Republicans, that is. They spent a couple years in the late 90s quibbling and raising a humongous stink over a cumstain on a willing intern's dress, but now they are whining that the "liberals" need to "get a life" when anyone criticizes the rethuglican president's clear and obvious violations of the constitution.
Get this, jerks: Getting a blow job from a willing intern, even if you are married to someone else, is not a crime. Ordering torture, wiretapping, lying to congress and the public, and other violations of the law and the constitution is a crime. It clearly falls under the category "high crimes and misdemeanors", more so than Slick Willy prevaricating about where he put his schlong and whether it was "sex" or just foreplay.
Boo, hoo, the press is so liberal that every scandal that breaks oin the Bush administration get's a whole day or two on the front page before we go back to celebrity tripe. The Clinton witch hunt with Ken Starr was front page for months, with rehash, conjecture and righteous puffing from the "conservatives".
Speaking of which, it is our "conservative" president and congress that are pumping up our deficit to unheard of levels. Sure, they cut social and safety net programs, and retirement benefits for the military, but their corporate welfare programs and pork are still intact. If that's "conservative", I would hate to see them acting in a "liberal" manner with our tax dollars.
I think we need new labels, myself.
Pro-privacy, pro-social contract, pro-education, pro-fiscal responsibililty, anti-nanny state, pro-small business, anti-corporate welfare, pro-choice, pro-bill of rights (ammendments 1-10), pro-legalization, pro-hogtie the government to keep them out of our bedrooms, pro-gay rights, pro-straight rights, pro-do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else types should be called "laidbacks".
Anti-privacy, anti-religious freedom, anti-public schooling, anti-fair tax, anti-individualistic, anti-choice, anti-bill of rights, anti-gay, anti-sex, pro-corporatist, pro-prohibition, pro-lobbyist pork, pro-corporate welfare, anti-government restraint, pro-run everyone's lives and choices even religion should be called "control freaks".
Both laidbacks and control freaks have adherents on both "sides" of the aisle in Washington. The neo-cons are mostly control freaks, and with their religious reich and corporatist sidekicks, are virtually fascist in their desire to control every piece of American life - their way, or no way. These are the same hypocrites that whined about a president schtupping a willing intern.
But, unlike them, I won't call for control freaks to be to be deported ("if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel."), executed (Shoot a liberal blog) or otherwise imprisoned or punished. After all, it's (supposedly) a free country -- for now.
2005-12-28
2005-12-13
Dream Time
Due to the crap going on in my family, I decided to "ask the source" in meditation/dreaming. You may think I'm nuts, but I give you some choice fragments/quotes from that dream/meditation:
"What do I want them to do? Continue my work - feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, tend the sick, give of themselves to others. To love their neighbors, and even strangers, as they do their own kin and selves. If they do that, their example will carry my message into the world. If they don't, all of the preaching, coercion, petty or draconian laws and even torture will not bring any more people closer to God. In fact, it will drive them away from my way."
"I want no laws passed in my name, I came to help people get out from under the Law, to do what is right because it is right, not because they think that the Law demands it. The Law of Israel was given because they had nothing, and were separated from God. It was not given to be imposed on other peoples and other times - their relationship to divinity is different. My purpose is to break the petty rules game, and put true love and compassion in its place."
"Why are some separated, and some not? It is their view of the world, and themselves, that separates them from the divine. It is a falsehood that my father demands perfection: he merely requires a sincere effort, and a desire to commune with him. I have built a bridge over the chasm of the Law, and put up the lights so people may see the way."
"Heaven and Hell are a state of being. Neither are permanent, unless the person wishes it. The universe changes, and so do souls. Chosing to live again, for a lesson or a mitzvah, is always possible. What lasts is the good one builds, the kindness one shares, and the inspiration that one leaves behind. Against that, all of the laws and slogans can not stand for long."
"You only need saving if you are lost. If you find another bridge to the divine, cross it. We are all there, waiting. Yes, each people once had separate gods, and the god of Israel was not, would not, be the god of the orient. Now, with the scattering of all the people, it is who calls you that matters, and that you seek to do what is right and just by your fellow man. "
"It is no coincidence that the true core of so many religions comes down to this: 'treat your neighbor as you would be treated'. This means leaving him to his choices, yes, and even his errors. For if you leave him no choice but to do what you see as right, then he does no right by choice, but by force. That is not goodness, it is slavery."
"From time to time humanity seeks to destroy itself, and partially does. This is a cycle, and a bitter one, but it is how things are. My purpose, my work, is to try to remove the causes, and enable mankind to live with each other. The more I and mine are successful, the longer the interval between cataclysm, and the happier people are."
YMMV, of course. Those who do not believe in such things may scoff if you like. But I am put much at ease by the answers.
"What do I want them to do? Continue my work - feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, tend the sick, give of themselves to others. To love their neighbors, and even strangers, as they do their own kin and selves. If they do that, their example will carry my message into the world. If they don't, all of the preaching, coercion, petty or draconian laws and even torture will not bring any more people closer to God. In fact, it will drive them away from my way."
"I want no laws passed in my name, I came to help people get out from under the Law, to do what is right because it is right, not because they think that the Law demands it. The Law of Israel was given because they had nothing, and were separated from God. It was not given to be imposed on other peoples and other times - their relationship to divinity is different. My purpose is to break the petty rules game, and put true love and compassion in its place."
"Why are some separated, and some not? It is their view of the world, and themselves, that separates them from the divine. It is a falsehood that my father demands perfection: he merely requires a sincere effort, and a desire to commune with him. I have built a bridge over the chasm of the Law, and put up the lights so people may see the way."
"Heaven and Hell are a state of being. Neither are permanent, unless the person wishes it. The universe changes, and so do souls. Chosing to live again, for a lesson or a mitzvah, is always possible. What lasts is the good one builds, the kindness one shares, and the inspiration that one leaves behind. Against that, all of the laws and slogans can not stand for long."
"You only need saving if you are lost. If you find another bridge to the divine, cross it. We are all there, waiting. Yes, each people once had separate gods, and the god of Israel was not, would not, be the god of the orient. Now, with the scattering of all the people, it is who calls you that matters, and that you seek to do what is right and just by your fellow man. "
"It is no coincidence that the true core of so many religions comes down to this: 'treat your neighbor as you would be treated'. This means leaving him to his choices, yes, and even his errors. For if you leave him no choice but to do what you see as right, then he does no right by choice, but by force. That is not goodness, it is slavery."
"From time to time humanity seeks to destroy itself, and partially does. This is a cycle, and a bitter one, but it is how things are. My purpose, my work, is to try to remove the causes, and enable mankind to live with each other. The more I and mine are successful, the longer the interval between cataclysm, and the happier people are."
YMMV, of course. Those who do not believe in such things may scoff if you like. But I am put much at ease by the answers.
2005-12-12
A Good Read
A commenter left me the link to The Christian Paradox: How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong. A good read, it underlines the big problem that I have with a lot of Christians in America today: they aren't practicing what Jesus taught.
You see, if you blog about being against something, but in practice accept it, that's hypocricy. When you advocate reclassifying something as a mental illness, you aren't just talking about an idea, you are talking about taking an action against others. Demagoguery is not exposition of ideas. Advocating hostile and hateful action is personal, no matter whether you claim pure motives or not.
But more importantly, if you claim to be Christian, at least make a token effort to do what Jesus actually instructed! IMO, this means take the right wing rhetoric and stick back up the behind of the pharisee preacher charlatan that sold you the bill of goods. Stop donating money and column inches to causes that actively try to reastrict or curtail the rights or freedoms of others, and give it to organizations that do what Jesus asked: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger.
Let me give you some suggestions:
America's Second Harvest
Career Closet
Habitat for Humanity
Happy Holidays, and Merry Giftmas!
You see, if you blog about being against something, but in practice accept it, that's hypocricy. When you advocate reclassifying something as a mental illness, you aren't just talking about an idea, you are talking about taking an action against others. Demagoguery is not exposition of ideas. Advocating hostile and hateful action is personal, no matter whether you claim pure motives or not.
But more importantly, if you claim to be Christian, at least make a token effort to do what Jesus actually instructed! IMO, this means take the right wing rhetoric and stick back up the behind of the pharisee preacher charlatan that sold you the bill of goods. Stop donating money and column inches to causes that actively try to reastrict or curtail the rights or freedoms of others, and give it to organizations that do what Jesus asked: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger.
Let me give you some suggestions:
America's Second Harvest
Career Closet
Habitat for Humanity
Happy Holidays, and Merry Giftmas!
2005-12-11
Well, Cry Me a River
Apparently, in my family now it is classed as "intolerant" to disagree with a family member, even if what that family member advocates is bigotted and narrow minded. Apparently, not approving, and moreover being appalled and saddened by a family member's anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-dominionist, pro-religion pusher public writings is a taboo.
It doesn't matter if the other, male, family member wants to shove gays back in the closet, deny them equal rights, and deny women control over their own lives and bodies. It doesn't matter if he wants his religion to be the only one represented in our governance, with not even lip service paid to other beliefs (or even tolerance of a lack of belief.) *I'm* the intoletrant one, because I haven't given my mother grandchildren, because I'm the one that has the non-mainstream beliefs that I'm sure are just considered "a phase" or some other stupidity.
Apparently my BiL is allowed to spew, at length, repeatedly and for pay, claptrap and bigotry cribbed from fundamentalist think tanks advocating a rollback of basic rights and freedoms, but if I dare disagree and call bullshit where I see bullshit, *I'm* being intolerant and not showing proper familial affection. At least I don't take money for reinforcing intolerance and hatred, disguised as "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Is it really so much to ask, that people keep their bigotries out of law? I don't demand that prayer be banned from the public square, why do they want it mandated in the public square? Are they insecure so much in their faith that they must have it enforced by law, pushed onto children as part of public school indoctrination, pushed onto individuals as they make their life choices, saying that anything not considered "right" by their religion, even if it harms no one, must be banned or punished?
I never ask for religion to be removed from public discourse. I only ask that it not be pushed onto others who believe differently. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. (There is no scientific evidence for a non-viable fetus having a soul, folks, and if it can't live independent of its host, it's a parasite, not a human.)
I support prayer in public, as long as it does not favor any one religion or denomination over another, and as long as no one is forced to attend. But don't imply that this is a "Christian nation". It's not. We have religious pluralism in this country, and I'm not just talking about different types of Christian. I personally know Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Heathens, Mormons, Wiccans, Pagans, and Shinto. They all have the same right to religious freedom as the Protestant Christians and Catholics, including the right *not* to have the religion of another shoved down their throats.
As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools. If students want to form religious clubs, they should, even if the religion is Christian. If their parents want them to remain ignorant about biology, safer sex, and STDs, fine - let them opt out - but don't force the rest of the class to the same standards of ignorance. IMO, parents should teach their kids this stuff, but most are too lazy or chicken to do so, and they assume that keeping their kids in the dark will keep them celibate. Teen pregnancy and STDs are social problems that aren't solved by simplistic "Just Say No" and abstinence preaching. But you can't tell some people that, no matter how many tighly focussed studies you run.
So, some of my kin are religious reich dittoheads, and others want my implied assent and "tolerance" of their bigotry. While I will always defend to the end their right to say what they will, in public, I also reserve the right to disagree, argue, lambaste, and express my disappointment and displeasure at such things. After all, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
BTW, the reason this is public is because the other is public. I was always taught that the counter for hateful speech is more speech, not angry silence or censorship. While I'm sure my BiL has a far higher readership, seeing as he's a paid member of the staff of a right wing publication, and I am just another blogger, I still need to try to counter his advocacy of theocracy.
I'm still sad, though. I'd held a higher opinion of my BiL. I expect drug addled blowhards like Rush Limbaugh to spew this stuff, or megabuck right wing TV preachers seeking temporal power in a theocracy to advocate it, but not my own family.
This doesn't mean that I don't love my sister, BiL, or nieces and nephews. I do, even as I fear for the kids because of the narrow environment they are being raised in. Is it their parents right to raise their kids as they see fit? Yes, as long as they don't commit actual abuse, which I know my sister would never do. If my sister and brother in law want to raise their kids in an intolerant, judgemental religion, that's their right. After all, *I'm* not the one who wants my religious biases written into the law of the land.
I don't talk about my personal religious beliefs much, except to those who I know to either share them, or hold similar ones. Religion to me is such a personal and powerful thing that it would be a disrespect to pitch it on a streetcorner like some sort of past date milk or bootleg CD. Because of that, I get people who assume they know what I believe, and all of that crap. The fact that I can discuss the theology and lore of religions that I don't practice just confuses the matter.
But one of my beliefs is that it is a grave wrong against the divine to try to enforce religious thought and practice by force of law. Law is for the temporal, here and now. The best purpose of law is to prevent one citizen (or group thereof) from doing unto another without consent, to prevent the predators from preying on their fellow citizens. Needless to say, I disapprove of victimless crime laws, or "nanny state" statutes that tell individuals how to act "for their own good".
I'm sure I will catch more flack for this, but I won't meekly stand silent while my BiL advocates religious interference with the lives of others. I would be a hypocrite if I did so.
Unlike Martin Niemoller, I will not stay silent against the tide of hate.
It doesn't matter if the other, male, family member wants to shove gays back in the closet, deny them equal rights, and deny women control over their own lives and bodies. It doesn't matter if he wants his religion to be the only one represented in our governance, with not even lip service paid to other beliefs (or even tolerance of a lack of belief.) *I'm* the intoletrant one, because I haven't given my mother grandchildren, because I'm the one that has the non-mainstream beliefs that I'm sure are just considered "a phase" or some other stupidity.
Apparently my BiL is allowed to spew, at length, repeatedly and for pay, claptrap and bigotry cribbed from fundamentalist think tanks advocating a rollback of basic rights and freedoms, but if I dare disagree and call bullshit where I see bullshit, *I'm* being intolerant and not showing proper familial affection. At least I don't take money for reinforcing intolerance and hatred, disguised as "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Is it really so much to ask, that people keep their bigotries out of law? I don't demand that prayer be banned from the public square, why do they want it mandated in the public square? Are they insecure so much in their faith that they must have it enforced by law, pushed onto children as part of public school indoctrination, pushed onto individuals as they make their life choices, saying that anything not considered "right" by their religion, even if it harms no one, must be banned or punished?
I never ask for religion to be removed from public discourse. I only ask that it not be pushed onto others who believe differently. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. (There is no scientific evidence for a non-viable fetus having a soul, folks, and if it can't live independent of its host, it's a parasite, not a human.)
I support prayer in public, as long as it does not favor any one religion or denomination over another, and as long as no one is forced to attend. But don't imply that this is a "Christian nation". It's not. We have religious pluralism in this country, and I'm not just talking about different types of Christian. I personally know Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Heathens, Mormons, Wiccans, Pagans, and Shinto. They all have the same right to religious freedom as the Protestant Christians and Catholics, including the right *not* to have the religion of another shoved down their throats.
As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools. If students want to form religious clubs, they should, even if the religion is Christian. If their parents want them to remain ignorant about biology, safer sex, and STDs, fine - let them opt out - but don't force the rest of the class to the same standards of ignorance. IMO, parents should teach their kids this stuff, but most are too lazy or chicken to do so, and they assume that keeping their kids in the dark will keep them celibate. Teen pregnancy and STDs are social problems that aren't solved by simplistic "Just Say No" and abstinence preaching. But you can't tell some people that, no matter how many tighly focussed studies you run.
So, some of my kin are religious reich dittoheads, and others want my implied assent and "tolerance" of their bigotry. While I will always defend to the end their right to say what they will, in public, I also reserve the right to disagree, argue, lambaste, and express my disappointment and displeasure at such things. After all, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
BTW, the reason this is public is because the other is public. I was always taught that the counter for hateful speech is more speech, not angry silence or censorship. While I'm sure my BiL has a far higher readership, seeing as he's a paid member of the staff of a right wing publication, and I am just another blogger, I still need to try to counter his advocacy of theocracy.
I'm still sad, though. I'd held a higher opinion of my BiL. I expect drug addled blowhards like Rush Limbaugh to spew this stuff, or megabuck right wing TV preachers seeking temporal power in a theocracy to advocate it, but not my own family.
This doesn't mean that I don't love my sister, BiL, or nieces and nephews. I do, even as I fear for the kids because of the narrow environment they are being raised in. Is it their parents right to raise their kids as they see fit? Yes, as long as they don't commit actual abuse, which I know my sister would never do. If my sister and brother in law want to raise their kids in an intolerant, judgemental religion, that's their right. After all, *I'm* not the one who wants my religious biases written into the law of the land.
I don't talk about my personal religious beliefs much, except to those who I know to either share them, or hold similar ones. Religion to me is such a personal and powerful thing that it would be a disrespect to pitch it on a streetcorner like some sort of past date milk or bootleg CD. Because of that, I get people who assume they know what I believe, and all of that crap. The fact that I can discuss the theology and lore of religions that I don't practice just confuses the matter.
But one of my beliefs is that it is a grave wrong against the divine to try to enforce religious thought and practice by force of law. Law is for the temporal, here and now. The best purpose of law is to prevent one citizen (or group thereof) from doing unto another without consent, to prevent the predators from preying on their fellow citizens. Needless to say, I disapprove of victimless crime laws, or "nanny state" statutes that tell individuals how to act "for their own good".
I'm sure I will catch more flack for this, but I won't meekly stand silent while my BiL advocates religious interference with the lives of others. I would be a hypocrite if I did so.
Unlike Martin Niemoller, I will not stay silent against the tide of hate.
2005-12-09
I Want To Cry
I've been reading through my brother-in-law's blog, and I want to cry. My sister married a cookie cutter, right wing, talking head. Nothing that isn't screamed out by intolerant reactionaries, complete with "studies" with distortions of the meaning of the statistics, and patently false assumptions about the true nature of society. (Thousands of years of anti-homosexualiasm as a "reason" for it still being considered a disease? No. The Sacred Band of Thebes comes to mind.)
He spouts the same old tired rhetoric and "justifications" that are part of what repulsed me from the Church to begin with. Anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-crusader-war, anti-realistic sex-ed, pro-monoculture, pro-theocracy, pro-"under-God", pro-mandatory school prayer (Christian only, of course) - all of the same religious reich narrow, hateful, theocratic bullshit that I have been fighting for years, and now it turns out that my own sister is married to one!!
I had though he was an actual intellectual, who really thought things through. I find, instead, regurgitated claptrap from right wing religious think tanks, and without attribution!! No original thought, just the same old crap that indicates that he's never looked at the other side.
I try to see things from both sides. Having been a Baptist in a fairly conservative church, I have first hand experience with the worldview. It's a frightening place, IMO. But once you've drunk the grape juice, you can understand the source of the worldview, even if you ultimately discover that there is another way to live.
I have three neices and nephews. I now understand what they are being raised into. I am even more willing to bet that I will have one of them on my doorstep, desperate for acceptance, in a few years. That door will be open. No one should have to live in the type of environment that "loves the sinner, but....". How would you like to have only "conditional" love from your own parents?
I will be seeing them for Christmas. I called my dad about bringing my partner with me. It's about time that my brother in law had his bigotted face rubbed in reality, and what love and caring really means.
I so want to cry. My own kin are strangers, and the enemy in a "culture war" that their cohorts started against me and mine.
What the fuck is wrong with people being able to decide their own path and life, as long as it harms no one living? (No, I don't consider non-viable [without extreme medical intervention] fetii to be alive.) Why the hell is this country so overflowing with mean-spirited hypocrites these days?
The evangelical and right wing churches have lost the way of Jesus of Nazareth, if they ever really had it.
"Jesus wept." - new testament, ch & verse not recalled.
He spouts the same old tired rhetoric and "justifications" that are part of what repulsed me from the Church to begin with. Anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-crusader-war, anti-realistic sex-ed, pro-monoculture, pro-theocracy, pro-"under-God", pro-mandatory school prayer (Christian only, of course) - all of the same religious reich narrow, hateful, theocratic bullshit that I have been fighting for years, and now it turns out that my own sister is married to one!!
I had though he was an actual intellectual, who really thought things through. I find, instead, regurgitated claptrap from right wing religious think tanks, and without attribution!! No original thought, just the same old crap that indicates that he's never looked at the other side.
I try to see things from both sides. Having been a Baptist in a fairly conservative church, I have first hand experience with the worldview. It's a frightening place, IMO. But once you've drunk the grape juice, you can understand the source of the worldview, even if you ultimately discover that there is another way to live.
I have three neices and nephews. I now understand what they are being raised into. I am even more willing to bet that I will have one of them on my doorstep, desperate for acceptance, in a few years. That door will be open. No one should have to live in the type of environment that "loves the sinner, but....". How would you like to have only "conditional" love from your own parents?
I will be seeing them for Christmas. I called my dad about bringing my partner with me. It's about time that my brother in law had his bigotted face rubbed in reality, and what love and caring really means.
I so want to cry. My own kin are strangers, and the enemy in a "culture war" that their cohorts started against me and mine.
What the fuck is wrong with people being able to decide their own path and life, as long as it harms no one living? (No, I don't consider non-viable [without extreme medical intervention] fetii to be alive.) Why the hell is this country so overflowing with mean-spirited hypocrites these days?
The evangelical and right wing churches have lost the way of Jesus of Nazareth, if they ever really had it.
"Jesus wept." - new testament, ch & verse not recalled.
2005-12-08
Pirst Fost
I have other blogs. Really. But if I want to comment on Blogger blogs, I need a Blogger ID and blog. Bother, Blogger!
So most of my stuff is a http://www.livejournal.com/ravan/, but I'll post here sometimes too.
So most of my stuff is a http://www.livejournal.com/ravan/, but I'll post here sometimes too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
