Another Ravan Perch

Supply Side Wreckonomics

2011-09-11T23:14:00.000-07:00

When the suppliers are the favored party in the economic transaction, even to the point of benefiting from individual taxpayer largess (by not having to pay their fair share of the cost for the infrastructure within which they do business), they end up controlling the economic playing field. When they do, the power in the system flow to the heirarchial heads of those fictitious persons called corporations. Sole proprietorships are unable to compete in such a scenario, because the barriers to entry are actually *raised* by the existing corporations - minimum orders, availability and prohibitive cost of insurance, and other market pressures.

Soon this ends up with a few giant, vertically integrated conglomerates deciding what and how much to produce where, and how much they will sell it for. The fact that these corporations now also decide the prevailing wages for everyone (hint: as low as possible) they will soon produce things that can only be afforded by a few, unless bought on credit from the central company bank. The amount of choice and customization will go down (you can have any color of computer you like, as long as it's white) and this will be touted by the corporate propaganda mills as a fashion statement.

Sounds like communism with a veneer of market doublespeak to me. Manufacturing already takes place in low wage gulags, and if the wages rise it gets moved to somewhere that the wages are lower and the conditions are harsher. Supply side cheerleaders within our government want to do away with the minimum wage and make child labor legal again (to "stop discrimination against the young", but they want to pay them lower "trainee" wages.) Sounds like 1920s sweatshops bullshit to me. The pee party want to bring it all back in the name of libertarianism.

So we are in the middle of stupid tax-cutting on the rich, government job cutting on the middle class, and creating lots and lots more poor with cutting off unemployment benefits, reducing food aid, and cutting medical assistance. The last, I guess, they hope will solve the problem of the poor once and for all - they'll just die and not mess up their spreadsheet world any more.

They want a total buyer's market on labor, a seller's market on goods, and the profits all flowing to the vaunted, elite few who "worked hard for it" - read that as being born rich into the right family with the right schools and the right connections. The "self made man" is a myth

What's worse, is they want all this on the backs of the taxpayers of America - the people who built the schools that trained their idea people, the people who paid for the roads that they haul their supplies and finished goods along, the people who paid for the water system, the power grid, the police, the fire department that keeps their buildings safe, etc. They don't want to pay their share, as stockholders sucking profits out of the system, or as corporations that use the roads, the water, the air, the land, and the educated workforce without paying it forward.

You know what they call such things? Parasites.

I heard Michelle "Batshit" Bachmann bleating the other day about "Job Creators, blah, blah". Problem is, after a decade of tax cuts and more tax cuts, they have only *shed* jobs, not created them. Every time we cut taxes, employment seems to drop more. Jobs creators my ass - they are sending it all into the corporate officers' and major shareholders' pockets. The ratio of CEO to bottom employee pay has gone up, not down. That's what tax cuts give you: greed for MORE.

Tinkle down economics is a failed theory. We have 30 years of proof that human nature is for the rich to always want to be richer, and thus keep more and more of the money, not spend it on creating jobs or making purchases. When they say "A rising tide lifts all boats", you have to realize that you don't make the tide rise by giving the rich guy a bigger boat with more water storage. You have to taken the stored water off of the rich guys barge and put it back in the sea.

So, 'supply side economics' seems like 'centrally planned production', with the suppliers (corporate oligarchs) deciding what to make, where make it, how little to pay the workers, where to sell it, and who to sell it to. The consumers just become a passive proletariat, manipulated by advertising pitches targeted on their income+borrowing ability and psychological weaknesses, kept in hock and enslaved to the corporation by debts that not even death allows him to shed. Should the consumer fall from grace, and lose his job because someone else will do it cheaper, he will still be marketed, but also stigmatized, called "not ambitious enough", "lazy", druggie", "stupid", "too picky" until he takes his life and his children inherit his debts.

These are the glories of "pure" capitalism according to the GOP.

Fuck that shit.

Google+ Update

2011-07-30T03:29:00.000-07:00

I went ahead and got a Google+ account - under my pseudonym! I won't use my legal name there, period.

I have used this pseudonym for 30 years, and there are people IRL who do not know my real "legal" name. If Google+ wants to ban me, fine. I've been around since before they were, and I'll be around when they are gone.

I have more links on pseudonyms for your perusal, of course:
A Case for Pseudonyms
Preliminary results of my survey of suspended Google+ accounts
Posted at the request of someone even more tired than I am... :-)
Real-name social networking
Name Dropping

Google+ gets a minus

2011-07-09T17:54:00.000-07:00

They have fallen into the "Real Name" trap. So I won't be there (under my wallet name). I won't go and "be social" where my social identity (my nom de net, or pseudonym) is unwanted.

It's bad enough that I have a FarceBook account under my real name. I post nothing of importance there, I don't talk about work, home, or even any deep politics there. I don't post pictures, and although I link to various progressive political stuff, I don't tend to comment much.

Geek Feminism Blog has an excellent post entitled Anti-pseudonym bingo, complete with a graphical bingo card, that covers many of the arguments against pseudonymity that I have heard online and IRL since UseNet.

My LiveJournal has various rants that I've done over the years about SF&F cons demanding my Real Name™ and city of residence for display on my badge, plus other stuff on pseudonyms (tag: pseudonym). Stalker enabling, that's all it is. It's not just on the net.

The Real Name™ thing is all bound up in privilege - especially those who trot out the "what do you have to hide" trope, or "I want to know who I'm really talking to" baloney - they want to be able to discount you if you have a funny name, or a female name, or might be a POC, or whatever. Or they want to be able to "look you up" (read: "hunt you down and intimidate you") if they disagree with what you have to say. Thank, but no thanks, you can stuff your privilege where the sun doesn't shine.

So, Google+ is actually Google-, until they fix the pseudonym problem. We don't need another FarceBook for stalker convenience.

Other Links:
Living in the Metaverse: Pseudonymity (part one)
Living in the Metaverse: Pseudonymity (part two)
Female-Name Chat Users Get 25 Times More Malicious Messages
Forward: On refusing to tell you my name
An object lesson in pseudonymity and internet privacy

Dear Stupid Republican Teabaggers

2011-04-06T18:34:00.000-07:00

When will you get the point that Social Security and Medicare are not "entitlements"?? "Entitlements" implies that somehow they weren't paid for, that people just feel "entitled" to them, something for nothing.

You assholes. I've worked since I was 18, paying taxes into Medicare and the Social Security Trust Fund. The government, with the strength of it's buying and investing power, is supposed to invest and keep those monies for when I retire. Just because every time the GOP get their hands on the purse strings it wants to raid that piggy bank to buy another bunch of bombers and tanks doesn't mean I haven't paid in my share.

Now you chiseling asswipes want to wipe out all of that. You want me to have to go to the fucking market with a puny voucher after I'm 70 (you already have fucked over my retirement at 65) to "buy" health insurance. You fuckheads - I'm uninsurable in the private market at 49, what makes you think I could hope to buy insurance at 70? What sort of fantasy land do you live in? Medicare isn't insurance - it doesn't have to make a profit or deal with actuarial tables. The private market does. Most people over 60 can't buy private insurance for the combined amount of your penny-ante "voucher" plus their meager Social Security stipend (that they earned and paid for, damnit!)

Over-Privatization

What the hell is with this selling of America to the highest bidder? Have you no goddamn shame? Private industry is seldom the most efficient provider of social services - there is not enough profit in it without screwing the recipients over. Fire departments are a classic example, but you want to turn that over. The only way to do it is have the government pay, or require the taxpayer to pay, a monopoly provider. Yet you've seen what cable monopolies do in the various markets - drive up prices. You think the government privatization would be different? Oh, yeah, they'd cut costs all right - by cutting service, outsourcing our jobs overseas, and then coming back for more money.

You bastards would sell your own mothers, wives and children to a private company as debts slaves if it meant that they'd give you a campaign contribution. You are idiots, willing to barter away to corporate greed everything that this country has worked for over the last 100 years.

All FITB do X - NOT!

2010-08-14T13:50:00.000-07:00

So, I've been following the snark that occurred when a wannabe anthropologist at Slate wrote How Black People Use Twitter - The latest research on race and microblogging. It, and the jingoistic graphic that went with it, spawned the cute and snarky hashtag #browntwitterbird. @InnyVinny posted a fantastic mixup of graphics and pointed snark, and requests for variations started pouring in. Then other bit-whackers started contributing art.

What almost, but fortunately not completely, gets lost in the flush of adorable icons is this craptastic tendency of so-called journalists to make sweeping generalizations about ethnic and social groups. Saying things akin to "Black people link to each other and talk dirty late at (US) night" is like saying "White people go to John Birch meetings on Fridays and church on Sunday". In both cases, not the case. Sure, you didn't say "all", but it's implied that you're talking about the majority in your generalization. Unless you have the statistics, preferably a supermajority to back it up, don't go there.

The "researcher" in the Slate piece looked at a subgroup of young, urban, American, mostly black youth who were interlinked. They mostly used phone text apps to twitter from. Well, folks, I can explain the night thing right there - nights are cheaper on most phone plans - as in "unlimited night and weekends". That plus working during the day, and it's not a mystery, or even a social phenomenon. Younger people tend to be "connected" electronically in the US - there are plenty of articles out there bemoaning the fact that "too many" kids have expensive cell phones. He generalized this subgroup to be "Black People" - as in "most black people", by inference. Ummm, no.

Then this person comes up with the term "blacktags". I cringed. Tell me, are there corresponding whitetags, yellowtags and redtags? How about "turbantags"? Shall we get really jingoistic here? I guess I should be glad he didn't call them "n*****tags" - but that would take Dr. Laura, I suppose.

He points out that these late night tags chatty tags tend to trend. Well duh. Most of the chatty cathys of the daytime are gone for the night, asleep like responsible adults. The tweets are from an interconnected group that does a lot of retweeting and repeating their own tweets - like most youth, vying for attention among their peers, having fun. So they trend. BFD. I've been awake late nights, and followed some of what might have been subjects of his "research". Some of them I had to muffle my laughter in a pillow to avoid waking up my roomies, they were so funny, especially in context.

He quotes a few black guys as some sort of representatives, and they all basically blow holes in his thesis. I guess this is his throwing a sop to the other side of the conversation. But he never really goes back and corrects his original hypothesis.

If he'd said "Young Blacks", I might have had slightly less problem - because that was actually the demographic he was looking at. Still, the article had no point to be written - other than sensationalism, and pseudoanthropologic voyeurism.

See, social clusters happen in social media. Cliques are as old as society itself. They are just bigger online. Political wonks have theirs, SF&F fans have theirs, soap fans have theirs, sports addicts have theirs, etc. But jackasses don't post "How White People Use Twitter" and then claim that all of them follow hashtags like #lost, #idol, and #baseball. They restrict that stupidity to talking about black people. Not even asians or hispanics get the treatment.

Then there's one final thing: The only way you know, on the net, what race, culture/subculture, country, gender, gender identification, political affiliation, sexual preference, etc that a person has is if they tell you, or otherwise let slip. Even icons that are pictures can lie - what if they use their favorite celebrity? On Twitter, if you don't put a lot of detail in your bio, or give a separate website (like this one), no one knows that you're really a housecat named Speckles. Really.

Edit: An new hashtag in the mix #NotAllBlackPeople - a fun read, again kicking over and poking fun at stereotypes. Take that, Dr Laura "BigotBrain"!

The upshot? Watch your generalizations, they can bite you in the ass!

Hey Conservative Penny Pinchers!

2010-07-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

You are soooooo worried about the national debt that you have to deny the unemployed the very lifeline they need to keep their homes and food on the table, why don't you put your bankster bailout bonus money, stock market windfalls and oil company payoffs where your concern is: Make a voluntary contribution to reduce the public debt!!

After all, your favorite presidents have increased it on their watch, especially Bush II - with two intractable quagmire wars, one started purely for the sake of his ego. Clinton reduced the deficit, but Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II increased it, so you are to blame for it, you get to reduce it.

You claim to be the party of "personal responsibility"? Fine, take responsibility for what your votes and your political party has wrought: help pay it down. I didn't vote for Reagan, or either Bush, why should I have to suffer because of their ballooning of the deficit?

If you don't do this, don't come whining to me that I have to endure your fucking "tough love" and "take responsibility" for my "economic choices" (yeah, like I chose not to be born rich, and not to get lucky and marry a millionaire.) You take responsibility for your votes for warmongers and spendthrifts who believe in voodoo economics and disastrous deregulation.

IOTW, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

The Banksters OF AIG

2010-05-26T11:16:00.000-07:00

Warren, Head of TARP Oversight Panel, Criticizes Bailout of ‘Frankenstein’ AIG This is tame. (Warren's full prepared remarks) The truth is ugly, and AIG is just the most obvious and egregious case. They are all arrogant, obtuse, and ungovernable.

The whole outrage about the bailouts garbage is that it said to all Americans These Banks Are Exempt From The Rules Of The Free Market Governing Failure, You Have To Take The Losses Instead!. They got a "Get Out Of Bankruptcy Free" card, on our goddamn dime!!

The Teabaggers talk about "Socialism"?? Well, bank bailouts are nothing more than socializing losses. The profits, and bonuses, are still private, as their shopping habits attest - The Bonus Bounce and Hamptons again warmed by Wall Street's glow.

We, the taxpayers, paid for most of that, by bailing out megabanks and propping up the rigged shell game that is the stock market these days. Where's my cut, bankster?

The big banks must be allowed to fail and go though ordinary bankruptcy. The high flying brokers need to spend a few months eating rice, beans and ramen. Exempting these creeps from the rules that apply to us little folks (paying your debts, losing it all when your business goes bankrupt, etc) is bad for business, bad for the country, and a horrible precedent to set.

The people who engineering this garbage need to do jail time for fraud - they defrauded their customers and the US taxpayers. Let them wear prison stripes and "trade" bars of soap.

Private Property Versus Public Discrimination

2010-05-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

The Controversy

I watched the Rachel Maddow segment where Rand Paul stuck his foot in his mouth, up to his hip, about the Civil Rights Act (1964). He expressed "reservations" about one of the Titles of the Act - it turns out to be Title II - that prohibits discrimination by private businesses that were public accommodations. He also seems to have a problem with Title VII, that prohibits discrimination in private company hiring.

The Libertarian Argument

He argues that prohibiting discrimination by private businesses is, essentially, a government taking of property from the private sphere into the public sphere, negating the owner's property rights completely. Plus, he sees it as trampling on their free speech and free association rights as well, all by evil government fiat. It's a classic libertarian, Randian worldview - all rights are absolute, or they are worthless.

So back to Title II. In the Randian world, private property and private rights are god above all else. Any infringement on this is a state overreach, and evil. In Randian Libertarianism, all property is private, and this is a Good Thing™. Hence, the labeling of any business that serves the public a "public accommodation" (a commonly used label, by the way) that can not discriminate by law is a horrendous government theft of business and freedom.

I can almost see his logic - but only almost. You see, his logic only works if you see the world in a binary view - either/or - all rights are absolute or nonexistent.

But in the real world, everything is comprised of competing rights. Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins. Your right to walk wherever you want stops at my property line. Even the Ayn Rand libertarians have to acknowledge this, but will throw a lot of double talk about personal responsibility and government overreach at you to quickly change the subject.

The Reality Argument

In the real United States of America, there are competing rights to everything, and specific private rights, particularly property rights, or even a person's freedom itself, can be abridged if there is a "compelling public interest" - in other words, if the good of the many outweighs the rights of the few - and there is due process in the taking or abridgment.

It is used all the time in criminal cases - people who are convicted of a crime are locked up (denied their freedom) for a compelling public interest (punishment and prevention of further crime.) It is used when they need to build a new freeway - eminent domain is often used by municipalities to put in new roads. (Now, eminent domain is often abused for corporate gain, but that's another rant.)

Research more about "compelling interest test" for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right, and the the Fifth Amendment and takings for the long standing back and forth over just property takings. Google is your friend.

In Title II these were used, with full deliberation and vote of Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964. It has been challenged in court. The right of people not to be discriminated against in public accommodations outweighed the private property rights to discriminate of the owners of such accommodations.

Why are they "public accommodations"? They are designated public accommodations because they are designed, as part of their business model, to attract and provide goods and/or service to members of the public - food, lodging, entertainment, supplies, equipment, etc. They don't require the proprietor to know you by name before you do business with them. You don't have to give your name to buy lunch at a lunch counter or go see a movie - you are just a member of "the public", hence it's public accommodation.

Was there another way? Not that I can think of.

What about private clubs, private houses? One thing to note is that Title II does not require landlords/hoteliers to rent rooms to people if they live in the small dwelling - you can discriminate against people if you actually live in the house you are letting out motel rooms in like a bed and breakfast. It also specifically excludes private clubs, which is why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against Atheists.

A Civilized Society Is Not Binary

That's how it works in the real world, people. A civilized society does not see rights as all or nothing - often one set of rights competes with another. How we balance the various competing interests to provide the maximum liberty and justice for all is where we make this country great.

Banksters

2010-04-28T02:07:00.000-07:00

There is, supposedly, one area where the left and the Tea Party agree: The Government should not have bailed out the banks with taxpayer money.

Why, then, is the Tea Party avoiding the bank protests? Why is their lap dog media not covering it?

Could it be that they are really just astroturf saps in the employ of the corporatocracy? You know, working for the very jerks who run those same banks that are sucking our money from us in fees, usurious interest rates and taxpayer funded bailouts? Could they be that stupid?

Yes, Tea Party, lets reclaim our country - from the banksters who have driven us all to the brink of ruin, and in many cases beyond. Where are your armed protests of the subprime mortgage and CDO frauds?

Sedition and Tea Party America

2010-04-18T18:17:00.000-07:00

Lets Talk About Sedition

Main Entry: se·di·tion
Pronunciation: \si-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sedicioun, from Anglo-French sediciun, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from sed-, se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go — more at secede, issue
Date: 14th century
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 18, 2010
See also the Wikipedia Entry on Sedition

Sedition differs from treason in one critical way - treason involves a betrayal of the country or government to a foreign power, whereas sedition is insurrection against the lawfully constituted government of your own country. A spy or a foreign sponsored terrorist commits treason, a domestic terrorist advocating overthrow of the government commits sedition.

Now, I will be honest, the original founding fathers of our country committed, knowingly, sedition and treason (by forming their own government, it became treason) against the British Crown. Pledging their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" was quite literal - the acts they committed had the death sentence attached if they failed, and included the "civil asset forfeiture" (nice of the republicans to bring that back, huh) of everything they and their families owned.

Now, these "Tea Party" people are bleating about "taxation without representation". I call bullshit. They have the right to vote - unless they've been convicted of a felony. With the amount of guns they cart around, they better not be felons.

People who can vote for their representatives - state and federal elected officials, from school board to President - are NOT "taxed without representation"!! They may not agree with the decisions of those representatives, but that's why we have periodic elections - so that if people are really annoyed, they can vote them out.

So the "Tea Party" is made up, at best, of deluded idiots, or liars. They have representation - they can vote. Their representatives over the years, most of them Republicans, have dug us the hole that we are in now. So what do these idiots do? They talk sedition against the duly elected Democrat government. They lost an election, after their representatives spend us into the poorhouse and deregulate us back into the gilded age of the robber barons, and now they cry that they have "no representation", so they should eliminate liberals. "If Brown can't, a Browning can"?? Honey, that's sedition.

Bush was, and IMO still is, a candidate for arrest and trial as an international war criminal. Furthermore, I believe that he violated the US Constitution by arrogating to himself the power to make war, and lied to Congress about the reason he should be given any ability to deploy troops to Iraq. But that is a far, far cry from advocating the shooting of all conservatives, like the tea partiers advocate shooting liberals. Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld should be held accountable in court, according to our laws, not the drumhead of a revolution.

To start bleating about "states rights" after the duly elected Congress passes a law, and proposing "militias" to oppose "federal overreaching" - that is bordering on sedition, people. To start suggesting that various members of Congress be murdered for doing their jobs? Sedition.

The proper way to remove a sitting member of Congress from office is by impeachment, recall or replacement in regular election. Same with the President. If (King) George W Bush didn't get his lying ass impeached, Obama sure as hell won't, because he hasn't lied to Congress and the American people.

I really don't care if you don't like Obama. Elections have consequences, and Obama WON, honestly, in spite of Republican dirty tricks like rigged voting machines and biased voter purges. Dubya? Appointed by the Supreme Court (packed by his father) to his first term, rigged voting machines and voter purges for his second term. A fraud. But we on the left put up with it, for the sake of our country. The least you fake patriots on the right could do is the same, for a properly elected President. Or does patriotism only apply when it's your guy who's in charge?

Tea Party America

The Tea Party itself is an astroturf organization. The money comes from extreme right wing corporate moguls such as the Koch family, and corporate funded right wing front groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.

Tea Party America is not one that is friendly to the ordinary worker, really. Sure, taxes will go down - for corporations. Government will get smaller - fewer cops, firemen, libraries, etc. Schools will all be private, so will all health care (even the ER), even the roads will all be toll roads. It will be a veritable libertarian paradise, with huge international corporations, not the hamstrung government, writing the rules. You would not like it. It will not help Main Street America.

Sure, you'll have free speech, but there will be no "public square", "public airwaves", or "public internet" to say them in. Saying them on private corporate property will get you arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace, plus sued for whatever their lawyers and their deep pockets can think of.

Oh, and your rented apartment, that you think of as your "home"? It will actually just be more "private corporate property" - not yours to speak freely in. You won't be able to actually buy and keep your own home - the recent perversion of eminent domain and the Citizen's United decision will insure that it can be seized for "redevelopment" as condos (paying you a fraction of what it's really worth) and then rented back to you for twice the price.

You'll technically have a "free press", but you won't be able to buy the equipment and supplies to publish anything, much less manage to distribute it through the completely privatized postal service. Since they will be private, their terms of service will allow them to open and read anything, and not carry it if it is "hostile" to them or any "affiliated company".

Most police work will be subcontracted out to paramilitary organizations and security firms like Blackwater or Brinks. Prisons will be completely privatized, instead of only partially like they are now. Court fees will skyrocket, meaning that even trying to have your day in court against a megacorp will be more expensive. There will, of course, be no citizens accountability groups.

Municipal elections will be a joke. The mail and the airwaves will be flooded with propaganda as the largest corporations pimp their candidates. If you work for a major corporation, you will get election propaganda at work, too.

The only "freedom" you will have is a pick of which corporate backed megachurch you attend. Not going to church will be allowed, but it will hamper your ability to get and keep a job, rent a place to live, or get credit. References, you know.

Failure to follow the laws regarding personal conduct and "responsibility" will get you thrown in jail, of course. The only people who will be able to pick up the pieces and restore any semblance of normality after your mandatory maximum sentence will be the megachurches if they feel you have had as genuine conversion experience. Then they will parade you around as an object lesson for a few years. You will have no assets by then anyway, and neither will any of your relatives by then. This circus of fall and redemption makes for excellent drama, of course.

Still, you will pay "government" taxes - they will soak the lower class for the funds to pay for the wars - probably more than you do now. Corporations don't pay for those things. You just won't see any benefit in municipal services, safety net or anything - it will all go into corporate pockets. So they'll still keep the "base" stirred up, while they have their hands in our pockets and around our throats.

Retirement will be a joke - they will privatize all social security, medicare, and private pensions, and then tie them to the stock market. Then they will let the corporations raid them, until the funds are gone. Even 401ks will be shell games, worthless, or taxed into worthlessness. You will have to work until you die.

Fortunately, because of the deregulation of all aspect of business to get rid of the evil interference of government in the "free market" (free from government, not free from monopoly), all environmental, safety and health regulations will be eliminated from both the workplace and the marketplace, so both your employer and foreign companies will be free to poison you and your family with tainted supplies, food, water and air. You won't have to work too long.

Tea Party America is not a place I want to live. Think of the worst combination of a cyberpunk dystopia, 1984, and something out of A Handmaid's Tale. Think of the worst MicroSoft and RIAA EULA that you've ever heard of, and the worst enforcement they've done on it. That's what the corporate backers of the Tea Party want for America, and have the Dominionist nutjobs like Palin to shill for.

This is what these people want to throw out our elected government in favor of.

Spend American Money In America

2010-03-29T22:08:00.000-07:00

Our government, no matter what you think of it, has a fundamental charter to expend funds for the public interest - if for no more than "providing for the common defense". Yes, these are taxpayer funds, money from you and I. These funds, coming from the American people, should be spent among the American people, for the good of the American people.

Recently, though, I believe the companies that it has allowed to suckle at the government teat have not been truly American companies - they have had headquarters in various offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands or the Dominican Republic. Even the ones that are US headquartered have been outsourcing the actual work paid for by US tax dollars to India and China. I bet China doesn't allow it's government funds to be spent on American labor, they insist that a Chinese national be hired to do the work!

When I propose that taxpayer funds be restricted to US companies, I get this crap about WTO "sanctions", and how they will "punish" us by taxing or restricting our exports. What exports? You mean the ones that are already banned or taxed, without a whisper of protest by the vaunted WTO in Europe and elsewhere? Or the ones that no one buys because of the cheap Chinese crap that has flooded the market?

The US taxpayer has a reasonable expectation that their money will be spent within this country, not shipped to some opportunistic foreign job shop to pocket and provide tainted goods and/or shoddy service.

State governments are especially horrible at this. I keep hearing about outsourced, to India, unemployment call centers. Great way to indicate that you want your people to get back to work - hire people overseas to "help" them with their unemployment.

I don't mind paying my taxes as part of this great nation, provided those monies are well spent. But prosecuting illegal wars (ala George Bush), bailing out banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies (Bush, Obama), spying on the American people (Bush), wasting money on sewcurity theatre (Bush, GOP) or buying shit from foreign companies that should be bought here is a waste of my money.

Call me isolationist if you like, but we have no responsibility to pay the rest of the world, too. They sure won't pay us. I pay taxes to help my fellow citizens, to advance the nation as a whole, not to make a bunch of offshore tax haven corporate fat-cats richer.

On the subject of taxes, I firmly believe that the capital gains tax rates and the income tax rates should be the same! Why should money you get from letting stock site there (letting your bet ride) be taxed at a lower rate than money you went out and earned? Mind you, I sold stock last year and this year, so this is not just an abstract thing for me.

Also, a single person making over $250,000 is rich, not "middle class". $100,000 is middle class (barely middle class in the SF Bay Area.) How do I know? In tax year 2008 I almost cleared $100,000, and that was basically middle class in the SF Bay Area. 2009 will be maybe half that, and 2010 could be worse.

Single people making over $250,000 need to have their tax rate go up a lot. Back to the Reagan era tax rates would be a good start.

Also, while we should do away with the individual AMT below a certain income threshold (indexed for inflation), we must have a corporate AMT.

Yes, the tax increases will hurt. But, as the teabaggers and GOP whiners have pointed out, we have this biiig, baaad, deficit to pay down. The fact that they didn't do a single damn thing about it when Bush spent the money on his damn wars, useless tax cuts, and unfunded Medicare drug giveaway just seem to pass their notice - it's easier to blame Democrats.

If the Democrats are going to be tagged "tax and spend", they might as well get down to the taxing part so they can do some good for the economy with the spend part. The truth of the matter is that the GOP is "borrow and spend" and the Democrats are "tax and repay".

Christianity, Social Justice and Politics

2010-03-22T13:16:00.000-07:00

'Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' - Matthew 22:21

Most reasonable people pay their taxes, regardless of their religion. It's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. We pay for the socialized benefits of roads, airports, police, fire departments, schools (including our own education as children), courts, military, and even those "socialist" things like social security/disability, medicare, medicaid, environmental protection, national parks, and food safety inspection. Our society has a lot of infrastructure and services, plus regulations, that make this nation both productive, safe and desirable to live in.

This is appropriate, because we all must live in this world, no matter what our religious views of it are. Christians for one are supposed to not consider themselves of this world, but part of Jesus' kingdom. But they still live here, and spend government (Caesar's) cash, drive on government roads, are subject to government laws. Unless you want to withdraw to some entirely off-grid compound in the boonies and try to be a total anti-tax protester, you get the benefit of government infrastructure, therefore you should pay your share.

But the right wing, especially the ones that pander to the theocrats, want to do away with that. They want to do away with all taxes except those that get fed to the military/industrial complex, the prison guards unions, or the police officers unions - and even the police are on the chopping block! They want corporations to pay nothing, small businesses to pay some, the middle class to pay more, and the poor to pay most (but get the least). They truly believe in "trickle up".

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.' Then shall they also answer, saying, 'Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?' Then shall he answer them, saying, 'Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.' - Matthew 25:41-45

Feed the hungry, shelter the stranger, clothe the naked, tend the sick, help the imprisoned: this is social justice. Yes, social justice is more, but Jesus says more, too.

Now the blowhard of the right, Rush Limbaugh*, says to run away from any church that talks of "social justice". Asshole. Jesus was all about social justice. Overturning the moneychangers tables in the temple was pure social justice. In our society, working for social justice is the way people of conscience see to it that what is right is done without cramming their religion down other people's throats.

The way in which Christians in our society go about the great work is by working for social justice, equality for all. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, the women's suffrage movement, the labor movement - they were all backed by the churches that followed Jesus' teachings. (Before you neocon's look down your nose at unions and the labor movement, remember that they brought us workplace safety, sick pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, child labor laws, workman's compensation and the 40 hour work week. You own lives and your parents lives would suck if those had not existed.)

All of these thing share the principles of justice and equality that Jesus demonstrated and preached. He didn't preach "Attack your neighbors", he said love them, feed them, care for them. When the church started to stray from this basic vision back in the 70s is when I lost faith, when I saw that the whole thing was a fly-trap for hypocrites who loved the old-testament laws and Pauline misogyny more than the words of Jesus himself.

And he answered and said unto them, 'Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.' - Matthew 15:3-6

Many people could not, or did not, take care of their elders, both in biblical times and now. Many were more than poor, but destitute and starving, plus dying from lack of medical care. In the passage above, people would sequester their funds saying they were "a gift to God" - dedicated or tied up in trust and thus unavailable to help their parents. Kind of like spending your kid's college fund on a yacht.

Social Security and Medicare, the things that have significantly reduced the absolute impoverishment and mortality of the elderly in this country since their introduction, are classic examples of social justice, and direct Christian principles being put into a workable secular format. In part, they let people contribute toward their own future retirement. (Yes, I know Congress has mismanaged it - but we've had a mostly conservative Congress for most of the last 20 years!) This is how the principle "Honor thy father and mother" from Jesus' viewpoint can be put into action in a secular, worldly, non-religious manner (in the world, but not of it.)

'And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me: But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.' - Matthew 18:5-6

"For the children" - Perhaps one of the most misused rallying cries in the world today. Still, some very important social justice has been done for the children - TANF, welfare, public education, all of that. How does it relate to the above bible quote? Simple: If children do not have food, shelter, clothing, medical care or legal protection, they are often forced into prostitution, theft, drugs, gang activity, and other activity that by any reasonable definition is a sinful "stumble". Yet so many conservatives are very quick to throw children and youth social programs under the bus (after all, they can't vote) and criminalize (enhance the penalties on) the consequences of their neglect.

Don't go all righteous and "pro-life", and then be anti-welfare, anti pre-natal care, anti public schooling, either. If you want to insist that a woman's uterus is yours to command, then you need to help to care for the child that you have insisted that she bear. Also, if you are anti-contraception, you are just a hypocrite - since a child who isn't conceived can't be risk being aborted or end up "in the system."

And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, 'The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.' - Luke 17:20-21

The theocratic wing of the Republican party wants to turn the government (Caesar) into an arm of their interpretation of the kingdom of God. They want to rule this country according to "biblical" principals, to pass laws that make their religious views the law of the land. They already do so in the abortion and gay rights area and it has taken generations to undo the damage, and they keep coming back, like cockroaches.

But the theocrats don't want to pay much taxes. They don't want their corporate friends to pay any taxes. They don't want any safety net - they want to have us all enslaved to the corporations, soothed only by the promise of heaven that comes in brief doses on Sunday. They want "God's laws" imposed. They want to stone gays, force birth on pregnant women, stone adulterers, and burn "unrepentant" non-Christians. They don't want their "Godly" government to follow Jesus and tend the sick, feed the hungry, clothe those needing clothing, minister to those in prison (helping them to prepare for release). They want life to be nasty, brutal, and short, lived only for breeding more soldiers for Christ and singing hymns to ~~the Brood~~Jesus and God.

This is wrong. They want all the power, all the authority, all the right to punish and force people to do as they say, but they already don't want to pay for the small things that their own Messiah commanded them to do that our existing government accomplishes better than any individual or even megachurch could!

And behold, one came to him and said, 'Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' And he said unto him, 'Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.' He saith unto him, 'Which?' And Jesus said, 'Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' - Matthew 19:16-19

The theocrats want an Old Testament government. The laws they want are all derived from the piddling strictures of ancient Israel, and it's tribal quarrels. Sort of like a Christian Sharia. Like the Pharisees of Matthew 15, their so-called traditions and cherry-picked old testament bible quotes are more important to them than actually following the words of Jesus.

Jesus himself mandated just 6 commandments: 'Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' The Republican party has had more adultery scandals in the past 10 years than the Democrats. Their media voice, Fox News, lies regularly, and has even gone to court to prove that it is not illegal to lie about the news! Wall street has both lied to us and stolen from us. The theocrats want to kill by stoning people who don't obey the Old Testament Sharia laws.

'Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.' - Matthew 7:15-20

The theocrats and neo-con religious right are no true followers of Jesus. What they are trying to do is not just wrong in the secular world, it goes directly against the teachings of Jesus himself. The threat to our society is not paganism, or humanism, or atheism, but arrogance and presumption of moral authority on the part of the Religious Right where none exists, even within their own religion!

Jesus raised no army. There is nothing is the gospels about soldiers except in reference to Roman soldiers. Even the sword was only used as a metaphor for strife. (Paul may have incorporated military metaphors, but I hold that Paul has no authority, having been an agent provocateur.) So why are these lunatics raising an "Army of God"? Why are there "Soldiers of/for Christ"? Why is "Joel's Army" supposedly "God's Army"? If your God is as powerful as you say, he doesn't need any damn army!!

The theocrats, dominionists, neoconservatives, and charlatans who deride social justice and promote a gospel of anger or secular power are real wolves in sheep's clothing, and sometimes even shepherd's clothing. They want to twist the words of their own messiah, the words of a great teacher and mystic, to their own selfish and egotistical ends. It is they you need to run away from, whose channel you need to change, who you need to report to your church leadership as being un-Christian.

'Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.' - Matthew 7:4-5

Face it, people, you have a lot to clean up in your own religion before you can start thinking about cramming it down some non-believer's throat. Start by working within the secular system on what your own Messiah told you were priorities: the hungry, the poor, the sick, the homeless, the imprisoned, the old, the children. Start by seeking social justice, equality, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

* Correction: It has been pointed out that it was Glenn Beck, not Rush Limbaugh, that exhorted people to run away from churches advocating for social justice. Mea culpa. I just can't tell one right wing blowhard from another some days.

Triviata

2010-01-18T13:50:00.000-08:00

I want to scream about food, contaminants (additives) and health. I am still seething about the changes they have made to tuna packaging. The tuna "in water" isn't anymore - it's packaged in "water" and "vegetable both" (which contains soy)! I don't know about your reading, but I read water plus "broth" as just "broth", albeit more diluted.

So the food manufacturers adulterate and lie, once again. They also sneakily reduced the can size to 5 ounces, instead of 6. Of course the price didn't go down. They think that no one will notice, or care that they get less tuna adulterated with the 7th most common food allergen - soy - if they don't change the big print on the labels.

They should have to call it Tuna in Soy Broth

If you want tuna without soy, you have to carefully read the labels, and pay much more. Fuck, if you want anything without nasty soy, you have to pay more.

Now some magazine has named fucking Mosnato company of the year? What are they smoking? They want to patent the entire damn food supply, so that they get a cut of every calorie consumed, no life without paying Monsanto. Problem is, their shit is toxic, and is causing a rise in previously rare diseases.

Corporate rule is a fucking scary thing, and unless we start actively fighting it now, we will be slaves to immortal, amoral sociopaths seeking only profit, to be amortized, used and then discarded when we cost more than we can generate in revenue for the corporation. If you don't understand the horror of this, look at the history of Haiti under the French slaveholders.

The Lwa of Vodou and The Devil™

2010-01-18T12:59:00.000-08:00

Let me make one thing very, very clear for all you hate filled cretins out there: The Lwa of Vodou are not "The Devil™" of Christianity and Islam. Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.

Oh, yes, any deity, demigod, helping spirit, angel, etc. that you don't recognize is "The Devil™" in your book, but the fact that you say it just doesn't make it so. I get so damn sick of your narrow little binary thinking that I want to puke. Hell, some of you shitheads see even the Catholic saints as "Demons™". I say you are all so full of shit your eyes are brown.

It is a matter of argument whether the lwa are gods, demigods, helpful spirits, "angels", or what. I will leave that to the Vodou practitioners to declare. But from what I've seen, Vodou is pretty damn Catholic, to the point of making me not want to practice it.

So a bunch of revolutionaries praying to God and the lwa before fighting for their freedom from brutal slavemasters is not a "Pact with The Devil™", I don't care how you try to spin it.

The reason Haiti is so poor? The fucking French made them pay REPARATIONS for having dared to win their freedom from brutal slaveowners. They won, and the fucking French extorted reparations for over a century. Between that and US shenanigans because southern bigots were afraid of a free black nation near our borders (afraid that our own black slaves and/or lower class might get ideas), they've been robbed blind.

The only "devil" involved in Haiti's poverty has been white.

Haiti and Hate

2010-01-15T16:01:00.000-08:00

I am saddened by the tragedy in Haiti. I saw some of the first pictures, of people just lying there, smashed, of the presidential palace pancaked. We had some mild, but very noticeable shakers in the previous week here in Northern California, so it really feels like we've dodged a bullet.

They say earthquakes don't have "seasons". Well, with the amount of headline making shaking that has been happening just in the last few months, I might well argue that.

There is one thing that never seems to go out of season, though, and that is right wing hate.

It starts with the crap from Rush Limbaugh, the renowned OxyContin addicted Republican policy godfather and radio host, who had the gall to criticize the President for reacting quickly to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti, with hundreds of thousands dead, but not jumping up and down yelling "Panic" over a foiled attempt by a guy to blow up his underwear on a plane. Oh, where's our priorities? He intimated that the President doesn't care about the country because he didn't panic and fret about a guy who tried to light his dick on fire, and failed, but gets serious about the dead and dying! Oh, wait, those guys are black and foreign, I guess he should ignore them?

Then it piles horrendously deeper with the sheer excrement from evangelical bigot Pat Robertson spreading the hackneyed myth that the people of Haiti have a 'pact with the devil' for their freedom from the french many years ago (I guess because in right wing mythos, black people can't win anything on their own merit and strength.) He goes on to explain that the earthquake is his "loving" God's "punishment" for that deal with the devil.

Wow, that's such an inspiration to come and worship his god, huh? Worship him, or he's gonna wipe your country off the map anytime in the next several centuries. I just adore worshiping a deity that has a cosmic gun to the head of me, my countrymen, and our descendants!! What's a few hundred thousand casualties when you're talking about saving souls, huh?

Sounds like the very definition of evil to me. Pat Robertson pushes a death cult, and a god of torture, murder, and brutality, who wants not freedom and fee will, but slaves and masochists for worshipers. Sheep indeed - for shearing, and your children for lambchops.

Finally, of course, phoney weeper Glenn Beck gets into the act. He adds his simpering voice to Limbaugh, crying crocodile tears over, not the people dying, oh no, but the fact that our President dared to respond quickly to a disaster in a poor black nation!! Oh, the horror!!! He hates whites, he hates the country, waaah, waaah, gimme the vicks so I can cry some too. What a piece of work.

This, people, is what the once proud conservative tradition in our country has become. Fat, drug addled, fake tears, blowhards without any compassion or humanity, who care only for their own money and power. These filthy leeches on the body politic have taken the party of Lincoln and made it kiss the ring of the godfather of pork, OxyContin abuse and bellowing, bow at the feet of a weepy whiney scared cat little boy, and worship a twisted god at the behest of a heartless bigot preacher.

Even if you, like me, have no money, give at least a prayer or well wish to the universe for those suffering in Haiti.

We, as a nation, are better than those who use the power of their money, privilege and media platform to spew hatred and division when people are suffering and dying. We, as a nation, must repudiate these freaks of the right wing, deny them their power over us and our way of life.

It is not the right that must take back the country. It is the heart.

New Year Blither

2010-01-12T10:39:00.000-08:00

It has come to my mind that I need to write more. You see, all the "A List" bloggers are prolific bastards that spew forth profound BS whether they have anything to say or not. I tend not to write unless I have some thing to say. Well, in truth, I always have something to say, I just don't think it's worth writing about. I just need to start writing it down anyway.

I write in several locations. There is here, which is my public blog. There is my Live Journal, which mostly mirrors my DreamWidth Journal - there I occasionally have public posts. I also, heaven help me, have become addicted to Twitter, and where I am http://twitter.com/Ravan_A.

What fascinates me is that I like Twitter. I didn't think I would, because a lot of the early adopters I saw were twitting about dumb shit, and didn't know how to pack their words. Turns out that many actually do - those who were journalism trained. See, I learned in junior high and high school journalism how to write good headlines and leads. 140 characters is a good lead sentence. Add a shortened link and you're done. I don't tend to write lengthy "prose" anyway, which counts against me in some places.

I have always wanted to be a journalist, but didn't like the industry. Not when I looked into studying it, and the "dues" they wanted you to pay, and not when I looked at the career opportunities even if I got a degree in it. When I learned about it in high school, it was all about packing the most information into the least space. I did manual newspaper layout and paste-up, newsletter publishing, and have since done some (not fancy software) desktop publishing. This includes writing and copy editing.

Because of this, blogging came naturally. I was my own editor, I was not as constrained to objectivity as a straight reporter would be, but I could at least write better than some of the sheer excrement that I have read out there. Some of the so-called A-List blogs that I've perused just weren't worth following - ego spew and link spam, at best.

I do have standards, however. I try, fairly hard, to have neutral and objective sources for factual data. Don't quote Fox News or AFA sources back at me and expect me to take you seriously. I try for things like the AMA, CDC, universities, and other organizations without obvious or overwhelming political agendas. Certain polls are known to be biased, by the way they compose their questions. I just point and laugh. Then again, reality tends to have a "liberal" bias - facts don't change just because your god says it's evil.

I have, I will freely admit, a progressive bias. I like real progress, I think it's good for people. My definition may be a little different than some might think. I do not thing GMO crops are "progress", for example.

I also tend to be anti-corporate - corporations are fine as long as they don't have the rights accorded to people. You start treating corporations like real people, and you unleash soulless immortal sociopaths on the population - you can't kill, or even really punish, a corporation, they have no ability to have a conscience, and they have the ability to assemble unlimited power without any accountability to the public (and little to the stockholders).

I used to submit stuff to WitchVox, but they changed their submission guidelines to require 1000 - 3500 words. "Essays under 1000 words will not be considered for publication—we are looking for more than off-the-cuff commentary." My reaction? Well La Di Fucking Dah! WitchVox won't be getting my stuff any more - I usually write short and sweet, not long and turgid. I won't pad to meet length. Yes, this is really a problem for me - half of my entries in this blog are well under 1000 words, but are not "off-the-cuff" commentary! Even some of my longer ones are only 965 words. Assholes!

So this entry has covered, several subjects: why I write, locations online where I write, what my background in writing is, what my bias and standards are, where else I've submitted and published but don't any more. At under 800 words. See the problem?

Taxpayer Funding of Murder

2009-08-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

I bet you think this is about abortion. In a way, it is, but not the way you think.

You see, my tax money routinely funds things I consider to be murder, or otherwise immoral:

Unprovoked wars - murder of civilians by US government sanction
Capital punishment - judicial murder of people who may actually be innocent
Torture and "extraordinary rendition" - murder, and worse, by US government
Blackwater mercenaries - paid killers, murder for hire
In vitro fertilization - unnatural fertility for those who can't accept fate
Viagra - unnatural hardons for those who can't accept aging

If the control freaks who have decided that their pissant God gives them control over women's bodies can whine about "taxpayer funding of abortions", then I DEMAND that my tax monies no longer be used to fund things that I find to be criminal.

After all, fair is fair - if the "pro-lifers" can deny taxpayer funding of what they consider "murder", I can demand that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund what is more arguably actual murder, or otherwise unnatural and immoral.

Tell your congressperson about this.

Debate on Healthcare? Not really.

2009-08-26T23:38:00.000-07:00

I am just repulsed by what is being pulled on the health care debate by the right wing, the blue dogs, and the health insurance lobby. There is so much spin, so many lies and pure bullshit propaganda, including red baiting and dog whistling, that I, and many other rational people, are just flabbergasted and getting very, very angry.

How do you reason with people who believe that paying for end of life planning is the same as euthanasia? Who believe that "living wills" are all about "pulling the plug on Grandma"?

How do you reason with people who don't even know that fascism is an inherently right wing, corporatist, anti-union ideology? Who engage in thuggish tactics and violence, but whine that they are being falsely labeled terrorists?

How do you reason with people who believe that the president in not a natural born citizen, in spite of a legal Hawaiian birth certificate and two newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii? I don't even have that level of proof - I just have the same type of birth certificate (not a hospital certificate), and no newspaper articles!

How do you reason with people who think that socialism is the same as communism, and that any government involvement in anything but the military is socialism? But yet they'd never give up their roads, fire departments, police departments, municipal sewers, water delivery or courts in which to sue people (or get sued by corporations, more likely.)

How do you reason with people who say they oppose "big government", but are all for the massive "homeland security" bureaucracy? They don't bat an eyelash at corporate welfare to banks and defense contractors from the public coffers, but heaven forfend that taxpayer money should be used to keep taxpayers alive, healthy and able to pursue happiness!

How do you reason with people who think that it's fantastic that a previous president authorized wiretaps and email snooping on all Americans, but scream bloody murder at the mistaken idea that the government is collecting email addresses of people who disagree with legislation under consideration?

How do you reason with people on Medicare, something that the Reaganites vehemently opposed, who now rabidly oppose health care reform for the benefit of the rest of us?

How do you get these people to understand that they are being gouged for prescriptions because their party won't let the government negotiate (a good free-market principal) on prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients? These people don't want the *government* to touch their *government* health care to save them money?

How do you get through to folks who, when you tell them that millions of people are uninsured, and uninsurable, reply that most of those people are illegals, drug addicts, or irresponsible? Especially when the "source" they cite are right wing lie sheets and insurance company propaganda? When the people you personally know that are in that situation worked hard, then took care of their ailing family members, and are now to sick to work, but not able to get disability because they played caregiver for family for too long?

How do you reason with people who whine that you're engaging in "class warfare" when you want to tax the rich more, but yet have themselves been making war on the middle and lower classes for the last thirty years by:
1. increasing the tax burden on the middle class while giving breaks to the rich,
2. eliminating funding for programs for affordable housing that keep people off the streets and able to get jobs,
3. eliminating funding for vocational education
4. union busting and exporting manufacturing jobs, thus keeping the working class desperate and sinking farther into poverty
5. fighting tooth and nail against making the minimum wage once again a livable wage
6. making more minor drug offenses into major crimes with mandatory sentences so that more and more people are imprisoned or can't get work because they're a "drug felon".
7. restricting access to birth control, prenatal care and abortion for the poor by eliminating funding for family planning, harassing clinics, and shooting ob/gyn's who do abortions, so only those who can afford to travel can afford to rule their own bodies?

How do you get through to people who, when you tell them that 79% of bankruptcies are due to health care, and that over half of those started with insurance and got "rescinded" or lost it because they couldn't work, say that those people were irresponsible and should "get a job with insurance"?

How do you get the point across to people who, when you tell them that a lot of big companies like WalMart don't offer their part time employees insurance, just say "they should be willing to work full time jobs", despite the fact that WalMart deliberately won't bring their hours to full time so they can avoid paying benefits?

How do you keep from screaming at people who act like their (or their spouse's) employer health insurance is great, they'll have it forever, and all anyone needs to do is get a job like theirs? Never mind that that insurance can get changed, they can get laid off, or in an accident that means they can't work, or sick with something nasty and get dropped/rescinded or denied - they have theirs (for now), so the rest of the nation can just suck it up and deal, better luck next time??

I'm sorry, but if these people are going to be that damned stupid, we even more desperately need to pass health reform with a single payer system, and make sure that it includes psychiatric, because a lot of these people are delusional! They are deathly afraid of a "nanny state", but then they turn around and act like irrational children playing with fire and gasoline!

Over 70% of the country wants national health care, and most of them prefer a single payer, no nonsense system. But the lunatic fringe gets all the press, and the health insurance and big pharma shills score the lobbying points. What we'll end up with is a crappy "mandate" by law to buy a toxic, overpriced, non-competitive and unfriendly insurance from the very companies that have brought us to this crisis!!

Seriously, President Obama and the Democratic Party, stop trying to be adult and "fair" - the right will not play along with bipartisan anything, except maybe bipartisan feeding at the lobbyists trough. We won. It's our damn turn to steer the ship of state.

In the 8 years of the Bush regime (and the "Contract OnWith America' before that), they never had any interest in allowing any compromise or inclusion of the Democrats ideas - it was "my way or the highway'. They have spent the last 30 years tearing this country apart, often suborning centrist Democrats (Reagan Democrats = Republican light) into "compromises" that were really sell-outs.

I strongly suggest that "bipartisanship" come to mean "we listen, nod that we've heard, and then do things our way anyway". Seriously, I voted for Obama because I wanted my country back, I wanted the rule of reason and the people to kick corporate interests and religious hypocrisy out of the drivers seat. I am sick of the Republicans, their lies, their demagoguery, their imperialism, their jingoism, their bigotry, their racism, their hypocrisy, their baseless moralizing, their willingness to enslave us to corporate interests. I remember how their cronyism deregulated and fucked over California's energy market, and how the Republicans just tried to say the 'solution' was more deregulation! Yeah, it would solve their desire to get richer?

I will gladly pay more tax to be assured that the piratical leeches of the health insurance industry never again risk scuttling our nation, never again drive hardworking people into bankruptcy, poverty and death from denials, lifetime maximums, and rescisions.

I will rather pay my taxes to cover the indigent, the unemployed, the working poor, and even lazy bums rather than have them go to fund unnecessary wars and sweetheart deals with Lockheed, Halliburton, and Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves now).

I am angry, and apparently we have more ground work to do to reclaim our once caring, fair and proud nation from the cesspit of banana republic corporatism and thuggish, uncaring religious fanaticism. I waited, fuming, until we got smart enough to vote the jackals Bush and Cheney, and their party, out of the White House. I waited, hoping that the previously spineless Democrats in Congress would grow a pair and push back against the corporate blackmail and Republican lie machine.

We have the majority, but the limp-dick slaves of the corporatocracy are still selling us down the river.

I ask you, if your congressman/woman does not back health care reform with at least the compromise of a strong public option (and preferably single payer), that you vote them out in the next primary. Don't put so-called conservatives/Republicans in, but don't support sell-outs, get new blood who will answer to the people.

The job is not done. We must render the neoconservative movement a sad footnote in history, a failed experiment in greed, imperialism and hypocrisy. We must wrest the moral compass of the nation out of the hands of the hate-filled religious fundamentalists and the corporate hypocrites who fund them.

I want my country back, damnit.

Shock! AFA Advocates Fairness?

2009-08-05T12:44:00.000-07:00

The people in the AFA, who ordinarily repulse me, came up with a comment that is fair, principled, and right:

Here is the single most important question you can ask your Representative and
Senators concerning ObamaCare.

/"Will you vote to require members of Congress to be included on any bill
dealing with health care? Please give me a yes or no answer."/

If the ObamaCare health care bill isn't good for the members of Congress, then
it is not good for the general public. Members of Congress should live under the
same laws as the general public.

I agree. Whatever Congress passes, they must be bound to it as well. Equal treatment under the law, and them putting their health and lives where their mouth is.

The only way to get true health reform, and sane, fair, economical coverage for all is to force the people making the rules to live under their own creations:

If we have to use private insurance in the "free market", so should they.
If we can be denied, rescinded, and lifetime capped, so can they.
If our "preexisting conditions" make us uninsurable, so should theirs.
If we have huge copays, low coverage percentages, and huge out-of-pocket costs, so should they.
If they get gold-plated lifetime care at taxpayer expense, so should we. We pay the bills.

The lobbyists can push money at them all they want, but if their health and life rides on it as well, they won't be as likely to sell us down the river for a lobbyist donation.

So yes, Donald E. Wildmon, that is a very, very, very good question to ask.

We all should ask it, and not just regarding health care. No more political elites.

Republican Hypocrisy

2009-07-31T13:51:00.000-07:00

From here

The House approved a measure Friday that would put new constraints on executive pay, capitalizing on outrage over multimillion-dollar bonuses to Wall Street executives whose firms were bailed out by taxpayers.

and

The bill, introduced by Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, would let regulators ban risky incentive-based pay that could have an adverse effect on the financial system.

This is the galling part:

Republicans slammed the measure as yet another example of needless government intervention into private business practices, similar to arguments that Republicans have been making in the debate over health care overhaul.

“The Democratic majority has a great desire to have the government everywhere in our lives,” said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia. “It cuts at the very core of our free market system.”

What a steaming pile of bullshit!

When you and your corporate masters come, hat in hand, asking the government to bail out your "free market" business, you have no right to bitch about "needless government intervention". By the real principles of the "free market", if it isn't profitable, it should fail! No bailouts, no tax breaks, no favors.

So, Mr. Price, if you and the rest of the Republican vultures want a free market, your corporate cronies can give back the bailout money right now.

If they don't, then they, and you, can just shut the fuck up about government "interference" - that eeeevil "government interference" is why a lot of your corporate buddies still have jobs, houses, cars, yachts, and all of that. They could be like the rest of us, one unemployment check away from homelessness or no health insurance.

So STFU, Representative price, your "Fuck you, I've got mine!" hypocrisy is showing.

Single Payer and HC Links

2009-07-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

These are not generally left-wing sites.

For-profit medicine is a national sickness

Health insurance for the 21st Century

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

Paying More, Getting Less

Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer - can you say astroturf?

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies

Health Insurance Coverage

A Healthy Bottom Line: Profits or People? - Santa Clara University Ethics discussion

Alliance for Advancing Nonprofit Health Care - if not SP, then make health insurance non-profit

What the For-Profit Trend In Health Care Really Means - interesting 1996 article, and seeing where we are now (Hint: Some of the previous non-profit are for-profit now [eg BC-BS], and the major for-profits now dominate and rule the industry.)

These are generally considered progressive:

Crazy Wingnut Healthcare Attacks Exposed

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care, Part II: Debunking the Free Marketeers

The Health Care Debate: Another Country Heard From

Healthcare Now main page - lots of stuff

The White House Health Reform site - more focused on the wimp-out "public option" to appease the insurance lobby.

Massive takedown of for-profit "health" "care" - "You Can't Buff a Turd"

Single Payer Myths Disproved By Canadian Research!

When Wealthy Isn't Healthy - for-profit health care industry makes more profit while offering fewer services - Brief Article - 1999 article, again it's worse now.

Healthcare vs. the Profit Principle - 1997 article (it's only gotten worse).

More later...

Oh, about rationing and elderly (from Mythbusting Canadian Health Care Part II):

Another persistent (and ridiculously mendacious) rationing myth about the Canadian system is that old people are cut off from treatment and left to die. I've never heard about a single case of this in Canada; but it happens routinely to Americans on Medicare and many private policies, which have strict limits on how long you can stay in the hospital with an acute illness. When the benefits run out, ready or not, they send you home. If you die, you die. The Canadian plan has no such limits: you stay for as long as you need to. But in the US, these limits fit the very definition of "rationed care."

Who does euthanasia, but without anesthetic? Not Canada...

Debunking Wing Nut Baloney About AAHCA

2009-07-29T15:58:00.000-07:00

The wingnut post that I am responding to is here. Beware the slime.

My comments are in italics

COMPARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO ACTUAL BILL:

BILL: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

This is my analysis and debunking of the fearmongering and either deliberate or illiterate misreading of the bill. Anything the moron puts in ALL CAPS is distortion or hysteria.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

The IRS does already. Not an issue.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Instead of health insurance bean counters. Government committee is accountable to the public, transparent, instead of insurance company beancounter voodoo.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Wrong. Says nothing about rationing - just sets up group of real experts to determine plan, not beancounters. Original wingnut doesn't know what rationing is.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Now all you get is what your employer can afford (if anything) and the insurance company can't avoid paying for. You already have no choice.

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL NON US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Already is, via ERs can't refuse to treat sick. Not a change. Also, untreated foreigners with diseases can spread to citizens.

Pg 58 HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!

Health insurers already have this, and sell it to drug companies to sell you stuff. Universal ID already here via REAL ID and corruption of social security number.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.

"Enable" =/= "require". The government already has this option for tax refunds and collection.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs. (ACORN).

Horseshit. Retirees need coverage too - subsidizing them is the right thing to do. Not a "payoff", just making sure that everyone is covered. Non-profits are not evil, and "ACORN" is dog whistle nonsense.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.

Private HC should be regulated, so people don't get repeatedly screwed.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the Exchange

No, they mandate the minimums to be eligible to sell through the exchange. No more insurance bait and switch.

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Health care!

That's stupid. Government specifies *minimum* coverage, not maximum. Not rationing, it's a floor that you can't get less than. Again, this moron doesn't know what rationing really is. Hint; the insurance companies ration your care based on how much profit they can make on you over your lifetime.

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.

Wow, lots of racism here! You can't tell where someone got an infectious disease if you can't communicate with them.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan

Non-profits are not evil. They can often reach underserved individuals, and get them covered and healthy. Dog whistle racism at its finest.

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Benefit Levels 4 Plans. AARP members - Your Health Care WILL be rationed

Again, minimums are NOT "rationing".

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

This is a problem why? You don't have to use it - you can roy in your own filth if you choose.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Govt on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

No one can afford to sue the health insurance companies, on their cheese paring and price fixing, so no change there.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Good. Then they don't end up in expensive ER because their employers are too cheap to make them full time and eligible for benefits (like WalMart does).

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Instead of the insurance companies that tell you what you can make? Not a change, except a more transparent process.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Universal coverage. You don't have to use the insurance, you can go see a faith healer and die if you like.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

If they don't insure you, they have to pay a tax that is still less than private insurance.

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 B w payroll between 251k & 400k who doesn't provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

If they don't insure you, they have to pay a tax that is still less than private insurance.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Much, much, much cheaper than COBRA or individual plans.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay).

Visitors don't pay. That's fair.

Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records.

Now, health insurance claims processors in foreign countries hae access to your records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.

Incomplete quote, out of context. The rest is "... imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55." This crap is really reaching.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Read the whole section. Not a reduction, just recalculation.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Refers to service categories (type of service performed) without regard to specialty. Says nothing about different services being paid the same. Again, misreading, fearmongering.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.

More fearmongering crap. "Relative value units" are to try to make fair payment for equal effort.

Pg 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Hahahaha! That way they can't suck us dry and waste our premiums anymore. This is a good thing.

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

No. It expands the definition to cover other adaptive devices like power chairs that weren't previously eligible. Increase of choices is a good thing.

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

More illiterate fearmongering crap and distortion. This section actually requires cancer hospitals to be paid more if their costs are higher.

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)

Good. Hospitals now release people with open wounds and no home care because insurance companies won't pay. This will stop this dumping practice.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Dr's, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Govt will penalize you.

Again, if the doctor doesn't effectively treat things, just prescribes a band-aid and aspirin, they should be penalized.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Dr's. what/how much they can own.

Prevents sweatheart deals where doctors can refer for expensive surgery at expensive hospital that they own. Not a prohibition, a limitation. See this article for why this is needed. The idiot who wrote this doesn't know the difference, or deliberately distorted it.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Only if they are owned by a single doctor. Again, distortion.

Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

More dogwhistle. Community input is required for malls, housing, and other structures. Community is taxpayers, citizens, people, not corporations. This is a good thing, except to corporatists.

Pg 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates established of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Outcome based measures means that the treatment has to work, not be witch doctor snake oil. I fail to see how you can equate outcome based measures with "rationing".

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

This means that plans which take seniors money and don't provide a real benefit can get shut down. No more scams = a good thing. Not forcing people into anything, but protecting vulnerable seniors.

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone/Internet?

Not bureaucracy. Many insurers already have this, and can save the time, wait and expense of a office doctor's visit.

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.

This is a good thing. In our society, many people avoid planning for their inevitable demise. Advance care planning makes sure that they get their wishes for nursing homes, extreme measures, hospice, funeral, wills and all that written down, rather than putting their families through it at the last minute.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Good. Then the living wills (patients wishes) are more likely to be obeyed, rather than a more dead than alive husk stuck with tubes and in pain.

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Good. Government helps avoid bogus funeral scams and other schemes to fleece the old and ill.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

No, the government prevents their coverage and care from being changed often, and people scamming their way in.

Pg 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Say bullshit. This regards medicaid only, and says that diseases that a hospital gave you aren't covered by the government - they should be paid by the hospital.

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc required. to register. Gov’t takes over private payment sys.

I wish it said that the government was taking over private payments systems. It would reduce paperwork and cost. But this only applies to medicaid, and if they want to get paid by the government (Medicaid) they must register with the government and meet their standards. Not unreasonable, not a bad thing.

Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Govt will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.

Fearmongering crap. This section is designed to prevent "welfare queens" from scamming the system at our (taxpayer) expense.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Govt Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

Not a black hole at all. Effectiveness research is esential to stop the quackery and scams that are prevalent in many areas of our health care system. Federally funded means that the pharmaceutical companies can't use bogus research to pimp out killer drugs.

Pg 829-833 Govt will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

This will replace the huge markups and profits that pharma companies put on all their drugs.

Pg 835 11-13 fees imposed by Govt for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

So? Earlier this twit was screaming (erroneously) about something not being treated as a tax. Make up your mind, idiot.

Pg 838-840 Govt will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.

The actual words are "voluntary home visitation". This is not a bad thing, especially for new parents who might be overwhelmed with new kids.

Pg 844-845 This Home Visitation Program. includes Govt coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!

Only if you voluntarily invite them in, and a lot of people need all the help they can get, especially during the early years. Parenting is not instict, it's a learned skill.

Pg 859 Govt will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that’s Billion.

* F-22 that the silly GOP wants: $361 million per aircraft, plus $44000 per hour of flight each! 600 of these is $216 Billion.
* The AIG and bank bailouts: up to $23 Trillion! $40 Billion for AIG, $20 Billion for BofA, $20 Billion for Citigroup (TARP corporate beneficiaries).

$88 billion to get everyone health care? A bargain, and an investment in our citizens.

Pg 865 The Govt will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

What's the problem with that? You don't have to join, but if you do you will get *training* in health care professions.

Pg 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Dr's. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.

Not required for all doctors, and a good way to help pay the high costs of med school. A good thing for the medical profession.

Pg 876-892 The Govt takes over the education of our Med students and Dr's.

No, again a distortion. The government helps pay for training of doctors, thus helping people who aren't rich already become doctors. This is a good thing.

Pg 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.

So? It will help to get more primary care doctors, nurses, etc. Then we won't have to import doctors and nurses from third world countries like we do now.

Pg 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

Someone has to pay them during their training, and the insurance companies won't.

Pg 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.

So? Structure, not some dastardly conspiracy.

Pg 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians. WHAT???

Who else will help control stray animal populations, treat service dogs and see to it that our livestock is healthy?

Pg 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HC Draft?

No, that's fearmongering. This just defines structure.

Pg 910 The Govt will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.

Good. Teaching hospitals are in short supply.

Pg 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

Aww, poor little white guy, no more priviledge in attending med school. Again, not a bad thing - now med school wants lots of money (rich white make privilege)

Pg 915 SEC. 2251. Govt MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HC professionals.

Good. Weeds out the bigots.

Pg 932 The Govt will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000- almost 31Billion $.

Less than AIG sucked out of us. Potentially a bigger payoff in healthcare savings.

Pg 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities.

They already do this - Surgeon General

Pg 936 Govt will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards” Tell me what to eat?

They already do. Along with every asinine diet and celebrity shill.

Pg 942 Lines 22-25 More Govt? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women’s Health

Specialties are good. Wasn't this guy whining about specialists being underpaid/

Pg 950 - 980 BIG GOVT core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc

This whining doesn't make sense. The insurance companies already have this, at our expense, and use it to deny us coverage.

Pg 993 Govt will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won’t have a chance, they will be indoctrinated into the government system.

Oh, another dog whistle - "indoctrinated" - the legislation says nothing about indoctrination. School based clinics are essential to being sure that kids get access to healthcare, even if their parents work and can't take them to appointments.

Pg 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment.

This basically reestablishes school nurses that have been cheese-pared. Not a bad thing.

Pg 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry.

Less opportunity for snake oil, bogus devices and fraud. Another good thing.

All in all, while the bill falls woefully short of taking the profit motive out of health care, it provides much better regulation of the health insurance industry, and even helps poor people get training in health care! And it's far, far cheaper than Bush's wars and TARP.

Prevention

2009-06-11T13:38:00.000-07:00

My insurance, which I am now paying for on COBRA (made affordable by a 65% subsidy in the stimulus package, thank you!) does not cover annual physicals!

Seriously, the one thing that could help reduce the severity of chronic diseases is early diagnosis and treatment. The other thing is regular monitoring. But my insurance, like many others, does not cover this. It only covers mammograms after age 40, although it covers annual pap smears before then.

It does not cover routine physicals for men, in spite of the fact that many male problems like prostate cancer and heart disease benefit from early diagnosis and treatment. It only sort of covers the reproductive system for women, but not general physicals. Yet thyroid, heart disease and all of those problems are best treatable when diagnosed early.

IMO, any health plan, public or private, should be required by law to cover general annual physicals for adults, just like many cover well baby and child physicals. The long term cost savings, not only in terms of cash but misery, would be staggering.

Single Payer Health Care

2009-06-11T13:03:00.000-07:00

Go and read this article: This is what losing your kidneys looks like. I'll wait.

There has got to be an end to the stratification of health care in this country. Why are we willing to have people's very lives dictated by private insurers? Why are we willing to allocated medical care based on who has the most money, the best employer, or a spouse with a good insurance plan? Why are we willing to say to people trying to start businesses, "You must sacrifice your health, and that of anyone you employ, to succeed" because health insurance is too expensive for a bootstrap company?

Before the 1970s, health insurance was based on a mutual, or cooperative, basis. Profit was not permitted. It sorta worked. Once the profit motive came in, prices went up, oligopolies formed, denials increased, exclusions soared, and refusals to insure became so prevalent that it isn't even funny.

If you've ever had acne, asthma, depression, diabetes, cancer, or any of a huge list of ailments you can not get insurance for anything even remotely resembling a reasonable price, if at all. No one will write you a policy that doesn't exclude what you need it for the most!

The "insurance" model itself is faulty. Insurance is supposed to be a hedge against risk. Thing is, nearly everyone gets sick or injured at some point during their lives. The only variables are when, with what, and how often.

What is needed is health assurance - a pool of money that everyone pays into that covers their medical expenses, no "if's, "and"s, "but"s or exclusions. Whether a person gets a boil on their ass, or cancer of the colon, it should just be covered. The best way to do this is with a federal (large pool) single payer health care system.

I am very, very tired of seeing PayPal donation buttons for self employed friends, artists and musicians trying to pay for uninsured medical expenses. The risk nowadays to life and limb from working for yourself due to insurance conglomerate perfidy is unreal.

Please, Congress, for once do the right thing: Single Payer. No triggers (conditions are already met), no mandates (requiring people by law to "buy" private "for profit" health insurance), no half-assed "public option" plans that are designed to fail.

Corporations do not have a "right" to profit from people's misery, stress, pain and death. We the people do have a right to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", and it's pretty hard to have any of those when you're dying from lack of money to pay doctors.

Another Right Wing Nut Terrorist Shooting

2009-06-10T13:03:00.000-07:00

Two Shot at Holocaust Museum in D.C., Police Say. A right wing, conspiracy theorist, terrorist operative, James W. von Brunn, a man in his late 80s, "embraces a far-reaching conspiracy theory involving Jews, blacks and other minority groups."

Obviously, he heard the dog whistle from Gingrich, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al and it activated his personal brand of terror on the Holocaust museum. Two dead.

People will say "oh, just another crazy loner", and shrug it off. Don't!.

After all, aren't people who strap high explosives to themselves crazy too? Suicidal? Oh, that's political or religious - but so is anti-abortion or right wing conspiracy theory.

It's all crazy, but it's being orchestrated by people who aren't crazy enough to pull the trigger themselves. The mullahs of right wing talk and tent rallies get their followers all riled up with righteous anger, and they know damn well that the crazy, the people with a desperate, suicidal. homicidal bent will go and do.

The same thing happens in the middle east - religious fervor, hatred, desperation, suicidal ideation and martyrdom make terrorists. That is the core of what drives them. Religion, martyrdom, hatred and a screw loose are the core of any in-person terrorist operatives.

We have a problem: Right Wing Terror. The Christian Taliban, Christian Jihad, American Taliban, whatever you want to call it, is here and organized (and has been for decades). Now that they no longer have a friends and fellow travellers in the White House and Congress to act against their targets with the weight of law, they are taking matters into their own hands, carrying on "the Culture Wars" in response the dog whistles and coded messages sent out by their leadership.

Think our home-grown crazies don't have "training camps"? Do a little work on Google, looking up "Joel's Army", "Christian Patriot Movement", "Dominionism" and the like. Here's an article to get you started. These people have whole "towships" of separatists, plus a huge network of church "camps" and "retreats" (tax exempt land for 'religious' use).

The groups have a couple things in common: overthrow of pluralistic, secular government and hatred of anyone who does not share or obey their creed, strictures, and/or race. Just like the Islamists hate anyone who does not bow to their particular brand of theocracy or does not follow their rules, these terrorists want to overthrow the current government and "put things right" according to their worldview. Anyone who doesn't follow it or is a "lesser" being, dies.

This is no longer a "point and laugh at the wingnuts" game. We need to be aware and alert for any of these crazies in our midst, just to prevent more terrorist murders.

The Christian Taliban and Domestic Terrorism

2009-06-08T00:10:00.000-07:00

People on the right whined and bitched last month about the FBI report that pointed out the risk of home-grown right wing terror. The bloviating talking heads like Malkin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter et al alleged that it was all a liberal conspiracy against them. Yet, usually in the same broadcast, them would use incendiary and eliminationist language about their enemies - gays, liberals, pro-choice advocates and abortion providers.

Last week, one of their loyal followers once again took up arms and followed their commands, killing Dr. George Tiller in his church. Now, this classic example of the Christian Taliban is claiming that more is planned: "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said.

Still think that these people, these "Armies of God", "Soldiers of Christ", and "Joel's Army" are just harmless church groups? Do you really think that groups like Operation Rescue and Christian Patriots (incl Montana Freemen) are just protest groups?

They are terrorists, just like Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, and even Cheney are their Mullahs, their broadcasts being more and more vitriolic exhortations and dog-whistles to their faithful followers. There is no difference in rhetoric, just language. Fighting "the great Satan" and fighting "the forces of Satan" are the same thing: words meant for the terrorist cells. Whether it's abortion, homosexuality or "liberalism", these mullahs of the religious right spew incitement to hate and terror against law abiding citizens. Even the pastors of churches get into the act, railing from the pulpit against homosexuals, liberals and abortion providers.

The leaders of these groups are more deserving of doing time in Gitmo than the footsoldiers we have there now. They need to be arrested, tried for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts under the Patriot Act (which they supported) and sentenced.

I would like to take a brief aside here to remind these dominionist shitheads of something: not all liberals are against the Second Amendment, and they will defend the Constitution against the Dominionist threat.

The patsies who regurgitate their talking points without question in supposedly respectable publications should take a long, hard look at just what it is their "leaders" are advocating. They are not Americans, they are Theocrats, looking to overthrow the Rule of Law for the Rule of Preachers and Bibles. They have shown over the last 15 years or more that they are willing to use the mentally ill and desperate to do their dirty work.

I don't think Jesus would approve.

Moral Relativism and the Religious Right

2009-05-25T10:43:00.000-07:00

I made the mistake of reading my brother-in-law's blog yesterday. If I want to know what the distilled right wing talking heads are saying, I just read his stuff, wherein he religiously regurgitates the talking points of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin and Cheney.

This one actually woke me up off and on all night, it bothered me that much. You see, I have real ethics and morals, that are consistent and logical. Yes, they're shades of grey, and situational, but they are not self-contradictory. His, however, are for sale to whoever has the loudest voice that claims the mantle of Christian Conservative. There's no soul searching here, no putting himself in someone else's shoes, just defense of the party line, including the obligatory swipe at the demonized opposition. This person is raising my niece and nephews with this kind of mentality. Disgusting.

When people like me refuse to swallow "Christian" views like "being gay is a sin, therefore gay marriage must be illegal" because it harms no one and protects rights, they call us "moral relativists", and thus "evil", "lost" or "sinners". But when it comes to mild torture (what they euphemistically call "enhanced interrogation techniques that aren't torture"), or even hardcore torture, it's moral relativism and situational ethics until the cows come home, and that's just fine. Waterboard on Saturday, go to church with a clean conscience on Sunday.

Jesus never said anything against gays, but take a good look at Luke 6:27-31:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Look very carefully at verse 27, 28 and verse 31 - do they look like justifications for "enhanced interrogation techniques"?? No?? I thought not.

Yet the Pew Research Center found that a strong correlation between evangelical protestants and justification of torture. (Commentary here.) Yes, the most fervent of "fishers of men" are more likely to justify torture. You know, like they used to do to force confessions of witchcraft and thus "save souls" (that they later executed so they could take their land and wealth.) But gay is a sin thus evil, despite the fact that it does no physical or emotional harm in and of itself (all of the physical and emotional harm comes from protestant society's rejection and abuse.) Yes folks, it's a sin for gays to marry, but it's OK to torture a foreign terror suspect.

Hypocrite much? Torture, "enhance interrogation techniques" and the hypothetical "ticking time bomb scenario" are classic examples of the worst sort of moral relativism. In the ticking time bomb scenario, it is not only permissible to torture the suspected terrorist, but their family as well. Not only that, but for many people, the "proof" needed gets very slim, thus increasing the probability of false arrest. Note I say "suspected" - these people never have had their day in a real court - only kangaroo courts using "confessions" obtained under duress.

Really, this shit makes me ill, and very, very angry. When you actually do it to one "fairly conservative" talking heads (but not a hard core one - they haven't got the balls), they get the picture that it really is torture. Stan's response? Oh, but there is no "intent to torture", no " physical or psychological injury", and it's "used as a training technique" by the military. First, "intent" has nothing to do with it. You can call shit "chocolate", and intend to serve someone a dish of chocolate, but it's still shit when fork meets mouth. Second, that type of experience has lasting psychological effects. Third, it's used as a training technique in how to resist torture!!! (They also go through and breaks trainees' fingers.)

Why is it that I, a pagan with a very situational set of ethics, can still find torture wrong, but supposed moral absolutists can "justify" it in hundreds of mealy mouthed ways? Seriously, if you have to torture a prisoner (use "enhanced interrogation techniques", like crushing some one's kid's balls) to get a confession, then your skills in investigation and interrogation suck! First, you probably have the wrong guy! Second, someone under that kind of physical and psychological duress will make shit up that he thinks you want to hear just to get you to stop!! Add to that the leading questions that most of these imbeciles use, and you have a setting for a hype loop of belief that becomes a little microcosm of altered reality.

What will it be next? Oh, it's not okay to beat people up, unless they're gay? Oh, wait, they do that anyway - the "gay panic defense" - too bad the court doesn't buy it, huh? How about it's not okay to abuse a child, unless you have to perform an exorcism - oh, wait, that's illegal too.

Seriously, when you look at what Jesus of Nazareth actually said - like Luke 6:31 - you realize that he would have been horrified at the kind of crap that his so-called followers justify. But "An it harm none, do what you will" is evil moral relativism?

So yeah, my "Christian" BIL says that waterboarding is unpleasant, he wouldn't want to go through it, but it isn't "torture". I say "Jesus Wept" (John 11:35). I'm proud to be pagan - my religious organization doesn't demand hypocrisy the way most Christian churches seem to.

Taxes and Rights

2009-04-19T23:18:00.000-07:00

DOMA must go.

The fact that my tax burden is HIGHER because my partner is another female just frosts my jets. You see, my partner makes significantly less than I do. But because of the bigot's laws, even if we could marry in my state (California, where the bigots "amended" the state constitution to enshrine bigotry in it), I would still be fucked over on the Federal taxes.

You see, we don't really give a rat's ass about what your religion says about gay or straight marriage. Some religions won't marry people from two different denominations, much less religions. Do you want us to enshrine that into law too? After all, religion is actually a choice, unlike homosexuality.

This country has freedom of religion. That means that you don't get to force other people to practice your religion, or abide by its tenets or dogma, and they don't get to do it to you. You don't want gay marriage? Then don't marry someone of your own sex!

What the fight is really over is religious privilege - the ability to make the "norms" of your religion binding on everyone, so you and your fellow believers get all the perks and financial advantages, while we pay more for the privilege of being considered less.

I want all of you anti-gay marriage people to do a little exercise: take your favorite piece of anti-same sex propaganda, and substitute "gay" and "homosexual" with Christian and Jew, or maybe Baptist and Catholic. Then remember, if a Christian wants to marry a Jew, or a Buddhist, it's illegal - they can just find another Christian to marry - never mind that who they love is the Jew or the Buddhist.

When it comes to marriage, conformity with someone else's legally imposed religious custom takes a priority over actual love. At least, that is how the bigots paint it - unnatural, perversion, blah, blah.

I guess my biggest grief comes from this: How in the fuck does someone else marrying someone they love, who happens to be of the same sex, damage your marriage in any way? Is it something you feel you're missing out on? Do you fear other people being able to pay less takes by filing joint, or getting benefits on a pre-tax basis for their spouse, or what? Why is my happiness damaging to you?

Being gay isn't contagious, people. You can't teach it in schools - we've taught straightness in schools for generations, and still gays crop up (and suffer) in school - so that's another less bit of silliness for the bigots to cling to.

Why in the living hell would anyone choose to be gay? Seriously, it can get you killed in some places, and screwed over in other ways in the oh, so progressive (not) US. Did you haters choose to be straight? Oh, you say, "it's natural", you've "always" been that way. Guess what? GLBT have too. From very young, even when it hurts, even in spite of the confusion and pain.

But yeah, domestic partnerships and civil unions don't get federal tax benefits, social security survivors benefits, or immunity from having to testify against a partner in court. Hetero marriages do. Add in the automatic right to make medical decisions for a partner, plus a bunch of inheritance stuff, and the disadvantages add up fast.

Even those gays who can marry are screwed by the (probably very unconstitutional) DOMA on the federal level, or when they move. How would you like your fucking marriage not recognized in another state, or by the federal government? That's what DOMA means.

On the California Prop 8 insanity, has anyone really thought about what the bigots have unleashed? Anything, and I mean anything that is a "choice" (even if only to some pseudo-scientist with a suspect agenda) or able to be changed can be cause for banning marriage in the state!!

Anyone want to start a California initiative to prevent people from two different religions from marrying? I'm sure that the spiritual strife causes a lot of divorce. Religion is definitely a choice, after all. "Only marriage between two people of the same religious denomination is valid or recognized in California." Nifty, huh?

What? You say some shit about the "equal protection" clause? Oh, but that's already been nullified by Prop 8.

Hell, I bet we could do something about people who come here and marry a citizen - just make it illegal. Save the taxpayers lots of money - just say to marry a citizen you have to be a citizen.

Who cares if the person you love is from, say, Canada - they'll have to get their citizenship before California will recognize their marriage. "Only marriage between two US citizens is valid or recognized in California." See how that works?

If Prop 8 is upheld, then these would be legal too. After all, you can change your religion, and you can change your citizenship status (it just takes a long time without the marriage beforehand.)

Or how about this - people that are overweight, or smoke, have persistent body odor, or who have mental illnesses or addictions - can be banned from marrying, too. After all, they can diet, quit, bathe or "get over it with the help of God", right? So it's a "choice", thus subject to discrimination.

Since "equal protection" no longer applies in California, or the rest of the United States for that matter (and won't while DOMA stands), we can make all kinds of laws based on voluntary and involuntary "differences" from what's "normal".

So if you are anti gay marriage, don't worry - there are plenty of "choices" that you've made that can be used to discriminate against you, too. All we have to do is take our propaganda from your play book, and it'll pass.

Then we'll see who the real hypocrites are.

Dear Banks and Insurance Companies

2009-03-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

When Mr. & Ms. Main Street had problems with unemployment, insolvency, medical costs and debt starting in 2000 and onward, you told your flunkies in Congress "Tough. Let the Market™ Decide". You bade them pass legislation making it harder for individuals to file a clean bankruptcy, and they bowed and did it. You told me "It doesn't matter if you're unemployed, you still owe us money. Borrow from family, get a loan, yada yada". When Citi fucked me over on the one card I was keeping current because of other cards deliquent, they said "Touigh. It's just business. It's our rules. Pay your bills now."

But now, when the shoe is on the other foot, they say "Oh, help us, help us, for the public good! We're too big to fail, waaah, waaah, waaaah!" Your obliging servants in Congress once again have said "Yessa, Massa." and passed huge bailouts. Now you're whining again, "Unfair", because the new administration wants some actual oversight and accountability for our taxpayer money! Fuck you all!

We won't forget this. We won't forget that you said "Screw You, we got the money, we make the rules." when you were riding high, and owned Congress and everything else. We won't forget that you came back, after being deregulated at your own request so that the "Market™" could decide, and begged for handouts because you got caught in the trap of your own greed, then whined because we wanted to know how you spent it and why you fucked up in the first place.

I'm still plotting how to cut you bastards out of my life. I have to do credit, because my life, medical expenses and savings are not all fully funded by my income. But I'm heading there. Each rate increase, each "late fee" (often a penalty for paying my bill a mere day before the statement comes out), each bill insert advertising junk life insurance, all of these things make me hate you more and more.

You have no fucking clue at just how deep the anger goes. You have been paying less than 1% on savings for over a decade, but charging a minimum of 15% interest on credit (often 20% to 30%), plus huge fees for the most piddling of offenses against your ever changing rules. Do you think we can't do the math? Don't you realize we wonder where the difference goes? Do you really thing we're that stupid or math impaired?

When we protest even a small fee increase, we get attitude, arrogance, and even more penalties. What rational person wouldn't be pissed off by that kind of nonsense? Do you really think that the public is made up of doormats? Do you really think that reality TV circuses will keep us distracted enough?

And insurers? More money for less coverage, less paid to the people who actually do the work, and snotty attitudes when we demand what you state we are due in our contracts? Then you go and unilaterally change the terms of those contracts to provide less benefits while increasing premiums? What kind of idiots do you take us, and our employers, for? Do you understand that the reason behind the push for single payer health care in this country is you and the obscene profits you make from people's suffering and financial ruin? Do you realize we look at our medical debts, the denial letters that you send, and then at your obscene profits and see red in more than just our own balance sheets? You take us for fools. We aren't.

You guys are lucky that Congress is holding your feet to the fire, quite frankly. You see, the mob is an ugly thing. If the mass of people even get a hint that you're not being held accountable for what you do with their money, well, they tend to form mobs and do ugly things - see the French Revolution for examples.

To The President

2009-01-20T10:44:00.000-08:00

Dear President Obama,

First, congratulations. After the longest interview with the most grueling team of interviewers imaginable, you've finally started the job. A big event, lots of attention, all of that went with it. Lots of expectations are on you, and you have a nearly impossible job ahead.

After the social go-rounds, the photo ops, the interviews, the pomp and circumstance you will go back to the oval office to get down to work.

You will have several things working against you:

Unreasonable expectations - people expect you to walk on water and fix the nation with a flourish of your pen. Impossible to meet them all.
Congress - they all have their own agendas, their lobbyists who line their pockets, and their egos that need feeding. This is both parties - they all suckle at the corporate teat.
The rest of the world - some people will never give up their hatreds and age-old vendettas. Some you won't be able to budge. Some you may have to shoot.
Inertia - this, perhaps, is the most insidious of all. It's a fundamental fact of physics, and is also incorporated in human nature. People don't want to change, to do the hard things.
Your own allies - I learned a long time ago that I could trust everyone implicitly... to do whatever they and their hindbrain believed was in their own best interests. Not what they say, but what they do. When you want them to do the difficult, they will balk.

You have a lot to try to fix. Here's my advice on how to do it:

Economy - no bailouts for businesses, period. They gambled, they lost. Don't reward losers. Instead, bankroll new businesses that will pledge to spend their seed money in the US, and hire US citizens and green card holders. Build the new, don't prop up the old and failed.
Technology - get rid of the H1(b) malarky. American citizens and green card holders are being laid off while companies are importing indentured labor at lower pay. Create incentives for companies to retrain existing staff on new technologies, rather than fire them and import ~~slaves~~, er, ~~foreign scabs~~, guest workers.
Science - de-politicize science, and stuff a sock in the mouth of the people who object to science due to religion. That sock is a lack of funding, and regulatory disfavor. Then promote (fund) research and space exploration. Help get our eggs into more than one basket.
Healthcare - get the damned insurance bloodsuckers out of it entirely. Either make all insurers have to be non-profit, or invest in single payer healthcare. Either way, take the profit (and greed) motive out of keeping people alive and heathy.
Foreign policy - get our own house in order before we muck around with someone elses. If we have to take any action, make it a) well planned, b) goal oriented, and c) quick. No open ended wars.
Domestic policy - end these stupid "wars" on (some) drugs, (blue collar) crime, (foreign only) terror and such. To call a thing a "war" on a concept is just stupid, and dooms it to failure. Also, dump the title "Czar" - it's just plain nasty, and sits poorly with the American ideal.
Oil - Look really closely into oil company profits. Really close. Supply is increasing, but cost at the pump is going up too. Someone's pocketing the difference, and it isn't the little guys. Maybe prosecute profiteering and price fixing under RICO.
Energy - A multimodal approach is best, here. While solar and wind are cool, and low impact, don't take nuclear power off the table. Dust off the old, supposedly debunked, machines, and take a second look. Most of them will still be bunk, but some may actually have been buried by pressure from oil interests.
Education - Start with basics. Then, take a close look at the fallacy of "mainstreaming", and the disservice it does to kids at both ends of the bell curve. Teach high school students real life survival skills like cooking, laundry, budgeting, interviewing, balancing a checkbook, living with roomies, credit vs saving, etc.
College - Fund and encourage more industry/college crossover instructors. One thing that pretty much ruined my college days was an ivory tower mentality that disdained the technicians who actually did the work, and made the goofy ideas that they dreamed up work. Encourage schools to use real-world books as texts, instead of the expensive "college books" that financially ruin kids for no practical gain.
Religion - Don't cozy up with the religious right. Yes, they are "Christians", but not all of the country is like them, or even in the JCI (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) religious chain. They do not support the rule of law, but the rule of their nasty version of a God. They want a theocracy, governed by believers guided by pastors and scriptures, not a republic that protects the rights of all.
Military - Less deployment, better equipment, more support at home when injured. Stop deploying Guard overseas, stop perma-posting regular units as "civil control" at home in violation of Posse Comitatus. Caesar should not cross the Rubicon.
Military Chaplaincy/Religion- Clean up the mess. The theocrats are trying to take this over, making the Middle East mess into a crusade. A heavily "Christian Warrior" mentality in our military is bad for our republic - they would support a theocratic coup.
Veterans - Miltary service should guarantee lifetime medical care. Military personnel often encounter dangers that are not fully understood until years later. Allowing only 2 years healthcare after separation from service is an insult to those who are willing to die for us.
Ethics - WWJD? => What Would Jefferson Do? The new rules on revolving doors are a start.
Rights - We all should have equal rights. Either work for full marriage rights for LGBT, or to remove "marriage" as a concept from US civil law. Either way works. Why should someone get more tax breaks because of their orientation giving them the right to marry?

So, there's a start. It'll keep you busy for the first year or so, in fact, considering that you have to work with a giant committee (lots of egos, no brain) like Congress.

Good luck, Mr. President. You've started off on the right foot, but the low hanging fruit is almost gone. Now the tough stuff starts.

-- Ravan Asteris

Happy New Year??

2009-01-12T12:05:00.000-08:00

So, I did my predictions over on my LiveJournal and my InsaneJournal. I suppose I could have put them here and linked them, but I didn't think of that.

I am eagerly waiting for January 20th, because even with his Christianoid biases Obama should be miles better than Bush. At least he pays attention to more than just "The Great Commission", and instead looks to Matthew 25 (poverty, homelessness, healthcare). It beats the neocon "I've got mine, here's your Armageddon with a side of imperialism." all to hell.

Still, we could do better. When a Christian can openly run for president, and be considered a serious candidate then we will truly live up to the Constitutional "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust" (Article 6). The proper answer to the question of whether Obama was a Muslim or not was not "Oh, no, he's Christian!", it should have been "What does his religion matter?" and "Who cares? It's not a church position!".

Yes, it's a start that we actually have a Muslim congressman (Rep. Keith Ellison), but he's still part of the JCI religious group. This doesn't just apply to neo-pagans. Frankly, I haven't seen a credible atheist or agnostic candidate either. How about a Hindu, a Sikh, a Buddhist or Shinto, or a Native American practitioner? Seriously, there are a lot of other widely practiced religions that get very short shrift in this country.

So, in the next 4 years, we need to try to wean the US away from the Christian-centric focus of religious dialog. Instead of asking "Who Would Jesus Bomb?", we should ask "What is the Ethical Thing to Do?". Then we can talk about public conduct, right and wrong, fairness, equality, and helping people without dragging someone's holy book into the mix.

Rage!!!

2008-12-18T14:10:00.000-08:00

I have been reading articles about CA Prop (H)8, the rule allowing religious bigots to refuse medical services, and now Obama picking Warren to give his invocation. I'm getting really, really pissed, especially when reading the small minded, nasty "Christian" reader comments.

Will the fucking so-called Christians please realize that:
A) Christianity is not the only religion in this country,
B) Neither is the JCI monotheist religion set an absolute monopoly with the right to govern,
C) The United States has a mother fucking SECULAR government,
D) People here have the right not to be ruled by the fucking Christian bible,
E) The "Old Testament" advocates things which are abhorrent to a civilized society,
F) People who aren't enslaved to their nasty book are sick and fucking tired of being abused in its name,
G) People who don't buy into Christianity don't want to be fucking "saved" or any of that claptrap, and
H) People who aren't Christians have "heard the Word™" and want no fucking part of it!

Does this make it fucking clear??
Do you get the message now?
We don't want your shit!
We don't want your rules, your book, or your bigotry!!

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay! Otherwise, butt the fuck out, assholes! Take your preacher propaganda prejudices and shove them up your Gawd-fearing asses. The rest of us neither need or want your childish, fear driven, rules to govern our lives.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, including yours. Go away!

Enjoy your religion and its strictures. It's your right. Wallow in it to your heart's content, but don't try to impose it on others, don't try to justify implementing your prejudices as law via your religion. It's really that simple.

Go ahead and link to this - I want people to get the fucking point.

Calling My Relatives

2008-12-01T12:55:00.000-08:00

Yes, you. You know who you are (yes, Stan and Chris, I'm talking to you). Will you please, please set up an Amazon Wish List with what the kids want for Xmas and birthdays?! You don't need to give them any financial info, just an email address, a password to get into it, and a shipping address so I can ship gifts directly to you!! Oh, Mom, this goes for you too. The fun is, it doesn't show your address, just the City and State.

You see, I am a Prime™ member, I pay $79 a year for all you can eat shipping. If I get you guys something from Amazon, I don't have to pack it, wrestle it to the shipper, or worry about it getting there. For example, my Wish List is here.

So, seriously, if you want me to be able to remember your birthdays and holidays, let me know what you want, and where I can have my vendor drop-ship your goodies to. You won't have to go to the Post Office, or any other stuff. Just make a wish list, make it public, and I can see what you are wanting.

Anyone Home?

2008-08-08T15:13:00.000-07:00

So, I wonder, does anyone read this blog? Should I pimp it more? Post more? Go away?

I usually only post here when I have something real to say, rather than blither away about the mundanities of everyday life. I figure if people wanted that kind of stuff, they'd go read a soap opera synopsis or something. Unlike paid pundits, I am not always full of profound and meaningful prose, and even if I was, I wouldn't have time after my paid work to spew them out for the consumption of the blogosphere. But does anyone care about what I have to say at all?

I suppose I could just do link spam, without exposition, but I find that rather dull, and still just as time consuming (search, cut, and paste) as writing my thoughts and all. In fact, articles with quotes and references take about twice as long to write for some reason.

How about requests? I do a lot of stuff that I've never mentioned here because it's plain boring. Throw me a curve, spice up your life. Or not.

Bye for now.

The Next Phase of Conservative Hate

2008-07-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

Ever loving canon-mouths like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh who blame "liberals" and liberal causes for ever problem in our society have managed to crank up another demented wingnut to the point of violence.

How long will people who believe in personal freedom and responsibility let the right wing yammerheads blame "liberals" for stuff that is their doing? The guy was pissed off that he couldn't find work (thank you corporate off shoring, a conservative 'accomplishment'). Also, his food stamps were being cut (thank you, conservative belt tightening and reduction of 'entitlement' programs.)

The shooter's grievances were all the result of disastrous conservative actions. But the spin-meister talking heads had convinced this poor, deluded, driven to the edge, fool that "liberals" did it. They blamed it all on gays, abortion and godlessness. They blather about responsibility, but they can't take responsibility for their own lies and distortions, or the violence they whip up among the less than stable.

So Mr. Wingnut goes and shoots up a liberal church. Buy 76 shells, plans to use them all. Nice - such a responsible, loving, Christian thing to do. Yet I'm sure that the right-wing dittoheads at Christianity Today (Stan, I'm talking to you) and other bastions of conservative 'Christianity' are secretly pleased that there are now fewer liberals in the world to thwart their kingdom of heaven on earth fantasies.

Thank the gods that liberal doesn't mean gutless, like conservative seems to. Several of those liberal churchgoers tackled the wingnut before he killed very many. Before that, another heroic liberal put his body between the gunman and his fellow congregationalists. I bet the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reilly wouldn't have done that. They'd be whimpering into their cell phones for the police department whose budget they had cut the week before to come save them.

I am saddened by the loss of life and glad that it wasn't more. But I'm not surprised.

Oh, and for those of you right wing types who might still be reading? Look these up, read them, and think - Matthew 25:35-46. What is welfare, food stamps, AFDC, universal health care, and prison rehabilitation? Your savior's commands. There's nothing in the words of Jesus about corporate tax cuts or hating homosexuals (well, except for general admonitions about hate...)

See also Of Madmen and Martyrs

The Rule of Law, and The Constitution

2008-06-13T12:54:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Supreme Court got it right, albeit by a very slim margin. From here

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony Kennedy said, writing for the majority in Boumediene v. Bush. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."

and

Indeed, as Justice Kennedy wrote in the decision, "the Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply." What's more, "the political branches," he said do not "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will."

From the ACLU:

The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"Today's decision forcefully repudiates the essential lawlessness of the Bush administration's failed Guantánamo policy. It should also mark the beginning of the end of the military commission process, which permits the use of coerced evidence and hearsay and thus cannot survive the constitutional scrutiny that today's decision demands. It is time to close Guantánamo, end indefinite detention without charge and restore the rule of law."

McCain, being Bush Lite, and watching his prospective power to shitcan the Constitution slip away, said

"It obviously concerns me," he said. "These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens." He said it was important to "pay attention to Justice Roberts" who also dissented.

Yeah, right, John-boy. Even non-citizens have rights when under American jurisdiction. You can't just say "Oh, they aren't citizens, the Constitution doesn't apply." Not with GitMo internees, not with legal and illegal aliens. Not by presidential "Signing Statement" or "Executive Order".

NO ONE is above the law of the land. The neocons and the theocrats need to remember that. We have the rule of law here, not the rule of men or holy book.

Support the Constitution and the Rule of Law - Vote for Barack Obama this fall.

EDIT: More excretia from John "Bush Lite" McCain:

“But we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants; these are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have.”

Idiot - they are either criminals, with rights under the Constitution, or POWs, with rights under the Geneva Convention. One or the other, asshole.

Food, Stash and Stuff

2008-05-12T10:47:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine wrote a little piece on What Are You Going To Do With 20 Pounds Of Flour? Well, I commented, and then I realized that I have more to say.

I have been on of those semi-survivalist nuts for a while. I buy food in bulk, and try to maintain a backstock. It isn't always easy, especially when the roomies would rather eat TV dinners and junk food. Still, I have been doing it for over 10 years, and it has actually helped me and others out.

The key to buying in bulk and storing food is rotation. You have to buy what you eat, and eat what you buy. I don't buy those funky "ration bars" unless I like them as snack food, too. You won't catch me storing soybean oil - unless I plan to make soap with it.

Rotation involves access, labeling, and containment. This means you need to have it stored in watertight hard sided containers, labeled with what it is and when you bought it, and you have to have the oldest storage unit available in the kitchen. Yes, the newer ones can be stuck in a closet, but the one you are using has to be where you cook.

Stuff people stash tends to be staples like rice, beans, flour, pasta and powdered milk. I add oatmeal, because we go through a lot. We don't actually stock powdered milk - because my roomies won't drink it. I try to keep a little on hand for baking, but I'm ambiguous on how much to keep. We don't have kids, so it's not like we need it for them. Also, we store canned meats like tuna, chicken and turkey. This makes fat balancing (for IBS and gallstones) in recipes easier, because they are in pre-measured labelled quantities.

Now, I could point to recipes and stuff. But there are a lot of sites for that.

I am, though, going to point to storage resources. Emergency Essentials. They (among others) sell "Gamma Seal" lids for 5 gallon buckets (they also sell buckets, but those are better bought locally). These turn a hard to open bucket into a useable pantry container. This is how we store rice and flour. It is air and vermin tight, yet is easy enough to open and scoup a couple cups out for a meal. We prefer to use plastic liners for stuff like flour, because it makes stuff easier to clean, and is food safe (not all buckets that you find in stores are intended for food use.) Yes, it makes it a little tricky to get the Gamma Seal on, but once it's on you have a great pantry item.

You can also stuff the bags you get stuf in into buckets, but some don't fit well. Still, they do keep the food away from the plastic.

Now, if you are asking why I do this, and have for years, you aren't alone. Many people have. But there have been time when I dipped into my storage to help feed friends whose money didn't reach the end of the month.

Me and my roomies ate our backstock when we were all unemployed, and barely had enough to make the rent and utilities. Remember the dot bomb? 20 months unemployed for me alone. We weren't hurting for food, just fresh food. But we ate, unlike the first time that I was long term unemployed and only had $20 a month to eat with after my rent was paid. I lost a ton of weight that time, and was not healthy.

Then there's that pesky earthquake thing. A continual system of storing and rotating food means that I seldom worry about starving in a post-earthquake situation. Since the house I live in survived the 1906 earthquake, I'm not too worried about it being uninhabitable. We have a nice grill for outdoor cooking, so that's good.

I have a little trouble getting my roomies to keep the water bottles full - we have a filter unit downstairs, and use that water for drinking and cooking. Unfortunately, they tend to let all the bottles get empty before filling them again. Still, a filter is cheaper than buying a lot of bottled water, and gets most of the sediment and hardness out of the city water.

The real reaon I like to shop in bulk, though, is twofold:
1) Bulk food is cheaper, you pay less for packaging and advertising on plain, bulk food.
2) I have to go shopping less often, and can combine trips easier, thus saving on gas.

If you have the space, cash, and cooking ability to make use of bulk food storage, go for it. It's actually healthier than most of the single serving prepared crap, and will save money and time in the long run. Getting started can seem pricey, but once you start reusing your storage units, you'll wonder how you ever lived without them.

Transit's Cold Equations

2008-03-21T12:22:00.000-07:00

Many people whine that Americans are "too attached to their cars". We put in bus lines, and then wonder why they don't a) make money, or b) get ridden at all. They wail "but it's cheaper than driving!". The problem is, it isn't - when you use the real rider's calculations.

The true cost of transportation isn't just gas or fares - it's time, gas, and fares. Now, some say "but time is free, it doesn't have a cost!". These people need to try hiring a lawyer - they charge by the minute. And just as legal services have a dollar value, so does transit time, when it comes to the total cost of transportation.

Buses are slow. Transfers often involve long waiting. For a low income individual, the "value" of their time spent waiting and riding, plus the fares, are far less than a driving a car would cost them. Same with people who are on disability, social security or a retirement pension.

Now look at an urban professional. Suddenly, spending an hour to go 5 miles for a $2.50 fare is ridiculous, compared to 30 minutes and $5.00 in gas, insurance and upkeep (GIU). Note: the current federal mileage reimbursement rate is only $0.505/mile, so I'm actually putting it higher, $1/mile, than the feds, for realism. Sure the apparent cost of $5.00 is twice that of transit, but the time is 1/2! To figure the real cost, take the following equation:
   $Total_cost = $fare(s) + $GIU + ($rate/hour x time_hours)

For the first case - base level wage
   $2.50 + $0 + ($10.00 x 1.0) = $12.50 by transit
   $0 + $5.00 + ($10.00 x 0.5) = $15.00 by car

For the second case - low level professional
   $2.50 + $0 + ($40.00 x 1.0) = $42.50 by transit
   $0 + $5.00 + ($40.00 x 0.5) = $25.00 by car

That's bad. Now, make the trip longer: 20 miles, 2.5 hours by bus, 1 hour by car
For the first case - base level wage
   $2.50 + $0 + ($10.00 x 2.5) = $27.50 by transit
   $0 + $20.00 + ($10.00 x 1.0) = $30.00 by car

For the second case - low level professional
   $2.50 + $0 + ($40.00 x 2.5) = $102.50 by transit
   $0 + $20.00 + ($40.00 x 1.0) = $60.00 by car

Now, take a fast train system - dedicated right of way, well spaced stops. Both subjects drive to the station 2 miles away and park (15 min), the destination is 20 miles away - 30 minutes train time. Fare is $10.
For the first case - base level wage
   $10 + $2 + ($10.00 x 0.75) = $19.50 by transit
   $0 + $22.00 + ($10.00 x 1.25) = $34.50 by car

For the second case - low level professional
   $10 + $2 + ($40.00 x 0.75) = $42.00 by transit
   $0 + $22.00 + ($40.00 x 1.25) = $72.00 by car

See where the tipping point is? The plain fact shown by this type of analysis is that unless transit is time competitive with driving, the only people who will use it are those whose time is of low value.

Race, Identity

2008-03-18T17:25:00.000-07:00

OK, I'll throw out some thoughts on the whole race, religion and Obama thing. BTW, I'm white.

When I see a black person on the street, no matter how "dark", I think "American". When I see oriental, east Indian, or hispanic, I think "immigrant", or "child of immigrant". Yep, profiling. But I live in Silicon Valley, California, and these stereotypes have a root in fact, unfortunately.

Now, when I look at that person, I notice how they're dressed. My judgement breaks along the lines of "trash" or "ordinary folks" when looking at a black person. Now, when I look at a white person, I tend to have the same type of classifications: "trash", "ordinary" or "snooty". When either opens their mouth and speaks, it further classifies them.

So, when I look at Obama, and listen, essentially I see/hear "ordinary American professional". When I hear his pastor, Rev. Wright, I hear "trash", not "ordinary American". Too bad. When I hear Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter, I think "trash", not "ordinary American".

Just as you can't judge all whites by Limbaugh and Coulter, we can't judge all blacks by Rev Wright. Because they aren't ordinary Americans.

Bottom Feeders

2008-03-14T15:05:00.000-07:00

What would you think if a guy came to you and said "Hey, I've got a great idea for a business! Let's go to Vegas, drop max bet into a row of slot machines, and sue the machine for contract violation if it doesn't pay out 100:1! It's a sure thing! After all, they are supposed to pay out!"

You'd probably show him the door, at least, or request a sanity hearing if he was your investment advisor. Any sane person would.

Yet there are businesses, backed by the banks and the stock market, that do essentially that. It's called the secondary collections industry. These bottom-feeding companies buy known bad debts, and then harrass, using every legal and dubious technique in the book, and sue the original debtor - often for debts that have been re-aged or otherwise monkeyed with by a series of secondary account owners. They sue to recover the original amount, plus some farcical interest, in spite of the fact that the original debt was written off years before and that they only spend pennies on the dollar for the bad paper.

Now, 90% of the time, the debt was written off because the debtor didn't have the money to pay it! Why do these people assume that adding fees and interest will make it more likely to be paid?? Stupid, but they drive people into depression, drinking, suicide or panic attacks with their constant harassment. "Oh, it's just business" they say - the business of ruining already shaky lives.

I know someone who is going through this. A bottom feeder, LVNH, and their scum-sucking lawyers, Wolpoff and Abramson, are suing her over a long dead account - original value of less than $2000 - in full civil court. She had to do full financial disclosure (yet another humiliation) in order to have her filing fees waived by the court. Her finances already suck, and she has no work. Now she can't get any work because of the depression and anxiety. When she says to me "I want to curl up and die!", I want to commit mayhem on these bottom feeding scum. Don't say "Oh, file bankruptcy" - she can't afford the fees for that either, or for a lawyer.

Yes these scum have shareholders, and people who invest in the stock of companies like them. People are making money on other people's humiliation and misery. Great example of the American spirit ... NOT! Why don't they just invest in a betting pool on whether a person will get sick or not - oh, wait, that's the "for profit", stockholder driven health insurance industry, where the stockholder profits trump the customner's need for life and health (another rant forthcoming...)! Maybe they should all be honest and put bets on who cries out first when whipped with a cat-of-nine tails, it would be more honest!

These creeps' "business model" should be illegal - it's institutionalized gambling of the nastiest sort.

Hope, Future, and True Progressive Ideals

2008-03-06T14:40:00.000-08:00

This country has been twisted long enough by the "every man for himself, his small-minded church, and his stock portfolio" attitude of the "movement" conservatives. They've taken our basic assumptions about what it means to be an American, and distorted them into a mean, selfish, "I've got mine, kiss my ass or do without" malaise.

Let's take a look at the real American ethic:

Hard Work - You get where you are going by working for it. Not by going into debt, not by giving up your basic rights in favor of some faceless, unethical, corporation, not by getting a free ride from our infrastructure - but by work a fair days work for a fair wage, contributing your effort and ingenuity to our great dream.

Helping Others - You help those who need a hand up, giving when they need it, helping them find when you can. You take care of those whose working life is over, through age or illness, or those who are just starting out in life.

Respect - You respect individuals for who they are, not who you want to force them to be. You respect the old, and the young. You respect a person's faith, without giving up yours, or selling out your reason to some snake oil salesman.

Stewardship - You are a steward of planet earth. You tread lightly on the earth, leaving it ready for future generations. You turn your ingenuity and creativity toward solving problems caused by the "me, me, me" movement.

Faith - Whatever you believe in, or nothing at all, you see that as a very personal, precious thing that should never be shoved down someone else's throat, or dragged through the mud of politics or the public square.

Independence - This country was founded on the principles of religious, civil, and personal independence. Independence of thought, independence of action, but respect for the independence of others. You question the dictates of those who would set themselves above you as authorities, and be ready to ask "why", rather than obeying blindly.

Reason - You think things through, and aren't danced around by advertisers, preachers, and others who want you to follow without question and give them your hard earned money. You apply your brains to creative solution to problems, and use the scientific method to test your ideas against reality, and refine them as needed.

Cooperation - You help your friends, family, neighbors, and community. You know the value of teamwork, and remember that the community barn raising is an American icon, symbolising the ability of Americans to work together toward a common good. You know that our country rose to its peak by the work of many, on infrastructure and education, and we still benefit from those thing today, and need to strengthen and maintain them for the future.

So, are there any more true American values that you can think of?

Prophets, Teachers and our Society

2008-01-18T13:25:00.000-08:00

Throughout the years, there have been true prophets - people who really tried to teach and help theirfellow human beings. They usually die young and violently.

If we are lucky, their teachings live on, uncorrupted. Sadly, establishment types like to "embrace and extinguish" the real message. Jesus' teachings being twisted by Paul is a classic example.

So, I will take a mishmash of wise words, bring them into now, and present them as advice in their stead.

* Pay down debt, reduce spending. If it's being advertised heavily, don't buy it - the ads tend to point to stuff you don't need. Being careful with your money is a virtue, it will help you to think about what you do.
* Go green and local, spend your hard earned cash in your community. The community is where you live, and the economy that affects you most. Nurture it.
* Buy what you need first, not what you merely want. Remember, there are levels of need and want. Conspicuous consumption is the path to ruin.
* Develop "at home" skills and hobbies. Give homemade gifts this year, if you can. For the things made with heart and hands are more real that sweatshop schlock.
* Increase your savings. To plan for possible needs and upheavals as a habit also means that you think about the future, insterad of just "now".
* Take charge of your own health. The insurance companies will not advocate for *you*, only their profits. They make money killing you. You must live in your body, not some soulless corporation.
* Energy saving technologies are a good buy. The bills you reduce are your own. While we are not the servants of the earth, neither are we its master. We need it more than it needs us.
* Offer a helping hand within your own community. Large religious based charities are tending toward corruption, scandal and ulterior motives. Charity begins at home, and even a simple hand up can help. This doesn't mean letting people leech off of you, but rather showing them how to escape the pit, and lending them a ladder.
* Vote your conscience, beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. But vote! Make waves, do not be silent in your dissent. But, pick your battles wisely, don't just rebel for rebellion's sake. Act as a lever, not a crude battering ram.
* Try to be an example for the young. The fact that many worship sports and entertainment icons as "heroes" is a sad commentary on our society. Be a quiet hero, and show how by your actions, not your words.
* Celebrate your accomplishments, if only to show others that it is possible to aspire and achieve. Encourage others in the same things. The success of another is not a threat to the truly successful.
* Advocate for, and try to do, what is right. Not according to some book of rules written by men or some god, but what is right by the principles of fairness and justice. Don't screw others over, in word or deed.
* The net is everywhere. Remember that there are real people on the other side of the screen. Treat them as if they were next door, or in front of you.
* The world about with rude, ill mannered people. Don't be one of them. Be the genteel exception, not the nasty rule. Teach your children the same, they'll go farther in life.
* The written word is underrated. Culture a beauty and complexity in your language and writings. Think, and help others to think. For it is the creators and the thinkers that will assure our future.
* Play! Live, not just exist. Find joy where you can, and spread it. Play with heads, make someone's day brighter, just because you can. Share the stories of the fun.
* Trust everyone... to do what they believe is in their own best interest. Whether it actually is in their best interest or not, if they think it is, they will tend to do it. The path may be shared by many, but each of us walks alone - no one else lifts our feet for us.
* Learn to be comfortable in your own skin. Chuck out all the advertising driven junk about diets and health. Accept you as you are, not yearn for what some advertising hacks tell you you "should" be. Hell, chuck all that "should" crap out of your self talk. It is a waste of energy and metal angst.
* Shitcan the guilt thing. Not obeying the talking heads on the boob tube when they tell you to spend, diet, or obey some dead guy is liberating. Acknowledge your regrets, and move on.

There may be more, but that'll do for a start.

Feed toLJ

2008-01-09T14:27:00.000-08:00

I've attempted to set up a feed of this blog to Live Journal. Syndicate me!

Childfree, or how I dodged the baby bullet

2007-11-15T14:57:00.000-08:00

On November 16, 2005, I got spayed. I had it done because I had fibroids. I was 44. It hass been the most liberating and delightful thing in my life. No more periods, no more cramps, no more worrying about *ever* getting pregnant!!

But for years and years earlier, whenever I had sex, I would *always* worry if I would get pregnant. Yeah, I could get an abortion, I lived in California. But even the first trimester fucks with your body. Having erratic menses didn't help, either. I had never sought sterilization previously, because I grew up with the ethic of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it!", and being "baby ready" is the default configuration of the female body.

I came to hate the script, that little "plan" that my socioeconomic caste was expected to follow: college, marriage, house and kids. No matter what field I went into, it would always be pushed aside, along with my self, in the interests of the next generation. Still, I always said "When I can afford it.", "When I have a house.", blah, blah. Buying a house has been out of reach for me for decades in the Bay Area - I wasn't willing to be a gold-digger to get a spouse that could afford it.

The fact is, I knew, deep in my heart, that I didn't want to be a mother. I have only recently, in the last decade, been able to even somewhat control my temper well enough to be responsible for other lives. I hate loud crying, screaming, and whining. I hate the constant "Why, why, why" of toddlers. If I had followed the script, I would have been an abusive, frustrated and bitter bitch, and no kid should ever have to grow up with that for a mother.

So I just... avoided it. Dodged it with a lot of "Well, after I've X, Y or Z." I didn't socialize a lot with people who had young kids - we had very little in common. If I couldn't have a real conversation with the kid, I didn't play entertainer. Fortunately, I didn't get too much flak about it. People who knew me knew I wasn't mommy material, and I stayed away from the type of people that pushed parenthood, including the religious nuts who think it's some sort of mandate from gawd. Avoiding idiots is something I try to have as a fine art.

It's only in the last few years that I've come to embrace the label childfree. Not because my social circle has become a nest of kid-pushers, but because American society has become more and more child-centric. Even my friends that have kids are disgusted at the cult of the brat that has sprung up around the youngest parents and their "precious" offspring. Even the youngest of my friends were raised to be courteous to others. Not most kids today - they're taught that the world revolves around them, the world owes them adulation, that what they want is all that counts. I want to drop-kick a lot of them, with their so-called parents, off a cliff.

The easiest, cheesiest way politicians have of selling some social restriction or establishment of a new victimless crime is "for the children". Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, drug laws, gun laws, decency laws, blah, blah, blah are all passed on the "think of the children", "do it for the children" line. Sorry folks, we old farts were here first, and there are more of us.

The religious right has jumped on the baby bandwagon with both feet. The whole "right to life" thing is just one more front in their religious, faux moral, war on American culture, just like the drug war, the crime war and all their other pet wars. Best way to keep those uppity feminists in their place - saddle 'em with a baby on each hip, "for the future", "for the glory of god", "for the sake of Life™". What about the lives of those who are already here? Oh, that's right, we're only women, nothing more than vessels for the next generation of men to rule the world. Fuck that. Birth control, access to sterilization, and abortion are nothing more than our demand to chose our own destiny, not be merely brood mares for the next generation.

Oh, BTW, why is it okay for 13 year olds to be forced to bear a baby to term, but for a doctor or a state to deny a 20 year old an abortion or a sterilization because they "don't know what they really want" or "aren't old enough to make that decision"? Birthing another life is a lot more life altering and permanent than getting fixed, for two (or more) people, not just one.

So, yeah, I'm childfree, and I blog. I usually don't make a really big deal about it, because I believe in the right of every person to chose their own life path, and the responsibility of everyone to deal with the consequences, both good and bad, or those choices. But when people start assuming that "females with blogs" = "mommy blogging", I've got to set them straight.

This post triggered by Purple Women & Friends.

Bush at His Work...

2007-05-03T13:54:00.000-07:00

Denying the will of the American people, again.

First, he wielded his petulant veto on money for our troops because the American people, through Congress said "No forever war, no blank check!"

"Waah, waah!" says King George, "If you don't give me what I want, which is carte blache, I will veto it." So the troops get no money. Way to go, King George, way to support the troops! I'm sure they love their failing equipment and 15 month overseas deployments in your little dick waving adventure to prove how baddass you are. A lot of people have celebrated all the way to the graveyard.

Then, Congress finally passed a long overdue hate crimes bill adding protection for women, gays, transgender and disabled people. King George doesn't consider any of those to be real people, they are lesser beings who should not be out on the streets, if allowed to live at all.

So out comes his petulant veto pen, which never saw the light of day when his Rethuglican cronies passed rapacious bill after bill, and promises to veto a modest protection, albeit only after the fact, for people who aren't able-bodied heterosexual males.

Well, we can see who butters his bread, don't we? Let me give you a hint - it's not the majority of Americans.

So Georgie gives another set of payoffs to his wing nut "base" - the people who espouse and commit hate crimes against women, gays, the disabled, clinics, liberal churches, immigrants, Muslims, liberals, and other non-white-rich-able-bodied-evangelical-Christianist-chickenhawk-males.

Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Isn't it great that Georgie cares so much for the mothers of his soldiers that he won't even sign hate crimes legislation to help protect them? Or sign a bill to protect the soldiers once they come home broken and disabled from his quest to make a name for himself in history?

His cronies already have cut, and cut again, veterans funding, including housing funding, all the while creating loopholes and tax breaks for rich guys and fat-cat corporations who use offshore tax dodges right and left.

2008 can't come soon enough. George and his lapdogs aren't listening. Throw the bastards out!!

Politics and Religion

2007-04-08T20:17:00.000-07:00

Now, I've covered the gay marriage thing here, and a bit about the abortion issue, plus a few zings at the pharmacists who don't want to do their jobs because they thing God told them not to. I've taken a swack at the Dominionists, too.

But now lets take a look at one of the most insidious of the lot: the religious "credentials" of elected officials.

Now, when I was in school in the 60s and 70s, they taught us very carefully that there was no religious test for office. In fact, if you actually read the US Constitution, in Article VI, the last paragraph states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis mine)

Now, this carries two relatively loaded concepts:
1) All elected, executive and judicial officers of the federal and state government are to be bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution.
2) No religious test is required to be passed to fill any elected or appointed office (or presumably any civil service post.)

How then, does this square with the outrage that the Christianists spewed forth over the election of a Muslim Representative, Keith Ellison, and his desire to use the Koran for his swearing in pictures? How does this settle with the comments by the blowhard Dominionist wingnut James Dobson that former Senator Fred Thompson is "not Christian enough" to be elected to the presidency, that were subsequently given airtime by the mainstream media outlets? Why in the hell is even Barack Obama, a Democrat, holding forth frequently about his faith? Is that supposed to make Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists and Pagans want to vote for him?

It's getting to the point where if a politician wears his or her faith on their sleeve, I am less inclined to vote for them. If they feel that the best place for a photo op is in front of a megachurch, then I doubt they care enough about people like me to earn my vote.

Even Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The secular stays secular, the laws of the land are not gods laws, and vice-versa!

The fact that for the last 10 years the mainstream madia has been like flies on shit for every little pronouncement from evangelical "leaders" like Robertson, Dobson, Haggard, Falwell, and their cohorts fills me with disgust and apprehension. Why does a secular government and media put so much weight on the blatherings of a bunch of religious power seekers that already have their own media outlets? Is it always that slow of a news day, or are the owners and editors of these giant media corporations going and drinking the Christianist Flav-R-Aid?

Essentially, these Religious Right wingnuts are turning their reach and media aided influence into a defacto religious test for office, and non Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) people automatically flunk, and the rest are graded on how well they mouth the bogus morals of the Christianist party.

BTW, if you need a religious book or preacher to tell you what is right and wrong, under the threat of hell if you don't obey, then to me you are mortally defective, and possibly a sociopath. The person who does right because it is right, not because a book or church says to, or because they expect some sort of reward in an unknown afterlife, is the truly moral person.

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-04-06T11:59:00.000-07:00

So, it's an official campaign. Part of it is being sponsored by First Freedom First

Now, this blog has, since its inception, been given over to posts against religious right dittoheads, and other smarmy control freaks who would shove their religion down the throats and into the private lives of others. Whether the subject has been marriage law, abortion, or other things, the personal, religious, and the political meet here.

So take a look through some of my prior posts, and also my Live Journal posts relating to theocracy.

I hope to hold forth, albeit to a small readership, on things relevant to the theocratic/dominionist attempt to borg this country.

Earth is a Mother

2007-03-02T12:20:00.000-08:00

Hey, religious right fundamentalist blowhards! Remember when your leaders (Robertson, Limbaugh, etc.) said that Katrina, Rita and all of those other natural disasters were God's punishment of the wicked, yada, yada??

Then why is it, especially this year, that it's the RED (religious and republican) states that are getting hammered by tornadoes and stuff? Are you wicked, immoral, and against God?? We know you are bigoted, judgmental, and not following the example of Jesus. Maybe your God is trying to tell you something?

Or maybe weather is weather, global warming is real, and you're getting bitten by something you supposedly don't believe in. Oh, the irony! Aren't you sorry that FEMA still sucks due to the Republican gutting of government to pay for their illegal war?

Religious Instruction and Teens

2007-02-06T12:11:00.000-08:00

There has been a bit of turmoil roiling about the web about people who "teach" teens their religion. It seems as if any old Christian church is free to indoctrinate any non-believing teens that it can get through its doors, but if pagans and heathens teach teens about their religion, they get slammed by the parents as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", "sexual predators", or "abuse of trust", etc. The argument is that this is "not fair".

If it were that simple, the argument would be absolutely correct. However, the reality is a bit different.

First, the true unfairness: Christianity is an "accepted" religion to teach kids about, even if their parents don't approve. Any suits about it would get laughed out of court, because it's ubiquitous. If a Muslim, Hindu or Pagan parent gets bent out of shape about their kid attending a Christian service, they have little recourse.

Of course, it could be, and is, argued that a service isn't "instruction". Why don't they get accused of molestation and contribution to delinquency? Because they are general thought to be "safe" - but look at the catholic priests and boys issues, even for parentally approved interactions!

However, most Christian services and instruction take place in an open, public setting. There are lots of people, lots of "upstanding" witnesses. It becomes much harder to prove misconduct in that environment. Still, very few fundamentalist/evangelical preachers ask for permission slips from their under-age attendees whose parents aren't present or members also. Bad, bad news, IMO. I'd love to see one of those deceptive religion sellers hoist on their own petard for that.

Pagan instruction tends to be one-on-one, or small group, and not public. This, then, can be twisted much more easily by a DA looking to make a name, or a parent with a control issue.

Adults who teach teens tend to be targets of overzealous prosecution, and they have a lot to lose. How would you like to be arrested, have your reputation and job ruined, be imprisoned and/or sued for everything you own, have a criminal record, and possibly to be branded a "sex offender" because you had a teen over to your house for simple religious instruction? This is also why most capable teachers won't teach teens, period. Not in any tradition where "sky clad" or "sex positive" could even be attributed to it - even if you don't say a word about it!

Now, this is not to say that adult pagans can't give information to teens. They must, however, be more careful of how they do so, to protect themselves and the community.

First, the don'ts:

Don't meet alone with a teen. One-on-one must wait for adulthood or parental permission.
Don't meet with teens in a private location.
Don't delve into the sex, body image, and other anti-puritanical stuff yet.
Don't encourage the kid to lie to their parents. The truth or silence does just as well.
Don't lie about your own age to teens you are working with.

Then, the dos:

Do ask for parental permission, in writing (see below).
Do invite teens to open and public events.
Do post informational material and resource lists on the web.
Do answer email and chat questions.
Do be willing to answer parental questions.
Do give the teens credit for some brains.
Do counsel patience for teens whose parents are averse to the entire idea, as much as it sucks.

About permission slips - here's a sample:

I, __________________________, give my permission for my son/daughter, ___________________________, to take religious instruction with ___________________________________. I understand that this instruction is pagan/heathen in nature, and is viewed by some as non-mainstream.

Signed: ________________________________________

Date: ________________ Phone Number: _______________________

A permission slip should be designed to cover the instructor's ass, the kid's ass, and the parent's ass from busybodies and nosy parkers, as well as parents. If the parent knows, and assents, you can do formal initiatory instruction. If not, well, you need to stick to what you can point to that is publicly available.

IMO, any religious instruction (sermons, schooling, "abstinence education") of minors should require a permission slip of this sort. If I had a kid, and they were being preached at or indoctrinated, I would want to know about it, and if a preacher or "witness" wanted to drag them to services, they could damn well get my permission.

If the parents don't approve, the teen is very limited as to what can be done for them. Yes, they could seek emancipation, but that has its own troubles. Having the kid lie about their activities to their parents is bad for both your ethics, and their ethical development. Sometimes, putting up with fundie indoctrination can be a test of patience and resolve.

This is where the "Die Gedanken Sind Frei" (Our Thoughts Are Free) concept comes in: a teen's parents may have control over what the teen is permitted to do or attend, but there is no moral way for them to control what they think.

If they are true jerks, they can send the teen to one of those nasty "boot camps" that break and brainwash the kid. However, that is only quasi-legal (because of the physical and psychological torture involved), and definitely unethical and immoral (a true religion doesn't convert or retain by brainwashing). Also, it can backfire horribly. I know adults who have been through those camps, and they hate their families with a passion, and suffer PTSD on top of it.

So, if the teens' parents are hostile, the best advice is for the teen to keep their views on religion to himself, attend whatever church services the parents require, and read whatever religious information is freely, publicly available, possibly at the library. It keeps the peace in the home, teaches patience, and prepares the teen for a lifetime of being a member of a misunderstood and much maligned minority religion.

© 2007 by Ravan Asteris. Permission to repost granted, provided the text is unaltered and the attribution and copyright notices are retained.

Homeless Fundamentals

2007-01-30T13:19:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be "homeless"?? Poor? Crazy? Addicted? Loser?

Wrong!

Let's look at the basic etymology of the word - home-less: home = place to live with walls and roof, -less = without, minus, lacking. So homeless is "without (a) place to live". Simple, no?

Now, what causes this?
* Is it addiction? No, lots of alcoholics and drug addicts have homes, and not all homeless are addicts.
* Is it mental illness? No, lots of mentally ill people have homes, and not all homeless are mentally ill.
* Is it poverty? Yes and no. The poor that can't afford homes where they work end up homeless, but being poor does not in and of itself cause homelessness.
* Is it lack of will? No. The homeless hustle a lot more just to eat, drink, keep their stuff, find a place to sleep, etc, than many of us with housing, and lots of losers have places to live.

To be really, really blunt: being homeless is caused by the unavailability of housing that you can afford.

In many urban areas, a full time minimum wage job (CA: $7.50/hr * 168 hr/mo - taxes = $1,017.30 {/2 = $508.65}, AZ: $5.15/hr * 168 hr/mo - taxes[no state income tax] = $733.48 {/2 = $366.74}) does not pay enough rent a cheap, run-down studio in a crappy part of town, much less a safe place to live (figure half of take-home). State and Federal Disability payments are not enough either. (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?maxAsk=510 - most here are out in the boonies, rv spaces, or shared housing).

There are a limited number of "Section 8" units in these areas, and the waiting lists for them is usually several years long. Where do the people live in the meantime? On the streets, or on the couches of already overcrowded friends and family.

Several years ago, an older couple we knew was forced out of their apartment by a greedy landlord who wanted to "remodel" and get "market" rent (about twice what the couple was paying). They could not find another place. They literally put their stuff into storage and moved into my living room for 2 years. We had 6 adults living in a small 4 bedroom, 1 bath house. Technically, they weren't "homeless", but they still had little privacy.

So I figure that for every person living on the streets, there are two more "couch surfing" or otherwise crowded into inadequate living conditions.

This problem has grown from almost non-existant in the early 70s to an epidemic today. Why? The lack of federal and state funding for construction and maintenance of affordable (and accessible) housing units. Many previous (pre 1980) units have been "privatized" - returned to "market" rates - and removed from the affordable pool. This, coupled with the gross decline in the buying power of a minimum wage job, has led to the current "crisis".

The gutting of the affordable housing programs started before Reagan, but accelerated each time we had republican majorities in Congress (they who control the purse).

Most "homeless assistance" programs today are just band-aids on a sucking chest wound. They can only open shelters - crowded, demeaning, and unstable, because they cost less than building real, long term affordable housing. There is at least an order of magnitude difference in funding.

If we got shed of Bush's Iraq war, and put that money instead into building affordable housing, retraining the returning GIs for new careers, and paying down the deficit, we would be making an important investment in the future of this country.

Reference: “Without Housing: Decades of Federal Housing Cutbacks, Massive Homelessness and Policy Failures”

Frugal For Life

2006-12-07T12:54:00.000-08:00

Frugal For Life - a nice little blog on budgeting, and living within your means.

One little blurb I like:

B Buy what you need, not what you want.
U Use it up, wear it out or give it away
D Don't spend what you don't have yet
G Garage sales, thrift shops, pass downs
E Eat at home or make it at home
T Tracking your spending
S Simplify your life

Enjoy!

Hello, America

2006-11-08T15:20:00.000-08:00

Well, the borrow and spend Rethuglicans have been given a setback. Not because the Democrats had better ideas, but because people were sick of the Neo-Con crap.

What we really, really need is a party of pragmatic adults, with principles, ethics, and a will to do what is best for the future of our nation and the world. Sadly, that isn't really the Democrats, although they do better than the current crop of Republicans.

I still want to see a party with a platform actually built on these planks:

People are free to do as they wish as long as it harms no one else. However, if you want to kill yourself using public resources, expect your estate to be sued for costs and emotional distress to those who must clean up your mess.
If you're spending public money, or costing the public money, the taxpayers have a say. Don't be frivolous with it. We will pay for value, not cheap pork or overpriced sausage.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our republic is founded on the principles therein, and the rule of law over the rule of men. Respect it, don't use it to deny rights and priviledges to groups that are unpopular.
We believe in getting good value to the taxpayers for their expenditures. Infrastructure, education, health care, and other investments in our land and its citizens have historically yielded good returns on investment. Don't waste the momentum on "I got mine, everyone else go hang." attitudes and shortsightedness.
Decisions that we as a nation make in the next few years will have major effects on the entire planet for the next century. We need to think of the future, and plan for it. There is no "Armageddon, Jesus gets you out of jail free." in the real world.
Integrity goes a long way. Better to be honest, and treat people right, than to be a hypocrite and a sleazebag. Private kinks are fine, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. Just don't say "X is bad" and be hip deep in doing X.

Now, neither the Democrats or Republicans will sign on to something like this. For that matter, neither will the Libertarians (they are the worst offenders on item 4.) So it ends up having to be yet another 3rd party.

I am inclined to call it the Adulthood party - because it treats the citizens and the government as an adult responsibility, not some kids' game.

Marriage, Religion and Government

2006-10-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

Most people will agree that marriage in the US is very much a religious institution. Many faiths and denominations have such things in their holy books, although some of them (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) are now viewed as quaint or obsolete - like a man marrying his dead brother's wife (Yibbum).

It is the religious nature of the institution of marriage that fans the flames against gay "marriage" in so many people - it "profanes" the institution in their view. Well, you can't profane something that isn't sacred.

Then we have the government, and the Constitution. Let's look at Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, in essence, Congress can't make laws about religion, or religious institutions, or to prevent religious practices (that don't endanger others.)

Well crap! Having government established criteria for marriage (an ancient religious institution) runs right smack against the First Amendment!! The government has no business regulating marriage, or giving benefits for marriage, or rights only to married couples. None. Marriage is religious.

But what about inheritance, survivors pensions, visiting rights in hospitals, married filing joint, and all of that which is currently attached to marriage?

It needs to go. All of it. No more marriage licenses. None. Marriages can only be performed by a religious authority, who sets their own faith-based criteria. No civil benefits should accrue from such a ceremony.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion: marriage is such an establishment. Return marriage to the churches, synagogues and mosques where it belongs.

But the rights and priviledges formerly accorded to "married" couples? Well, they belong as a civil matters, not religious. Inheritance, childrearing, hospital visitation, final decisions, taxpayer status - all of those are civil matters, not religious ones. They require their own civil statute, and civil institution. They are rights and responsibilities gained from a civil contract, currently tied to the otherwise religious institution of marriage.

Break the link between the civil and the religious. Makes all unions/legal pairings/whatever be civil unions. Hetero or homo, it doesn't matter. The civil part is a civil union. Go before a justice of the peace, both declare your intent to enter into a contract of union in front of witnesses, and the contract is legally recognized.

Since it's civil, it can be regulated for the sake of the public health (brother/sister or father/daughter unions, for example), but otherwise it falls under the equal protection clauses. If the couple wants a religious marriage too, then they can have one, in the religion of their choice.

The justice of the peace could even deputize the religious officiant to perform both the marriage and the recognition of civil contract at the same time. That's really what we have now, but it's all buried under the religious institution of marriage.

It takes the government completely out of the institution of marriage. It maintains the civil contract part that is the government's bailiwick, and gives marriage back to religion.

Oh, and divorce? A dissolution of the civil contract - only. If you want to marry again in your church, you have to dissolve the marriage according to their rules.

Furthermore, if a religion believed in polygamy, they could marry groups. But civil law would govern who had the civil union contract, and thus the tax benefits and such.

Calling all Christians and Americans

2006-09-25T19:41:00.001-07:00

Look here and ask yourselves, deep in your heart of hearts, "What Would Jesus of Nazareth Do?"

Then ask youselves if the party that supports this type of shit is really representing your "morals", or whether you're just being used for your faith.

Even I, as a pagan/heathen/apostate, recognize that torture is immoral, unethical, and wrong.

Even I, a civilian, recognize that systematically violating and flaunting the Geneva Convention is detrimental in the long term to the health and safety of our troops, to the morale and moral ceratinty of our forces, and to the very principles on which this country was founded:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-- U.S. Declaration of Independence

What do real Americans say about torture? NO!!

True Colors: Theocrat

2006-08-27T13:40:00.000-07:00

Well, yet another Republican operative has dispayed her true colors as a wannabe theocrat: Harris Clarifies Comments on Religion. If you read the article, the "clarification" is merely a mealy-mouthed restatement of the theocrat position. Here's another: Harris Calls Church, State Separation 'A Lie'.

If you want to be really ill, you can find the original interview, in all of it's flaming bigotry, here.

She later said that she didn't mean to offend anyone, "My comments were specifically directed toward a Christian group," -- Harris attempts to defuse controversy. Great. To me, that means that they were supposed to keep the secret, so they wouldn't "offend" any of us while they took over our nation and warped our goverment!! Keep everyone else in the dark and fed bullshit until the theocracy was a fait accompli!

Now, I have to admit, it's nice of one of them to finally state unambiguously what most of them believe. You see, the criticism within her own party seems to be along the lines of "gee, don't say that." Now, one of her opponents was a little more forthright, but others aren't. This little gem represents one of the typical backpedalinds by her fellow Christian Republicans:

Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris's remarks "were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican."

"This notion that you've been chosen or anointed, it's offensive," Brooks said. "We hurt our cause with that more than we help it."

-- Rep. Harris Condemns Separation of Church, State

Is this the type of person and party we want governing our pluralistic society? This person "certified" the dubious 2000 Florida ballot, which indirectly led us to having the worst government that this country has seen since the depression. Hell, even Nixon did more good in the international sphere than baby Bush has.

Now, I agree that religious people need to be involved in politics. This nation has a variety of deeply held religious beliefs, and these inform our consciences, and our duty to our fellow human beings. But I don't see legislating against gays, abortion, fair use or a social safety net to be in line with that concept.

When people insist on writing legislation to make an entire secular, pluralistic nation follow only the dictates of some of the most repressive theocratic regimes of the Old Testament, they are not carrying out their duty to their fellows. They are carrying out a misguided "mandate" from a long dead era, one that their own religion has deprecated!

Until these barbarians can be educated on their own religion with the meaning of the words spoken by their own "savior", they need to be relegated to the dustbin of politics. They and their hatred have no place in a pluralistic society and constitutional republic.

Fundamentalism, Theocracy, and Imposing Your Beliefs on Others

2006-07-24T22:04:00.000-07:00

My religious right dittohead brother-in-law (good gods, he cites the Family Research Council as a primary, credible source - what a joke!) chastises "liberals" for whining about Christian theocrats, but not about Muslim theocrats, in Christianity, Theocracy, and Reason. Apparently he hasn't been reading the "liberal" sources I have. He's a nice enough guy, but damned naieve. He can't seem to see past his own sense of holy bliss and hearing the "word" of God enough to walk in someone else's shoes.

Then again, this is the polarized individual who listed in his "Overrated Things":

Political moderates. Most are liberals who don’t want to admit it. Grownups think things through and take principled positions.

Sorry, Stan, but grownups don't see things in terms of binary options, but as a continuum. It's little kids, those who think like them, and computers that see things as black or white, yes or no, good or bad, one or zero. While your religion may encourage that particular self deception, the real world doesn't work that way.

But back to the original subject: theocracy, and those who advocate imposing religious ethics and practices on those who may or may not believe.

In this country, the theocrats making the most headway are the anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-patient-trust refuseniks. I wrote a rant in my LiveJournal about Ethics, Religion, and Doing Your Job that spells out my opinion of those people. If they get away with this pushing of personal religion on the unsuspecting public, it will be due to their dominionist lapdogs in the statehouse and congress. Yet these same people would scream bloody murder if a vegan cashier refused to ring up their hamburger purchases, and would insist the person be fired for not doing their damned job!.

But these whackos are only the public tip of the iceberg. There is the whole Dominionist concept, beloved to fundamentalists who want a Christian theocracy in the US. Similar is the Christian Reconstructionism sewer, dominated by the nutjob Gary North. There are milder forms, of course, but all have the same agenda: impose "Christian" (but WWJreallyD?) law and codes of conduct on all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.

Then we have Islamism, also called Islamic fundamentalism. They want to either destroy the West, or bring it under sharia and dhimmitude. They also want to bring their own primary nations under theocratic rule, and make life uncomfortable for religious minorities. Iran has already done so. Iraq and Afghanistan are tending that way - with sectarian spats on top of it all. They often have conversion away from the dominant religion as a heresy and punishable by death.

Then we have places like China, whose state religion is the absence of religion (atheist state, or State Atheism). I find this to be just as much of a fundamentalist outlook as the others. They've lightened up a little bit since the 70's, but still regard any strong religious grouping to be a challenge to the state, and require atheism to be a member of the Party (which is required of people in government)

So what do these fundamentalists all have in common? Simple: they desire to legally, or by the use of extra- or quasi-legal violence, enforce their narrow interpretation of religious values on all citizens, regardless of the individual's personal beliefs. You can hold any religion, some of them say, but only as long as you observe the strictures and laws of our dominant religion. If you try to exercise your own beliefs and principles, or even try to share your differing opinions, you will suffer legal and/or social sanctions. This is common to all of the above:

fundamentalist Christian (I have seen serious websites advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery and abortion),

fundamentalist Moslem (they have the death penalty for homosexuality and adultery), and

fundamentalist State Atheism (look what they did to Falun Gong and all of the viciousness in Tibet.)

So yes, this liberal-leaning moderate complains about fundamentalist theocrats of all varieties. They all suck. They all are a threat to freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, and personal rights. Just because the fundamentalist Muslims are "bad" over there doesn't mean that sane people can ignore the shenanigans happening right here.

Seriously, a vegan fanatic shouldn't be a butcher or a steak house cook, and an anti-reproductive-choice fanatic shouldn't be a pharmacist or an EMT. It's real simple: stay out of professions that might compromise your "morals", or suck it up and do your job. And for the sake of all that you hold holy, quit trying to be someone else's concience! It's not your place, it's not your right!

Privacy, Surveillance, and Why It Matters

2006-05-19T15:31:00.000-07:00

I posted a bit of this in my LiveJournal a month ago. But with the new, and ongoing, revelations about the NSA data mining of phone calls (numbers and duration!), it bears repeating again and again.

A lot of conservative and right wing people are advocating that the government is right to accrete to itself more and more surveillance and domestic intelligence gathering powers, in spite of past abuses and the wiretap act. The PATRIOT Act and its sequels are just the tip of the iceberg, IMO.

The latest bit of crap about the NSA having all our phone log data is just more of the same. Especially when it turns out that those same call logs, "for terrorist tracking", are being used to "investigate leaks" by finding out who has called reporters about government misconduct! (Yes, folks, secret prisons and extraordinary rendition are misconduct!) First amendment? Whistleblower protections? Kiss them goodbye!

I have to ask anyone advocating surveillance, spying, monitoring, tracking, logging, pervasive IDs, biometrics, and all of the rest of the "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" type of crap to do this simple exercise:

Imagine that your worst nightmare has come to pass, and the government is entirely made up of the party and politicians you hate and/or fear the most - for conservatives, think of Congress and the White House filled with Hillary and Bill Clinton clones.

Imagine that this government of people you loathe has been given *all* the tools you now advocate or allow for monitoring, identification, surveillance, telephone call logging, and spying on undesirables.

Imagine that this government that you loathe now considers you to be an undesirable, a terror suspect, a pesky political opponent, or otherwise anti-American.

Are you still so sure that you want to give the "government" (current and future) the authority to use these tools?

You see, you aren't just handing the good ol' boys of the Bush administration these powers, you are handing the government, in perpetuity, these powers - regardless of who is running it. If, and when, you lose your predominance, the people who you hate, and that hate you, will have the tools to make your (and your descendents) lives miserable - and you gave them to them with a cheer and a "damn straight".

Doesn't that make you feel brilliant?

Immig-Rant

2006-04-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

It's in the news. Congress and the Rethuglicans are split on it, supposedly. The far right is whining about it, in a thinly veiled racist sort of way. The jerk on the radio was moaning "But they're illegal, they shouldn't be here!". They, of course, being Mexicans, what the jerks call the "brown tide." "They're trying to take over California!" bigots moan.

First, immigration - illegal, legal and quasi-legal - is more than just "mexicans". It's quotas, by country of origin, so we don't let in too many "brown people", unless they will indenture themselves to corporations with an H1b. It's a system that is currently broken, lumbering, and downright nasty.

Not too long ago, the discrimination wasn't against Mexicans, it was against the Irish. NINA - no irish need apply - was a common sight around the turn of the last century. Now some of the decendent of those Irish immigrants are wanting to keep the Mexicans out. In every region, there has been discrimination against one, or several "newcomer" minority. Irish, Chinese, German, Japanese, Slavic, etc. - you name it, it is, or has been, there. It's all hypocrisy. The only people in this country who aren't decended in part from imigrant stock are full blood Native Americans.

Now, the big moan is about taxes and services 'used' by immigrants. "Oh, these people pay nothing and use up everything" is the crap I hear. It's bullshit. Here's why:

In California, we have sales tax, and not a trivial amount. The only thing we don't get soaked for is basic groceries. Even illegal immigrants need clothes, and other taxable goods. So they pay there.

Illegal immigrants usually rent their housing. Their landlords pay property taxes out of the rent monies received. So, they pay, indirectly, property taxes just like the rest of us who rent.

If the immigrant drives, they pay for gas. Gasoline is taxed out the wazoo, both state and federal. Even if they use transit, they have to pay.

If they use a fake SSN to get a standard W2 type job, they have taxes withheld, just like everyone else. However, if the SSN is fake, they can't file for a refund, or even get an EIC. So they pay more in income tax than a legal immigrant or citizen making the same wage.

Public services at hospitals - they don't use these any more than the rest of the working poor do. In fact, the homeless, disabled and welfare mothers use these more.

So, essentially, everyone who lives, shops, and works here pays into the tax system, illegal or otherwise. Therefore, the services funded by those monies should be available to them. They're not "taking" any more than a homeless person, or a uninsured WalMart employee does. There is no "theft" to get righteously indignant about.

Now, the real problem that these people have: they are not "white". In fact, "white" people are no longer a majority in California. Waaah, waaah, waaaahmbulance!!

A lot of immigrants these days aren't "white" - East Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, Jamaican, Polynesian, etc. Too bad, that's the way the world is - not everyone looks like everyone else. Most of the H1b and L1 corporate indentured servants are not "white" either. It doesn't stop companies from ~~buying~~ hiring them for the "prevailing wage" - in bumfuck Idaho - for a job here in the Silicon Valley! Let me clue you, $40,000 is not the prevailing wage for a software developer here in Silicon Valley!

Immigrants, regardless of paper status, are good for the economy from a "classic" conservative, pro-business viewpoint. They accept jobs that no one born here would consider, they have a strong work ethic (something that seems to have been lost in the last few generations born here), and work for less because they don't expect all of the yuppie luxuries that citizens seem to think they are "entitled" to (cable TV, or even a TV, is a luxury, folks.)

The worst misinformation is the smear that somehow illegal immigrants are all garbage, criminals just here to take our hard won pelf. They aren't. They're here to work, and build a better life. There are no more criminals among the illegal population that there are among the legal and/or citizen population, and maybe fewer.

Now, I mentioneded the quotas and the rest of our system. From About The USA

"The revised immigration law of 1990 created a flexible cap of 675,000 immigrants each year, with certain categories of people exempted from the limit. That law attempts to attract more skilled workers and professionals to the United States and to draw immigrants from countries that have supplied relatively few Americans in recent years."

It still is rigged against persons of color.

From Green Card Lottery Q & A about the 55,000 person "Green Card Lottery" -

"Eligibility is determined by country of birth. Persons born in China, Taiwan, India, the Philippines, South Korea, Pakistan, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, Poland, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, or Jamaica are ineligible, regardless of their country of citizenship or the country in which their parents were born. Persons born in all other countries - including Northern Ireland and Hong Kong - are eligible."

Gee, looks like Mexicans and other brown folks aren't wanted. The other ways, and the only ways for people from Mexico, are either family relations (spouse or child), or employment as a skilled worker, having an advanced degree, being an 'executive', or (slowest) an unskilled laborer/domestic with no one else willing to do the work (the last takes about ten or more years to get a green card, and the quotas are low.) Also, large population countries like India, Mexico, China and the Philippines have the same total quotas (7% of total immigration) as a small country like Lichtenstein - so it's rigged against them, regardless of skills or need.

Maybe the person can go the indentured servant to a corporation route, and maybe the company might sponsor them for a green card. In the meantime, they are often stuck for all of the expenses of their indenture processing if they decide to quit because of the abuse that is prevalent in that kind of situation. As far as I am concerned, the H1b program is a fraud against the skilled citizens of this country who are displaced from jobs and those who enter into thinly veiled servitude for the chance to be sponsored for a green card by their corporate masters.

Now, how I would fix things:

Do away with the H1b program. Let those people come here with green cards, as skilled workers, and compete on a level playing field against those already here. Yes, salaries will go up, since companies will no longer be able to retain these people for cheap by holding the H1 visa over their heads.

Change the quota system. When assigning a quota to a country of origin, do it on a basis of percentage of the world's total population. Exempt asylum seekers from the quotas entirely.

Make smuggling illegal immigrants a felony, if it isn't already. The "coyotes" often endanger or kill these would-be americans for money, and sometimes deliver them to essential slavery.

Have an amnesty for all illegal and out-of-status people here - let them apply for a green card without prejudice. They have been screwed by the quota system, when we fix it, they need a retroactive way to get legal.

Tax companies who bring over L1 and other workers for more than 6 months a "guest worker services" fee to replace the US income taxes that these people would otherwise pay if they were a green card holder. If they really need the person, it would be a minor expense.

America is a nation of immigrants. If someone wants to come here, work and build a life for them and theirs, let them. It's what my ancestors did.

"Liberal" Media? I Don't Think So!

2006-03-30T18:15:00.000-08:00

Gee, the media is soooo "liberal" in it's bias. That's why shows like ABC’s This Week only have Religious Right talking heads like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson on the show, often several times, but have no leaders of mainstream denominations like American Baptist or the United Church of Christ. See Accessible Airwaves for news about this, including the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and the WB refused a paid advertisement that pointed out UCOC's message of inclusion because it was "too controversial". Yet they'll take anti-abortion ads, give guest slots to bigots, religious exclusionists, and moralistic busybodies, and freeze out the voices of reason and inclusion because it doesn't pander to the supposed power of what is really a loud, obnoxious, hypocritical minority of religious right yammerheads. Hell, they might as well call Fox News the "Republican Religious Right channel".

Mainline churches should be silent while Religious Right political leaders get to speak their mind?

Do you care?

A Time Honored Tradition

2006-03-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

Now, to piss off pro-lifers. You see, long before the rise of the AMA, or any male dominated medical profession at all, women have been providing pregnancy termination services to each other. Midwives, herb wives, and other things. Fertile as a turtle? Take these herbs to space your children. Can't feed another right now? Here, let me help you deal with it.

Now, with the triumphs of the religious fanatics in office at the state and federal levels, such services are on their way to being forbidden to the medical profession. The subsequent risk to pregnant women isn't even on these judgemental fanatics radar. After all, if a woman dies giving birth, it's "Gods Will", especially if her "sacred" child is saved. So what if the pregnancy itself could kill her, the sacred fetus might be a *boy*, and thus one of the chosen of Gawd. Girls are useful too, but only to breed more of the faithful for Gawd's armies and keep their houses.

So the knowledge from the 60s is again available. For one, see Molly Saves the Day: For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual. Here's another link chock full of information: Can we safeguard abortion?

I would rather it didn't come to this, but between the triple whammy of useless "abstinence only" sex ed, pharmacists being able to exercise their consciences over your prescriptions, and the abortion ban folks being emboldened by Bush's lousy ideologue Supreme Court picks, it is time to return the control of women's bodies to women, not the medical profession or the "law" of old rich white men with a god complex.

Let's Play...

2006-01-18T11:11:00.000-08:00

Can you Spot the Persecution? Are your religious beliefs persecuted? Brando gives a little quiz on what is, and is not persecution. Some folks (you know who you are) cry "persecution" and "culture war" like the little boy who cried "wolf".

So if you and yours haven't suffered real persecution in this country, Shut the Fuck Up about how your religion is suffering from US culture! You can't be persecuted by the dominant culture when you are the dominant culture.

Endangered Net Anonymity and Pseudonymity

2006-01-09T14:12:00.000-08:00

It is now a crime to "annoy" someone via the net and/or to do so anonymously.

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

This is bad. As many know, I write under a pseudonym. "Ravan Asteris" is my "nom de net" - it is not my real name. Thus, if anyone finds my rants, opinions, or even jokes "annoying", I have a big problem. Even if I don't, the way it seem to be worded would bar even this posting - I am not, and will not, expose my "identity". Sod off, Congress, I won't be one of your "papers in order, even on the net" clones.

I've used this pseudonym for years. I've griped again and again about attempts to force me to give up my pseudononymity, both on-line (see the soc.religion.paganism RFP archives), and in real life. Always with some sort of "security" or other justification.

It's the prying, surveillance, "safety first over liberty" sheep versus the basic rights to privacy, anonymity and pseudonymity, again and again and again! People pooh poohed my slippery arguments, have given me the old, tired "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" bullshit. Now look, where we're going.

It's really no one's business WHY I want to be pseudononymous. It's no one's business why I don't want my finances, comings and goings, grocery shopping, hobbies and bra size hung out in public for anyone to examine and make assumptions about.

I am sick to shit of people who can't (or won't) respect the privacy of others. Now the jackasses in Congress have slipped yet another nail into the coffin of basic rights and privacy in this country.

Now, before some pathetic conservative douchebag apologist for the authoritarian state chastises me for being "intolerant" of people who "like to know who they are talking to", I have this to say: It's my rights that are being trashed, not yours. You don't have a right to know my identity and/or biographical details.

No one says you have to be anonymous, or pseudononymous, and if you don't like reading and talking to pseudononymous bloggers, click away - go elsewhere and stick your head in the sand! After all, if you really believe "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide", then why don't you post your name, social security number, mother's maiden name, address, bank account number, phone number, latest medical test results, prescription list, and driving logs. The government and numerous companies can buy this information about you already.

Hypocrites

2005-12-28T16:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Dream Time

2005-12-13T17:29:00.000-08:00

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.

A Good Read

2005-12-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

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!

Well, Cry Me a River

2005-12-11T18:55:00.000-08:00

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.

I Want To Cry

2005-12-09T12:52:00.000-08:00

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.

Pirst Fost

2005-12-08T15:01:00.000-08:00

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.