I read this yesterday and it lead me to some interesting questions. Well, they were interesting to me anyway. I’ve been fascinated with the different factions of the Republican Party and the increased number of Libertarians who primarily seem to vote Republican when there is no Libertarian around to vote for. This piece mentions the possible break between Evangelical Christian Republicans and conservative Catholics over the new Pope’s recent comments regarding gays and poverty. It appears to me that Libertarians have also broken with the Christian wing of the Republican Party over many social issues. I’ve learned from our discussions here that Libertarians seem to be for both open borders and abortion, in some cases “on demand”, even I don’t believe in either of those suggestions, so is that to the left of me?
I guess I’m wondering where all this will eventually lead. How hard will it be for Libertarians to vote for a Republican of the evangelical sort? Is it just a case of voting for the lesser of two evils in a Presidential election, or even a local election? When do your votes and principles collide? I swallowed my objections and voted for Obama because of health care, and a couple of other accomplishments I supported, rather than third party, which is what I normally do. A big fat wasted vote either way really.
My thoughts rambled from the original piece but I wanted you guys to see how it got me thinking. I’m finding it somewhat interesting that I tend to vote social issues and for the preservation of things such as Social Security, Medicare and other safety net protections. There doesn’t seem to be that much difference to me in the reality of economic policy between the parties or for that matter even foreign policy now that many conservatives seem to be more isolationist than they were in the past, but I’m guessing the Libertarians/Conservatives here don’t agree and vote their pocket book, or is it all big vs small government and the demolition of the safety net that motivates y’all. I’m curious. It seems to me that the differences between us are more along the lines of priorities. I think we all value similar things but just place more weight on some than others. Or maybe I’m delusional.
I think it is a safe bet that if Pope Francis I lives more than a few years that Catholics will soon be kicked out of the Republican Party and resume their previous status as the semi-black race. The reason is simple. Pope Francis I is on the opposite side of the political divide from Pope John Paul II. The Polish pope was a Cold Warrior who basically took the Reagan-Thatcher line on left-leaning political movements in the Third World, including in Latin America. The Argentinian Jesuit pope isn’t a communist, but he advocates for the poor without any apology.
For now, conservative American Catholics are trying to parse the distinction, but it isn’t going to work. They are not going to be able to embrace The Slum Pope who wants to “make a mess” of the established order within the Church by encouraging young people to shake up the dioceses and force them to embrace the convicts, drug addicts, and the truly impoverished.
Our country is uniquely unable to appreciate this change specifically because our right wing succeeded in categorizing the left in the Third World (and, to an extent, even in Europe) as communist in sympathy. The right assumes that the Vatican is an ally in all things, but that is no longer even close to being the case. On so-called family values, the papacy is still reliably conservative, even if it can’t be counted on anymore to demonize homosexuality. But on economic issues, the papacy is now a dedicated enemy of the Republican Party.
Before long, the right will have no choice but to break from the pope, and then their opposition will grow to a point that the alliance between Catholics and evangelicals will not hold.
There sure has been a lot of talk lately about women. I’ve been troubled by some of it as it seems we’re going backwards in some respects. There are too many stories to link but between all the states enacting TRAP laws, all the strange definitions of rape, the mayor of San Diego’s bizarre harassment and who has and has not shielded him from investigation, the treatment of rape victims in the military, USC redefining rape as not rape if there is no ejaculation (my personal favorite), who is and isn’t hot enough to either run for office or other more nefarious activities, etc. etc. that I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on. Maybe nothing ever really changed. I’m concerned that so much of it has become political football. I thought this piece on the subtleties of how a woman can succeed in the financial industry was pretty troubling.
Our youngest is working in another male dominated industry and is constantly trying to determine how to proceed on her merits while most of the men are attracted to her looks. She has a few male mentors who seem to take her seriously so she’s focusing on that and trying to stay away from the guys who want to date her and stay focused on her work. She’s discovering it’s an interesting dynamic that has many challenges. She faced numerous challenges as a grad student but that was nothing compared to what she’s dealing with now.
It doesn’t help when other women give this kind of advice.
New details have emerged from a bias lawsuit filed by three former employees of Merrill Lynch against the company, which alleges that during training they were instructed to read a book called “Seducing the Boys Club: Uncensored Tactics From a Woman at the Top” and emulate its advice.
The tips in the book, published by New York Magazine’s The Cut, are truly shocking. “I play on [men’s] masculine pride and natural instincts to protect the weaker sex,” says a section of the book advising women on how to get men to do their work. “Unless he is morbidly obese, there is no man on earth who won’t puff up at this sentence: Wow, you look great. Been working out?” suggests a portion on diffusing tense situations.
On a lighter note the Anthony Weiner story is in another realm altogether in my opinion. I guess I’d like to know why his wife is standing by him but it’s none of my business really. Otherwise it seems to be a case of “consenting adults” which doesn’t bode well for his marriage or his candidacy but otherwise is just more creepily entertaining than anything else.
I wish I could share all the “Carlos Danger” jokes my husband has come up with, they’re hysterical, and just pop out of his mouth at the most inconvenient times. He’s a true comic and I’ve thanked my lucky stars more than once that he makes me laugh. Anyway we’ve had a lot of fun at Anthony Weiner’s expense around here. I saw this and couldn’t resist.
Anthony Weiner Forever