The Government "Shutdown"

Today, I shall offer my opinions on ways in which we can make healthcare in our country more affordable.

Because I know about these things.

Yeah...  Right...

Anyhow.

As we all know, unless we are living under a rock or engaged in a "SouthLAnd" marathon, our government is shut down.  Except for the World War II memorial.  The vets have stormed it.  Sort of like they stormed the beach at Normandy.  Hell, maybe we should let them run the country.  Not such a bad idea, eh?  And as I understand it, a lot of this shutdown thing is because of "Obamacare" and how Ted Cruz and some other meanie Republicans don't like it.

I do realize that the premiums of many people will be going up because of the Affordable Care Act, so there are those who see the whole thing as a contradiction in terms.  It won't be so affordable for everybody, after all.  Now, I don't mind paying a bit more for my insurance so that others can have some insurance, too.  But, I don't like to see anybody ending up with premiums that are a real burden.  So, here are some thoughts as to how we might make things more affordable -- for everybody -- over the long run.

First, just to get it out of the way:  I support a single-payer healthcare system in our country.  I am all for national health insurance.  I think we could do it, if we really had the will to make it happen.  The thing is --> we don't seem to have the will to make it happen.  And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

So, accepting that things are what they are, I believe one of the best ways to lower insurance premium costs is to allow insurance companies to be more flexible in what they offer in their plans.  Maybe I am completely misinformed, but as I understand it, there are certain things that insurance plans are being mandated to cover under the new law.  Requiring that more services be covered increases the costs of the plans.  Perhaps there could be plans offered in which the patient pays for such things as check-ups, certain tests that are not prohibitively expensive, and prescriptions (at least the more affordable ones).  I realize that poorer people need to have more of these services covered, because they can't afford them.  But, those people of more means could agree to pay more out-of-pocket costs in return for lower premiums.  Maybe that would leave more resources available to serve those who truly can't afford even basic care.  I guess I'm just thinking that if people would pay out-of-pocket for the health costs that they can actually afford, it would save on premiums and it would enable us to use more of what's in the "collective pot" for those who can't afford to contribute as much out-of-pocket cash.

I realize that there are insurance plans that offer lower premiums in exchange for potentially higher out-of-pocket costs (as in co-pays and deductibles).  The problem with this is that many of the people who buy these plans do so because they are poorer.  Thus, they actually can't afford the $5000.00 (or more) out-of-pocket cost per year should something actually happen to their health.  Then the doctors and/or the hospitals and/or the patient's already fragile economic condition take a hit.  So, what I'm talking about is having plans that fit people's needs.  If you are poorer, more should be covered for an affordable cost.  Maybe a public health insurance option could help in this area.  But, if you are more well-off, maybe you shouldn't be mandated to buy a plan that includes coverage for things that you are willing and able to pay for yourself.  And instead of having the insurance company cover a portion of everything, leaving you with high potential costs, you could agree to pay for all basic services, leaving the "insurance" part to pay in a more comprehensive way for serious health events.

I know these ideas are just a drop in a very large ocean of costs.  Maybe they wouldn't even help at all.  But, I'll tell you what I see.

I see that there are a lot of people who struggle getting the care they need for an affordable price.  I also see that there are a lot of selfish attitudes among wealthier people.  Many of these wealthier people are totally unwilling to give up anything or to make any compromises so that those less fortunate can have a little bit of their burden lifted.  I see that a combination of less well-off people who need care, and wealthy people who are unwilling to give up anything, and certain people in government who have decided that they can decide what goes into all of the plans, and the insistence of certain other people in government that healthcare remain (for the most part) a private industry has caused a very difficult situation to develop -- especially for the poor and working-class and middle-class to find affordable health insurance plans.

I also see the situation in my own family and in families like mine -- families in which there are young adult children.  I have three kids.  They are 25, 23, and 21 years old.  They are all conscientious and hard-working -- no excessive drinking, no drugs, good grades.  The 21-year-old is still in college, but the older two graduated into the post-financial-crash world and the post-financial-crash job market.  Thankfully, the job market has been improving, but many of the jobs being created (especially for new graduates) don't pay very well and don't come with benefits.  I have seen with both my kids and their friends that it often takes a few years for them to become qualified and desirable applicants for the jobs that actually pay a living wage with benefits.  I have, therefore, been grateful that my daughters have been able to stay on my husband's plan.  I know some people scoff at this idea of young adult kids remaining on their parents' plans.  I have heard pundits say, "Young people don't need fancy plans, because they're young and healthy.  They can just buy a cheap plan on the market for an affordable price.  Why are we making their parents' employers contribute to their healthcare?  It is fascism."  Well, let me tell you something.  Those more "affordable" plans come with potentially very large out-of-pocket costs -- sometimes $5000, or even $10,000.  And if you are making $9.00 per hour, that's going to be a pretty big chunk of change for you to come up with.  Also -- let me tell you -- not all young people are healthy.  One of my kids has significant health problems, which would make it pretty hard to get her an "affordable" plan (or any plan, at all) on the "free market" -- especially before "Obamacare."  So, you have the situation where you have bright, hard-working young people, who aren't making much money, who might have health problems -- and you tell them to buy an "affordable plan" on the "free market."  Good luck with that.

I also know a family in which the main breadwinner has decided to join a start-up tech company -- with no benefits.  For now, they are on COBRA, and it costs them $2000.00 per month for four people.  They have looked into buying private insurance, but a couple of the members of this family have pre-existing conditions, so they don't qualify for the plans.  Now, the parents of this family are both highly educated people.  We're talking graduate school here -- a big-name graduate school.   Of course, the main breadwinner could have stayed in his dissatisfying, go-nowhere job that gave him and his family benefits.  But, he wants to do work that is more meaningful -- and potentially very beneficial to our society.  The cost, though, is tremendous.  So, it makes me wonder how many bright entrepreneurs, how many great ideas, are being lost to us because of people who stay in mundane jobs solely to get the benefits. 

So, I'm getting kind of tired of the government "shutdown" being caused by a bunch of politicians who don't like "Obamacare."  I think we should work together to cooperatively implement the new law in the best manner possible.  But, maybe we could be a bit thoughtful along the way -- realizing that there are unintended consequences (such as certain middle-class people having their costs rise in a back-breaking fashion).  I wish we could have a political system that's more like a graceful two-step than a violent tug-of-war.  I wish our representatives would stop viewing each other as adversaries to be overcome.  I wish -- on the other hand -- that those we send to Washington to work on our behalf would come to see each other as colleagues, realizing that all want good things for our nation and its people.

I Have Figured Out What Is Going On

It is the 60's again.

Yep.

Except, this time, the "hippies" have left their VW vans behind and have gone to grad school and are busy gathering "data."

Lest you think I am poking fun at these "new hippies," let me assure you, I am NOT.  I was born in 1963, and when I was a little girl, I always had a real fondness for the hippies.  Of course, my mother told me stories about how they used LSD and jumped out of windows.  That was not so impressive.  Thence, when I actually encountered hippies in real life, I was a bit timid, being aware of their potential unpredictability, and all.  But, I admired them, as well.  I admired their disdain for material goods, their passion for civil rights, their desire to make society better for the poor and underprivileged, their hatred of war, their comfort with their bodies, and their less-than-prudish attitudes about sex.  (Okay.  So, that last thing?  Maybe they took it a bit too far.  But, hey, they were reacting to a society that was, perhaps, a tad too "uptight.") 

Eventually, though, the hippies kind of faded out.  The 1980's rolled around, along with a new mind-set.  Conservatism was "in" again.  Guys sported short hair and women's hem-lines dropped, giving the impression of a renewed sexual propriety.  (Was this an illusion?  Yes, in many ways.  Plenty of sex was still going on.)  People became more interested in pursuing material well-being.  A negative outlook toward taxes and the "welfare state" developed.  Why?  Maybe because there were many mistakes made in the implementation of a lot of liberal ideals, mistakes which did cause pain for the middle class.  So, in the 80's, we young people decided to get MBA's and make ourselves lots of money.  (I, though, became a teacher.  You should have heard some of the crap I got from the business students at my university.  These business students used to strut about in their suits and ties and shiny shoes, making fun of the rest of us non-business students.  I shit you not.)

Time rolled on, of course, and the weaknesses and pitfalls contained in the ideas of the "Reagan Revolution" began to show.

Thus, here comes my little hypothesis:

The hippies of the 1960's never really went away.  They just sort of went stealth.  They finished their educations, dressed more normally, got normal jobs, lived in normal neighborhoods, and gave up drugs (mostly).  And -- most importantly -- THEY HAD BABIES.  And they raised these babies with their liberal (now known as "progressive") ideals.  But, did they send them off to live in communes and VW vans and to grow their own organic food?  Well, some of them did.  HOWEVER, a lot of these 60's hippies earned good money and sent their idealistically-raised babies to the finest universities, where they earned undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees, and learned things such as history and law and economics and public relations and data mining.  And now these children of the hippies have come of age, and are flexing their well-educated muscles in a way their parents never could.

So, I give you:

The progressives of today.  Young, idealistic, enthusiastic, fresh-faced.  And SMART.  And CONFIDENT.  And MOTIVATED.

Motivated to do what?  To make this world a better place -- truly a place of equality and freedom and justice.

And I hope they do it.  I think they are much better prepared to do it than their parents were.

But, I hope that in working toward making our society a truly "great" one that they will carefully attend to the lessons of the past.  I hope that they will not altogether discount traditional ways of looking at things and more "conservative" voices.  (Not the d-bag conservatives, but the nice ones.  I truly believe that there are at least a few of those hanging around in coffee shops somewhere.)  Because, as my very wise father used to say, "Before you change the way something is done, you should look at why it was done that way in the first place.  Maybe there were good reasons."  Yes, sometimes things have been done in certain ways for all the wrong reasons.  Although, that is not always the case.

And that brings me to a little request I have of my fellow conservatives.  (All right.  I know I'm not all that conservative.  But, whatever.)  Please don't make fun of today's younger progressives.  Don't treat them with disdain and contempt.  Don't call them communists and fascists -- for they are absolutely NOT that.  They are intelligent people of good-will and you should treat them as such.  Impart any "wisdom" you feel you have in a way that is respectful.  If you don't, anything beneficial you have to say to them will fall on deaf ears.  They are bright.  They truly want a better world.  Work with them. 

Governor Wendy Davis?

As you may or may not know, even though I am a Republican, I am a fan of the grassroots Democratic group known as Battleground Texas.  I love their spirit, their energy, their idealism, their compassion, their positive attitude.  They uplift my sometimes cynical, stick-in-the-mud conservative heart.  I don't agree with every single one of their positions entirely, being that I'm a Republican and all.  But, I do believe they are striving to make the grand state of Texas, and our country, better places to be.

This morning I learned that Battleground Texas is encouraging Wendy Davis (remember the filibustering lady in the pink shoes?) to run for governor.  And if she does run for governor, and if she does win, I don't want to hear any whining from my fellow Republicans.  Because it will pretty much be all their own fault.

And I think Ms. Davis has a pretty good chance of winning, if she does decide to run for governor.  I had a little chat with my husband recently, and I told him this.  He disagreed.  He said that it would be too much of a long shot.  He also thinks that it's extremely unlikely that Battleground Texas will manage to turn Texas blue.  I disagreed.  I have learned a little bit about this group, and they are nothing if not determined, intelligent, and organized.  They know what they are up against, and they are preparing themselves to fight it out over the long haul.  And if they back Ms. Davis, with all of their determined, intelligent organization, I think she has a pretty good shot at winning the Texas governorship.  Especially because she is pretty determined, intelligent, and organized, herself.  I mean, have you read this woman's bio?  She is quite formidable.

Now, as I have mentioned before, my hubby also didn't believe me when I told him that Obama was going to win the presidency in 2008.  Or 2012.  So, I think if Wendy wins the governorship, he should bring me out for a nice dinner.  (And if she doesn't win, I'll bring him out to dinner.  It's a win-win for me, baby.)  And if Battleground Texas does manage to turn Texas blue, I think he should bring me to Hawaii or on a nice cruise.  (Are you feeling sorry for him yet?  You probably should.)

To get back on topic, I believe "Governor Wendy Davis of Texas" might be a pretty cool thing to see.  Sort of like Ann Richards, but the opposite political party.  You might scoff at this.  You might not have liked Ann Richards.  If you don't know who Ann Richards is, she was the Republican governor of Texas when I was younger.  I have to admit that I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to her politics, but I did think she was pretty awesome with her Texas accent and her tough Texan attitude and her power wardrobe.  She was something to see.  And if Wendy Davis wins the race for this public office, she will be something to see, too.

CORRECTION:  Ann Richards was a Democrat.  NOT a Republican.  Mea Culpa.  I have also been told, by a very intelligent reader of this blog, that she was not a very good governor. 

Battleground Texas Could Be Good For The Republicans

What is Battleground Texas?  My understanding is that it is a grassroots organization dedicated to turning Texas blue (like a Smurf) by making a sustained and dedicated effort over time.  And Smurfs are cool, so no insult is intended here.  It is only my strange sense of humor at work.  If you don't know what "turning Texas blue" means, it means transforming Texas from a long-time Republican stronghold to a place that will elect Democrats, at the local, state, and national levels.

This is quite an undertaking, if you know anything about Texas politics.  A lot of Texas Republicans are dubious that it will happen.  A lot of them seem to be turning a blind eye to Battleground Texas, expecting it to fade away.  This is foolhardy, in my little old opinion.  And I know my opinion doesn't count for much.

But, this is the thing.  Have you ever read the ancient work entitled "Art Of War" by Sun Tzu?  I have not read the whole thing, but I have read several parts.  And it seems to me that Battleground Texas is doing everything that Sun Tzu says should be done to achieve victory; and the Republicans are displaying all of what Mr. Tzu describes as the attributes of the Losers. Check it out for yourself, if you don't believe me.

As I have stated before, I am a Republican.  My husband is a Non-Partisan, meaning he is not a member of any political party.  I was a Non-Partisan for a while, but it was kind of boring.  By not belonging to a political party, I felt quite left out of the Big Party that is American politics.  And that was just depressing.  My husband, though, is kind of a "political animal."  He is very interested in politics, keeping himself quite informed.  And well before the election of 2008, well before Mr. Obama became the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in that election, I had a discussion with my husband.  I asserted that I believed Mr. Obama had not only a strong chance of winning the nomination, but he also had a very good chance of winning the Presidency.  My husband strongly disagreed.  He told me that Mr. Obama had very little political experience on the national level, and he didn't believe the Democrats would nominate him.  He also asserted that even if the Democrats did give him the nomination, that the American people certainly wouldn't elect such a neophyte to be their president.  I told my husband that, based on what I was hearing from ordinary people, I disagreed.  I felt that if Mr. Obama campaigned in a smart way, in a way that focused on the needs and concerns of regular folks, that he could, indeed, win.  And he did win, because of the type of campaign that he ran.  A grassroots campaign.  A focused and determined campaign.  And the people who were in charge of his campaign (as well as his 2012 campaign) -- many of them, anyway -- are now running Battleground Texas.

You're in for an ass-whupping Texas Republicans, if you don't open your eyes.

And it will be well-deserved.

And I, even though I am a Republican myself, will be glad to see it happen.  I think it will be a good thing for the Republican Party, for Texas, and for the nation.

(Now all the Republicans are heading to my house for a tar-and-feather party.  So, excuse me while I go lock the doors and windows.)

Why do I think it will be a good thing?  Because over the last many years, I have become a bit disturbed by my party.  It is a party dedicated to smaller government, more efficient government, the idea of subsidiarity, the fostering of the spirit of personal responsibility, valuing personal autonomy and ingenuity.  These are all good things.  The Democrats also hold many of these things in high regard.  But, I have witnessed that, since the early 1980's, the "religious right" has come to have a degree of influence in the Republican Party that I have grown to be uncomfortable with.  And along with the influence of the views of these people, perhaps intertwined with them, have come many other extreme ideas that I don't believe are representative of the views of the majority of the American people. I have heard a lot of conservative rhetoric -- embraced by many Republicans -- that I find quite distressing.   I have also witnessed actions by the Republicans that seem foolhardy, uncharitable, and out-of-touch with reality.

I will just give a few examples.

The Tea Party.  It is my opinion that many of their ideas are not grounded in reality and, if actually enacted, would be disastrous.  For instance, I have heard that some of the Tea Partiers believe we should abolish the Department of Education.  The Department of Education has been quite helpful to many families, including my own.  It has assisted us greatly in sending our kids to college, for example.  I also don't think doing away with The Fed is any kind of a good idea.  And giving out vouchers for people to buy health insurance in retirement seems like a fool's game to me.  I could go on and on...   I know we could argue back and forth for days over these things, but based on the research both my husband and I have done, these are my opinions.  Basically, it seems that the Tea Party wants to return things to the way they were back in 1780, or so.  And that is just not going to happen.  And it shouldn't happen.  Our country has grown and changed too much.  So has the world.

SNAP.  Or food assistance for the poor.  No, I don't think we should cut it.  That would be heartless.

And Texas in particular?  What Governor Perry and his cohorts did regarding abortion was just ill-advised.  They seemed like a bunch of cruel bullies.  I don't like abortion.  I wish there were no abortions.  But, you don't just come in and pull the rug out from under women in that manner.  Abortion is legal.  That is the reality.  If you want to reduce it, do it in a manner that is respectful of the intelligence and dignity of women.  Do it in a way that will give rise to cooperation between people of differing viewpoints.  Do it in a way that is thoughtful and charitable and will foster trust between people.  Dear Republicans, it just seemed like all you were doing was trying to impress each other with your conservativeness.  And combined with your actions regarding medicaid and your views on other social safety net issues, you just came across as heartless.  The results?  A LOT of angry women.  Smart, angry women.  And a shitload of ammo for Battleground Texas to use against you.

These are just a few examples of things that some or many of those in the Republican party have endorsed or done that disturb me.  I have also been distressed at hearing Republicans complain about people who "depend" on the government without wanting to be independent.  I have witnessed first-hand how difficult it is for many people to achieve economic independence in today's world, even though they truly hope to.  I have been disappointed that many Republicans fight meaningful gun control.  I have been disturbed at the lack of a charitable attitude towards illegal immigrants.   I also think the Republicans need to allow for higher taxes on very wealthy people, without giving those wealthy people "legal dodges" so that they can avoid paying those taxes.  And I get very, very disturbed when Republicans say and do many of these things while acting as though God is on their side.  I also do not like it at all when certain groups of people are marginalized by the Republican Party, especially when those groups of people don't conform to the religious ideas of many in that party.  I recall that, not so long ago, many conservatives in government wanted to marginalize Catholics.  And there are probably some states where that is still the sentiment.  So, when I hear that someone in the GOP (I believe it was in Texas) expressed the view that the Republicans in that state don't really want black people to vote, I get kinda miffed.

So, this is why I am rooting for Battleground Texas.  The Republican Party in that state -- and on a national level -- needs to be shaken up and renewed.  And that may mean that a little ass-whupping is in order.   

How Democrats Could Talk So Republicans Would (Maybe) Listen

I have heard a lot about the forty-whatever percent of people that the Republicans write off, or that the Democrats write off.  These are the people who, supposedly, won't be swayed to vote for somebody of the opposite party.  So, during campaigns, I have heard that candidates speak either to their own constituents, or to the small percentage of the population looked upon as the "swing vote."

This is all understandable.  An election is, after all, a contest.  In a contest, one hopes to win.  In a contest, one employs strategies that will maximize one's chances of victory.  That is the nature of a contest.

But, I think this is too simplistic of a way to look at things.  There are, after all, people like me.  People who, even though they are viewed as having strong and unwavering political leanings, can actually be counted upon to listen fairly to both sides of an issue.  For example, I have never actually met any candidates for political office, except for Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name, who was the mayor of Redwood City when I was a young girl.  He went to our church, and he made sure to show up quite regularly during his campaign.  I probably remember him most because I sorta had a crush on his rather hot son, who was a couple of years older than me, and was a kick-ass guitar player and drummer.  Now, Richard I-Can't-Remember-His-Last-Name was a Democrat.  And, if I had been old enough to vote, I probably would have voted for him, regardless of my more conservative views.  Not because of his son the rock star, but because I really liked him (Richard, that is).  He was a very good guy.  I realize I have rambled a tad bit here, but my point is this:  Even though I have always been pretty conservative and traditional, I have a soft spot for the more liberal way of looking at things, especially when those more liberal ways of looking at things are espoused by good and trustworthy people.  I was just telling my son this morning (and I think maybe he was not very happy with me, but "oh, well") that I really love the liberals nowadays.  Especially the young ones.  They are full of good-hearted, enthusiastic idealism.  They are joyful and full of fun.  They really do care about freedom and equality and justice.  They have hearts for the poor and marginalized.  They are willing to make personal sacrifices for others.  And they have softened my Republican heart a little bit.  They have made me take a second look at certain positions that they hold.  They have helped me regard certain things from a different angle or in a new light.  They have helped me to achieve a personal spirit of bipartisanship, if it is possible to have a "personal" spirit of bipartisanship.

In listening to these lovely young liberals, though, I do have a little bit of advice. 

First.  Do not write off us old fart conservatives.  Don't write off the young conservatives, either.

Second.  Please be sensitive to the "fear-mongering" employed by some of the more extreme conservatives to alienate people to your viewpoints.  For instance, sometime during the 2008 election, a rather respected conservative blogger put up a picture of what looked like a concentration camp and wrote a piece implying that Obama was planning to build camps in which to house all of us annoying Christians.  Did I believe this?  No.  My husband even wrote to this man, telling him that a respected blogger such as himself shouldn't be engaging in such "bullshit" (my word).  Did my husband get a reply?  No.  The thing is, though, that a lot of conservative people believe this hogwash, especially when it is put forth by a fellow "Christian."  So, if you -- dear liberals -- are a bit sensitive to this, I believe it would be helpful.  And this leads me to my next point.

Third.  (Admission.  The lovely lady who runs "Ben McKenzie News" reported on Mr. McKenzie's activities while he was campaigning for Obama during 2012.  She posted a couple of radio interviews, several pictures, and a TV ad.  I looked at these things, and this is where some of this advice comes from.)  I may be wrong here, but it is my feeling that if you call yourselves "surrogates" for Obama, you will just freak a lot of conservatives out.  "Surrogates" does not have a lot of good connotations for conservatives.  It brings to mind surrogate motherhood, which a lot of conservatives frown upon.  It also sounds very "sci-fi," if you will, conjuring up images akin to "1984."  I understand what you are trying to say when you use this term.  It means you are standing in for the president and presenting his ideas to people, as he would present them.  But, if you could come up with another term, it might be helpful.  Also, I think it might be beneficial if, when explaining Mr. Obama's views, you did not use his exact vocabulary all the time.  As in, we are "chatting with folks."  Mr. Obama uses the words "chatting" and "folks" often.  And I know that when you -- on the campaign trail -- also use these words, you are simply reiterating and "driving home" his messages.  The thing is, to conservatives who might otherwise listen to you, this might be a little off-putting.  It may sound to them a bit like you are not using your own brains, but have instead had your wills co-opted by Mr. Obama.  Now, I know you have not had your wills co-opted, and I hope I am not pissing you all off here.  It's just that I have been around a lot of conservatives for a long time, and I have some experience with how many of them react to things.

Of course, I realize that Mr. Obama won't be campaigning in 2016, so a lot of these points might seem like too little, too late.  But, maybe there are lessons to be learned when planning Mrs. Clinton's campaign.  And, frankly, I like Mrs. Clinton.  A lot.  I did not much care for her back in '92, but I have watched her really come into her own, and I think she has her head screwed on right.  So, if an old fart Republican like me might be swayed to even consider voting for Mrs. Clinton, there may actually be some hope in not writing off that forty-whatever percent of us you might consider to be unreachable.  And even if it doesn't seem to be worth your time and effort and dollars to try to get our votes, it might be a little investment in the future of our country to craft your message in such a way that enables all of us to see each other more positively and work together more constructively.

And, to be fair, do I think Republicans need to talk differently so that Democrats would (maybe) listen?  Yes, I do.  But, I didn't feel like writing about that today.  I felt like writing about this.  I'll probably write about the other side of the coin at some point, as well. ;-)

  

The Little Texan In Her Pink Shoes

Did y'all see Texan Wendy Davis filibustering a couple nights ago?  It was a pretty awesome sight to behold, whatever your opinions on women's issues may be.  

I am the same age as Wendy.  She was born one month and six days after me.  I was reading a bit about her, as I had never heard of her before her filibuster, and she is a pretty incredible person.  She married and had a baby as a teen, got divorced, became a paralegal, worked her way through college and law school, and went on to have a fantastic career.  If I had tried to do all those things, I would have had a nervous breakdown.  My hat is off to you, Wendy!

And as I watched this darling lady in her pink shoes and the reactions she got from the crowd and on Twitter, I tried to just quiet myself and ponder things.

This is what I have pondered.

Yes, I am a Catholic.  Yes, I am a Republican.  I take being a Catholic pretty seriously.  Being a Republican?  Not quite so much.  Though I appreciate politics and understand their importance, I do not possess enough of the ideology of either of the major parties to be entirely faithful to one or the other.  And I have actually switched party affiliation more than once.  I may do it again.

What do I like about the Republicans?  I have generally been drawn to the ideas of limited government and subsidiarity.  I also liked Reagan a great deal.  If you are a Democrat, you will probably gag at this, but Reagan was to my generation what Obama is to the current generation of younger people.  Things pretty much sucked in the late 70's, and Reagan gave us his version of "hope" and "change."  He had a positive attitude, a good sense of humor, and he was unflinchingly brave in the face of the things we viewed as threats to our freedom.  Of course, he also scared the crap out of a lot of people.  I understand that.  But, I liked him.  I still do.  I know he made mistakes.  I know he was not perfect.  I am not defending everything he did.  But, he sort of gave our nation a much-needed kick in the pants and a shot in the arm and a little bit of pride and confidence where it was very lacking.  If you don't believe me, go and watch that new movie about the Iranian hostage crisis that stars Ben Affleck.

As a Catholic, though, I also appreciate many, many things about the Democratic party.  I am quite sympathetic to their ideals of social justice and their desire for a strong social safety net.  And -- having children in their 20's who are struggling to begin careers in the current economy -- I am really starting to appreciate their desire for some type of national health insurance system.  And I have to say that "Obamacare" has been a Godsend for us -- especially since my 23-year-old daughter has many health problems.  I don't know what we would have done to affordably provide for her healthcare needs -- especially considering the current state of the job market for young people -- without the new laws. 

Why have I told you these things? It is so that you will have more understanding of where I am coming from when it comes to my thoughts about Wendy and her pink shoes and standing with her and all. 

I have to admit that my first reaction in watching Wendy was to "root" for the Republicans.  Then I started to pay more attention and learn more about what the GOP members had done.  It seems like they basically tried to throw a Hail Mary pass at the last possible moment.  They said that their proposed laws would protect the health and safety of women.  Frankly, I don't really buy that.  I think they were just trying to get abortion clinics shut down.  And this seems, to me, like a dishonest, heartless way to reduce abortion rates.  And I don't think it will protect the health of women, either.  Because, in the current environment, given the current state of our culture, women will not say, "Oh, I am pregnant and I am not happy about it.  But, I will just have this baby and all will be well."  They probably won't do that.  They'll most likely try to find some way to get an abortion, anyway -- a way that will probably be less safe than if the current clinics had stayed open.  And they will get angry.  They will get angry at the mean men who appear to be bullying them.  They will get angry at the heartless and ignorant men who keep saying things like, "A woman's body has a way to shut those things down."  It's like these Republicans just attacked a relatively peaceful hive with a flame thrower.  Way to burn bridges, GOP members.   

So, here we have this image.  An image of a little lady in pink shoes -- a woman who was a teen mom herself, who chose to have her baby in an era when she could have chosen otherwise -- facing down these hostile people.  Even I -- Catholic that I am -- was quite moved by this.  And now I hear that the governor has called a special session to go through the whole issue again.  Hello, Governor.  You think Wendy is going to back down this time?  I don't think so.  She's probably in training right now to take you on.

At this point, I have probably succeeded in alienating practically everyone who is reading this.  Sorry about that.  But, if you care to read on, I will tell you what I think would be a more positive approach to this whole thing.

I would like to see the people on "both sides of the aisle" respecting each others concerns and appreciating the merits of each others arguments.  I would like to see the Republicans being honest about their goals and measured in their approach.  I would like to see the Democrats trying to understand that most Republicans don't want to oppress women.  (Well, at least the ones in California don't.  I'm not sure about the ones in Texas.)  I think the governor should cancel the special session he called and wait until the next regular legislative session, when all of this should be taken up in a thoughtful, respectful, unhurried way.  I want to see everybody calm down and deal with the issue in a rational manner.  If that is possible in Texas. ;-)

    

   

How the Republicans have the Catholics by the...

...balls.

I went to early Mass this morning with my daughter Bridget.  She likes to go to early Mass.  And since, because of her health issues, she is unable to drive, I went with her.  I usually go to a later Mass, as I am no longer much of a morning person.  In my youth, I was very much a morning person.  Not anymore.  And not being a morning person combined with being at early Mass made me a little cranky, which made me start to think about the topic of this post.  I have thought about it other times -- when I was not cranky.  But, my crankiness in combination with my middle-aged broad menopausal-ness have given me the audacity to actually write about it.

As we all know, if we have been paying any attention whatsoever, is that the Republican party has essentially become the party of the those who oppose legalized abortion and the Democratic party has essentially become the party of those who support legalized abortion.

The Catholic Church teaches very strongly against abortion -- legal or otherwise.  It is not my purpose in this post to discuss this teaching, but what this teaching has wrought politically in our country.

When my parents were young, most Catholics were Democrats.  My mother explained to me when I was growing up that the Democratic party was the party of the "working person" -- it supported labor rights and a social safety net for people who worked hard for a modest living.   And most Catholics were working people.  Hence, most of them were Democrats.

As time went on, the Democrats began to support many other ideas that are very "Catholic."  The Democratic party still supports a strong social safety net for the poor and the elderly, and champions the right of working people to a living wage and a safe work environment.  It also views access to adequate healthcare, housing, and education as essential to human dignity; sees war as something to be engaged in only as a very last resort; promotes the welcoming of the immigrant; and encourages us all to work in solidarity to form a civil society that allows for all people to live according to their beliefs.

The Democratic party also supports abortion rights.

And herein lies the conundrum for Catholics -- and this is how the Republicans have them by the balls.

Because the Republican party does not support abortion rights, and because many in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have made statements to the effect that the abortion issue should be seen as the top priority for Catholic voters, a lot of Catholic voters will vote for Republicans based primarily -- or even solely -- on this issue.  I have personally known Catholics who vote this way.  I have also personally known Catholics who feel that you are endangering your immortal soul if you vote for a pro-choice Democrat -- even if you vote for that person based on issues other than abortion.

But, there is a danger to this.  It basically gives the Republicans a pass to potentially get away with what I will call "crap" without a whole lot of scrutiny by the Catholics.  I have, at times, seen Catholics almost turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to some of the objectionable things Republicans say and do as long as those Republicans "toe the line" as far as abortion is concerned.  And this worries me. It worries me because I think the Republicans are very well aware of this situation, and I think that at least some of them take advantage of it from time to time.

Please know that I realize I am generalizing a great deal in this post.  Most Catholics are not mindless dupes.  Maybe some politicians are people of good character.  I do not mean to say that Republicans are war-mongers who don't care about poor people.  I do not mean to say that Democrats are all selfless do-gooders.  There are even Republicans who are pro-choice and Democrats who oppose legalized abortion.  My main purpose here is to point out the danger -- no matter what political party you belong to -- of having one issue become so overwhelmingly important that it leaves you vulnerable to those who might manipulate you to their own ends.

Why I Would Volunteer For Ben McKenzie's Political Campaign...

...even though I am a Republican.  And he -- clearly -- is not.

Why am I discussing this?

Late last week, a conservative-type politician Tweeted some really lame-ass thing about gun control and the Boston tragedy.  Now, Mr. McKenzie did not comment on this lame-ass statement directly.  At least on Twitter.  What he did -- and the only thing he did -- was Retweet the guy's apology.  I suppose you could interpret Mr. McKenzie's response in more than one way.  But, I thought it got his feeings about the whole debacle across in a classy manner.  So, I sent out a couple of Tweets to Mr. McKenzie expressing my admiration for his handling of the situation and telling him that I would be happy to volunteer for his campaign if he ever decides to run for public office.

Yesterday, I noticed that somebody with a Blackberry had read several of my more political blog posts.  Nobody with a Blackberry had ever read my blog before.  Also -- who uses a Blackberry, anymore?  I researched that question and discovered that, generally, people heavily involved in politics and business still do.  So, I was wondering if some political-type had seen my Tweet and wondered why a Republican would want to work on the campaign of a Democrat.  Especially a Democrat who -- on the face of it -- seems pretty dang liberal.  Perhaps this politically curious person looked at my Twitter bio and discovered there the link to my blog and clicked on it.

So, this post is for you, Blackberry Person.

I am going to explain why this Republican would volunteer for Mr. McKenzie's campaign.

First of all, it is NOT:
     1. because of "The O.C.,"
     2. because of "SouthLAnd," or
     3. because he is a little bit nice-looking.

Rather, it is because of the following:

As a Catholic, maybe I have never been a tried-and-true Republican.  In fact, on many issues of social justice, I lean more towards the Democrats.  And I always have.  But, I also have to say that I am unhappy with what I am seeing in the Republican Party as of late.  For example, I find the whole Tea Party thing to be out-of-touch with reality.  Wake up, people.  Getting rid of the Department of Education or the Fed would have disastrous consequences.  It also seems to me that the Republican Party has gotten itself too enmeshed with religious groups.  I do believe that religious groups should have a voice in society -- a public voice.  But, the level of involvement of certain religious groups in politics is beginning to seem a bit inappropriate to me.  We do have a pluralistic society.  Frankly, I believe that we need to come up with a way of living with each other in our country that, as much as possible, respects the consciences of all peoples, the sincerely-held ideas of all people of good-will -- religious and secular, alike.  Maybe we will make some mistakes along the way.  But, perhaps it's worth a try.

And this is where Mr. McKenzie comes in.  From what I have heard him say and seen him do, his liberalism seems to come from a place of compassion, from a genuine concern for both the good of individuals and the Common Good.  Objectively, he is well-educated.  He holds a double major from UVa in foreign relations and economics (I believe).  He seems to think before he speaks.  He seems to think before he acts.  He seems to think, period.  Also, I was impressed by his behavior in the last election.  What he did and said publicly was positive and uplifting.  He even made me feel uplifted, even though I voted for a different person.  Why did he make me feel uplifted?  Because of his genuine belief that we can move forward in our country, making it a better place for all.  He and I may not agree on all the methods that should be used to make our country better, but at least he believes it can be better.  And, along with that, he appears to be a fair person who would be able to listen to and work with people of different ideas -- at least reasonable people of different ideas.  Yes, from a couple things that he has said, he is probably rather passionate in a political discussion.  But, he appears to be an honest guy, a "straight-shooter," so I can handle the passion.

So, even though we may not agree on everything (even some very important things), I believe Mr. McKenzie is a person of excellent character, possessing those vital qualities necessary to lead our country forward -- integrity, compassion, honesty, passion, goodwill, intelligence, and a good grasp of the realities of our day.  And this is why I would volunteer for his campaign -- because I believe that people with those qualities should have a chance to represent us in government, even if those people are not exactly like me.  That is the beauty of our political system.  That is the beauty of our country.