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.
2009-04-19
2009-03-16
Dear Banks and Insurance Companies
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.
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.
2009-01-20
To The President
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:
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
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.
- 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?
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
2009-01-12
Happy New Year??
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.
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.
2008-12-18
Rage!!!
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.
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.
2008-12-01
Calling My Relatives
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.
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.
2008-08-08
Anyone Home?
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.
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.
2008-07-28
The Next Phase of Conservative Hate
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
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
2008-06-13
The Rule of Law, and The Constitution
Yesterday, the Supreme Court got it right, albeit by a very slim margin. From here
From the ACLU:
McCain, being Bush Lite, and watching his prospective power to shitcan the Constitution slip away, said
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:
Idiot - they are either criminals, with rights under the Constitution, or POWs, with rights under the Geneva Convention. One or the other, asshole.
"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.
2008-05-12
Food, Stash and Stuff
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.
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.
2008-03-21
Transit's Cold Equations
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.
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.
2008-03-18
Race, Identity
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.
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.
2008-03-14
Bottom Feeders
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.
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.
2008-03-06
Hope, Future, and True Progressive Ideals
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:
So, are there any more true American values that you can think of?
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?
2008-01-18
Prophets, Teachers and our Society
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.
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.
2008-01-09
2007-11-15
Childfree, or how I dodged the baby bullet
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.
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.
2007-05-03
Bush at His Work...
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!!
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!!
2007-04-08
Politics and Religion
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:
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.
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.
2007-04-06
Blog Against Theocracy
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.
2007-03-02
Earth is a Mother
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?
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?
2007-02-06
Religious Instruction and Teens
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:
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.
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.
- 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.
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.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.
Signed: ________________________________________
Date: ________________ Phone Number: _______________________
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.
2007-01-30
Homeless Fundamentals
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”
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”
2006-12-07
Frugal For Life
Frugal For Life - a nice little blog on budgeting, and living within your means.
One little blurb I like:
Enjoy!
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!
2006-11-08
Hello, America
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:
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.
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.
2006-10-26
Marriage, Religion and Government
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:
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.
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.
2006-09-25
Calling all Christians and Americans
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!!
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!!
2006-08-27
True Colors: Theocrat
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:
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.
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."-- Rep. Harris Condemns Separation of Church, State
"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."
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.
2006-07-24
Fundamentalism, Theocracy, and Imposing Your Beliefs on Others
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":
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!
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:
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!
2006-05-19
Privacy, Surveillance, and Why It Matters
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:
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?
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.
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?
2006-04-13
Immig-Rant
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:
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 frombuying 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
From Green Card Lottery Q & A about the 55,000 person "Green Card Lottery" -
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:
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.
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
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.
2006-03-30
"Liberal" Media? I Don't Think So!
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? |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
