remember being a teenager?

Also, it's not that graphic. It is shocking but in a way that it ought to be shocking. If it weren't shocking, something would be seriously, seriously wrong.

And besides, these stories need to be told.

I've read the book and you can bet your ass not only will my daughter read this book but so will my boys.

Why?

At the end of the book is a printed interview with the author, Laurie Halse Anderson. One of the questions is this:

Have any readers ever asked questions that shocked you?

Her answer:

I have gotten one question repeatedly from young men. These are guys who liked the book, but they are honestly confused. They ask me why Melinda was so upset about being raped.

The fuck?

She adds:

The first dozen times I heard this, I was horrified. But I heard it over and over again. I realized that many young men are not being taught the impact that sexual assault has on a woman. They are inundated by sexual imagery in the media, and often come to the (incorrect) conclusion that having sex is not a big deal. This, no doubt, is why the numbers of sexual assaults is so high.

I am also shocked by adults who feel that rape is an inappropriate topic to discuss with teenagers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 44 percent of rape victims are under the age of 18 and 46 percent of those victims are between the ages of 12-15. It makes adults uncomfortable to acknowledge this, but our inability to speak clearly and openly about sexual issues endangers our children. It is immoral not to discuss this with them.

I can't speak to Mrs. Anderson's conclusions necessarily, but that last paragraph grabs me by the throat. Especially coming from a church that tells its young women that (A) if they are raped it's probably their fault for dressing immodestly or otherwise "asking for it" and (B) they should rather die fighting for their "virtue" than be raped.

My boys will also read it because, as I neglected to add, this shit happens to them, too, and our macho-man society isn't exactly kind to them, either.

Yes, this is an important book. The tone is expertly geared to average young adults. It took me back to high school. The main character is a good kid. Awkward, normal teenage girl.

So they try to ban it.

Ignore it and it'll stop.

If you haven't read this book, please do. Don't be turned off by the YA classification. It's important, especially if you have kids. It's important if you deal with kids.

It's just a good book. And it needs to be supported. Buy it for a friend. A niece. A nephew. Someone. You can get it used for about two dollars, plus S&H.

Don't allow fucktards like this guy to ban it, to silence the 46% of girls aged 12-15 (the age of the main character is this book) and pretend shit like this doesn't happen.

Because, obvs, abstinence-only solves everything.

Fear and the "Ground Zero Mosque"

I think by now the fact is known that it is not the Muslim people but Al-Qaeda who hijacked and then crashed our planes into WTC. That it is the Muslim people and not Al-Qaeda who wishes to build a mosque near Ground Zero. But people continue to argue and it is completely beyond me. They wish to equate the two and challenge the Islamic religion to do a litany of things to prove their religion is a peaceful one.

It's stupid. And much like those who cannot lay off the whole "Obama is a Muslim" card, this, too, is a political ploy. It, too, is lame and irrelevant. Too many American people--conservatives and tea baggers in particular--seem to be too goddamn lazy to actually look a the facts, a little thing we call a Constitution, their own values and morals or the compassion that's spoken of in their Bible to see that THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE. It's a distraction. There are more important things we need to be focusing on, and we're allowing idiots to turn too many heads for lesser and even nonsensical things.

That said, I know there are good American people out there who believe this is a huge issue with all their hearts. I get that. My father is one of them. But I think it's a matter of lack of knowledge or at least biased knowledge, the likes of which creates fear.

They say this is the Muslim people doing what they do, erecting a mosque at a place of victory over their enemies. But I say again: The Muslim people aren't responsible for 9/11.

A quote I like:

It doesn’t make sense, for example, that Islam would mark a victory over Americans at Ground Zero unless Muslims were terrorists celebrating a terrorist victory at Ground Zero. The word “Islam” has been preceded by the word “radical” so regularly in American media and conversation over the past decade, that “radical” no longer refers to an extremist subset of Islamic adherents, it instead qualifies the entire religion. - Political Labeling and the Ground Zero Mosque

But No Mosque at The World Trade Center Site insists, "If anything, it's a signal to them that they conquered the enemy and are planting their metaphorical flag in triumph."

I wasn't aware they had any sort of victory over us. Have we raised our little white flag? Have we given up? Are we still afraid? Are we under Sharia law? Are women required to wear burkas? Have they taken over our government and our Constitution and killing people here who don't swear loyalty to their religion?

But at least the Right has given up on the idea that building this mosque isn't the Muslim people's "right" to do. When that idea failed, the Right recanted and then worked to appeal to the sensitivity of "peace seeking Muslims" (gotta give 'em credit for acknowledging they exist, though the cynic in me senses a smidge of condescension). The same people--the Right--who laugh at our bleeding hearts are now pleading for "sensitivity."

That might not matter or be particularly relevant, but it makes me giggle.

But it's not about sensitivity or healing or any of that. The Christian people have a long history with the Muslim people. They are at odds, vying to fulfill prophecies and fighting to be right.

But the Right is afraid. And I think it goes beyond that--I think they're also afraid they'll be the minority in either the religious or ethnic sense. Afraid their values are under any more attack than they've ever been--even though our values have changed and for the better. We're a country of peoples who are told that if we are persecuted it is because we are righteous, not at all because we are wrong. They speak of sensitivity but they've little sensitivity to speak of themselves.

It's about being right, and they're too concerned with being right to consider even for a moment they may be wrong, even if just a little.

They don't know how hypocritical they are:

But for the near term, Wednesday night’s meeting indicated that the questions of neighborhood residents may take some time to answer.

Among them: “Is Sharia law better than democracy in your view?” “How do you feel about the role of women in society?” “What are your views on Israel?” “Can you point to any single statement in the Koran that you would consider to be incorrect?”

- Paul Vitello, New York Times "Heated Opposition to a Proposed Mosque"

I would ask these people if their Bible is better than democracy (how many laws are based on what the Bible teaches? slavery? homosexuality?), how they feel about the role of women in society, their views on Israel (a subject I am admittedly ignorant of), and if they can point to any single statement in the Bible that they would consider incorrect.

And truly, though our Constitution (6th article, I believe) calls for no religious litmus test for political office, there is an informal one. Hell be to the person who doesn't believe in the Christian god and runs for office. We want them to swear loyalty or we refuse to vote them in because we are scared of what unbelievers or those of other faiths may do. We may not physically kill those who refuse to swear loyalty to the Christian god, but we have our own methods.

They're scared--which is fine, totally forgivable. The unforgivable part is that they are so concerned with being right they make no effort to learn about these people and their religion. There's no reason to because they are convinced they are right. Further, it's easier to be angry and scared. Better to be threatened and persecuted. It makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel right.

And the scariest part is that there doesn't seem to be much we can do or say to quell these fears because they refuse to listen. If we yell, they yell louder. If we speak calmly and rationally, they dismiss us or fight back with more emotional rhetoric meant to make us cower.

It sounds a hell of a lot like the Church in far too many ways.

They work by fear. They may purport to not, claim to discourage fear, but ultimately they work by striking fear into their peoples' hearts, questioning loyalties. "If you're not with us, you're against us." "If you allow this to happen, the world will fall apart." They call you "anti-American"--an insult, indeed.

Fear is an easy emotion to feel, to spread--especially for those who don't know any better for whatever reason. This is why education is so incredibly important, and I don't see a lot of education in much of religion (note the qualifier "a lot"). The problem is that this brand of neurotic fear quickly spreads and becomes a disease. It has created the worst of atrocities. But we refuse to learn.

It's one thing to be scared of something legitimate--somebody sneaks into your home while you're there. You're Jewish and the Nazis are looking for you. But this, the Muslim people wanting to erect a mosque in Lower Manhattan? I've no reason at this moment to be scared of them. Anymore than we had reason to be frightened and suspicious of Japanese Americans following Pearl Harbor. Or the black people we enslaved by way of divide and conquer so we, the white people, could remain in power.

So these people want the Muslim people--those wishing to erect this mosque in particular--to jump through hoops to prove themselves. These people are treating the Muslims as outsiders instead of as Americans. But it wouldn't matter even if the Muslim people acquiesced, they would ask for more and then more, forgetting the idea that we shouldn't judge or fear a larger group for a few wild cards.

I would think all religions and unbelievers have their wild cards. Communities. Families.

We seem to prefer guilty until proven innocent these days. It makes us feel safer and in control, but it places us at odds with what Christ taught. We're putting justice before mercy.

These who claim to love our country and how it is set up don't seem to trust it enough to protect its people.

So we're scared. And it's not just with the Muslim people (though consider the past between Christians and Muslims). We have an innate need to be in power here--open up a history book and read about how this country began. What we did to have this great land of ours. It's not pretty, and we still haven't really learned that it's wrong. It's as if we need to learn this lesson over and over and over again. First with the Spanish, then with the Native Americans, the African people. Even the Mexican people. We enslave them ultimately because we want power. Because we are scared. Too prideful to be compassionate. To help. To understand.

There is no true power in this brand of fear. Just barbarianism.

Still, they puff up their feathers and tell these Muslim people that they --the so-called "Christian Nation"--are boss and that they need to answer to us. They create campy "six degrees" lists to link the imam of this particular mosque to terrorists--but like Jon Stewart illustrated, you can do that with most anyone including Rupert Murdoch.

Something smells of hypocrite here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Dr. Laura, go to hell

So I grew up on Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh and all of that. My stepdad lurved these people. I never took it upon myself to listen to them on my own until, oooooh, seven years ago? Maybe eight?

I was a default conservative (didn't understand what it meant, but the "tough love/family values" crap got to me). I came from a proud conservative family. From a proud conservative part of the state. I was raised on these values. Taught that everyone who was on welfare was a lazy sumuvabitch and panhandlers were only looking for drug or booze money.

Obvs.

Later I joined a very conservative church. To make everyone happy, I voted yes on Prop 22 (Prop 8's predecessor) in 2000. I was 18, new in the church, and looking to make my mom happy regarding something about the church. I certainly don't recall much, but I knew the church was against gay marriage. And so was my mom. WIN. I don't think I had any thoughts beyond that.

But anyway.

Now I'm not a total conservative hater. I can see where they're coming from, even if it is often lame. Hell, I lived it. And I do think we need both conservative and liberal people in the world. I just happen to think we need more liberals at this time ;)

So I went through a little Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura phase. I thought Rush was hilarious. Totally over the top. Nobody can be that bad. It was like listening to a caricature. I also thought it was funny when he would play "dude looks like a lady" whenever Hillary Clinton popped up.

Funny shit, right?

I bought into his (and Dr. Laura's) crap about feminism. I thought feminists were kidding themselves a little bit--lookit the girls vying for male positions. Do they want to be male?

I'm not proud, but there it is.

Then there was Dr. Laura. I thought she was pretty spot on. I loved it when she went apeshit on some of her "idiotic" callers.

YES! Be a good girl, not a slut. Don't "shack up"--why buy the cow when the milk is for free?

HAHAHAHAHA!

Then, and especially, there was her tirade about how ALL men were ignored and treated badly by their feminazi girlfriends and other women.

I bought it. As Eric and I were having some issues, I thought perhaps it was my fault. And I'll admit I still have those lingering thoughts that it was all me. That something was wrong with me.

But maybe I'll get into that later. Maybe. It's a little personal and while I can be rather open, I do have my boundaries.

So Dr. Laura starts promoting her book "Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands."

Apparently "Proper Care and Feeding for Wives" was unnecessary because husbands always treat their wives like queens. All good husbands, at least. And if he's not a good husband it's obvs his wife's fault for not feeding him sandwiches, greeting him at the door with a kiss at the end of the day and then giving him a good fuck.

At least she had enough sense to be against abusive husbands. I'll give her that.

Anyway, genuinely good husbands do treat their wives well, but not all the time, right? Especially young husbands. We all screw up, wives and husbands. But women moreso because of those damned feminists. Hence the no need for the Proper Care and Feeding of Wives.

I thought I was treating my husband badly, so I wanted this book to help set me straight.

I mentioned this to my husband. I wanted to be a good wife. So he buys it for me for Christmas. I was happy to have the book, but extremely embarrassed that he stepped into a bookstore and bought the damn thing. I didn't want him to look like a man who needed to set his wife straight. I worried he thought I was a bad wife. That said, he did it because I'd said I wanted it. It wasn't because he--well, I hope it wasn't because he felt I needed it. That's something I'm still afraid of. Even if he swore up and down it wasn't. Which is what he has done.

Maybe. He tells me now that it used to bother him when I wouldn't act like the wife the church had promised him growing up. He likes it now, but admits it used to bug him lots. Though he never exerted his church-given authority that I can remember (maybe except for the time that he--very kindly--suggested that he choose whom to pray in our home). He's angry he ever felt the right and need to be the priesthood presiding member in our relationship. I mean, I covenanted to "hearken" unto him as he "hearkened" unto God, right? He was the man. The ultimate authority. He knew my new name and would be the one to take me to the Celestial Kingdom. The Man.

So I got this Proper Care book and immediately began to read it. It said men were simple. They only wanted/needed sandwiches and sex, and that I should put out whenever he wanted it to make him feel good.

Now Eric wanted sex all the time and I didn't. And he did say it was a matter of validating him, but it's sex, you know? It's still personal, even if you're married to your best friend. It's still my body. My feelings. So this was an issue.

(oh dangit, I forgot: my body is his and his body is mine)

And not that there isn't something to be said about putting out when you're not totally into it sometimes --sometimes you get into it as you go. I have also learned that good sex is fantastic for getting rid of tension headaches. No aspirin required, girls. Just a good lay.

But all the time? It's cute and fun as newly weds, but goddamn. Gotta sleep sometime. And after kids? When he works full time and goes to school full time? Dream on.

So anyway, Dr. Laura's book added some serious unnecessary guilt into my life. What's worse is I allowed it. I allowed her to validate my feelings that I was a bad wife. A disappointment.

Bad Lisa! Go mop the floor and look pretty for your hard working husband! MAKE HIM SANDWICHES! Then get nekkid and make sure he gets off good, no matter how you feel about it. It's your duty as his wife. And if you do your job (with a smile) he'll then treat you right. As it should be.

Reminds me of some so-called gospel principles. I'll have to explore that later.

So it is with great peace of mind that I can say fuck off, Dr. Laura.

After a while, and I don't remember why exactly, I stopped listening to her. I told Eric that the book made me feel like shit and that I didn't like that he bought it and that I wanted to throw it away. It took me a while to actually do it, though. Guilt and all. I'm good at that.

I don't remember when I stopped listening to this radio station, but I'd largely forgotten about her. Felt a lot better.

Then I hear about her racist rant on her radio show this past week. She went crazy over this woman who was involved in an interracial marriage and was dealing with racist in-laws.

Dr. Laura told her that she should have a sense of humor about it and that if she couldn't, she shouldn't have married outside her race. And why can't she say the n-word when black people say it all the time? TOTALLY UNFAIR!

But that's not all. And I'm not even talking about the repetition (11x) of the n-word. That was the least of her problems, given the context.

So now Dr. Laura has announced the end of her radio show...

"to regain her first amendment rights."

That, right there, is enough reason to disregard everything she's ever said. If she can't understand that her rights were never taken away and that the right to freedom of speech isn't exclusive to her, then...well.

I don't think I need to say much more than that.