Ted Cruz announced today that he is running for President. No big surprise. The surprise was the speech he gave, where he basically called out his father for being a deadbeat. To wit:
“When I was three, my father decided to leave my mother and me. We were living in Calgary at the time, he got on a plane and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his 3-year-old son. And yet when he was in Houston, a friend, a colleague from the oil and gas business invited him to a Bible study, invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church, and there my father gave his life to Jesus Christ.
And God transformed his heart. And he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.”
Ok, ok, ok, ok whoa… This guy praises his father and Jesus for making his human shipwreck of a daddy become a normal person Wait, what?
He’s basically admitting that his father was the lowest form of life, walking out on a wife and three-year-old, yet bragging how he got turned around by giving his life to Jesus Christ. You mean, that makes it all ok? You mean that no matter how big a piece of shit you are prior to your religious conversion, you are not only forgiven but can now brag about what a gnat on a dogs asshole you were? What about those of us who never did anything like that to begin with?
Most who know me know that I’m a happy atheist, no explanations, no apologies. But, I’ve got to interject here that, although I was divorced when my children were younger, I never got on a plane and walked out on them. I never decided that I “didn’t want to be a father anymore”, I simply couldn’t reconcile with their mother. The difference is, I took care of my children and paid the alimony as was adjudicated, no questions asked. I saw my kids and spent time with them. AND I DIDN’T NEED SOME MYTHICAL CHARACTER AND FICTIONAL MISSIVE TO CONVINCE ME TO DO SO!
The difference is the difference between religion and morals. Mr. Cruz Sr, was missing one and he thought he could substitute it with the other.
I never cease to be amazed at the bragging rights people assign to themselves for having once been low-life scumbags, and then becoming good, upstanding people, but only when someone terrorizes them with stories of eternal hell. People like that aren’t saved. They’re just opportunistic cowards.
Was watching a piece on the news this morning about the so called “religious freedom” movement among conservatives. This would strike down laws which disallow discrimination based on sexual orientation or anything else which offends your “deeply held religious beliefs”. An example is the wedding photographer who was prosecuted for refusing to provide her services to an LDBT couple because of her “deeply held belief that homosexuality is a sin”. Conservatives want business people to be able to refuse to serve virtually anyone whose lifestyle does not comport with their “deeply held religious beliefs”.
Then it struck me. If laws like this get overturned, I’m going to wait for the first time a gas station owner on a rural road somewhere out in the sticks, who happens to be a Muslim and subscribes to strict Sharia Law, refuses to help a sweet, vulnerable, blonde 18-year-old girl whose car broke down 20 miles from the nearest town. Why would the gas station owner do this? Well, because, according to his “deeply held religious beliefs”, it is a sin for women to drive, and he feels that he is adhering to his beliefs by making her walk. Really curious how that one will be reported in the conservative press…
OK, now I’m getting scared…
Jeb Bush, in a speech that was not extemporaneous, was clearly written out on paper and presumably practiced, said the following yesterday:
1. He mispronounced, quite badly, Boko Haram, a terrorist group that any American president will have to understand.
2. He confused Iraq and Iran
3. He said that ISIS had 200,000 members. They have 20,000 members (as his own spokesman admitted later)
4. He said that immigration is a “catalytic converter”. That is a part that goes on the exhaust system of your car. He meant “catalyst”
All in just one speech!
Now, I may sound as if I’m picking nits, but am I the only person who expects my president to know more about world events than some wine bar owner in Nokomis Florida? These were not some goofy teleprompter flubs. This was a practiced speech that he was reading slowly and carefully!
But, if you think about it, this seems to be exactly the kind of person who Republicans love (see George W Bush), which it why I’m scared. This guy is just stupid enough to win lots of Republican votes!
Now I’m waiting to hear how he pronounces N-U-C-L-E-A-R. If he says “nucular”, I fear that the White House lost…
In case you were not aware, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Palestine all have something in common, and now the state of Indiana will have it too. Oh, not sure what I’m talking about? Well, read on…
Mike Pence, Repub governor of Indiana has announced that the state of Indiana will now have a government run news site. That’s right democracy fans, a major player in Repub politics and potential Presidential candidate will be rolling out a department that will write news articles and disseminate them to the media. Just like every dictatorship on the globe!
Yessiree bob, all of you super-patriots can now have your news delivered to you just like Joseph Goebbels did for Nazi Germany (that comment was included because Repubs love to talk about Nazis), Pravda did for the former Soviet Union, the KCNA in North Korea and all the other government agencies that feel the need to limit the power of the free press by giving their own versions of “news”.
It’s great to be able to rely on the Repub party to protect our freedoms, isn’t it? You know, like our freedom to kill each other at random with guns and such. But a free press, well, that’s fine as long as they don’t report anything that Repubs don’t like.
I guess Fox “News” isn’t quite “fair and balanced” enough for them…Sure, I get that. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Here we go again. Another forecast for a major storm in the northeast and someone on Fox once again making their snarky “so much for global warming” comment. It boggles my mind that getting a job as a Fox spokesmodel requires so little fundamental education. I’ll explain this slowly to my Repub friends…
Snow does not come from cold, any more than rain comes from heat. Snow comes from moisture in the air, just like rain. When it’s warm and there is an abundance of moisture in the air, we get rain. When its cold and there’s an abundance of moisture in the air, we get snow. Got it so far?
Now, how does that moisture get into the air you ask? Say it with me now, evap…evapor…evapora…evaporation. Great!
And what causes more water to evaporate into the air than it ever has in our history? Well, one cause can be because the air and seas are warmer, so, more water evaporates! And so, that’s right class, when the earth warms, we get more moisture in the air, so that when it’s warm in the summer, we get bigger and nastier hurricanes. And when it’s cold in the winter? That’s right, we get bigger, nastier snow storms! All because of that nasty guy named evaporation!
The forecast for the northeast is not for exceptionally cold whether, just normal winter temperatures. The difference is that with so much moisture in the air from global warming, when it does snow, it’s going to be a lot worse.
See, when you actually think about it, there’s no need to go around saying that “you’re not a scientist” when asked about climate change, because you can be just like a scientist by simply using facts!
There is much hand-wringing over the issue of campaign financing, and the presumption, on both sides, that the other side is buying elections. Yet no one seems to be able to point out which election, exactly, has been purchased by big money interests and by whom?
Examples include the fact that Sheldon Adelson gave $100 million to Newt Gingrich during the 2012 primary. This is the guy with the casinos in Macao and the desire to see Israel become the 51st state. He is, presumably, a pretty smart guy, yet he spent the equal of the GDP of a small Latin American country on the Presidential aspirations of an aging Pillsbury dough boy. That money’s gone, and, thankfully, Newt still can’t get a ride on Air Force One.
Meg Whitman spent $90 million to become governor of California, yet the governor of California is named Jerry Brown.
Campaign finance spending is a zero sum game. There are an equal amount of rich Democrats and Republicans. They give roughly equal amounts to their respective candidates. There is only so much TV air time for sale, and they’re close to saturating it now. Plus, who among us has been swayed by a TV add or robocall? All this money that gets spent on these extremely basic forms of advertising have yet to be proven effective. Barack Obama’s last campaign is said to have cost almost $1 billion. Does anyone think that if the next guy spends $1.1 billion that he’s assured the election?
Looking at it another way, the spending of money, for whatever reason, is good for the economy. Imagine how many local print shops are bolstered by campaign money. How many jobs are created, albeit temporary jobs, manning phone banks and the like. And all the newspaper and TV ads that go to support the people who work for those firms. They all eat lunch, get their clothes dry-cleaned, and buy gas for their cars to get to work. Every one of these things is a boost for the economy.
And the money is not coming from people who don’t want to spend it. The money is coming from lots of wealthy people who would otherwise be keeping it in an off-shore bank account or some other place where its not accessible. The fact that they’re spending it on campaigns puts it back in circulation and increases spending in what was recently a stagnant economy.
Plus I like seeing wealthy people throw their money away. It gives me a sense that the world is a fair place..
I think that modern society has gone a bit overboard in its reaction to those of us who aren’t considered, shall we say, beautiful. It seems that every other day I am seeing some article where “full figured” or larger than average female models are showing us their underwear. This, in isolation, would be fine, if it weren’t for the fact that these pictures are usually accompanied by prose admonishing me and, presumably you, for not considering how “beautiful” these chubby women are.
Folks, if everything is labeled “beautiful”, then it will render nothing as such. When one of my grandkids produces a crayon drawing, it is cute. The Mona Lisa is beautiful. (I’ve seen it in the Louvre). A 5’6″ woman who weighs 200 pounds might be pretty, successful, sweet, kind and intelligent. Victoria Secret models are beautiful. My Honda Accord is a great car and I really like how it looks. A 1973 Ferrari 365 GTB/4 is beautiful. So is a 1966 Jag E Type.
We can’t all be the smartest, cutest, skinniest, sexiest of our respective groups (Ok, except for me, depending on whom you ask). By attempting to shame, cajole, or embarrass me into calling something beautiful which, to me, is not, you are not improving the lives of those to whom these insincere compliments are being attached. The skinniest kid in fat camp is still…fat.
The problem is not exactly whom we consider to be beautiful. The problem is the need to be beautiful. I’m sure its great when you walk into a room, only to hear all conversation stop as those in it absorb the beauty that is you. I’m sure its great to have people comment on your slim figure, your full head of hair, your gorgeous lips, your, well, whatever. But we don’t all get dealt those cards (again, except for me).
That which is beautiful cannot be dictated by those who wish they were. The concept of beauty resides within he who experiences it. You can show me all the pictures of deformed bodies, fat bodies, skinny bodies and every other kind of body you can find, but you can’t tell me that they’re beautiful. That is a privilege I reserve for myself.