tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13303443685803290112024-02-19T09:11:41.840-06:00Heresy/ Political IncorrectnessMusings by MetalNun.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-9224319476801358312018-06-21T23:14:00.000-05:002018-06-21T23:14:20.705-05:00Abortion PostsSince I grow weary of repeating the same arguments over and over, I have assembled here a list of my previous posts re: abortion and will add to it any new ones that I may write in the future, although it's hard to imagine there is still more about this issue that has not yet been discussed by myself or someone else.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; text-align: justify;"> </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" /><a href="http://www.metalnun.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-bible-pro-life.html" style="background-color: white; color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; outline: none; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s;" target="_blank">Is The Bible Pro-Life?</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" /><a href="http://www.metalnun.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-pro-life-are-you.html" style="background-color: white; color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; outline: none; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s;" target="_blank">How Pro-Life Are You?</a><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;">
<a href="http://www.metalnun.blogspot.com/2010/04/part-three-privacy-property-and.html" style="color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; outline: none; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s;" target="_blank">Privacy, Property and Communism</a><br /><a href="http://www.metalnun.blogspot.com/2010/04/part-four-gift-of-life.html" style="color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; outline: none; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s;" target="_blank">The Gift of Life</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;">
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2012/04/allegedly-nonexistent-war-on-women.html#!/2012/04/allegedly-nonexistent-war-on-women.html" style="color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15.2px; outline: none; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s;" target="_blank">The Allegedly Nonexistent War on Women</a><br /><div>
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2013/07/biology-personhood-and-civil-rights.html" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Biology, Personhood and Civil Rights</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-spread-your-legs.html" target="_blank">Don't Spread Your Legs</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-chicken-and-egg.html" target="_blank">The Chicken and the Egg</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2016/09/putting-yourself-in-their-shoes.html" target="_blank">Putting Yourself in Their Shoes</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-19224461164472777382018-05-04T01:37:00.000-05:002018-05-04T01:37:30.534-05:00Triumph of the Tea Party Poseur "Libertarians"<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are a couple of topics that keep coming back up after I thought I'd said everything I could possibly say about them. One is abortion/ reproductive rights. Another topic which has some overlap with that one due to the crucial issue of bodily sovereignty is libertarianism, addressed previously in <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberal-libertarian.html" target="_blank">A Liberal Libertarian</a>, and <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/republicans-have-hijacked.html" target="_blank">The Republicans have hijacked libertarianism</a>. Apparently I need to revisit the discussion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I am blogging about it yet again because of recent conversations on Facebook with intelligent and well-educated liberal friends who, despite their considerable knowledge in other areas of politics, have expressed profound misunderstandings about libertarianism, such as:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* There is nothing whatsoever liberal about the Libertarian Party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* There is no such thing as a left-libertarian.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* The LP only recently approved legalization of cannabis to profit rich white men.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* Libertarians do not support marriage equality and/or LGBTQ rights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* Libertarians and the Tea Partiers are one and the same, far-right-wing conservatives. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">* The Libertarian Party is a branch of the GOP and/or is going to take over the GOP.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Because I disagreed with their beliefs, I was told that I'd been "duped" and ought to "educate" myself. Rather, <b>they</b> have been duped as the result of a very successful campaign by the GOP Poseur "libertarians." The Poseurs have effectively managed to </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">sway public opinion by emphasizing the aspects of libertarianism that </span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">they</b><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">prefer, while downplaying the parts that make them uncomfortable.</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> I will address each of the above misconceptions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"The Libertarian Party is in no way liberal."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In fact,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> the American Libertarian Party has its roots in classical European liberalism of the 1600s, when the term "libertarian" at that time referred to “left-wing anarchism” or anarcho-socialism. I refer the interested reader to these links which may help clarify:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism" style="background-color: white; color: #6699cc; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333;" /><a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm" style="background-color: white; color: #6699cc; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333;" /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10162562179" style="background-color: white; color: #6699cc; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Libertarians Against Capitalism</a></span><div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In order to understand modern libertarianism, it is necessary to understand its origins in classical liberalism. The <a href="https://www.lp.org/platform/" target="_blank">Party platform</a> states: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">"The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government." </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">This echoes John Locke, who established in </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">1689 the basis of liberal political theory: that people's rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights. This philosophy emerged in protest against authoritarian governments in league with the church, feudal lords and mercantile guilds oppressing the common citizens.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Platform further states: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized." </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The object of classical liberals was free participation in the marketplace, personal liberty and civil rights, separation of state and religion, and peace instead of imperialism.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><div>
Classical liberalism split off into two branches, conservatism and social liberalism, in early 20th century America. Conservatives focused on protecting economic civil liberties, while liberals emphasized defending social civil liberties. Both branches diverged from the pure classical liberal philosophy that government exists to protect social <b>and</b> economic civil liberties. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Libertarian Party has attempted to recapture the classical position by being </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">at the same time both "fiscally conservative" and </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"socially liberal," rendering it largely unpopular among most Democrats and Republicans. </span></div>
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"There is no such thing as a left-libertarian." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Hello - I'm here! A real live one, and I'm not alone, although we are the minority in the Party today. </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">It is unclear exactly whence my educated and intelligent friends obtained their inaccurate information about libertarianism, but I think it is safe to say that I am probably more knowledgeable on the topic, having been involved in the movement myself for around 40 years. I have never belonged to the Tea Party or ever voted Republican. I am a flaming liberal. The card in my wallet says "Libertarian" only because "anarchosocialist" was not one of the options when I registered to vote. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">I first encountered the Party at a rally in 1978 in Honolulu where I gave a speech protesting the potential revival of the draft, in solidarity with the libertarian antiwar protesters. </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">T</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">he "fiscally conservative" aspect of their philosophy was less appealing, but </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">I chose the Libertarian Party over the other options because the central planks of its platform - individual liberty, bodily autonomy, civil rights and peace - most closely allied with my own core liberal values inspired by people like Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">The LP only recently approved legalization of cannabis to profit rich white men." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Not true! One of the things I appreciated from the beginning was the Party's stance</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> on legalizing drug use and other victimless crimes. This idea did not originate with rich white men, but rather, was a truly grass-roots (pun intended) movement begun by libertarian hippies of various ethnicities and gender identities. It has taken us a very long time to finally convince rich white men of the merits of this policy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Libertarians do not support marriage equality and/or LGBTQ rights." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Not sure where this came from. Civil rights, including the right to marry whomever you choose and the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever relationships they desire, have always been central to libertarian philosophy. Libertarians do not believe that government should interfere with anybody's private business including sex and marriage. Maybe my friends have confused the Libertarian Party with the Tea Party here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Libertarians and the Tea Partiers are one and the same, far-right-wing conservatives." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">T</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">his brings us to </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">the essential </span><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/libertarians-are-not-the-tea-party/280976/" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">difference between the Tea Party/ Republican Poseur "libertarians" and real libertarians</a><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">. The former, as represented by people like Paul Ryan, may claim to be "libertarian," but the card in their wallet says "Republican" for a reason. I can call myself a "duck" and even make some quacking noises, but that doesn't qualify me as a duck. While there is some overlap between Tea and Libertarian with regard to economics, there are also significant differences.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;">The Tea Party Poseur "libertarians," true to the conservative branch of the classical liberal split, focus almost exclusively on "economic liberty" or what they believe to be "free market capitalism," the deregulation of Wall Street and industry, allowing corporate "persons" free rein to mercilessly exploit consumers, employees and the environment. The sort of deregulation they advocate, however, under our current system favoring big corporations would further tilt the already unlevel playing field, impeding competition by small businesses and entrepreneurs - the essence of crony capitalism. Despite voicing alleged objections to crony capitalism, the Tea Party candidates </span><a href="http://zfacts.com/koch-brothers" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">and their funders</a><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"> have actually benefited from it. </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">The <a href="https://www.lp.org/libertarian-federal-candidates-pledge-to-end-crony-capitalism/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party actively opposed crony capitalism</a> in its 2016 platform,</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> which is probably why the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-koch-brothers-not-funding-libertarian-presidential-campaign" target="_blank">Koch brothers did </a></span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-koch-brothers-not-funding-libertarian-presidential-campaign" target="_blank">not</a></b><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-koch-brothers-not-funding-libertarian-presidential-campaign" target="_blank"> fund</a> Johnson's campaign despite their previous interest in the Party. The only other candidate to specifically address the issue was Democrat Bernie Sanders.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Unlike libertarians,</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Tea Partiers</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> are </span><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/on-social-issues-tea-partiers-are-not-libertarians/64169/" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">socially conservative</a><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">, closely allied with the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/oct/12/tea-party-religious-right" target="_blank">Religious Right</a>, and want to "put God back in government," whereas libertarians tend to be less religious and want to keep religion </span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">out</b><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> of government. The Poseurs </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">do </span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">not</b><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> support bodily autonomy, but are anti-choice, opposing assisted suicide, marriage equality and legalization of drugs. While they strongly advocate for the liberty of corporate "persons," they prefer to</span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> keep actual persons on a very short leash. In fact, the whole idea of individual liberty - people being allowed to live as we please, provided that we do not infringe on anyone else's civil rights - is a scary concept for the Poseurs. That is why their faux version of "libertarianism" downplays civil liberties, so as to make it more palatable to Republicans. </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">On social issues there is no question that the Libertarian Party has far more in common with the Democrats than Republicans. </span><a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/johnson-agree-73-percent-sanders/" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">Gary Johnson said that he and Bernie Sanders agreed on 73%</a><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> of the issues in 2016, differing only on economic policy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"The Libertarian Party is a branch of the GOP and/or is going to take over the GOP."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;">The Tea Party, <b>not</b> the Libertarian Party, is a branch of the GOP, for the same reason discussed above: their respective stance on social issues. </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">As for the notion that libertarians are going to take over the GOP, it's simply not going to happen because there is no way Republicans would ever support the socially liberal part of our platform! If anything, the reverse is true. Republicans have infiltrated the libertarian movement in attempt to make it more conservative to advance their agenda and, unfortunately, they have somewhat succeeded, as evidenced by public opinion expressed by people like my liberal friends. </span><br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">In summary, </span><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">the Libertarian Party has some overlap with both Democrats, the "socially liberal" side, and Republicans, the "fiscally conservative" side, </span><a href="http://libertyviral.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/libertarians.jpg" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">as shown on this diagram</a><span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">. Libertarians are a diverse group of people ranging across that spectrum. And yes, contrary to what you've been told, some of us <b>are</b> liberals, and we tend to vote Democrat, especially in close races and critical situations like the 2016 election, when Johnson's running mate Bill Weld even recommended doing so. I am a living, breathing example of a left-libertarian and I'm sure I am not the only one, despite the influence of the Poseurs trying to push the movement in a more conservative direction over the 40 years that I've been involved. Of course, most likely nobody will listen to me, their minds having already been made up for them by Poseur propaganda.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-157955839261893242018-02-11T20:43:00.001-06:002018-02-13T19:07:05.311-06:00Mirror America<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thank goodness that all my years of watching and reading sci fi - Star Trek, Stargate, Sliders, etc. - prepared me for this. Otherwise, I might seriously think I was losing my mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's been about 15 months since the rift happened on election night in November 2016 and the parallel universes began to diverge. Or, maybe the process had begun years earlier, but kicked into high gear that night. We could almost viscerally feel the lurch as Donald Trump was declared the winner, the spacetime continuum fractured and Bodhi Kitty, who is very sensitive, actually barfed, and the whole world changed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I don't know how I ended up on this side of the rift, or whether I am my own doppelganger, the "real me" still on the other side. I feel like me. Would I be able to tell the difference?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">What I can tell for sure, is that other people in this reality are different. People who were long-time dear friends on the other side have abandoned me here for the sake of Trump, whether because of their adoration or their hate for him. I was un-friended merely for not saying enough good things about him, or failing to defend him and his followers against legitimate criticism, or defending his opponent, Madam President, against slanderous allegations that were obviously false but the people here find perfectly plausible. Other friends un-friended me for not hating him, for suggesting that he might have <b>any</b> good qualities, even for saying that he is <b>less</b> evil than the others in the GOP leadership. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A very dear old friend, the cofounder of the Community of Francis and Clare in which I am a Third Order Sister, despite his being a devout Buddhist who continually talked about compassion, turned his back on me just for defending beautiful Melania Trump against slut-shaming by liberals, people who ought to know better. Liberals in my old reality didn't slut-shame women, period. That was the job of conservatives. And close friends didn't become enemies because of a politician.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Everyone in this reality is <b>obsessed</b> with Trump! Whether they worship him or despise him, they are completely fixated on the man and everything revolves around him. When I point out that it is really VP Pence, who is clearly undead with some photos almost showing his fangs, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a.k.a. Demonic Mayor Wilkins of Sunnydale, who are running the country behind the scenes along with their evil cohorts Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and gang, nobody will listen. They are all totally mesmerized by Mr. Trump, as per the GOP plan. Only one lady, JuLeah, really seems immune to the spell. I suspect she is either from an advanced alien species, a parallel universe or maybe from the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And President Trump is not even the same guy he was in the other reality, where his background was strongly pro-LGBTQ rights (with a big gay fanclub!), pro-choice, pro-legalization of cannabis, non-religious, libertarian-leaning Democrat, a party guy, perhaps rude, but with a fun sense of humor. In this parallel universe Mr. Trump is an authoritarian Republican who has allegedly converted to Christianity, with televangelists as his advisors.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Unlike the fundies back home, who were obsessed with sex and never would have rallied behind a thrice-married man who cheated on all three of his wives, had affairs with porn stars and bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy," Trump's "evangelical Christian" friends believe that material success is evidence of holiness. According to their gospel, his wealth and having won the election is proof that President Trump is a man of God. In my world this "Prosperity Gospel" was a heretical fringe doctrine widely known to be a scam, whereas here its proponents are respected clergy advising the President of the United States.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This religious Trump has lost his sense of humor but is funny without trying, in a way that embarrasses the country in the eyes of our allies. And his values are completely opposite from what I remember. He has abandoned the LGBTQ community, is strongly anti-choice and even opposes birth control. He is allowing Sessions to overturn the law in states where cannabis is already legal, expanding federal civil forfeiture power in violation of states' rights. When I comment on how his values and policies have changed 180 degrees, nobody believes me. They look at me like I'm crazy and insist this is how he's always been, further proving I've fallen into an alternate reality. It's very much like that Star Trek episode, "Mirror, Mirror" where Spock was evil and had a beard.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Reminiscent of Orwell's novel <u>1984</u>, "Religious liberty" here means, "the liberty to oppress employees and/or discriminate against customers based on your religious views." Self-proclaimed fascists marching down city streets with torches and swastikas are lauded as "patriots," while members of Antifa (literally, "anti-fascist") are called "fascists." Feminism "degrades women" while misogynists are seen as saviors. People are appointed to run the various U.S. government departments based on their publicly stated opposition to the job and their intention to dismantle said departments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The legislative process is different here, too. In addition to the Attorney General unilaterally implementing his own policies in defiance of the President's previously expressed intentions (at least those I remember from before the rift happened), there is a blatant disregard for the rule of law, e.g., there is no restriction on Presidents receiving income from foreign governments, something called "emoluments," which in the other universe was illegal but is perfectly acceptable here. Or, maybe laws in this parallel America are just suggestions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Very little legislation has been passed by this Congress besides a highly unpopular tax reform favoring the super rich, and when citizens went to their so-called "representatives" to voice their concerns, they were arrested, with the elderly and disabled people in wheelchairs hauled off to jail. What I found most shocking is the fact that nobody seemed shocked about it. Otherwise, most of the legislation accomplished thus far has been by numerous Executive Orders on the part of the President. In this universe apparently the previous President, Obama, who was a Muslim dictator, issued the most Executive Orders in history, so nobody minds Mr. Trump doing it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">People here believe everything bad that ever happened was Obama's fault, and they may be right. I suspect he may have inadvertently created this rift in the spacetime continuum when he used the Tardis to go back in time, put his birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper and forge his birth certificate, resulting in the creation of this dystopian parallel universe.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Congress did finally pass a bill instituting sanctions against Russia for interfering to help Mr. Trump get elected, despite the President and the GOP leadership insisting it never happened. Rather, in this reality it was Hillary Clinton who colluded with Russia, bribing them with uranium. Like Uhura's evil counterpart in the Star Trek episode, this Hillary is ruthless and cunning. She even ran a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor, in addition to her ties with the mafia, and all the rapes and murders she previously covered up. The GOP has found her and the FBI guilty in the surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump advisor who publicly bragged about his ties to the Kremlin. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Apparently in this universe Russia is somehow our ally, people who work for the Kremlin are trustworthy, and the FBI is corrupt, in cahoots with Hillary's mafia. Anyway, although President Trump did sign the sanctions bill into law, it is not being implemented. And Republicans in Congress tried to shut down the agency which would have investigated the hacking of the electoral system to prevent it in the future. They say it is not necessary because the hacking never happened; U.S. intelligence agencies were lying.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Besides my new friend JuLeah, I'm aware of at least one other highly evolved alien here, a brilliant fellow with the odd name of Elon Musk. Here NASA no longer launches spacecraft; it is done by private entrepreneurs like Mr. Musk, who successfully sent a Tesla convertible into space with a sign on board from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and music by David Bowie (another advanced alien, may he RIP) blaring on the stereo. Were this not delightfully bizarre enough, when I saw Musk's rockets return to earth and touch down gently standing upright, I knew for sure "we're not in Kansas anymore," because in my world rockets couldn't do that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I wonder what great things Madam President is doing back home. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I must find a way to get back, a means through the portal, before the rift increases to the point that these parallel universes part completely and I am stuck here forever. I can't survive for long in this world, where I am considered stupid and/or delusional for not believing the government propaganda. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My job pays half of what it did before the rift began, and having only a Master's degree, I am virtually unemployable. All the decent-paying jobs here require at least a Ph.D. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Maybe JuLeah or Elon have the technology to get me home. Or, maybe Barry Obama will loan me his Tardis, although I've heard that this Barry is <b>not</b> the nice guy I knew in high school. He, like Hillary, is evil in this world. Anyway, rumor has it that Melania stole the Tardis to go back in time and prevent herself from marrying Mr. Trump. Who could blame her? He isn't the guy she thought she was marrying. Maybe she also fell through the rift and, like me, is shocked and horrified to find herself in this situation.</span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-92012716265887626382017-12-19T20:52:00.000-06:002017-12-20T21:46:24.572-06:00Net Neutrality and the Free Market<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This blog post was inspired by a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MetalNun/posts/1826755427348267?comment_id=1827022350654908&reply_comment_id=1832837906740019&notif_id=1513684271734496&notif_t=feed_comment" target="_blank">discussion on Facebook</a> when I shared that I had contacted my so-called "representatives" in Congress regarding my concerns about the importance of preserving Net Neutrality. Two of my friends, both brilliant, articulate and very kind gentlemen, did a great job of presenting both sides of the argument in the lively discussion that ensued. Roger is a professor of economics, a big proponent of the free market, who has been patiently trying to teach me how stocks work and answers all my dumb questions. Peter is a senior assistant at a law firm who describes himself as a "socially-liberal, fiscal conservative" and has generously advised me on legal matters. Neither of these gentlemen identifies as "libertarian." Below, I will discuss the issue from my perspective as a left-libertarian.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But first, here is Congressman Neal Dunn's reply. This is the sort of response I nearly always get from my alleged "representatives," i.e., "Thank you for sharing your thoughts... but I am going to obey my corporate masters regardless of what you and the other voters want." It is rather subtle, but if you read between the lines, he opposes Net Neutrality by using "regulate" and "regulatory" along with "Obama Administration" as bad words:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"I understand your support of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, and I appreciate your concern that they may be rescinded. These rules were established by the Obama Administration to regulate the internet as a public utility. The internet has revolutionized how we communicate and do business, and we must keep the internet free and open so we can continue to use it to innovate and grow. As Congress continues to review the regulatory actions of the Obama Administration and in particular the FCC’s actions, please know that I will keep your views in mind."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Senator Bill Nelson, however, supports Net Neutrality! Here is his answer:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Thank you for contacting me regarding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to undo the agency’s net neutrality rules. I support the existing rules, and as a result, I oppose Chairman Pai’s proposal, which would gut the existing rules and rob Americans of vital protections that preserve our access to a free and open internet."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, here's what is interesting. Read the two statements again. Do you notice anything odd? I'll give you a hint: "free and open." Rep. Neal Dunn (R) wants to end Net Neutrality, while Sen. Bill Nelson (D) favors maintaining it, and yet <b>both</b> Congressmen clearly state that they <b>support</b> a "free and open internet." How can both assertions be true at the same time? Is this some kind of Orwellian mindfuck? Yes, it is! The title of the net neutrality rollback order is, "Restoring Internet Freedom." So the question becomes, "freedom for whom?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Rep. Dunn says, "we must keep the internet free and open so we can continue to use it to innovate and grow," while Sen. Nelson states that the current Net Neutrality regulations, "preserve our access to a free and open internet." The key here is that "we" and "our" refer to two completely different entities! Rep. Dunn's "we" refers to telecom corporations, <a href="https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/members-congress-support-ending-net-neutrality-telecom-payout" target="_blank">which contributed $18,500 to his campaign</a>. Sen. Nelson's "our" refers to individual American citizens.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xk87d/net-neutrality-under-assault-trumps-fcc-votes-to-roll-back-open-internet-rules" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xk87d/net-neutrality-under-assault-trumps-fcc-votes-to-roll-back-open-internet-rules" target="_blank">Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps states</a>, "The language used to discuss Chairman Pai's plan implies the opposite of what the proposal will do, which is make the internet most free and open only to those with the deepest pockets while the industry giants rake in still more money."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Not only is Net Neutrality very important to me as a small business owner, blogger and political activist, the issue also serves as a great illustration of the difference between my own left-libertarianism, a.k.a. classical anarcho-socialism, versus the far-right modern variation endorsed by the Tea Party poseur-libertarians or "GOP lite," as I will explain below. Let me first point out, though, that some right-wing politicians claim to be "libertarian" while having an "R" after their name. If it has an "R" rather than an "L" it's technically not a Libertarian, but a Republican. I can call myself a "duck" and produce some quacking noises, but that doesn't make me a duck. So what is the difference and how does it pertain to Net Neutrality?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In a nutshell, both types of libertarians claim to want less government regulation, but of <b>what</b>, and to whose benefit?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Left-libertarians regard civil rights such as privacy, bodily autonomy, self-ownership, freedom of expression and association, and freedom of or from religion, as our #1 priority. We view the proper role of government as upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live as we please so long as we harm nobody else. We want less government interference in our personal lives, e.g. what we do in the privacy of our own home, what plants we may grow in our yard, whom we may marry and/or have whatever kind of sex among consenting adults, whether or when to have children, and what we choose to eat, drink, smoke, snort, inject or otherwise put into, or remove from, our own body. We believe that government regulation belongs not in the private, but in the public sphere, to protect us against force and fraud from other persons or corporate entities, to prevent the powerful from preying upon the weak.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Right-libertarians, or those who call themselves "libertarian" while espousing a mostly Republican philosophy, don't seem to have much objection to government interference in the lives of private citizens, whom they would prefer to keep on a fairly short leash. They have little concern for things like bodily autonomy or marriage equality, are often anti-choice with regard to reproductive rights, and support the War on Drugs. They may even deny a constitutional right to privacy except in so far as it pertains to private property, i.e. finances. Their focus is, rather, on removing governmental regulation of banks and industry. They are generally ok with the government regulating wombs and bedrooms, but <b>not</b> corporate boardrooms. When they speak of "freedom" it is nearly always in the context of allowing Wall Street and big corporations free reign to put profits ahead of people, even if it means mercilessly exploiting employees and consumers and/or destroying the environment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, while the left-libertarian philosophy of social order is the Golden Rule, with the government playing the role of referee in case people fail to abide by it, the philosophy on the right could be expressed as, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules," the government being the guardian of private property, so that the rulers may keep their gold and spend or invest it as they see fit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My liberal friends characterize that philosophy as heartless or greedy, but there are plenty of good and generous people on the right including my own father, a Reagan Republican, who sincerely believe that so-called "free market" capitalism ultimately benefits everyone by generating wealth which then magically trickles down to enrich <b>all</b> households, kind of like Santa Claus bringing gifts down your chimney. One of my favorite Libertarian authors, Dr. Mary Ruwart, explains with great enthusiasm how <a href="http://parentsforliberty.org/living-free/wealth-is-unlimited-by-dr-mary-ruwart.html" target="_blank">capitalism creates "unlimited wealth"</a> that has lifted humanity out of poverty. The wise and benevolent Invisible Hand of the Free Market knows what is best for us and guides our financial interactions accordingly to the benefit of society.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I <b>want </b>to believe that. It would make things so much simpler. I imagine that some of my atheist friends feel similarly when they tell me they <b>wish </b>they could believe in God - not that I myself "believe" per se, but that is a <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-call-myself-believer.html" target="_blank">different story for another time</a>. I want the fair and benevolent Free Market to be true. It would reduce the cognitive dissonance I endure as a result of the "L" on the voter card in my wallet. But like my atheist friends, I just can't convince myself of the evidence for it. In my personal experience as someone who has worked very hard since 1980, when I was 17, enriching other people by my labor, having also owned and managed several [failed] small businesses and ended up bankrupt in my 50s, it seems to me rather that the Invisible Hand pats the rich on the back, slaps the poor down whenever they try to climb up out of poverty, and gently but persistently pushes the middle class backwards towards poverty.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Be that as it may, what all libertarians on both the right and the left have in common is that we are strongly averse to being forced to do anything.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My right-wing friends correctly point out that corporations, unlike government, cannot force us to buy their products or services (except when the government makes us do so, e.g. the ACA). But, what if that product or service is something that we <b>need</b>, e.g. water, power, healthcare, phone or internet service? If we remove the government as referee, the corporations can charge us whatever they want, whether we can afford it or not, especially if they manage to eliminate their competition. Or, they can simply refuse to provide services to people in less profitable areas, which is why I cannot obtain cable internet in my neighborhood on a dead-end road out in the boondocks. I only have DSL via phone line because fortunately the government requires the phone company to provide it under the current telecom regulations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, right-wing libertarians and many of those on the left, claim to support "the free market" but again, they mean different things by that phrase. It should be noted that a truly "free market" does not exist in the United States today, if ever one did. In fact - and here is the irony - the closest thing we <b>have</b> to a truly "free market" is the internet under Net Neutrality!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">From the left-libertarian perspective, in a true "free market" everybody has equal opportunity to freely trade goods and services on a fair and level playing field. But, that can only happen if everybody plays nice and nobody has unfair advantage. The Big Boys would have to play by the same rules as the other 99% of us. The fact that you have more money should not give you a greater right to freedom of speech or association, a right to silence those who disagree with you, or a right to crush potential competition by keeping entrepreneurs out of the marketplace. Therefore, we on the left see Net Neutrality as an example of the proper role of government regulation, in a similar way as the enforcement of equal rights, labor laws, health and safety standards, and protection of the environment in which we all live and the air we all must breathe.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In our Facebook discussion (click on the blue link at the beginning of this article), my friend Roger explained at some length that government regulation takes away the ISPs' profit incentive for much needed improvement of internet technology which, in his view, is the main advantage of the "free market." By removing that regulation, consumers will benefit, "like in all our economic dealings. The internet isn't some kind of magical exception."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ah, but it is! Or at least it has been, up until now. Under Net Neutrality, the internet was a magical place where everybody* was on equal footing regardless of income. It was a place where small businesses like mine had an equal opportunity to compete with huge corporations, our websites allowed the same bandwidth and exposure as theirs, to freely trade goods, services and information with people around the world. It was a venue embodying the essence of the First Amendment where all ideas could be expressed and discussed in blogs and forums, free associations formed and political movements organized, without restriction and at no additional cost. Presidents, princes, peons and paupers could tweet to their heart's content and all voices heard.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Neutral internet was also a news and fact-checking source where people could share and learn about stories not covered by the mainstream media due to disapproval by corporate sponsors. For example, upon googling Noam Chomsky to find his insights about Net Neutrality, I was surprised to learn that <a href="https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/jeremy-corbyn-and-noam-chomsky-receive-the-prestigious-international-macbride-peace-prize/" target="_blank">he has just been awarded a peace prize</a>, which was never mentioned on t.v. news.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And all of the above is exactly why those on the far-right want Net Neutrality overturned, so that the free market of the internet will become exactly like the crony capitalist system that exists in corporate America today, where money talks, the poor have no voice, and whoever has the gold, makes the rules as to who can buy, sell, trade, speak out or associate with one another.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ironically, the purpose of the Net Neutrality regulation was to <b>prevent </b>corporations from regulating the internet. In much the same Orwellian manner that the Trump administration's "Religious Liberty" order allows corporations to discriminate against employees and consumers on the basis of religion, the "Restoring Internet Freedom" act permits telecom corporations to control the activities of competitors and consumers on the internet, restricting their freedom of access and expression while increasing their own profits. Whether you agree with my position or not, your opportunity to debate with me about it could disappear now that Net Neutrality is gone and AT&T will have the freedom to either censor my blog, or else make it too expensive for me to continue writing it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Many thanks Roger and Peter for their considerable contributions to this discussion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">footnote:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">* assuming that everyone could <b>get</b> high-speed internet access at all, a goal of the Obama administration which unfortunately did not quite succeed, perhaps because he was distracted by other matters like war, terrorism and continual opposition from Congress.</span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-3978015767208010952017-11-11T23:06:00.000-06:002017-11-11T23:07:53.855-06:00Enlightened Self-Interest<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="3sd93" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<span data-offset-key="bf657-0-0"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Several of my friends have been discussing capitalism recently. More than one person, including myself, opined that it is inconsistent with Christianity because it is based on greed and the exploitation of labor. Others disagreed, saying that capitalism is rather based on private property and self-interest and when done correctly, a free market can benefit all parties involved by creating unlimited wealth essentially out of thin air, albeit with ingenuity and a lot of hard work. This is the position taken by one of my favorite libertarian authors, Dr. Mary Ruwart, who insists that capitalism is the best system to generate wealth for everyone and allow the poor to climb up out of poverty. However, Dr. Ruwart admits that this can only happen when we have a firm foundation in the Non-aggression Principle (see below).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've been poor myself as a result of disability, and managed to claw my way up out of poverty into the barely-middle-class only by the grace of God and the help of my family, as I'd fallen completely through the "social safety net" such as it is. After several years living well below the poverty line, my SSDI application having been denied, I finally obtained a contract working from home for a good company. But I cannot say whether my poverty and/or my eventual success was because of, or in spite of capitalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The question then arose, "what is the difference between greed and self-interest?" Self-interest in the classical sense held by Locke and Hume is simply the natural human motivation for self preservation and to better one's own life, but does not exclude benefiting others as well. Greed, or covetousness, is unrestrained or excessive desire to get whatever we want no matter if we exploit, defraud or hurt anybody else in the process.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="b4um-0-0"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A related concept which is important to me as a yogi, a Christian and an anarchosocialist is "enlightened self-interest." This term relates to the Golden Rule, "Treat others as you would want to be treated," the Non-aggression Principle, </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Don't do anything to others that you would not want done to you," </span><span data-offset-key="b4um-0-0"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">or as </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Dr. Ruwart calls it, the Good Neighbor Policy.</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> The Dalai Lama explains this as simple compassion, the heartfelt understanding that all people share our desire to be happy and free from harm or coercion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On an esoteric level, the yogic model says there is only one Consciousness in the universe, one supreme Self, manifesting in and through each of us, therefore we are ultimately One. This is reflected in Jesus' command to "love your neighbor as yourself" if taken literally, or if figuratively, to put oneself in our neighbor's shoes, again, the Golden Rule. Despite our many differences, deep down we all want the same things.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On a practical level, enlightened self-interest is the awareness that, simply put, everything works better for all of us when everybody agrees to play nice. This is certainly desirable in a capitalist society, to bring out the best features of the system and make it work as optimally as possible for everyone. But it would be absolutely essential for a stateless or anarchistic society based on voluntary cooperation. In the absence of "enlightenment," without a centralized government in the role of Daddy, Mommy, Nanny or Babysitter to enforce "playing nice," we would have "anarchy" in the negative sense of chaos and destruction, (which unfortunately happens to be the definition that most people think of), where greed runs rampant and the powerful freely prey upon the weak.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="1qnbg-0-0"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">While classical liberals understood that in civilized society compassion should go hand-in-hand with "self-interest," it could be argued at least in the context of modern society that if we remove the "enlightened" part, the line between greed and self-interest could quickly become blurry. Examples of this include the philosophies of author <a href="https://markbittner.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/todays-quotes/" target="_blank">Ayn Rand and her followers, and Anton LaVey</a>, who based his Church of Satan on her writings, saying, </span></span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">“My religion is just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Without compassion, absolute freedom necessarily allows exploitation of others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This is the problem I have with Tea Party capitalism. It is also the reason why I acknowledge that my ideal of anarchosocialism is currently as realistic as riding a unicorn. Society at large is not "enlightened" enough. Humanity would need to evolve into compassion. We are not there yet and frankly, I don't know if we ever will be. I'd like to think that it is possible if we can meanwhile manage to avoid blowing ourselves to smithereens whether by conventional and/or nuclear weapons in our global pursuit of greed. Maybe, just maybe, someday we actually can learn to love one another and live together on this planet in liberty, peace and harmony. But I'm not holding my breath.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That is why, although the card in my wallet says "Libertarian," I nearly always vote Democrat, usually as the Lesser of Evils, although I supported Bernie Sanders 100%. And the only reason I chose that Party when I registered to vote at age 18, being a fan of the Tao te Ching, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky, is because "Anarchosocialist" was not among the options and liberty was my #1 concern. But like I said, we're not there yet. Let's take baby steps in that direction while we learn to grow in compassion.</span><br />
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bf657-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="3sd93" data-offset-key="1qnbg-0-0" style="background-color: white;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1qnbg-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1qnbg-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-30877152343975520112017-11-11T02:56:00.000-06:002017-11-11T23:21:48.456-06:00Another Rant About Taxes<div class="_1dwg _1w_m _q7o" style="padding: 12px 12px 0px;">
<div class="_5pbx userContent _22jv _3576" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="js_6sm" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(229, 229, 229); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 6px; padding-bottom: 12px;">
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_5a06b482e0ee14800399283" style="display: inline;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I looked into the GOP tax plan and whether or not it would increase my taxes. Using a couple of different online calculators, it appears that my 2018 taxes may in fact decrease by between $100-400 depending upon whom you ask. <b>However</b>, this exercise reminded me quite alarmingly that I will owe the IRS around $6700 for 2017 and I've only managed to pay like $1300 in estimated tax thus far and the year is nearly over. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In addition, my yearly property tax on this sinkhole-ridden property is</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> around $2500, of which I still owe about $625 for the 4th quarter. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">S</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">o between federal income tax, "self-employment tax" (i.e., "independent contractor" = "de facto employee w/o benefits forced to pay the employer's share of SS tax") and property tax, I will owe the government approximately 32% of my income. That does not include our 7% local sales tax. I don't know where the $$ is supposed to come from. Despite a lifelong yoga practice I never did master the "pulling $$ out of your ass-ana." I am seriously fucked. If I can't pay either one of those (IRS or County) they will take my house.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For those who have seen fit to scold me for complaining, pointing out that I am "rich" compared to most people in the world, yes it's all relative. However, it doesn't do me a helluva lot of good to be "rich" <b>compared</b> to people in third-world countries if I must live in continual fear of homelessness because I can't pay my bills and taxes working full-time, with a Master's degree, in one of the wealthiest countries on earth.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I live a simple lifestyle. I don't buy new clothes or shoes. I don't go out. I don't take any vacations. I grow a lot of my own veggies and eat a mostly vegetarian diet. I have the bare minimum t.v. (DISH w/ limited channels, around $29/month). I do not own a smartphone, a Kindle, iPad, tablet, or any other fancy equipment. My vehicles are 13 and 34 years old and worth so little that the judge at the bankruptcy hearing didn't even want them, and one of them is currently nonfunctional. My only "luxury" is wine, without which the situation would be essentially unbearable. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I will probably never be able to retire because every penny I manage to save goes to taxes, including my "self-employed" Social Security tax. Speaking of which, I have been paying into the system since my first job at age 17, and <b>double</b> since (involuntarily) becoming an "independent contractor" in 2001. My SSDI was denied when I needed it. Now, Congress is planning to cut Social Security benefits by around 1/3 even though we must continue to <b>pay</b> the full amount. Never mind that SS is only taxed on income below about $118,000, placing a disproportionate burden on the lower middle class, especially the "self-employed."</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">No, this is not a "poor me pity party," because I am pretty sure that I am <b>not</b> the only American in this situation! But both conservatives and liberals seem to want to slap me down (for different reasons) when I speak up about it. Taxes are a Sacred Cow that must never be questioned! I am supposed to be happy about forking over nearly 1/3 of my meager income to the government to "help the poor," according to liberals, even though I only recently clawed my way up out of poverty myself, am supporting my disabled husband, and don't have enough leftover to live on. And conservatives tell me I need to shut up and work more hours. I guess they are right because I don't have any other alternative if I don't want to be homeless.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Meanwhile the rich complain about the poor being on "welfare" and not paying enough taxes. The rich don't know what it is like to worry about how they are going to pay their electric bill or mortgage, or decide on a monthly basis whether to rob Peter to pay Paul, or vice versa. They don't know the feeling of being one paycheck away from disaster. The GOP tax plan will give the rich a nice big break. And they don't object to corporate welfare because the Job Creators need that big tax break in order to create more low-paying jobs. Or not. The money might just go into their offshore bank account. Because they can get away with it.</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div class="_3x-2" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div data-ft="{"tn":"H"}" style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<form action="https://www.facebook.com/ajax/ufi/modify.php" class="commentable_item" data-ft="{"tn":"]"}" id="u_jsonp_2_y" method="post" rel="async" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="_sa_ _gsd _fgm _5vsi _192z" style="color: #90949c; font-family: inherit; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 4px; position: relative;">
<div class="_37uu" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<div class="_57w" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div class="_3399 _a7s _20h6 _610i _125r clearfix _zw3" style="border: none; clear: both; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px 12px -4px; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-top: 4px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="_524d" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div class="_42nr" style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; font-family: inherit;">
<span class="_1mto" style="display: flex; font-family: inherit; height: 32px;"></span><br />
<div class="_khz _4sz1" style="display: flex; font-family: inherit; position: relative; width: 73.6px;">
</div>
<span class="_1mto" style="display: flex; font-family: inherit; height: 32px;">
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</form>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-64440292958882509532017-09-22T04:21:00.000-05:002017-09-22T19:48:18.982-05:00Riding the Storms out: Preparing for Future Hurricanes<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Recently I was severely criticized on social media for agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. It's extraordinarily rare that I've ever agreed with him about anything. I think this is the second time it has ever happened. Hey, "even a broken clock is right twice a day," and if something is true the source is irrelevant. Still, people are horrified and I am a very bad, stupid person for acknowledging that he could possibly be right about <b>anything</b>, under any circumstances. His previous statement that I agreed with years ago was, "If something doesn't seem to make sense and you cannot figure out why it is happening, follow the money." This has proved to be quite useful and most often accurate.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">More recently, <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/05/my-analysis-of-the-hurricane-irma-panic/" target="_blank">Mr. Limbaugh made some comments</a> about hurricanes which his critics paraphrased as: "Hurricane Irma is a hoax, fake news invented by liberals to push their Global Warming agenda and exaggerated by the media to promote panic-induced retail sales." To be fair, however, that's not exactly what Rush said. If you read the link above, he did not say Irma was a hoax. And he is correct that bigger, badder hurricanes <b>do</b> raise awareness about Climate Change - to whatever extent influenced by human activity, or just a "natural cycle," I am not taking a stance here either way.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">What he did say, and I agree is largely true based on my experience living in Florida for a total of around 27 years, was that h</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">urricanes never turn out to be as strong as predicted [at least when they hit the mainland], and the media vastly exaggerate the danger to promote panic-induced retail sales of bottled water and other supplies. He also correctly pointed out that the projected path of the eyewall, the 20-to-40-mile diameter center of the storm carrying the greatest threat on impact, is extremely unreliable until right before it hits, often just a few hours. This is an important fact which is crucial to understanding the logistics of hurricane preparedness.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When I said on Facebook that Rush was right about the media exaggerating the severity of storms (e.g., "Irma is going to destroy the entire state of Florida," "everybody needs to get out or you will die!") one of my friends from California objected, "People here wish we could predict earthquakes like you can hurricanes, so we could get out ahead of time! If you know 3 days in advance that the storm is coming, where it will strike and how bad it will be, why wouldn't you want to evacuate? Better safe than sorry!" The problem is, we don't really "know" any of those things.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Everyone who has watched coverage of a hurricane on t.v. has seen the "spaghetti path" and <a href="https://weather.com/science/weather-explainers/news/tropical-storm-cyclone-forecast-cone-hurricane" target="_blank">"forecast cone" models predicting the likely path of the storm</a>, and those of us who live in these regions know how inaccurate the models can be and how wildly the path can deviate from its projected course over the days and hours before landfall. Given the size and shape of Florida, a typical "forecast cone" coming from the south will indeed cover much of the state, but that does not mean that the entire area under the cone will necessarily be affected. All it means is that the center of the storm is predicted to go somewhere within that cone. And even though the satellite radar images show a storm devouring the entire state, the biggest danger, again, is in the eyewall. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">While Rush didn't specifically say so, I might add that due to the uncertainty of the projected path, evacuations which are ordered days in advance often turn out to have been unnecessary and/or in the wrong areas.</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Compared to many other storms, Hurricane Irma stayed relatively on track, just about in the middle of all the predictions but despite this, there </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">was enough inaccuracy to thwart evacuation efforts. Based on initial predictions of an Atlantic strike, some Miami residents fled to the northwest. Irma, however, drifted west, devastating the Keys first and then making landfall on the southwest coast, appearing to track along the west coast with the eyewall aimed directly at Tampa. People from Tampa then fled to Orlando, only to find the storm suddenly shifted east again and struck Orlando harder than Tampa. But this was minor. Other storms have made curly paths meandering all over the place, hitting land, bouncing off back into the ocean to gather strength and hit someplace else, even looping back for a second attack.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Florida has a couple of unique characteristics affecting our hurricane preparations. For one thing, the state is a peninsula 500 miles long and 160 miles wide. Hurricanes can hit us from the Atlantic and/or the Gulf. We have a population of 20.6 million people, most of whom are lousy drivers even under the best of conditions, only 2 main freeways heading north out of the state, and just one east-west freeway across the panhandle. That's an awful lot of people to move out on 2 roads, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/08/florida_evacuations_ahead_of_hurricane_irma_causing_highway_gridlock.html" target="_blank">resulting in gridlock whenever a storm is still days away</a> when</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> nobody really knows exactly where it is going to hit.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">lthough one might think "better safe than sorry," and these mass evacuations <b>do</b> provide a regional economic boon for gas stations and inland hotels, the downside for evacuees can include financial drain, gas shortages, or even death on the road. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That is why the </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/harvey-flooding-mayor-evacuation.html?mcubz=0" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;" target="_blank">mayor of Houston decided not to order mandatory evacuation before hurricane Harvey</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. His decision was based in large part on what happened in 2005 when over </span><a href="https://qz.com/1064813/hurricane-harvey-why-wasnt-houston-evacuated-the-experience-of-hurricane-rita-explains-why/" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;" target="_blank">100 people died in their vehicles while trying to evacuate</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> a couple of days before hurricane Rita made landfall. Let that sink in. More people died on the road trying to evacuate, than did those who stayed behind. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A person who claimed to be a "first responder" in hurricanes replied to my Facebook comment by saying, "People like you make me sick!" He went on to say that I was <b>stupid</b> for not leaving Florida during hurricane Irma, endangering lives by stating that hurricane hysteria is routinely exaggerated, and setting a bad example for others by staying home. He reiterated, "You make me sick!" He further stated that if indeed there is media hype, it is necessary to save lives because stupid people like me won't leave unless we are sufficiently frightened. I was surprised that a professional emergency responder would be unaware that the entire state was not, in fact, under mandatory evacuation and also that lives are often lost on the road during evacuations.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Note, I have not recommended that anybody else stay put. If </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">my house was </span><b style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">not</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> built of 10-inch-thick cement walls and </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I lived on the coast, especially on an island or in a low-lying area like Miami prone to flooding, if</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> a hurricane Category 3 or above appeared to be headed my way, I'd probably evacuate. Mobile homes and most older "stick" houses are not built to withstand a Cat 3 storm, as I will discuss later. Evacuation, though, raises other concerns that people don't talk about very much in the midst of panic on such a large scale. They just say, "You're gonna die, get out of Florida now!" But, where are we supposed to go?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've already described the problem with gridlock and gas shortages during evacuations. Another factor which may not be immediately apparent to those unfamiliar with the region, is that the southeast United States is by no means a booming metropolis, to say the least. [Cue creepy banjo music.] It's not like other places I've been such as California, front range Colorado or eastern New York, or the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states which, I am told although I don't have personal experience driving there, have good infrastructure and abundant accommodations for travelers. Alabama and Georgia, to where all us millions of Floridians would be fleeing, have limited motels and gas stations. Four days before Irma struck the southern tip of Florida, <a href="http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/09/no_vacancy_alabama_hotels_fill.html" target="_blank">motels in Alabama were already full</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If you are fortunate enough to find a room, you have two remaining concerns, one being the expense - can you really afford to take several days' vacation out of town every time a hurricane is in the Gulf or the Atlantic? Speaking for myself, I absolutely cannot. I don't even have paid vacation or sick days. If your company stays open, which many do, will you still have a job when you get home?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The other concern is the structural integrity of the building where you are taking shelter. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Many of these little southern motels are old "stick" construction, which is not a problem </span><b style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">unless</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> the storm changes its course and hits the very place to where people have evacuated, as Irma did. This happens more often than you might think.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">One of the things that made me question the concept of evacuation, and ponder my long-term housing options while living in Florida, was what my family and I experienced in hurricane Ivan in 2004. The storm at one point was a Cat 5 while out in the ocean and Mom said, "It's heading right for us!" Every time a storm was anywhere in the Gulf, Mom would totally panic, convinced it was going to hit Panama City, but this one looked like it actually might. My parents decided to take Miss Kitty in their motor home and head east on I-10 to an RV park near Jacksonville, as the projected track looked like it would ultimately go west. They lived in a sturdy brick home and Dad was primarily worried about possible damage to the RV, not to mention, Mom's hysteria wearing on his nerves. They invited me to go with them, but I declined, opting instead to stay at their house.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At the time I was living in a mobile home, a 1996 model, on a farm with 2 horses. It was recommended (but not mandated) that people in my area take their horses up north to a livestock facility in Cottondale. I decided against it, and I'm glad I did, not only because of the potential dangers of trailering horses in traffic jams, but also because of what ended up happening. I turned my horses loose in the pasture, having learned that all the horses who died in hurricane Andrew had been locked in barns and killed when the structure fell on them, whereas the free-roaming horses survived. I made sure they had plenty of hay and water, although springs in the pasture would also provide water, and drove to my parents' house nearby.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The eyewall of Ivan made landfall just west of us in Orange Beach, Alabama, putting Panama City on the more intense eastern side of the storm. And then a strange thing happened. Instead of going northwest as predicted, Ivan decided to go east. At this point I think it was a Cat 3. My parents' brick house was well built, with roll-down shutters on all the windows, and at no time did I feel anxious about the high winds howling outside. I even stood on the front porch with my glass of wine to enjoy the delightful fresh breeze, until it got so strong that it almost blew me over.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Meanwhile, my parents had been stuck in gridlocked traffic on I-10 for many hours and nearly ran out of gas. Mom was a fragile type 1 diabetic whose insulin needed to be kept refrigerated and she also required meals on a regular schedule. This would not be a problem as long as the RV didn't run out of gas, since it had a small fridge. However, Dad could not pull off the road to help Mom with anything. The gridlock finally let up and they made it to their destination safely, running on fumes and prayers. Fortunately there was a gas station at that exit and a restaurant nearby, as suppertime was long past and Mom was having severe hypoglycemia. They got set up at the RV park late that night - only to learn Ivan was now headed in their direction, and needless to say, cars and RVs are significantly less safe than houses in a hurricane!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">After the storm passed back in P.C., I drove home to find my horsies perfectly fine, although muddy. They love to roll in the mud and there was plenty of it. A couple of trees had fallen down but the barn and mobile home were still intact. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I later learned that as the storm moved inland it spawned a lot of tornadoes to the north and east, and the horse barn in Cottondale was destroyed along with a couple of small motels nearby. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I was very glad I'd listened to my intuition and not gone to Cottondale. Mom, Dad and Miss Kitty rode out the SE edge of the weakened storm in their RV and drove home in the rain, exhausted and stressed out, but safe. There was a piece of loose trim but no other significant damage to the RV besides profuse barfing from Miss Kitty due to anxiety. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Close calls with hurricanes that "almost" struck Panama City over the next few years made me seriously contemplate a better long-term plan. Every time a hurricane was in the Gulf, we would speculate as to its target and invariably somebody would suggest, "better evacuate just in case!" I couldn't afford to miss several days of work for every storm that may or may not hit where I live and decided to build a hurricane shelter which would also serve as my office. I learned that permitting and building a shelter with electric and plumbing would be almost as expensive and complicated as building a small house. Dad gave his opinion that "mobile homes aren't meant to be permanent" and encouraged me to go ahead and build the house. He helped fund the project and also </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">installed generators at both of our properties. I am extremely grateful because I wouldn't have been able to do it without his help. I'd bought the farm with the mobile home because I could not afford acreage with a real house.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnN7mvkmtqc6uXZFlPyJo662hMnlXGn5mJDKX2xLKkh4iiqPu7ZU-BRpiyycmzCjHGROCvXDwpGT-VyAC6W-YbRvL1LtAk167fAMw-7Tqqqnu2jtE8Wbvy0mhgVVLpwg2VppnKuFjt_Pc/s1600/HPIM0778.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1136" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnN7mvkmtqc6uXZFlPyJo662hMnlXGn5mJDKX2xLKkh4iiqPu7ZU-BRpiyycmzCjHGROCvXDwpGT-VyAC6W-YbRvL1LtAk167fAMw-7Tqqqnu2jtE8Wbvy0mhgVVLpwg2VppnKuFjt_Pc/s320/HPIM0778.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I did lots of research about materials and structures, and finally settled on building the house out of <a href="http://www.aerconaac.com/" target="_blank">Aercon block</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRCD5F23NG3NDJ5AFzgpEo_GxtMajemO2zZl5c5uKYvvbPZVWEQ9JuhttELcWoc4JzFBclZ7JmYqdg9ImVJ3h_2rWRfACTodTW3tDSdfOqHAjc20zTSw0gqlN0QgK9Ks_ND8miOIdKrso/s1600/HPIM0797.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1136" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRCD5F23NG3NDJ5AFzgpEo_GxtMajemO2zZl5c5uKYvvbPZVWEQ9JuhttELcWoc4JzFBclZ7JmYqdg9ImVJ3h_2rWRfACTodTW3tDSdfOqHAjc20zTSw0gqlN0QgK9Ks_ND8miOIdKrso/s320/HPIM0797.JPG" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I worked closely with the engineers from Aercon and also local contractors who helped install the special "hurricane straps" in the roof beams and the </span><a href="http://www.hurricaneshuttersflorida.com/lexan.php" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;" target="_blank">Lexan shutters</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> for the windows. They said the solid 10-inch-thick aerated autoclaved concrete walls would stand up to a midwest-style tornado (not just the little kind we have here). Situated about 15 miles inland, with my deep well going down hundreds of feet into the aquifer and my propane-powered generator, I was all set to ride out future storms. And some neighbors might need to join me, because - </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheNRkTAEwY8wiWRkgxP3V7G4K4thK-NOTJD9kiPlBRtn6RMouankvxt7ug6te81ood1s2smd9_7YX1DVid4LpjONlgMLKbAxcQ5QdXuApTbA4bH6b9_kS7t-A8PN4hqNWLhEYekMmcfoE/s1600/HPIM0817.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1136" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheNRkTAEwY8wiWRkgxP3V7G4K4thK-NOTJD9kiPlBRtn6RMouankvxt7ug6te81ood1s2smd9_7YX1DVid4LpjONlgMLKbAxcQ5QdXuApTbA4bH6b9_kS7t-A8PN4hqNWLhEYekMmcfoE/s320/HPIM0817.JPG" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Here's what I find really bizarre: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">While everybody moans about "stupid" Floridians not evacuating for hurricanes, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">nobody addresses the reason</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">why</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> e</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">vacuation is needed in the first place, namely: The stupid building codes do not require mobile homes or older "stick" houses to withstand greater than a Category 2 hurricane! </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The best, newest mobile homes with good tie-downs are designed to hold up to Cat 2. New construction homes ("stick" or otherwise), especially those near the coast, must meet strict hurricane standards, while older "stick" homes often don't fare as well as the newer mobile homes in high winds. And yet, it is still perfectly legal for them to be sold and rented out in Florida (and in the midwest, which is even worse). Why is this permitted, when lives are at stake?! Simply because many people cannot </span><b style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">afford</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> solid newer-construction homes. The jobs here don't pay enough.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, it is true that if you live someplace like the Keys, Miami or Caribbean islands, you would probably want to evacuate anyway due to storm surge and the fact that hurricanes are strongest in that area, where the water is warmest. But what is interesting is that even when Irma's eyewall directly hit the Keys with the full force of Cat 4, the newer concrete houses remained standing! They lost windows and roofs, but the walls were intact. This tells us that it is indeed possible to build homes that can withstand powerful hurricanes. We have the technology, and we're going to need it if rising ocean temps continue to feed bigger and badder storms. As I write this, the </span><a href="https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-maria-irma-harvey-three-united-states-category-4-landfalls" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;" target="_blank">third Category 4 storm to hit the United States in less than a month</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">, Maria, has devastated Puerto Rico. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If, as <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/09/05/global-warming-make-powerful-hurricanes-more-likely-scientists-say/Q3lUW6iKuGEKvpTOD22sGL/story.html" target="_blank">many scientists suggest, this highly unusual storm season is not just a fluke but an ongoing trend,</a> maybe we need to rethink how to best handle hurricanes. While stricter building codes utilizing newer technology are something to aim for in the future, we can't currently do anything about people living in substandard trailers and wood-frame houses without rendering millions homeless. But, that's what we do every time we tell people to hit the road during hurricanes. An alternative might be private shelters for people living in mobile homes on larger properties, a central shelter for each mobile home park or neighborhood, and a bigger </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">public shelter in each county built of newer construction, all with generators</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. In addition to generators, we need to change the law to <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/policy/illegal-power-home-solar-panels-florida/" target="_blank">allow Floridians to make use of sunshine</a> in the days following a hurricane when the power grid is down, which is currently illegal. Every house, or neighborhood, could be so equipped.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The other big issue obviously is water, in terms of both damage and as a resource. Future building codes in low-lying areas like Houston prone to flooding ought to require elevated or stilt construction, and meanwhile such neighborhoods should each have their own raised shelter. As for consumption, the bottled-water buying frenzy need not exist. Properties like mine out in the country who get our water from deep wells have plenty of water so long as there is emergency power. Public shelters should also have wells. Another technology which for some reason has not been utilized much on the mainland U.S. but is popular in the islands including Hawaii and the Caribbean is <a href="https://extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construction-and-treatment" target="_blank">cisterns to collect rainwater</a>. A smaller and quite inexpensive variation on this idea is rain barrels for private homes.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yes, all of the above will cost <b>lots</b> of money. But <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/hurricane-irma-harvey-damage-graphic/" target="_blank">how much does the government spend now cleaning up the damage after hurricanes</a>? How much money do private citizens, especially the poor living in trailers who can least afford it, spend taking an unwanted and often unnecessary out-of-town "vacation" every time a storm approaches? How much gasoline is expended? What is the death toll on the roads during those frantic evacuations? And assuming the storm actually <b>does</b> strike the predicted location, what is the cost to insurance companies of repairing or replacing the homes destroyed in their absence? Wouldn't it make more sense in the long run, instead of everybody having to repeatedly panic and flee at great expense every single time, to invest now in infrastructure that will prepare us to safely weather future storms? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It seems to me it would be better, especially on the mainland, to keep people off the roads and in sturdy local structures that don't require evacuation. We could focus future evacuation efforts on the islands as necessary, meanwhile rebuilding to better standards in the wake of the current devastation. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Call me cynical, but I doubt such a plan is going to be implemented anytime soon, despite the fact that it would save lives, create jobs and be good for the economy. Congress hasn't been keen to invest in infrastructure anywhere, including here in the hurricane zone. The powers that be would rather people who live in trailers and stick homes flee for their lives, spending money they don't have, every hurricane season while the rich ride it out in their concrete homes with generators, or perhaps fly to their other residences elsewhere. It's easier to blame poor people for being stupid and tax the hell out of the middle class to clean up the damage, than it is to actually <b>do</b> something constructive about the situation.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-50244894397683943822017-09-01T04:04:00.000-05:002017-09-01T04:04:18.290-05:00Charlottesville, Part Two: The Statues<br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2017/08/nazis-civil-war-and-charlottesville.html" target="_blank">previous blog post about the Charlottesville protest</a> I didn't discuss the Confederate statues themselves very much, despite the fact that the alleged purpose of the "Unite the Right" rally was to protest their removal. Frankly, I was less concerned with what to do about beautiful old historic statues, than I was about heavily armed neo-Nazis marching down the street chanting, "Blood and soil. Jews will not replace us!" I mean, if it had been just the KKK carrying the Rebel flag and chanting, "The South shall rise again," or singing, "Dixieland," "Sweet Home Alabama" or "Swanee River," that would have been a bit alarming, given their past terrorist acts, but at least it would make <b>sense</b>, since they would be defending their Southern heritage. But, why on earth would neo-Nazis care about Confederate statues, and what the hell did the Jews have to do with it?!<br />
<br />
Of even greater concern to me was the fact that one of my young friends, a wannabe immigrant Jew from India, expressed support for the neo-Nazis, calling them "patriots" who defend the Constitution and the values of our "Founding Fathers," for whom he mistook the Confederate generals portrayed in the statues. Clearly he was not alone in thinking this, based on numerous FB memes he shared with me, and therefore I wrote Part One to provide my friend and anybody else who didn't know, a short review of American history, particularly the Civil War, who the guys in those statues were, what happened in WWII and why Nazis were, and still are, <b>bad</b>. I also explained that the thing which the various groups in the Alt-Right including the neo-Nazis and KKK have in common is White Supremacy, namely, the philosophy that non-whites and Jews are inferior. Perhaps that was why the neo-Nazis supported the KKK re: their Confederate heritage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While my young friend claimed to have read the article, comments he made to me thereafter clearly indicated that he had no knowledge of its contents and/or the links provided in it. He further insisted that Muslims were behind the movement to take down the Confederate statues, which was something I'd never heard. I assumed it was just another crazy rumor and didn't think much more about it. A few days later, however, the same theory was advanced by an elderly retired veteran, a friend of my father, so I decided to research more, to find out where this idea originated. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At first I couldn't find anything. Then, after googling strenuously for some time, "muslims Confederate statues" turned up <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08/15/muslim-organization-wants-every-state-and-town-to-do-this-after-charlottesville/" target="_blank">an article in The Blaze</a> which said, "America’s largest Muslim civil rights organization is asking state and local governments across the country to remove or change the name of anything named after Confederate sympathizers." The article did not explain why CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) wanted this to be done; their executive director merely said it would be a "fitting response" to the violence in Charlottesville. <br />
<br />
I found one or two more articles on the subject from far-right-wing media sources, basically saying the same thing, in <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/15/council-on-american-islamic-relations-tear-down-every-confederate-memorial/" target="_blank">The Daily Caller</a> and <a href="http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/08/muslim-mafia-joins-war-on-confederate-memorials/" target="_blank">WorldNetDaily</a>, the latter referring to CAIR as "the Muslim Mafia," allegedly a "terrorist organization founded by Hamas." No further details were provided. Note, I take these sources with a grain of salt, because they also promote the rumor that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim and other conspiracies. The articles state that CAIR joined the debate about the statues only <b>after</b> the Charlottesville protest in August 2017, i.e., there was no indication that Muslims started the movement to remove the statues in the first place. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In any event, I still couldn't understand why Muslims would particularly care about Confederate monuments or U.S. Civil War history. They weren't even <b>here</b> then, right? And that is when, in the course of googling, "why do muslims care about u.s. civil war?" I stumbled upon the answer in this article about <a href="https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/publications/what-is-the-truth-about-american-muslims/american-muslims-in-the-united" target="_blank">Muslims in America</a>: It turns out that actually they <b>were</b> here since at least the 1600s, before the founding of the United States, if not sooner. Some <a href="http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/islam-in-america/" target="_blank">early explorers of the New World</a> from the 1300s to 1400s were believed to be Muslims from Spain and Portugal, as mentioned by Columbus in his memoirs. And, more pertinent to this discussion, about 10% to 30%, depending upon whom you ask, of the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-manseau/what-happened-to-americas-first-muslims_b_6809326.html" target="_blank">African slaves brought over here</a> were Muslim! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, wow, I have an American university education with a postgraduate degree, how could I not know this? I don't remember ever hearing about African Muslim slaves in history class. As far as I knew, the Africans were animists and/or practitioners of Voudon. In the course of researching this topic I came across several very informative articles describing <a href="http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=6&smtid=1" target="_blank">slavery in the New World</a> in some detail from resources including the <a href="https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/collection/african-muslims-early-america" target="_blank">Smithsonian Institute</a> and PBS. I learned that many of the Muslim slaves <a href="http://www.theroot.com/african-slaves-were-the-1st-to-celebrate-ramadan-in-ame-1790876253" target="_blank">fasted in observance of Ramadan</a> while performing strenuous labor, even though practicing their religion was usually forbidden on most plantations. George Washington was among the slave owners who did not mind which, if any, religion they practiced, <a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/islam-at-mount-vernon/" target="_blank">as long as they were "good workmen</a>." Now I understand <b>why</b> Muslims would care about the Confederate monuments - because the history of African slavery in America is also <b>their</b> history!<br />
<br />
No doubt some readers will be quick to point out that Muslims also had slaves and in fact, Arabs sold many Africans into slavery, including those who had been captured by other Africans, and to this day, people are still enslaved in the Middle East. While true, that is a different topic for another time. This blog post is not about Islam or the Middle East. So, having taken this side-track in order to understand the history of slavery in the U.S. and who was involved, let's get back to the Confederate statues, what they represent and what, if anything, we ought to <b>do</b> about them.<br />
<br />
As mentioned in Part One, I was ambivalent about the fate of the statues at first, being more concerned about the upsurge in modern-day fascism than Civil War history. From the standpoint of art per se, the statues are beautiful. I am especially fond of the horses, and liked the skit on the Stephen Colbert show where it was suggested, "Why don't we just remove the riders and keep the horses?!" Being an equestrian myself, I can't help noticing that some of the riders appear heavy-handed on the reins. It would not surprise me if in another 20 years people will be protesting the statues based on a moral objection to the oppression and enslavement of horses. But, we can worry about that if and when it happens down the road. Our current complaint with the statues is their glorification of the Confederacy which was founded on the enslavement of human beings.<br />
<br />
There are those who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery but rather, states' rights. In essence, however, it was specifically <a href="https://macmccanntx.com/2013/02/08/stop-whitewashing-history-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery/" target="_blank">the right of white men in those states to own African slaves</a> which led to the South attempting to secede from the Union. In opposition to the Founding Fathers' declaration that "all men are created equal" and their intention to gradually end the institution of slavery in the United States, Confederate leaders, like White Supremacists today, believed that all men are <b>not</b> created equal. They held that the non-white races were mentally and morally inferior, and that their proper place in society was to serve and be protected by their white superiors. Further, they believed that bringing African slaves to the New World to live under the "civilizing" guidance of their white masters and converting them to Christianity, was actually in the Africans' best interest.<br />
<br />
John C. Calhoun (one of the men portrayed in the offending statues) said that slavery was "<a href="https://ctlsites.uga.edu/hist2111-wolf2015/2015/11/27/pro-slavery-ideology-positive-social-good/" target="_blank">a positive social good</a>... indispensable to the peace and happiness of both whites and blacks... I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/slavery-a-positive-good/" target="_blank">civilized and so improved</a>, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." James Henry Hammond, another southern pro-slavery theorist, stated that any efforts towards racial equality would <a href="https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/slavery-in-the-antebellum-u-s-1820-1840-16/the-antebellum-south-121/the-proslavery-argument-647-9459/" target="_blank">undermine the stability of society</a> and the rule of law, leading to class warfare and the downfall of civilization. This paternalistic theory was similar to the argument against equal rights for women, who were likewise regarded as mentally and morally inferior and whose liberation would destroy the family, the foundation of society, a view also held by modern White Supremacists.<br />
<br />
The ideological clash between the North and South over racial equality did indeed, as Calhoun predicted, result in tearing America apart. The South was so committed to the institution of slavery that they were willing to kill their own countrymen and secede from the Union to found their own white supremacist nation, the Confederate States of America, with their own flag and Constitution. The Confederate flag, also called the "Rebel Flag" because the South did literally rebel against the United States, has remained very popular in the South in modern times and was the first Civil War icon to be protested. The movement gained strength after the <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-the-charleston-shooting-is-linked-to-the-confederate-flag-according-to-a-south-carolinian-1b97034fb56f/" target="_blank">2015 murder of nine African American worshippers</a> at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina by Dylann Roof, a White Supremacist who displayed the Rebel Flag on his license plate and on Facebook. The Confederate flag was soon thereafter removed from the State House in Charleston, followed by other government buildings in the South over the next couple of years. Journalist Jack Jenkins calls the flag "a point of profound embarrassment for many South Carolina residents," especially after this incident. <br />
<br />
The statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville at Emancipation Park, formerly named "Lee Park," was subsequently scheduled for removal, prompting the August "Unite the Right" rally in which heavily armed neo-Nazis and other white supremacists marched down the street in protest, arguing that the flag and statues should be preserved as "symbols of our American heritage." But as Jenkins explains, "It’s easy to recount the multiplicity of historical explanations as to why the Confederate flag has absolutely no place anywhere near the South Carolina State House. It doesn’t make any sense, for instance, to fly the flag of the United States of America next to the flag of a failed state that actively tried to secede from the union, sparking a war that resulted in the deaths of more Americans than any other armed conflict - including World War II." <br />
<br />
<span style="text-align: start;">Interestingly, After the Civil War ended, the South having been defeated, <a href="about:invalid#zClosurez" target="_blank">Robert E. Lee considered Confederate symbols treasonous</a>: "So strong were Lee’s feelings,” RedState’s Teri Christoph added, “that he refused to have Confederate flags at his funeral and was not buried in his Confederate uniforms; his soldiers also didn’t don their uniforms at the funeral. Lee’s daughter said that having those symbols present would almost be ‘treasonous,’ as her father had take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution the day he took office as president of Washington College (now known as Washington and Lee University).” </span><br />
<br />
Southern white liberals say that they want to remove the Confederate monuments because they cannot in good conscience display on public land statues that implicitly glorify slavery by memorializing the men who fought against the Union to keep their slaves. The statues are a painful reminder of terrible past injustice that they would rather forget. The Civil War is indeed part of our historical "heritage" - a part which understandably embarrasses many Americans. I get it. However, the more I think about it, this is all the more reason that we ought to <b>keep</b> the statues.<br />
<br />
Yes, the glorification of Confederate generals and <a href="http://praisenet.org/id11/slave/" target="_blank">sanitizing of the Civil War and slavery</a> is a whitewash of American history. <span style="text-align: start;">In a speech that gained national attention, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu argued that the statues had originally been erected in an effort to “rebrand” the Confederate cause, saying: “These monuments purposefully </span><a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/things-got-left-out-of-the-daily-callers-report-confederate-monument-rally" style="text-align: start;" target="_blank">celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy</a><span style="text-align: start;">; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.” And he is right, of course.</span><br />
<br />
But, while <a href="http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/19/gillum-says-removing-confederate-monuments-not-white-washing-history/583006001/" target="_blank">Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum would disagree</a>, IMO removing or covering up those monuments <a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/the-civil-war-race-and-the-whitewashing-of-history-1.14030467" target="_blank">is itself a form of white-washing history</a>. If we don't have to confront uncomfortable reminders of an ugly past, we can pretend like it never happened. Is that really the goal, to put ourselves in a state of denial? Personally, I view these statues in a similar way as the Holocaust memorials. They are painful to look at and they should be. We must never forget! As Winston Churchill said in 1948, "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it," paraphrasing George Santayana's 1863 statement, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We cannot learn from a history that we refuse to acknowledge ever happened.<br />
<br />
I've actually met people who tell me the Founders of the United States did not own slaves, the Holocaust never happened, and the Confederates and Nazis were Patriots.<br />
<br />
So this is what I propose: <br />
<br />
We won't fly the Confederate flag on U.S. government buildings, because it is an enemy flag and that would make no sense, but we can put the flag in museums, <b>educate</b> people about the history of it, and allow private citizens to display it if they wish. They will only brand themselves as racists, helping other people to identify and avoid them.<br />
<br />
As for the statues, they can remain standing, but only with the <b>addition</b> of plaques explaining in blunt detail who they were and what they represent, e.g.:<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/16/how-statues-of-robert-e-lee-and-other-confederates-got-into-the-u-s-capitol/?utm_term=.46a46a9ee96f" target="_blank">Joseph Wheeler</a>: "A leader of the Confederate cavalry who fought in many campaigns against the Union and oversaw the massacre of hundreds of freed slaves at Ebenezer Creek in 1864." <br />
<a href="http://www.historynet.com/john-c-calhoun-he-started-the-civil-war.htm" target="_blank">John C. Calhoun</a>: "The 7th VP of the United States, turned rebel to lead the South into the Civil War. He was a major proponent of slavery as 'a social good' and believed that the Founders' ideals of liberty and equality were destructive to the social order."<br />
etc. With our modern technology we could also provide computer screens at these historical sites with lengthier and more detailed information.<br />
<br />
In addition, I agree with the idea of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/confederate-statues-monuments-sidney-blumenthal" target="_blank">putting up new statues of civil rights leaders</a> and of African-Americans whose contributions to our history are too often overlooked. They don't need to replace the existing statues, but stand across from them in stark contrast to tell their side of the story, staring at the Confederates with expressions of disdain and condescension, or perhaps with tears in their eyes. Many such statues have already been proposed. Let's put our talented American artists to work! It will be good for our culture and the economy.<br />
<br />
On a related note, the issue of Free Speech and censorship has been raised, and I agree that all sides have a right to be heard, no matter how ignorant, rude and offensive they may be. I am sorry if peoples' feelings get hurt. I don't believe in censorship of art or speech. If it's not free for everyone, then it's not Free Speech. If we censor the neo-Nazis today, then tomorrow it may be the anarchists or Democrats, or whichever group you happen to support. Censorship is counter-productive, both because offenders can (justifiably) whine that they are being censored, playing the martyr, and more importantly, if we censor offensive speech, people won't <b>know</b> the horrible things that have been said. <br />
<br />
For example, shortly after the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally, one of the organizers, Andrew Anglin, posted on his neo-Nazi website, DailyStormer, a couple of very disturbing articles. One entitled, "Heather Heyer, Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident, was a Fat, Childless, 32-year-old Slut," said that Heyer deserved to die "because a 32-year-old childless woman is a drain on society." Another article had the title, "The Jewish Problem," which I couldn't read because by the time I got around to it, DailyStormer had been censored and could no longer be found on the internet. So, when I was trying to explain to my young admirer of neo-Nazis just how <b>vile</b> these people like Anglin really are, he didn't believe me, and I could not prove it because the website was gone and the articles unavailable - as if they'd never existed.<br />
<br />
People need to be informed. The truth will speak for itself. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-54400642341618795282017-08-19T22:14:00.001-05:002017-08-23T21:10:41.639-05:00Nazis, the Civil War and Charlottesville<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I had another one of those conversations recently which made me think, "Wow, I can't believe I really need to explain this! Doesn't everybody know? What on earth are they teaching the kids in school these days?!" The conversation arose in the aftermath of the Charlottesville riot when one of my young friends on Facebook expressed support for the heavily armed neo-Nazis who marched down the street carrying citronella tiki torches from Home Depot as they chanted, "Blood and soil! Jews will not replace us!” allegedly to protest the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><a href="http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Lee_Park_Charlottesville_VA-668x501.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="668" height="300" src="https://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Lee_Park_Charlottesville_VA-668x501.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My young friend posted on FB, "I support these American patriots! They are saving the statues of our Founding Fathers! They defend the Constitution against liberals, socialists and other terrorists!" </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I hardly knew where to begin. In my friend's defense, he is not American (but very much wants to be!) and without the benefit of a U.S. education, probably has had limited exposure to American history. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I was really shocked, though, that he would side with neo-Nazis, for a couple of reasons.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For one thing, my friend is from India, where having witnessed terrible misogyny in his own country, he has been a fierce advocate of women's rights, which would put him at odds with white supremacists both because of his ethnicity, as well as his ideology. Even more importantly, however, he is a devout student of the Torah and a convert to Judaism! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've known this person, whom I affectionately call "little brother," for several years, and he is a good kid and absolutely <b>loves </b>the United States. His big dream is to move here and serve in the U.S. Marines but he has not yet been able to find a way to do so. His dream is even less likely to be realized under the current administration's immigration policies despite which, ironically, he is a big fan of President Trump. Meanwhile he has taken an <a href="http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup-3-ppc/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=con101&appeal_code=MK617PP1" target="_blank">online program at Hillsdale College on the U.S. Constitution</a> from which he graduated with honors.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When I informed him that the statues were being removed because they represent the southern Confederate rebellion against the United States which resulted in a Civil War over the issue of ending slavery, he objected, "Our Founding Fathers did not own slaves! They were good men. They said 'all men are created equal'!" </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I explained as gently as possible, "Well, yes they did have slaves, but it was normal back then. And they eventually ended slavery but it took some time and a civil war because the South didn't believe 'all men are equal.' The Confederates believed blacks were inferior and fought to keep their slaves." I told him that the guys in the statues like Robert E. Lee are <b>not</b> the Founding Fathers but rather, the southern generals who rebelled against the Founders and their Constitution. He continued to insist that the South opposed slavery and that southern patriots were champions of the Constitution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Other than social media, I don't know what sources of information influenced my little brother's </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">profound misunderstanding of current events in the context of U.S. history and politics, although I do have other young acquaintances who have expressed similar confusion. There are several extreme right-wing religious and political propaganda organizations who target youth not only here in America but abroad as well, who could be to blame, although I have no proof. Certainly these ideas did not come from Hillsdale College, whose history program, albeit somewhat rightward-slanted, appears to be excellent and factual in its content as far as I can tell. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In any event, this was all too complex to address in short comments on Facebook. So, inspired by our discussion, I decided to write this blog post for the benefit of my little brother and anybody else who might gain some insight from it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">*******</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My Dear Little Brother,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thank you so much for the lively conversation that inspired this blog post! I dedicate it to you, for your love of the United States of America, our freedom, and our Constitution which establishes the rule of law, civil liberties and equal rights for all our citizens regardless of race or gender. I hope that our current immigration restrictions will not hinder you from fulfilling your dream of becoming an American citizen and serving in our armed forces.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Re: The protest in Charlottesville, the statues, etc. You objected that the statues of our Founding Fathers ought not to be removed. As I explained, the statues in question are not in fact the Founders, but rather, the southern Confederate generals who fought <b>against</b> the ideals of the Founders, resulting in the Civil War. The northern Union, representing the United States government and its Constitution, was attempting to pass legislation to end the practice of slavery in the territories and ultimately, in the entire United States, based on the Founders' principle that "all men are created equal." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The South argued that all men are <b>not</b> created equal, that whites are superior and non-whites inferior, and therefore slavery was a "social good" because it was in the best interests of society that blacks would be taken care of and controlled by whites. They even <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html" target="_blank">used the Bible to support their claim</a>. There were economic reasons for keeping slavery as well, because they believed that the plantations in the South could not prosper without slave labor. Furthermore, the Confederates accused those who opposed slavery of being "<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp" target="_blank">atheists, socialists and communists" and enemies of social order and freedom</a>. Interestingly, this is the same accusation that the Alt-Right, neo-Nazis, and White Supremacists make against people on the Left who strive for social justice and equality today.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The South was so determined to keep their slaves that they tried to secede from the Union and start their own country, with their own laws and flag, and went to war against the North. The Union won the bloody war and the country was reunited at the great cost of many lives on both sides, and slavery was ended. However, the South put up monuments to their rebel generals including Robert E. Lee, John C. Calhoun and others, and kept the Confederate flag which still flies in many cities in the South and is carried by the Ku Klux Klan today. The KKK, a domestic terrorist group that arose after the Civil War and targets non-whites, Jews and Catholics, has a slogan, "The South shall rise again," meaning that they hope to have <a href="http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/alabama-based_southern_nationa.html" target="_blank">another chance to secede</a> from the United States in the future and establish their own White Supremacist nation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Anyway, I am no historian and the above is just a brief summary. You can find a much better description at this <a href="https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/part06/week-6-lecture" target="_blank">lecture from Hillsdale College</a> which explains it all in depth. The point is that the statues being removed represent not the Founders, but their enemies who supported slavery. The Left, that is, liberals and/or progressives, want to take down the statues because they are an embarrassing reminder of injustice and inequality from our past. They feel that the statues go against everything our Founders stood for, the ideals of liberty, justice and equality that we are still trying to make a reality in our society today. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now personally, I'm not sure removing the statues is a good idea. For one thing, as "art" they are beautiful, and I especially love the horses, even though from the standpoint of morality the statues are ugly, because they represent slavery and civil war. However, I believe that we must remember the past, even its ugliness, so that we do not repeat its mistakes! To me these statues are like the Holocaust memorials. They exist to remind us of a painful past that we must never forget. Maybe we could keep the statues but include a plaque with detailed explanation of their history and implications. We must never again allow racism to tear apart our democratic republic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The guys leading the Charlottesville protest to save the Confederate statues, whom you referred to as "patriots," were neo-Nazis. But, you may well ask, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">wouldn't protecting Southern historical statues be the job of the KKK? W</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">hy would Nazis care about Southern Confederate statues?! After all, Nazism was a European movement that began in Hitler's Germany leading up to WWII, long after the Civil War had ended and far across the world. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The reason that modern neo-Nazis support the KKK and often even carry the Confederate flag, is because they share the same values and the same agenda for our country, namely, White Supremacy. This is the core philosophy which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/17/charlottesville-alt-right-neo-nazis-white-nationalists" target="_blank">the various Alt-Right groups</a> all have in common: That the Caucasian or "Aryan" race is superior to non-white races and must fight to preserve its pure European ethnic bloodline and heritage against contamination by non-whites and Jews.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/ap_16179690902064-2000px.jpg?w=990" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="800" height="179" src="https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/ap_16179690902064-2000px.jpg?w=990" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And this brings us to antisemitism. One of the reasons I was shocked that you support the Alt-Right is their <a href="http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id67.html" target="_blank">hatred of Jewish people</a>. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The KKK, Stormfront, neo-Nazis and other White Supremacist groups of today are not only racist against blacks and other people of brown skin tones, but also they carry on the </span><a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/neo-nazism-2#5" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">antisemitism of their historical past</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> as well! Their domestic terrorist activities include <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/what-the-jewish-cemetery-attack-and-trumps-movement-have-in-common" target="_blank">desecration of Jewish cemeteries</a> and bomb threats against Jewish community centers. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4795848/Rally-organizer-President-let-Jew-steal-daughter.html" target="_blank">Christopher Cantwell</a>, one of the organizers of the Charlottesville "Unite The Right" rally, rudely criticized President Trump for allowing his daughter Ivanka to marry Jared Kushner and convert to Judaism, saying, "The President let a Jew steal his daughter... </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I don't think you could feel the way I do about race, and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl." And Cantwell's antisemitism is by no means unique to him; it is a common thread running through the Alt-Right, which is why the poster advertising the rally shows a chilling image of a man preparing to smash the Star of David with a hammer and says "to end Jewish influence in America."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHKJWbDVwAAEzO4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="605" height="320" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHKJWbDVwAAEzO4.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And this, my dear little brother, means they are </span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">not</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> your friends and you would not have been welcome among them at the rally. Had you shown up at the protest quietly standing by and minding your own business, or even trying to join the "patriots" in their efforts to save the statue, based solely on your non-white skin they probably would have beaten the shit out of you, and even more so, if they knew you were Jewish!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another reason I was surprised to hear that you support the neo-Nazis is that you claim to oppose socialism. Maybe you were not aware that another name for the modern Nazis is "National Socialist Movement." The word Nazi is actually an abbreviation of the German word "</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Nationalsozialist," National Socialist.</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> Of course, there are several different kinds of socialism. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The form of socialism that you have in India, which you hate so much, is called "Democratic Socialism" in the Indian Constitution, but is really a mixture of socialism and capitalism, where the democratically elected state controls some aspects of the economy but also allows private corporations to do business. I would not technically call that system "Democratic," because</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">although the citizens do elect their representatives democratically, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">industry is managed by the State and corporate CEOs, while the employees themselves have no direct control over the policies of the companies where they work.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Libertarian Socialism" is "democracy in the workplace," </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">a system in which the employees, not the government, own and manage the companies, which was the original concept of "socialism." In the U.S. we have approximately <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/life-changing-magic-of-turning-employees-into-shareholders/498485/" target="_blank">7000 employee-owned companies</a>, e.g. Publix Supermarket, where all employees are stockholders and therefore have have some control over company policies including hours, pay and benefits, and when the company profits, the employees also profit. Employee ownership encourages responsibility and productivity and also is good for competition in the free market because businesses compete to attract the best workers. This is the type of socialism supported by most American liberals, including Jewish Presidential candidate <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/legislative-package-introduced-to-encourage-employee-owned-companies" target="_blank">Bernie Sanders.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In stark contrast to both modern India and America, National Socialism, or Nazism, is a totalitarian system in which the State controls everything including all aspects of the economy, supposedly for the benefit of society. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372197/nazis-still-socialists-jonah-goldberg" target="_blank">Nazi party official Gregor Strasser</a> said: </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler" target="_blank">Hitler later added, "National Socialism is what Marxism might have been</a> if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">German National Socialism </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">opposed democracy, liberalism and capitalism, demanding strict obedience by the citizens under the dictatorial rule of Hitler. The citizens sacrificed their own economic and civil liberties for the sake of their nation. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another word for this is "fascism." In Italy, fascism also involved the collusion of the State and corporations, or "corporatism" under the dictator Mussolini. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At the risk of stating the obvious, for anybody who didn't get the memo, or in case the kids these days are no longer being taught history in school, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">[in the voice of Mr. Mackey from South Park]: </span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">Fascism is bad</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">, umkay?! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHJTAbgVoAAxTYh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="450" height="400" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHJTAbgVoAAxTYh.jpg" width="225" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the same way that "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" (Hitler's party), the name "AntiFa" is short for "anti-fascist." T</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">he Nazis were the enemies of America and our ideals of liberty, justice and equality. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Some conservatives have accused liberal counter-protesters opposing the neo-Nazis, especially the group "AntiFa," of being anti-American. <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/james-woodss-bad-statue-tweet-becomes-a-meme.html" target="_blank">Commentator James Woods tweeted</a> that liberals may destroy the WWII U.S. Marines Iwo Jima Memorial celebrating our victory over Japan. Well, probably not, since Japan was on the side of fascist Germany and Italy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ironically, in WWII the United States and our allies <b>were</b> the "anti-fascists"! Many brave American soldiers gave their lives in that war, we won, and we don't want to give fascism a foothold in our country today.</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That is why </span><a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/the-intel/sd-me-veterans-charlottesville-20170814-story.html" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">WWII veterans</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> and </span><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/holocaust-survivor-charlottesville-white-supremacists-are-finding-another-voice-n792461" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">Holocaust survivors</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> are horrified to</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> see neo-Nazis marching down our streets in cities like Charlottesville. </span><a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/world-war-ii-vets-who-fought-nazis-have-message-for-charlottlesville/2333715" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">Our troops</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> did not risk life and limb so that fascism could take over here in America. It already somewhat threatens our democracy due to the huge influence of corporations on our elections and legislative process, reminiscent of Mussolini's Italy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But, getting back to the reasons for my surprise at your support of the Alt-Right, this brings us to their treatment of women. Little brother, I have always known you to be extremely respectful of your mother and to treat all women as your sisters. You explained to me that in Judaism men respect and listen to their wives. Israeli women, just like their American sisters, have equal rights and participate alongside of men in education, business, science and technology. And it cannot be denied that the Israeli female soldiers are among the most formidable military officers in the world! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/02/alt-right-hates-women-non-white-trump-christian-right-abortion" target="_blank">Alt-Right views women as mentally inferior beings</a> whose only real purpose in life is to service men's sexual desires, have babies, raise children, cook and do housework. They say that a</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> woman's worth as a human being is determined solely by her "sexual market value," regarding us as prostitutes, broodmares and house slaves. They believe that w</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">omen cannot be good scientists, engineers, computer programmers, college professors, doctors, lawyers, politicians, bankers, CEOs, accountants, architects, soldiers, or most other professions with the possible exception of nurses and elementary school teachers, and for the most part should not work outside of the home. The Alt-Right says women should never have been allowed to vote. They do not want white women to have access to birth control because the White Supremacist goals cannot be achieved if brown people are out-breeding the whites!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I first discovered the Alt-Right on </span><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;" target="_blank">Breitbart News</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> (whose former editor Steve Bannon was a top advisor of President Trump) about a year ago when a friend shared with me articles by the flamboyant and very funny writer Milo Yiannopoulos. I found Milo quite offensive until I learned that he is, in fact, a comedian. However, I was frankly astonished to read Breitbart's <b>serious</b> articles proclaiming their blatantly racist, antisemitic and misogynist philosophy. After spending some time on Alt-Right discussion boards where I invited them to share their thoughts with me, I eventually became convinced that it was no exaggeration. These people really, sincerely, unapologetically do believe such things, as far as I can tell based on what they told me. They also informed me that I am worthless as a human being and might as well die because I am childless. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Which is how Alt-Right "Daily Stormer" website editor Andrew Anglin <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/daily-stormer-godaddy-bans-charlotteville-victim-heather-heyer-victim-fat-slut-defame-uva-neo-nazi-a7891856.html" target="_blank">defended the killing of Heather Heyer</a>, who was run over at the rally: "... </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">she is the definition of uselessness. A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value.” She worked as a paralegal for a Charlottesville law firm, where she was dedicated to standing up for justice and helping the poor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So no, my dear little brother, these Alt-Right guys are not "patriots" and they are not your allies. They are racist, sexist, antisemitic, National Socialist/fascists whose philosophy goes against all the values of our Founding Fathers. They don't believe in liberty and democracy, nor that all men are equal. In their opinion, you and I, an Indian Jew and a childless white woman, don't even deserve to live. If they get their way you will never be allowed to immigrate, serve in the U.S. military or become an American citizen. And I don't believe they cared about that statue in the first place. The rally was just an opportunity to promote their White Supremacist agenda. I pray they will not succeed in destroying our country.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And btw, the reason they are called "Alt-Right" is because the "normal old right" of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. was too liberal for them. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-35590533327567316182016-11-26T01:15:00.001-06:002016-11-26T02:00:11.419-06:00Religious Liberty vs. Theonomy 2016<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I posted on Facebook the other day regarding my dismay over President-Elect Trump’s choice of advisors and cabinet members. My objections included, first of all, that he has chosen many of the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">same</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> men whom he ran against, and </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>beat</b></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, in the Primary! Republicans voted for Trump as their candidate precisely </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">because</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> they were fed up with the GOP establishment and he, being a formerly libertarian-leaning “outsider,” represented change. But, now he has appointed that same entrenched establishment to help him run the country, thereby defeating the voters’ desire for change. I also said that one of the things I had liked about Mr. Trump was that, in contrast to most of those far-right guys, particularly Pence, Cruz, Carson and Romney, he was </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a “religious wingnut.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I had taken it for granted that people would understand why I object to America being run by “religious wingnuts,” but then one of my young friends from India asked, “Why are you against religious people?” Realizing that he did not understand what “wingnut” means in this context, I proceeded to explain that the term refers not to </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">all</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “religious” people, but specifically the far-right extremist fundie evangelical variety who, despite being a minority among religious Americans, are the loudest, and who want to inflict their own particular repressive religious agenda on everybody else via the political process, i.e. theonomy, in clear violation of our Constitution. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I explained that </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">because</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> I am religious myself, I support the First Amendment freedom of religion, which necessarily also includes freedom </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">from</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> religion, the separation of church and state wisely established by our founders. (1) Therefore I am against religious extremism and State imposition of religion of whatever variety, whether it be Islamic Sharia or Christian Dominionism.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My young friend replied, “You are </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> religious!” My feelings might have been hurt by that accusation, were it not so obviously false as to be laughable. The fact is, I am indeed “religious” by more than one definition of the word, and very deeply so, and I am not ashamed to admit it despite the popular stigma associated with “religion” in America today, thanks to the fundies (both Islamic and Christian) who claim to speak for all of us and manage to make “religion” look bad.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many people today, understandably wanting to avoid that stigma, refer to themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” I, however, cannot make that claim, although I am a mystic and therefore certainly “spiritual.” As I have described elsewhere (2), “God” for me is not a “belief” per se, but rather, a label that I put on my personal experience of Ineffable Love with which I am blessed thanks to Grace as well as a lifetime of serious yoga practice. My emphasis on direct experience of the Divine is what attracts me to the ancient Liturgical churches centered on the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as opposed to the modern evangelical denominations who deny the Deep Magic, regarding Communion as “merely symbolic” (which is rather odd considering that they take everything </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">else</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in the Bible quite literally while denying Jesus’ words in this one matter), and celebrate the Lord’s Supper only infrequently when it does not interfere with their long-winded sermons.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am officially “religious” in that I belong to an established religion, the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion. According to tradition (3), this is one of the oldest Christian churches, having been founded at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea, who brought with him the cup with which Jesus celebrated the Last Supper, the Holy Grail in the Arthurian legends. This all happened a couple of thousand years before the upstart “Religious Right” emerged only very recently in American history and declared itself to be the One True Christian Faith, as Frank Schaeffer explains in his very informative book (4), “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.” </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am also “religious” by a second definition, namely, “a member of a monastic order, especially a nun or monk.” I am such a Jesus Freak (5) that I wear His ring. Even my religious relatives were mortified when I became a Third Order Sister and spent 14 blissful years living as a celibate monastic. They were relieved when I eventually settled down with a mortal partner. I remain a Sister, as Third Order religious persons living outside of the convent are permitted to marry.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Despite all of the above, my young friend continues to insist that I am </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “religious” because my church, along with other mainstream churches, does not share the fundie dogma which he has somehow been indoctrinated to believe is the One True Christian Faith. I find it puzzling, and a little alarming, that the American Religious Right could manage to persuade people in India, especially given that India is a former British colony and one would think that the Anglican tradition would be firmly established there. Perhaps Indians find the Anglican Church to be an unpleasant reminder of their former colonization. In any event, fundamentalist missionaries have been targeting India quite aggressively (6) and with apparent success, based on the fact that I am hearing their agenda from the mouths of kids over there.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While we do have important doctrinal disagreements which I’ve addressed above, such as their taking the entire Bible literally </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">except</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for the part about the Body and Blood of Christ, fundies aren’t really concerned about that. Rather, they are mainly obsessed about sex: who is doing it with whom and in what manner. They are especially upset about homosexuality or what they call “sodomy,” and so are we, although for entirely different reasons. The fundie objection to gay marriage and homosexual relationships is based, among other things, on a misunderstanding of scripture in regard to the story of Sodom, where visiting strangers regardless of gender were routinely gang-raped. Never mind that gang rape has nothing whatsoever in common with gay marriage. (7)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scripture clearly states what the “sin of Sodom” was: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.…” [Ezekiel 16:49-50, Study Bible] It is the latter scriptural definition of “the sin of Sodom” which is of greater concern in American politics today, from the standpoint of the mainstream churches like mine. But, the far-right politicians who want to impose their own brand of religion on America in violation of the Constitution prefer to ignore this verse about helping the poor and needy, in favor of focusing on gays and uppity women.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is worth noting that the only thing Jesus ever said about gays was when the disciples asked whether or not everybody should get married, considering that divorce is a terrible sin (one which did not prevent 81% of evangelicals from electing twice-divorced Mr. Trump, now on his third wife, as President). Jesus replied that not everyone is called to marriage, including men who “are born eunuchs,” the word “eunuch” in those days meaning “an effeminate man who is unsuited to marrying a woman,” i.e. what today we call “homosexual.” This is in direct contradiction to the fundie assertion that people are </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> born that way and being gay is a “choice.” (8)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m not going to address “what the Bible does or does not say about homosexuality” any further here because that has already been done, with considerable thoroughness, by many biblical scholars (9) and in any case, it is not the topic of this blog post which is religious liberty and why I, as a religious American, do not want theonomists running my country.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But the persecution of gays is part of a bigger right-wing agenda which makes essentially all non-procreative sex a sin: Babies! The Right says Americans aren’t having enough of them, especially </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>white</b></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> ones. Brown people will soon outnumber us, and we can’t have that. This is a point of common ground between the white supremacist Alt-Right (which is not particularly religious), as represented by Trump Chief Advisor Bannon, and the Religious Right, as represented by McConnell, Rubio, Santorum, Carson and Perry, among others with whom Trump has aligned himself. “Adam and Steve” cannot have babies and therefore ought not to be having sex with each other. Women </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>can</b></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> have babies, and should be forced to have </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>more</b></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of them whether we want to or not. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Incidentally, this is why unlike the ancient liturgical churches such as Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican, the modern evangelical protestant churches do </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> support the vocation of celibate religious orders. Whereas even the relatively misogynist Roman Catholic Church acknowledged female celibacy in a life of prayer as a legitimate calling, modern fundies say that woman exists not to serve God, but to serve man, primarily by having babies. Therefore celibate nuns are shirking their God-given duty by failing to procreate. As Martin Luther, the guy who started this whole movement, told the nuns, "your vow is contrary to God and has no validity - don't delay but get married." He also said, “If women get tired and die of child-bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die, so long as they bear; they are made for that.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Episcopal church was among the first to permit birth control which, at one time in America, was illegal even for married couples. We ordain female and gay priests and provide wedding ceremonies for gay people, all of which makes my church heathen according to the fundies. But, per the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, we can’t be having this conversation anyway, because women are not permitted to be ministers and/or to teach men. So everything I say, including the links that I may provide to articles written by male biblical scholars, is to be conveniently disregarded, even though Saint Paul said in Galations 28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Be that as it may, I believe in the principle of “religious liberty” as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, and while I’m not a lawyer, I am pretty sure it does </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> mean, “The liberty to oppress or discriminate against other people based on your religious beliefs,” as Rafael “Theonomy” Cruz and other right-wing politicians and preachers maintain. Thomas Jefferson stated in his letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut on January 1, 1802:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” (10)</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think that pretty much sums it up. Religion is a deeply personal thing and not to be legislated or imposed, as our founders knew. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No, I am </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “against religious people,” even in public office. President Jimmy Carter was an evangelical but not a theonomist. He did not inflict his beliefs on other people or try to make his religion the law of the land. He didn’t just talk, he walked the walk. In his retirement he has been an exemplary Christian and won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to advance democracy and human rights, especially women’s rights. President Barry Obama, with whom I attended school in Hawaii, where he was born, said his atheist mother taught him, “Treat others the way you would want to be treated,” and likewise “my” candidate, Gary Johnson, when asked about his faith replied, “If there’s one thing that I’ve taken away from Christianity, it’s do unto others as you would have others do unto you... The God that I speak to doesn’t have a particular religion.” </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Amen.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">***</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1) </span><span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(2) </span><a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-call-myself-believer.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-call-myself-believer.html</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(3) </span><a href="http://asis.com/users/stag/glastonb.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://asis.com/users/stag/glastonb.html</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(4) </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(5) </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB0QrBIs9k" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB0QrBIs9k</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(6) h</span><a href="http://christianaggression.org/2016/04/29/bushs-conversion-agenda-for-india-preparing-for-the-harvest/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ttp://christianaggression.org/2016/04/29/bushs-conversion-agenda-for-india-preparing-for-the-harvest/</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(7) </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996.html</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(8) </span><a href="http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(9) </span><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm</span></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(10) </span><a href="http://westillholdthesetruths.org/quotes/author/thomas-jefferson" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #25507c; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thomas Jefferson</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Categories: </span><a href="http://westillholdthesetruths.org/quotes/category/religious-liberty" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #25507c; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Religious Liberty</span></a></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-cc225343-9f6e-8465-7486-b0b92da63cc9"><span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 13.3333px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Date: January 1, 1802</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-76529707521750647952016-11-16T16:59:00.000-06:002016-11-16T17:11:48.502-06:00The Unfriendly Fallout from the 2016 Election<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I’m still a little stunned in the wake of Mr. Trump’s rather unexpected election as President of the United States. During the campaign he said that the polls, which overwhelmingly predicted an easy victory for Ms. Clinton, were wrong. He was correct. What was his source of intel that eluded all of the journalists and pollsters? Did the Russian hackers tell him, and if so, how did they know? Mr. Trump also insisted that the election was “rigged,” which turned out to be true but not, presumably, in the way that he meant. Rather, the Electoral College with its winner-take-all system favors older, white, conservative rural voters. Just as in the 2000 election, when the Electoral College enabled Bush to win despite the fact that Gore had won the Popular Vote, likewise nearly 2 million more people voted for Hillary than Donald, but he won the election anyway. Our founders did not want a true democracy and the system they instituted has been successful in preventing it. And of course, the system is also completely rigged against third parties.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So voters have taken to the streets in protest over the Electoral College trumping the will of the people as demonstrated by the Popular Vote, partisan interference by the FBI, and/or their dislike of Trump, his policies, his personality and perceived incompetence to run the country, to which conservatives have responded, “Shut up and go home! He won fair and square.” Ironically, Trump himself had said during the campaign that if he lost the election, he would <b>not</b> accept the results because the system was rigged, which it was - in his favor. Imagine if the opposite had happened, if Donald had won 2 million more Popular Votes but Hillary became President via the Electoral College with the help of hackers from a hostile foreign country, say Iran: Would Trump supporters quietly accept the outcome? Probably not. They would take to the streets too, and justifiably so. We the people have the right to peaceably assemble and express our opinions, among other Constitutional rights including bodily autonomy. At least for now. But since the GOP has managed to hijack the Supreme Court as well as gaining control of both the House and Senate, that could all change. Mr. Trump has vowed to reestablish “law and order,” and to overturn Roe v. Wade, among his first priorities.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Needless to say, over half of the participating voters, i.e. those of us who voted for Hillary, are more than a little worried about what is going to happen to this country, particularly in regard to our civil rights. But, I’m being told not to worry. At least one of my friends who voted for Trump insists, “Give the guy a chance!” This friend admits that she only voted for him as “the lesser of evils,” making me question whether there is a new definition of the words “lesser” and “evil” of which I am unaware. Be that as it may, “Give him a chance” to do <b>what</b>, exactly? A chance to follow through on the mostly hateful agenda that he promised during the campaign? Or, the chance to show us that he wasn’t serious about all that stuff; he only said it to win over angry white male voters, and he’s actually going to be moderate and reasonable? Too late, that ship has done sailed. Y’all already <b>gave</b> him the “chance” when you voted him into office and handed him the keys to the White House and the nuclear code. Now with the Supreme Court hobbled and the GOP controlling our entire government, President Trump is going to do pretty much whatever he wants and there is not a goddamn thing you or I can do about it. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think it’s very possible that Donald may have been serious about some of the less savory things he said during the campaign, judging by his selection of Stephen Bannon from Breitbart News as his Chief Strategist. In case you haven’t heard of Breitbart, it is an uber-conservative, “alt-right” white supremacist, misogynist media source that resembles Fox News on steroids, except without any pretense about being “fair and balanced.” White males should run the world, Jews and Muslims are evil, brown people should put up and shut up, and women ought to be pregnant and in the kitchen, but not barefoot, because that would be bad for the economy. The women’s footwear industry generates a significant amount of revenue. But don’t take my word for it and don’t even bother googling Breitbart’s critics. Just read their own articles and judge for yourself:</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.breitbart.com/</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On the other hand, Donald is also making his wife and kids an official part of the Presidential team, even going so far as to obtain top-level security clearances for them. While this is somewhat unusual, to say the least, and could be considered a conflict of interest since they will also be running his company, I’m in favor of it because I love Melania, who shares Michelle Obama’s progressive views, and I think she and the kids have way more sense than Donald does. They might be able to help keep the crazy train from going off the rails.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">BTW, building that wall and deporting all those people is going to be not only unkind, but more importantly, quite <b>expensive</b>. How the hell are we going to fund it? Mexico already said they will not pay for it. Am I the only one who is worried that the hard-working middle class will once again end up footing the bill? </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Whatever else happens, what will become of all the lost friendships? Over the course of this campaign I have been un-friended, blocked and/or banned because of Donald Trump, despite (or in some cases, because of) the fact that I sincerely gave him credit where it was due. People became bitterly angry with me for not liking him. At first I <b>tried</b>, I swear I really did, but then he kept opening his mouth and saying weird shit including reversing his previously held positions where I actually agreed with him, e.g. that he was pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, and <b>not</b> religious. Others criticized me when I supported him for the "<b>wrong</b> reasons," (yes, that actually happened), like back when he opposed the discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina and when he boldly defied the GOP platform by saying that maybe abortion would be ok if the woman’s life was in danger or if she was a rape victim. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A couple of people were horribly offended when I failed to censor other friends posting rude but accurate criticisms of Trump and his supporters on my Facebook page, e.g., “You are stupid to vote for a guy whose policies are not in your best interest.” They demanded that I <b>do</b> something about it. I was subsequently accused of “typical liberal censorship!” and un-friended when I politely invited people (both liberal and conservative) to say something <b>positive</b> about their own candidate <b>without</b> attacking their opponent. As my mother used to say, “You can’t please everyone,” and sometimes you can’t please anyone. I wonder if these people, some of whom were long-time dear friends, are planning to stay angry with me for the next 4 or, God forbid, 8 years, or can we be friends again now that their guy won?</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In addition to the rejection by conservative friends, I also was un-friended by at least one liberal for having the nerve to suggest that Donald Trump might have <b>any</b> redeeming qualities. I was also un-friended for defending his beautiful wife Melania against slut-shaming because she had modeled nude. I suggested that people who call themselves “proud liberals” probably should not be slut-shaming women. When I said that I myself have modeled nude in the past, I too was shamed for “confessing” it. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another Democrat un-friended me over whether or not Mr. Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. When asked my opinion about this, I replied that it seemed entirely possible based on some of his comments, a classic example being when he was asked during the debate, “What do you see as the proper role of the Supreme Court?” and he essentially responded, “Justice Ginsburg said some very mean things to me and I made her apologize!” But, I went on to say that I do not diagnose people without having interviewed them and in any event I don’t think the psychological diagnoses in the DSM-IV are scientific, an opinion for which I was shunned despite the fact that the NIMH has recently said the same thing.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This was a difficult election for me, not only because of my doubts about Mr. Trump, but also due to the unusual circumstance of having to choose between several candidates that I liked very much. Naturally I adore “my” Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, and his running mate Bill Weld, but would have happily voted for Bernie Sanders because he supports many of the same policies and besides, unlike Gary, he might have slightly more than a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. While I am <b>not</b> a Democrat and don’t like her position on some issues including the enforcement of a Nanny State and her coziness with Wall Street and the pharmaceutical lobby, I do think Hillary is smart, strong, experienced and very competent. And I would be thrilled to have a woman President, preferably Jill, but that was not going to happen, since Jill had even less of a chance than Gary.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Hillary supporters attacked me for favoring Bernie. After he lost the primary, Bernie fans were horribly insulted when I suggested they ought to support Hillary (which Bernie himself recommended), and Democrats attacked Gary and Jill in an unprecedentedly vicious manner merely for having the audacity to dare run for office. As much as I really wanted to vote for Gary, who at one point was polling at around 9%, there was tremendous peer pressure to vote for Hillary. Democrats cried, “A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump!” and I went along with it, asking my Hillary-hating third-party friends, “Would you really prefer that Trump win?”, at which point they un-friended me merely for asking the question. I joined Mr. Weld in suggesting that, given the respective qualifications of the major party candidates, perhaps we really ought to vote blue… </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ultimately I cast my vote for Hillary, as did probably half of Gary’s other supporters, only to watch in horror on election night as state after state, including my own, turned solidly red and Donald Trump was declared the new President of the United States. Gary ended up not getting the 5% he would have needed to obtain federal funding for Libertarians in the future.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And the viciousness didn’t stop there. We were cruelly chastised for being unhappy about the outcome and/or questioning the Electoral College system. One of my friends became quite upset with me when I merely posted on Facebook that my cat and horse both got sick over the election and a rat drowned itself. The snark should have been obvious. The horse and the rat could not possibly have known the results of the election since they have neither a t.v. nor a phone in the barn. The cat, however, was actually watching t.v. with us and as he is very sensitive and will barf at the drop of a hat, could have been responding to the shock and dismay emanating from us, not that he probably preferred any of the candidates himself. If the KittyCat party ran a candidate this year, he or she was not acknowledged by the media. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The same friend who objected to my sharing about my cat barfing had told me that while she was not extremely thrilled with Mr. Trump, she very much likes VP Mike Pence “because of all the great things he did for Indiana.” Now, this person is a highly intelligent, rational, extremely well-informed healthcare professional, non-religious, and [I thought] a feminist. So I don’t know exactly which “great things” she was referring to - making it a felony for gay people to apply for a marriage license? Trying to outlaw abortion and, failing that, to require funerals be performed for aborted or miscarried fetuses? Promoting the spread of HIV and hepatitis C by opposing condoms and clean needles for addicts? Requiring public schools to teach biblical creationism in science class? I’m all in favor of kids learning about the Bible, the Gita, the Koran, the Torah, the Tripitaka and other religious mythologies in social studies or literature classes - but <b>not</b> in science class. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My friend, who is not by any stretch of the imagination a Bible thumper, for some reason was not concerned when I informed her that Pence is a theonomist, but in all fairness, like most people she probably had never heard of “theonomy,” the belief that civil law ought to be based on biblical law. A religious person [Episcopalian] myself, I find theonomy downright scary, but maybe that’s just me.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As if the outcome of the election wasn’t bad enough in itself, to add insult to injury, Democrats loudly blamed Donald’s victory on the people who had voted for the KittyCat, Libertarian, Green or any other third parties, and those of us who belong to those parties even though we <b>did</b> in fact vote for Hillary this time. Samantha Bee, one of my favorite t.v. personalities, went so far as to say that she wished she’d thrown my beloved Gary off of the rock-climbing wall when she had the chance on her show. Gary, Jill and any other third-party candidates and the citizens whom they represent are all a bunch of stupid, bad, horrible people who have helped Evil Donald destroy our country by stealing votes away from Saint Hillary. How dare we campaign and/or vote for candidates who actually share our values and represent our interests?! How foolish and uppity we are to think that Americans should have a choice between more than two parties, like our grown-up allies in Europe! How deluded we are to think that our voice, our vote, could ever actually count!</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And it can’t, you know. At least mine will never count as long as I live in NW Florida, a state in the solidly red province of Dumbfuckistan, whose rural, conservative interests the Electoral College was designed to protect against the damn librul big city folk. My own party will probably never have a chance in hell to win the Presidency during my lifetime and it’s rare that we ever run attractive candidates like Gary and Bill whom I can actually get behind, anyway. Usually they are Koch-sucking, anti-choice Republican “Libertarian” poseurs who have a questionable understanding of “liberty,” advocating “small government,” which in their mind means deregulation of big business while regulating the hell out of individual citizens. And given that Florida leans heavily red despite having all the Democratic gays, Jews and Hispanics in the southern part of the state, I will be lucky even to get my second choice, a Democrat. It was a bizarre fluke of nature, if not a miracle, when my old schoolmate from Hawaii, Barry Obama, won Florida 51% to 48% in 2008 and 50% to 49% in 2012. Now my state is back to being red again. So that’s it. I’m done playing this game. My young godson Ian Newlove, a fellow Bernie fan. was right. Since my vote doesn’t count anyway, from now on I am voting for the candidate that I really want.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">News flash, Democrats and Republicans, I realize this won’t be easy for you to hear, but please listen: It is actually <b>not</b> the job of the third party candidates to help your candidate get elected! If your candidate cannot win the election on his or her own merits, however excellent they may be, without the paltry 5% to 10% or so that our third party candidates are able to gather, then too bad. You’re on your own. We tried things your way and see where it got us? Nowhere.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Democrats, we refuse to take responsibility for your failure. Around half of your own damn party members did not get out there to vote. Let’s be brutally honest: If you could not beat the bizarre freakshow that was the Trump campaign while running a candidate who was eminently more qualified in every way, whom President Obama called, “the most qualified presidential candidate ever,” then you have a serious problem here. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The only obvious qualification that Hillary lacked is a penis, which may have been a factor since, after all, women did not get the right to vote until 50 years after black men and we just recently had our first [half]-black male President, so maybe it was too soon. Maybe Americans really are more comfortable having as President a man with zero governing experience, little knowledge of foreign affairs and questionable sanity than a highly experienced and quite rational former Senator and Secretary of State who happens to be a woman. Otherwise, I don’t know what to tell you. Yes, there was a barrage of horrible, downright crazy and almost totally unfactual slander against Hillary, as well as documented interference by the Russian government in collusion with the Trump campaign which the FBI for some reason decided to overlook in favor of focusing on Hillary’s emails asking her assistant to help with her iPad or to print stuff on the other printer, but <b>none</b> of this was the fault of the Libertarian, Green or other third parties.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Congratulations, GOP. You ran like, how many candidates in the primary, and <b>this</b> was the result? If you are unhappy now, boo hoo, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it. But you’re good at lying so I’m sure you will figure out some way to make this Obama’s fault. Hey, it could be worse, at least we didn’t end up with Rafael “Theonomy” Cruz or Ben “the Bible is factual” Carson as President. Republican voters are pissed off at the GOP establishment and rightfully so. It has taken a long time, but they are finally starting to figure out that you do not represent their interests. They chose Donald Trump because they were sick and fucking tired of y’all and your smug, smarmy platitudes about “family values” and how “anyone who works hard can succeed in America” while middle class voters worked their fucking asses off at low-paying jobs to support their families, or to turn a profit running small businesses bogged down by government red tape, trying desperately not to slide into poverty while being taxed literally to death and watching the wealth trickle up to the 1% while you were busy kissing the asses of your corporate masters. The people wanted <b>change</b> and Mr. Trump offered that, in a similar manner as Barry Obama did in 2008. </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Will Donald be able to change the system? I hope so, for better <b>or</b> worse. God knows <b>something</b> needs to be done. And if the GOP is falling apart and you have people defecting to the Libertarian party, the true platform of “small government,” you have nobody but yourselves to blame. And by the way, FYI, “small government” does <b>not</b> mean, “Allowing the banks and multinational corporations to weasel out of paying taxes and exploit the hell out of workers and consumers in every possible way, while keeping private citizens on a very short leash and regulating wombs, bathrooms and herbal substances.” I hope that President Donald, despite his poor choice in theonomist VP Mr. Pence, has the balls to call you on your bullshit and stand up for the voters. Because that’s why they elected him.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-69e9c8c4-6f49-bd04-7809-1aa1994a16c1"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As for me, I’m crawling back into my cave now.</span></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-88253980395173186642016-09-10T03:34:00.000-05:002016-09-16T01:10:24.746-05:00I'm Done<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lately I've had an intense, Down the Rabbit Hole/ Twilight Zone feeling, an increasing sense of unreality/ insanity as to what is happening in our country and the world, I think I am coming to kind of a crossroads or the end of a cycle in my life. As discussed in a previous blog post, "<a href="http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-wall-aging-yogini-reflects-on-music.html" target="_blank">An Aging Yogini</a>...", in my youth I was very political and actively involved in "trying to make the world a better place," writing editorials, engaging in protests, etc., with disappointing results. So I turned inward and spent the next 20 odd years in prayer and meditation.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I started to become "political" again after the 2000 election, when George Bush Jr.'s brother Jeb helped him steal the election in Florida and then, unbelievably, George Jr. was reelected in 2004. The 2008 and 2012 elections gave me a sense of urgency with the looming specter of another GOP, especially a Romney "Great White Hope" presidency. I was relieved when my old school-mate Barry Obama won both elections, but then increasingly alarmed at the behavior of the Republican-dominated Congress obstructing him every step of the way, as well as their [allegedly nonexistent] <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2012/04/allegedly-nonexistent-war-on-women.html" target="_blank">War on Women</a>, and I resumed active involvement and writing as I'd done in my youth.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the past several years I've been blogging a lot and doing my best to "get the word out," sharing my thoughts and insights, petitions, links to organizations, resources, book reviews and news items, engaging in debate as politely and persistently as possible on Facebook and other venues - all with the intent of changing the world. And I think I am close to being done and going back into my cave.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the process of helping somebody apply for jobs online recently, I discovered that I am unable to pass an employment test for Burger King and other retail stores, and this has led to a lot of existential angst and soul-searching, not that I have the desire (or the physical ability) to work at those places. Rather, it has shown me how vastly different my perception of "reality" is from that of most other people. My educated liberal friends said, "Don't worry, those tests are not intended for people like you anyway. We couldn't pass it, either." A few of them calmly opined that such tests are ridiculous, inaccurate, and/or discriminatory. But society at large apparently has accepted the process without questioning, while conservatives continue to loudly insist that the 7.8 million Americans who are out of work are just "lazy." I seem to be the only person who is screaming, "OMFG this [among so many <b>other</b> things] is so fucking <b>wrong</b>! WTF is happening to our country??!!" Am I the only frog that can feel the water temperature rising?</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I'm not. There are plenty of other people crying out, more loudly and clearly than me. We join our voices together and - what happens? <b>Not a damn thing</b>. Because we are preaching to the mutual choir. Those who are aware, nod in agreement and approve of each other's writings, arguments and political projects, while the brainwashed masses continue to support politicians who view them only as votes, fools, baby-making machines, low-wage labor and cannon fodder. In my many years as an "activist," I think it is safe to say that I have never succeeded in enlightening even one person or changing a single mind. <b>Not one</b>. People are like well-trained lemmings intent on going over the cliff, only getting annoyed and biting me as I try to gently herd them away from the edge. Because, the world doesn't <b>want</b> to change. The world is happily going to hell in a handbasket, and who am I to object?!</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, in my job as a Spiritual Advisor working for the Famous Psychic Company which Cannot Be Named for Contractual Reasons, people call me for advice, including those in positions where they can actually help to shape world events; politicians, high-powered attorneys, CEOs, celebrities, inventors, authors, diplomats, doctors, and wealthy donors to charity and NGOs. Amazingly, they WANT my input. This is where I need to focus my energies, not on arguments with people who either don't give a shit, or else are so brainwashed that my words sound to them like, "blah, blah, Fifi, blah, blah, blah, Fifi." [from The Far Side cartoon].</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will probably still write on my 3 blogs only because, as explained previously, it's like mental vomiting; the words and ideas roll around in my head and I'm uncomfortable until I spew them out. As for the Medical Heresies blog, I will finish parts 2 and 3 of "<a href="http://medicalheresies.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-became-medical-heretic-part-1.html" target="_blank">How I Became a Medical Heretic</a>" because it bothers me to leave projects unfinished, and will write the new one about diabetes as a classic example of mainstream medicine being full of shit, mostly for the sake of my dear mother (may she RIP), whom doctors permitted to subsist on a diet of cookies washed down by soda pop until it eventually resulted in her horrible, prolonged demise. But, I won't fool myself into thinking that anybody will learn or benefit from it. Only free thinkers with a medical education like a handful of my friends will even get it, and again, I'm preaching to the choir. Laypeople won't understand and most mainstream medical professionals will quickly discredit whatever I write since I'm not an M.D. and that particular blog has already been censored on Disqus. As for the political and yoga blogs, only approximately 3 people read them anyway and I will write whenever the mood strikes.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, I'm done wasting my time and energy debating on Facebook, Patheos, Daily Kos, Disqus, etc. Go ahead, folks, vote for whichever insane asshat politician you want, believe whatever they say, surely they have <b>your</b> best interests in mind and they would never lie to you. Maybe nuclear war isn't such a bad thing after all; there are too many humans as it is, and if we're going to stop using birth control, something's got to give at some point and maybe the planet will thank us for blowing ourselves to kingdom come. And by all means, until that happens, keep on taking every prescription drug and vaccine that your doctor recommends, and eating every genetically modified and/or pesticide-drenched and/or nutritionally bankrupt "food" on the market, because you know it's all totally safe since the government and the corporations who pull the puppet strings of our elected "representatives" wouldn't lie to us.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
BLECH!!! There, I feel so much better now. Nothing to see here. Carry on.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-23230057103697702762016-09-03T02:43:00.000-05:002017-02-10T20:19:28.756-06:00Putting Yourself in Their Shoes<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-chicken-and-egg.html" target="_blank">previous post</a> I stated that every time I think I've said everything I could possibly say about the abortion debate, something else comes up that I feel I must address. I had a conversation recently that took a very interesting turn. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This friendly conversation with a nice Christian woman started out not about abortion, but rather, her opinion that sex outside of marriage is destroying women's self respect as well as the very fabric of society. I agreed that for me personally as a yogi and a Christian, sex is sacred and promiscuity has zero appeal. However, I do not see fit to impose my own values on other people, and adults should be free to do whatever they want, provided that they use birth control. In my opinion, it's not casual sex per se that is destroying society but rather, casual breeding, </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She insisted that casual sex can only lead to bad consequences, and I replied that bringing an innocent child into the world should not be one of them. She countered that pregnancy is the natural result of sex, and birth control encourages people to have sex irresponsibly without consequences. She said it allows men to use women for their own selfish purposes without considering the woman's happiness and well-being. I responded that selfish, irresponsible people make bad parents and therefore they ought to use birth control. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From my perspective, the primary purpose of sex is spiritual, or what the Catholics call "unitive." But, contrary to the Catholic doctrine, which emphasizes "procreative" sex, in my view pregnancy should be a rare and special occurrence resulting from a serious, intentional act when the lovers are ready and willing to welcome a baby into a good home. Two strangers meeting in a bar, screwing in a car, and "oops!" is not a valid reason to have a child. Life is both too precious and too fraught with peril for kids to be brought into this world unwanted as an accident or an afterthought from a random booty call.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She asked, what if promiscuous people don't use birth control and a pregnancy does occur; what then? Surely not abortion?! I answered that sometimes, yes, abortion is the best option. But, she protested, it's not the child's fault that the parents were irresponsible sluts! That is true, it is not the child's fault, which is why the child deserves better. Every child deserves to be wanted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I explained, contrary to the "pro-life" presupposition that being born is <b>always</b> the ideal outcome of every pregnancy, sometimes <b>not</b> being born is in the best interest of everyone involved, including the potential baby. It has been argued that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism" target="_blank">being born is never the best choice</a>, but I would not go that far except perhaps in my most cynical moods. I discussed some of the circumstances under which bringing a child into the world is not a good idea, such as extreme poverty, drug addiction, rape and/or abusive relationships, and above all, being <b>unwanted</b>. I described how the <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111110142352.htm" target="_blank">pregnant woman's emotional state</a> including extreme stress, fear, anxiety and depression, in addition to poor nutrition, cigarettes, street and prescription drugs, and alcohol, not to mention suicide attempts (which are not uncommon in countries where abortion is illegal) can create a chemically hostile uterine environment for the fetus, causing distress and disability both in the womb and later in life.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We on the pro-choice side have always suggested that people put themselves in the pregnant woman's shoes, but the pro-lifers say the selfish woman should have to endure the "inconvenience" of pregnancy and birth for the sake of the baby whether she wants to or not. They then claim to be concerned about the alleged detrimental effects of abortion on a woman's physical and mental health, while having no such concerns about gestational diabetes, birth trauma, postpartum depression and other complications of pregnancy. But, regardless of the impact on the mother, the baby has an absolute <b>right</b> to life. Predictably, my debater expressed that position. And this is where the conversation took an unusual turn.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I said that as a Christian my basic moral compass is, "Do unto others as you would be done by." If I were the fetus, I would <b>not</b> want to be born under those circumstances! Now, you could argue it is a silly point because a fetus is not conscious and therefore not able to "want" anything. However, in light of the pro-life belief that a zygote is a person from the moment of conception, I think it is a valid proposition: putting oneself in the other person's shoes, <a href="http://theyoungsocrates.com/2013/03/31/antinatalism-and-the-right-to-be-thrown-into-this-world/" target="_blank">or baby booties </a>as the case may be. I personally would not want to stay inside the body of a woman who did <b>not</b> want me in there, and put her through the torture of childbirth <b>against her will</b>. What a horrible situation for anyone to be in! If I were that embryo, I'd want to get the hell out of there. I would rather voluntarily miscarry, if such a thing is possible, or else be aborted very early, than be trapped in the role of a 9-month rapist and inflict so much suffering on another person.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I asked, "Would <b>you</b> want to be put in the position of doing that to someone?" and she replied, "but the baby has a right to live!" I had to ask a couple more times because she kept evading the question, saying things like, "it's not their fault," "they aren't to blame for the circumstances," "it's only a 9-month inconvenience," etc. I pointed out that she had not answered my question and said, "I did not ask about 'they' or who has a 'right' to what. I asked, if <b>you</b> yourself were that fetus, would you impose your alleged 'right' to force an <b>unwilling</b> woman to carry you <b>inside of her body</b> for 9 months and inflict the agony of childbirth on her?" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, the nice Christian woman replied, "Babies deserve a chance at life and yes, I would want that chance." I was utterly taken aback and said, "Wow. You seem like such a nice person, I can't believe you would want to do that to someone. So, you would use a woman's body against her will, putting your own desires above her happiness and well-being. Isn't that exactly the kind of <b>selfishness</b> that you argued against in the beginning of this conversation? Why is it wrong for a man to use a willing woman's body for even a few minutes to fulfill his own needs, but perfectly ok for a fetus to do it to an unwilling woman for 9 months?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She replied, "But you make it sound like pregnancy is a terrible thing, when the gift of a child can be a great blessing if only the woman would just accept it!" Yeah, just lie back and accept it - ?!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thankfully, I have no personal experience of this either way, as I have chosen not to breed and always had access to effective contraception. But from what I have been told by a great many women, yes, pregnancy can be among the most wonderful, magical experiences, when you are voluntarily expecting a child, especially with somebody you love! And while childbirth is certainly no picnic even under the best of circumstances, when a woman truly wants to be a mother and is excited to welcome her beloved child into the world, she can turn the unimaginable pain into a positive, empowering, life-affirming experience.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand, women tell me that being pregnant when you don't want to be is horrible, like your body has been hijacked by an alien literally sucking the life out of you, and forced birth is absolute torture. Which is why, throughout history and even today in parts of the world where abortion is illegal, women risk their own death by back-alley abortions or, failing that, commit suicide to escape an unwanted pregnancy. Apparently, it really <b>is</b> that bad. And once again, if I were an embryo, no, I would <b>not</b> want to do that to any woman. Would you? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For religious or spiritual people, discussion of abortion from the perspective of the fetus would not be complete without addressing another important consideration, namely, what happens to the soul that would otherwise have incarnated? This, of course, presupposes that an embryo - or anybody else, for that matter! - has a soul. For atheists it is a non-issue. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Christians disagree as to the origins of the human soul and when it enters the body. The traditional Jewish view as expressed in the Bible is that the soul is preexisting and enters the body with the first breath, as reflected in the word "ruach," which means "spirit" or "breath," a common theme among various religions. A Wiccan midwife friend has explained that the soul may "visit" the developing fetus but only "moves in" with the first breath, in much the same way that you can visit a house under construction but you can't live there until everything including plumbing and electric is complete. Early Christianity proposed that the soul enters the body at a stage of development when the fetus becomes "animated," sometimes called "quickening." Some modern Christians believe the soul is created at the moment of conception and/or "arises from the body," developing progressively along with the nervous system. Hindus say that the soul preexists and is infused at conception.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whatever the origin of the soul, if the embryo is lost whether through miscarriage or induced abortion, where does the soul go? Most Christians believe that miscarried babies go to heaven. Hinduism allows the soul to reincarnate and be born into a more favorable situation. Another view is that the soul can return to the same mother at a later time under better circumstances, and there are fascinating accounts of <a href="http://cosmiccradle.com/miscarried-soul-reincarnate/" target="_blank">children who claim to have done exactly that!</a> Either way, putting oneself in the baby's booties, the option of being able to bypass a potentially miserable life with bad parents who did <b>not</b> want you, versus going straight to heaven or getting another chance at a better life here on earth, is certainly appealing. If you were the fetus, what would you prefer?</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-42947544625768984452016-05-21T03:42:00.000-05:002016-05-21T03:42:37.928-05:00Is Psychology a Science?<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was recently involved in a conversation on Facebook where we entertained a suspected diagnosis of "narcissistic personality disorder" on the part of one of the presidential candidates (I will leave it to your imagination as to the identity of the candidate in question). My opinion as a psychologist was requested and I concurred, with the caveat that of course I had not examined the person and, in any event, "I do not regard psychology as science." What I meant to say, or should have said, is that psychological diagnosis is not scientific, as I will discuss further, below. This comment resulted in my being un-friended by a Ph.D. psychologist who replied that if I were to go on for my Ph.D., I would change my perspective about psychology being a science, because "it is based on scientific studies" and moreover, graduate schools in psychology are strict about "the scientific method" because "they want to be taken seriously as a science."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The implication was that psychology at the Ph.D. level is vastly different from my experience in the Master's program at the small private college in California where most of my fellow psychology students were there to obtain the MFCC counseling license. Apparently the doctoral level is a kind of occult society in which the secret "scientific" knowledge is revealed to only the most advanced initiates. I also got the impression that my comment was taken as an insult.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I did not intend to hurt anyone's feelings or to disparage the discipline of psychology or its practitioners. And while I lack a Ph.D., I think my educational background makes me reasonably well qualified to have an opinion about psychology and science. I have always <b>loved</b> science and originally wanted a dual major in philosophy and physics. There was a waiting list for the math minor classes required for a physics major and I already had a double minor in German and Russian languages. Since I couldn't afford to stay in school that long, I foolishly opted to get my B.A. in philosophy, took physics classes as electives and read a lot of books on the subject. In retrospect I wish I would have done it the other way around, gone ahead with the B.S. in physics and read philosophy books on the side. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note, I would strongly discourage anybody from majoring in philosophy unless you are independently wealthy, your spouse can support you, or your career goals specifically include either 1. law school, 2. college professorship, or 3. a job involving, "Do you want fries with that?" I went on to get a more "practical" Master's degree in clinical psychology with emphasis on the Jungian approach. I later went back to school to become a medical language specialist with postgraduate courses in pharmacology and worked in mainstream medicine including psychiatry for 22 years, and finally returned to counseling full-time as a Spiritual Advisor, my current occupation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite my unfriend's emphatic insistence that psychology (at least at the doctoral level) <b>is</b> indeed a "science," the issue is by no means resolved and certainly not a personal opinion that I randomly pulled out of my ass. There has been lively debate around the topic <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217588/" target="_blank">since the 17th century and it was an issue for Carl Jung, William James and others</a>. The L.A. Times published a couple of excellent articles in 2012 presenting both sides of the debate:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712" target="_blank">"Stop bullying the 'soft' sciences"</a> by Timothy Wilson, Ph.D. psychology and</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713" target="_blank">"Why psychology isn't science"</a> by Alex Berezow, Ph.D. microbiology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.science20.com/science_20/biologist_and_psychologist_square_over_definition_science-92172" target="_blank">"A Biologist And A Psychologist Square Off Over The Definition Of Science,</a>" by Hank Campbell, founder of Science 2.0, evaluates the debate and includes insightful rebuttals by scientists and psychologists on both sides in the comments below the article. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am not going to summarize the above articles here, but suggest that the readers make up their own minds. A case could be made either way, depending on which schools of psychology and what you mean by "science." From my own unique point of view, I initially joined Dr. Berezow in questioning psychology as an "actual science" because I use the term in the more limited and old-fashioned sense than how it is often used today. From this perspective and per the first definition in the online dictionary, "science" is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Science in this sense requires the acquisition of concrete objective data by means of which a falsifiable hypothesis can be evaluated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the secondary definition of "science," and the one that is most often used by people including Dr. Wilson who want to apply it to psychology, is "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject." Some have further suggested that "science" refers not to any particular subject, but rather, the way in which one approaches it, by "the scientific method." If we remove the objective physical criterion and go with the general sense of collecting and analyzing data, then nearly anything can be "science" if approached in that manner. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I asked my friends with relevant educational backgrounds whether they thought psychology is a science. Gerry Tedesco, who is trained in Behavioral Analysis/ Forensics and has degrees in Social Science and Public Health, replied: "I think Psychology has a number of incarnations and expressions today. Depending on how it is being used, it can be a behavioral science, philosophy, a business method, and even a junk science." Lori Newlove, who has degrees in Biology and Psychology, replied: "I do. There are parts that are. That's as much as I am comfortable committing to. There is a field that wasn't named as such when I was in school called 'psychobiology' that is science."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dr. Carolyn Buck-Gengler, a Cognitive Psychologist, gave me a great deal of useful feedback on the topic. She has indeed conducted rigorous and [mostly] reproducible experiments involving the collection and analysis of data on perception, cognition and memory funded by NASA and the U.S. Army, agencies known to be sticklers on "science." She kindly provided me with examples of her impressive research in linguistics and information processing. While I am not a scientist, it sure looks "scientific" to me, at least in the secondary sense described above. With regard to Dr. Berezow's position I would conclude that either: 1. He was not aware of such research, or 2. He was aware of it but, like me, thought it was being done by a different department such as Neuroscience or Linguistics, or 3. It doesn't meet his strict criteria for "science." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we take the word "psychology" at its most basic meaning, it is the scientific study of the "psyche," the soul or mind, a non-physical entity whose existence the term presupposes. But, this presents a problem because we cannot study "the mind" directly or, for that matter, even confirm its existence objectively. We can only <a href="http://hubpages.com/education/Does-the-Mind-Exist" target="_blank">infer its existence</a> and properties from observation of behavior and from people's accounts of their subjective experiences which, again, cannot be externally verified, let alone quantified. With materialism being the current fashion, <a href="https://philosophyisnotaluxury.com/2010/01/12/does-anything-like-a-mind-exist/" target="_blank">many today would argue</a> that just as there is no God without evidence to the contrary, there is also no soul or mind, and the burden of proof is on those who propose the existence of such entities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dr. Mario Beauregard says in his book "Brain Wars": "Mind, as most people think about it, does not exist in conventional science because the expressions of consciousness, such as choice, will, emotions, and even logic are said to be brain in disguise." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No doubt you have heard the old saying, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." My husband is fond of joking, "A mind is a terrible thing [period]." LOL! But, in all seriousness, and forgive me for being nit-picky, from a philosophical standpoint I don't think this is an unreasonable argument: If the mind is not in fact a "thing" that exists, then by definition it cannot be the subject of scientific investigation, at least in the strict sense of science as the study of the physical and natural world. If what we call "mind" is merely a subjective manifestation of brain activity, then what we are really studying is the brain.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I argued with Dr. Buck-Gengler that if the materialists are right and there is no "mind," only brain, then neuroscience - which the dictionary defines as "any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain" - can explain conditioned response, memory, learning and other cognitive activities as a function of the brain. We can perform experiments and studies like the ones she has done without the need to postulate the existence of a "mind," i.e., "psyche." My friend patiently explained that cognitive psychology as she practices it involves multiple levels of linguistic analysis. Using the analogy of computer programming, her work addresses the upper levels of multi-layered software (cognition), <b>not</b> the hardware (brain), which remains the jealously guarded territory of the neuroscientists. Like others in her field, she equates the "psych" in the title with the software and does not worry about its ontological status. Essentially, research psychologists don't give a rat's ass about my philosophical dilemma as to the existence of the mind, they just study its behavior.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I asked Dr. Buck-Gengler about the point that Dr. Berezow raised regarding the vague nature of things like "happiness," she replied "I don't study happiness; we look at basic cognitive issues of training, memory and learning." The "psyche" has been compartmentalized into various departments, most of which have hardly anything to do with what I studied in clinical psychology at the Master's level in the 1980s. There is a huge leap from the study of particular brain functions in an academic or scientific sense, to something as vague and subjective as, e.g., happiness, sadness, fulfillment, emptiness, loneliness, fear, love, self-esteem, shyness, the aspects of human consciousness which I as a counselor address every day. My unfriend was absolutely right when she suggested that my work is not a science, but an art. I am actually dealing with the individual and collective "psyche": the human soul, mind, personality in all its messiness, chaos and poetry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My clients often present with existential malaise, asking questions like, "Why am I here? What is my purpose? Is this all there is?" These are not scientific questions, although if I were to answer them "scientifically," from the materialistic standpoint, my admittedly cynical answer would be: "You are here because hormones induced your parents to breed. Your purpose is to be a laborer, a cog in the wheel, a consumer of goods and services, and to produce offspring for the benefit of the ruling class. Yes, this is all there is." But, that is not really the point of such questions. Rather, it is philosophical. The clients tell me they feel adrift in a meaningless universe and wonder what is their place in the Big Picture. How do we accurately define or quantify, let alone medically treat "symptoms" like that? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some clients are already taking medication, e.g. SSRI, for depression, and when I ask if it's working, they reply hesitantly, "yeah, I guess so... I'm not as depressed anymore... but still, something is missing." There may be a sense of emptiness and while the degree of angst is reduced, the existential questions remain. If the client goes back to their physician with these vague complaints, the doctor may well conclude that the SSRI isn't sufficient and an antipsychotic medication may be added to the regimen which will often numb the mind enough to quell these existential complaints. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Medical treatment is socially useful because persistent discomfort can lead to challenging the status quo and even doing something about it. Depression, if analyzed closely, gives rise to inconvenient questions such as, "Is the purpose of my life really to spend most of my waking existence working for low wages at a soul-sucking job merely in order to survive? Is it just me, or maybe our system is unjust and ought to be changed?" Potential revolution may even be averted by perpetuating the myth that depression is always simply a chemical imbalance, a defect in the brain of the individual, as opposed to a perfectly normal and appropriate response to unjust political or socioeconomic conditions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Vivek Datta, M.D. states that mental illness is a social construct, not a scientific diagnosis. We "medicalize" behaviors that society finds objectionable. He gives the example of <a href="http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/homosexuality-came-dsm/" target="_blank">homosexuality,</a> which was listed as a mental illness in the DSM until 1973, at which point it was downgraded to "sexual orientation disturbance" and then removed entirely in 1987. It was not removed from the DSM as a result of scientific research but rather, the changing social climate. I would not be surprised if, as the social fashions continue their current trend, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html" target="_blank">religion were to be classified as a "mental illness,"</a> especially if the pharmaceutical industry manages to come up with a profitable medication to "treat" it. And this brings us back to the political candidate whose potential "diagnosis" started this whole argument. Perhaps he <b>is</b> "mentally ill," or maybe we just find him exceptionally arrogant, rude and obnoxious. Human behavior is a continuum, after all; where do we draw the line?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason I said that psychology in this respect is decidedly <b>not</b> science is because the diagnoses in the DSM are not based on any consistent scientific method and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/" target="_blank">do not involve empirically verifiable data</a>. In fact, with rare exceptions like epilepsy and other identifiable organic (physical) processes such as brain tumors, most mental disorders are to a certain extent subjective and cultural. For example, "hearing voices" or being plagued by "demons" is a subjective experience on the part of the client; we would not know about it unless we were told; we cannot record imagined sounds or photograph invisible entities. And <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/when-hearing-voices-is-a-good-thing/374863/" target="_blank">schizophrenia presents differently depending on the cultural context</a>. Likewise, contrary to popular belief, there is no blood test whereby we can document "low serotonin level" or other chemical imbalances in the brain allegedly causing conditions like depression or ADHD. At the present time, brain chemistry can only be ascertained via autopsy, and most university ethics committees frown upon dissecting human test subjects. The diagnosis of these mental disorders is made based on the client's expressed thoughts and feelings - the subjective contents of their "mind" - and observation of their behavior. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My belief that DSM diagnoses are unscientific is not some wild personal opinion. In fact, in 2013 the National Institute of Mental Health announced that it was <a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml" target="_blank">shifting its diagnostic criteria away from the DSM</a> because, "The weakness [of DSM] is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure." The new approach, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) will "transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Subsequent to these conversations with friends and unfriend in the field, and reading the arguments and comments on the LA Times debate and related articles, it has become very clear that the "psychology" I learned years ago in my Master's program is indeed quite different from that of Ph.D. psychologists in the research branches today. It is so very different that I really question whether it is the same field at all. "Psychology" as a discipline has mostly moved on to claim its place within Science, and the shift from DSM to RDoC at the NIMH illustrates this trend. Since the late 1990s, Psychology departments in many schools have been <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/september-11/identity-shift.html" target="_blank">changing their names accordingly</a> to "Psychological and Brain Sciences," "Psychology and Neuroscience" (including my friend Dr. Buck-Gengler's school), "Behavioral Science," or "Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences." Some have dropped the label "Psychology" entirely and replaced it with "Cognitive Science." Likewise, the American Psychological Society changed its name to "Association for Psychological Science." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The branch that I practice, Clinical/Analytical has been left behind and perhaps should be renamed. I don't so much "study" the mind as provide therapy, hence I am less a "psychologist" than a "psychotherapist." But I can't call myself that, for reasons I will explain later.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, as we have seen, the determination as to whether or not psychology is a "science" depends upon the definitions of "psychology" and "science," whom you ask, and whether you think the existence or nonexistence of the "psyche" or "mind" is even relevant to the argument. But, as a counselor, I have an additional question for those who want psychology to be taken seriously as a science: <b>Why</b> is it important to you? Is it only a practical issue in terms of funding, i.e., the "sciences" receive more government grants than the humanities, and insurance companies are increasingly reluctant to reimburse claims for "talk therapy" as opposed to much cheaper medical therapy? Or, is it rather the modern prejudice that science is the <b>only</b> valid source of knowledge and information (a statement which is, itself, metaphysical in nature)? To put it simply, financial considerations aside, science is en vogue and scientists are respected by society. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument" target="_blank">We want to be respected.</a> We want to sit at the big kids' table. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for me, I have pretty much given up seeking social respect. Due to licensing restrictions I cannot legally practice "psychology" or "counseling" in the state where I now live. The word "therapy" also is illegal unless you have a specific "therapist" license, as I discovered when I wanted to offer "equine therapy" at my farm and ended up having to call it "equine assisted learning." Since retiring from medicine I employ my psychology education working as a Tarot reader in the most <a href="http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/medical-medium-mashing-up-pseudosciences/" target="_blank">reviled and "unscientific" role of "Psychic"</a> or, as I prefer to call myself, "Spiritual Advisor." The fine print at the bottom of our t.v. ads is required by law to state "for entertainment only," and I file my taxes as an "entertainer." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/belief/i-was-one-americas-top-psychics-and-all-them-complete-fraud" target="_blank">Famous psychic Mark Edward</a> has said, "a sideshow tent is never far from a psychiatrist's couch; there's just more sawdust on the floor," and this job is a good fit for me as a Jungian counselor. Discussing the archetypal images on the cards and how the universal themes apply to their particular situation enables the clients to invite me into their subjective inner world, where they share with me their past hurts, their hopes and dreams for the future, literal dreams (to be analyzed), fantasies, fears and challenges. I help them sort through their difficulties, examine their thoughts and feelings, find the strength and courage to face their real or imagined demons, navigate their relationships and responsibilities, reach their full potential as individuals and, dare I say it, find happiness.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Part of the job requires making predictions about the future, which I am able to do with surprising accuracy merely by my knowledge of human behavior and the ability to quickly analyze many different variables and data to ascertain the most likely outcome, but that doesn't make it "science." If I were so inclined, I could probably do some kind of "research" by analyzing the outcomes of hundreds of Tarot readings and how often the analyses and predictions were correct and formulating and testing an hypothesis as to how it was accomplished. The mechanism doesn't particularly interest me, but I suspect it is the sort of thing that my friend Carolyn B-G could explain very well from the perspective of cognition and information processing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I do want a Ph.D., though, if only because all the other kids have one. A lifelong yoga practitioner and part-time teacher for over 30 years, I would follow up my Master's [of Arts] thesis, "The Psychology of Nonattachment in the Bhagavad Gita" with a study of Jung's warnings about yoga. I could make it sciencey by defining exactly what he thought the danger was and finding objective ways to measure that. I would interview practitioners, subject them to tests assessing their mental health, compare them with non-yogi controls and analyze the data to determine whether or not Jung's fears were founded. That might be fun. I would also very much like to hook up meditators to machines such as biofeedback and brain imaging modalities to see what happens in the brain when people are in a deep state of meditation or "God intoxicated." Meanwhile I am content to remain an "entertainer," a fortune teller, a sideshow freak, grateful and humbled to have this opportunity to help the people who often queue up for hours waiting to talk to me. And it definitely beats the hell out of "Do you want fries with that?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
*******<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/medical-medium-mashing-up-pseudosciences/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"a sideshow tent is never far from a psychiatrist's couch; there's just more sawdust on the floor." - Mark Edward http://www.alternet.org/belief/i-was-one-americas-top-psychics-and-all-them-complete-fraud</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">A discussion of Jungian psychology vs. behavioral science:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217588/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.science20.com/science_20/biologist_and_psychologist_square_over_definition_science-92172</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/homosexuality-came-dsm/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/when-hearing-voices-is-a-good-thing/374863/</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">http://hubpages.com/education/Does-the-Mind-Exist</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">https://philosophyisnotaluxury.com/2010/01/12/does-anything-like-a-mind-exist/</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-52541292984172821552016-04-30T03:32:00.001-05:002016-04-30T03:41:07.040-05:00Caring about The Wrong Things<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the midst of election madness, politics can bring out the ugly in people, even turning friends and family members against each other. I experienced this in a rather peculiar manner recently when I posted a <b>positive</b> comment on my friend's Facebook wall about his beloved candidate, Mr. Trump. I have never been a big fan of Mr. Trump, although I tried in the beginning of his candidacy. I <b>wanted</b> to like him because he was a t.v. personality and a businessman, and therefore hopefully "different" from the typical politicians, but the more he opened his mouth, the less I liked him. I found that I disagreed with him on most issues, and have criticized him for some of those things in the past. But, the other day I was very pleasantly surprised at his bold (for a Republican) stance on the LGBT discrimination in North Carolina, which he harshly denounced as unnecessary, discriminatory and economically unwise!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since I generally try to see the positive in people as much as possible, to find common ground, and to give credit where credit is due, I posted on my friend's wall, "Kudos to your candidate for his bold stance on the nonsense in North Carolina! It is so refreshing to hear a GOP politician standing up for LGBT people in any context." My post was promptly deleted, followed by a quite rude post by my usually very nice friend that appeared to be aimed at me, although not by name, saying essentially, "People are stupid for supporting candidates for all the wrong reasons! We shouldn't care about trivial issues affecting different groups, but the safety and prosperity of our country as a whole," or something to that effect. My friend deleted his own post shortly thereafter so I don't have access to the original wording, but the bottom line was, even though I'd made a <b>favorable</b> comment about his candidate, I was stupid for "caring about the wrong things."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wow. Well, you may care about whatever issues you think are important, and please allow me to do the same. Yes, I <b>do</b> care about civil rights and liberty for individuals, minority groups <b>and</b> for the well-being of our country as a whole! In my opinion the preservation of civil liberties, far from being a trivial concern, is in fact crucial, and I will explain why.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have always believed in the fundamental value of personal freedom and civil rights. As a teenager I became involved with the Libertarian Party even before I was old enough to vote, back before <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/republicans-have-hijacked.html" target="_blank">libertarianism was hijacked by the GOP</a>, as I have described elsewhere. I vividly recall one of my first public speaking engagements where, to the horror of my family, I gave a televised speech in Honolulu at a rally opposing the reinstatement of the draft, in which I argued that a volunteer army is more professional, dedicated and effective than drafted soldiers (a concept with which my military father grudgingly agreed). More importantly, though, I emphasized that conscription violates the spirit of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the use of a person's body or labor against their will. I said: "While our nation must stay strong in the face of potential threat from evil empires and dictators overseas, at the same time we ought to remain vigilant against the imposition of tyranny within our borders." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks to my subsequent post-graduate attendance at the School of Hard Knocks over the years, I eventually outgrew the so-called "free market" economic philosophy with which I'd been indoctrinated during the very enjoyable summer camps kindly funded by the Koch brothers in my youth. However, I have remained firmly committed to the value of liberty and civil rights because, as I said on t.v., if we give that up, how are we better than our dictatorial enemies?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if we manage to destroy ISIS, only to institute Rafael "Ted" Cruz's theonomy, a sort of "Christian Sharia," which would <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2016/2/heres-the-best-article-ever-on-the-fact-that-ted-cruz-is-literally-the-first-openly-reconstructionisttheocracy-candidate-to-run-for-president/" target="_blank">impose religion as the law of the land</a> here in the U.S.? Like recent legislation in North Carolina, theonomy would allow discrimination against LGBT persons in the name of what Cruz calls, "<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/25/3763293/ted-cruz-religious-liberty/" target="_blank">Religious Liberty</a>," an Orwellian twist on those words. No, I am sorry Rafael, but "religious liberty" does not give you the right to oppress other people and/or take away their liberties. One of the few things I like about Mr. Trump is that, unlike Mr. Cruz, he is <b>not</b> very religious, as evidenced by the fact that when asked about his favorite Bible verse, he stammered and had difficulty thinking of one, finally quoting the Old Testament verse "an eye for an eye" which, humorously, Jesus rejected. I am happy about this because, as an Episcopalian, I do <b>not</b> want a religious wingnut in the White House.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, I applaud Trump for denouncing discrimination against the LGBT community - and not because I am bi, the "B" in the LGBT. For most of my life, I didn't even realize "bi" was a thing; I thought my personal indifference as to gender in romance was just part of my own peculiar (or you could say, "queer") personality. Being female I can't remember ever being oppressed on this basis, probably in part due to the fact that I ended up marrying a man. Had I chosen a female partner, perhaps society would have treated me less kindly. At any rate, my support of LGBT rights is not on account of my own membership in that minority. Rather, I do not want to live in a society which permits the oppression or marginalization of <b>any</b> individuals or minority groups! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Niemoller said, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist..." although I kind of am. I support libertarian socialism in the specific sense of what Richard Wolff calls, "<a href="http://www.alternet.org/richard-d-wolff-can-we-remake-our-workplaces-be-more-democratic" target="_blank">democracy in the workplace</a>" where the employees (<b>not</b> the State!) are owners and board members of the company where they work. I take this position because liberty in the broad sense also requires freedom from economic coercion, including what Chomsky refers to as, "wage slavery." Yes, I care about income inequality. Over the last 35 years in America the wealth has "trickled up" into the hands of the 1% and <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/top-ceos-make-300-times-more-than-workers-pay-growth-surpasses-market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/" target="_blank">CEOs now make 300 times more</a> than median-level employees. While corporate profits and worker productivity are higher than ever, wages for most employees have remained stagnant or decreased, so the rich have gotten richer, the poor remain poor, and the middle class is increasingly sliding into poverty. I am also concerned about the disproportionate tax burden on the working poor and middle class, especially small business owners and independent contractors, who must pay additional Self-Employment Tax.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Republicans usually say that the above economic situation is not a problem; it's just "The Market" appropriately determining what our labor is worth, and we must never question the wisdom of The Market. I do question The Market and feel strongly that it <b>is</b> a problem when people working full-time cannot afford to pay their bills including housing, food, and "Affordable Health Care," never mind send their kids to college, without falling deeper into debt, and young people graduating from college even with advanced degrees cannot find decent jobs to pay back their enormous student loans. Other Republicans admit the situation is less than ideal, but blame it on President Obama, choosing to ignore the history of how we got here and the fact that the economy crashed <b>before</b> he took office. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Mr. Trump claims that if elected, he will fix the economy, in part by erecting a wall along the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants from getting in, although it's not clear how much this will help as long as we continue to permit vulture capitalists to devour our domestic companies and send our jobs offshore to exploit cheaper labor elsewhere. If he were to actually succeed in creating jobs and boosting the economy, this would be an extraordinary accomplishment on the part of the GOP. Aside from their all-important goal of opposing the President, the focus of the Republican agenda for the past 7 years has been the creation not of jobs, but of low-wage workers and soldiers via the regulation of wombs, the allegedly nonexistent "War on Women." A female Republican friend commented, "The real War on Women is the war against our wallets!" I agree that our finances are under attack, but a secure bank account means nothing if my own body doesn’t belong to me. No amount of money can compensate for the sacrifice of bodily sovereignty, the fundamental civil right without which all other rights and freedoms become meaningless. And women cannot take full advantage of good job opportunities without access to affordable birth control and/or childcare. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If Rafael "Theonomy" Cruz were to win, his policy would restrict women's reproductive rights, including outlawing some forms of birth control which he [incorrectly] considers to be "abortifacient," such as IUDs, and on this critical issue, unfortunately Trump and Cruz are mostly in agreement along with nearly all GOP politicians. The current Republican platform states that a fertilized ovum is a person and allows no exceptions for abortion under any circumstances. Some GOP politicians have even gone so far as to say that forcing a woman to bear the spawn of a rapist is, "a beautiful thing... that God intended." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Mr. Trump, to his credit, departs from the party line by recommending that the Republican platform should be changed to permit abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. While Trump does not go nearly far enough, continuing to maintain that abortion for any other reason should be illegal, even these limited concessions have earned him the dreaded insult "liberal" from his GOP peers, including Cruz, and for this he is to be commended. Not that I have a personal stake in the matter, being past the childbearing years, but I do have a young stepdaughter, a goddaughter and a grand-goddaughter, and even if I didn't, I would nonetheless stand up for the rights of all women. No person or "potential person" has the right to use another person's body against his or her will. Forced birth is involuntary servitude.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My concerns about civil rights and liberty are not limited to the allegedly "unimportant" matters of who may marry whom and buy wedding cakes, who may use which bathrooms and call themselves "him" or "her," and have access to what kind of birth control. I also am not ok with the fact that the United States jails our population at the highest rate in the world, at 1 in 110 adults (and 1 in 3 black males), over 50% due to drug offenses. I don't want my hard-earned tax money going to keep nonviolent offenders in prison. Medicinal and/or recreational herbs should be legal. IMO, people should be free to eat, drink, smoke, snort or otherwise ingest whatever substances they wish, and live as they see fit, so long as they don't harm anybody else in the process. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a libertarian, I believe that the role of government is not to regulate bathrooms and bedrooms, but rather, to protect its citizens from force and fraud, which would include preventing such things as corporations exploiting employees' labor or stealing their retirement funds, banks gambling away their customers' savings accounts, and insurance companies collecting premiums and then refusing to pay claims. It would also enforce contracts, e.g. when a county clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses, or congressmen fail to appoint a Justice to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court - tasks which were included in their respective job descriptions when they voluntarily accepted the position. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because I <b>do</b> care about these things, I cannot vote Republican. Nonetheless, I give credit where it is due. Kudos, Mr. Trump, for having the courage to go against the party line by standing up for female and LGBT persons even to a limited extent! And for you, Mr. Cruz, <b>love</b> your first name, "Rafael" - why don't you use it, too ethnic? Kudos to your mom for naming you after the archangel. I would enjoy having a President named "Rafael," kind of rolls right off the tongue. Other than that, um, not so much. And I sincerely pray that neither of you will ever become President.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-26091225153953543472016-04-15T00:46:00.000-05:002016-04-15T20:13:10.751-05:00Libertarians and Lifeguards<br />
<div class="_3x-2" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 16.08px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div data-ft="{"tn":"H"}">
<div class="mtm" style="margin-top: 10px;">
<div class="_5cq3" data-ft="{"tn":"E"}" style="position: relative;">
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1233100773380405&set=a.123093991047761.20432.100000414830925&type=3&size=600%2C403&player_origin=story_view" class="_4-eo _2t9n" data-render-location="permalink" data-testid="theater_link" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1233100773380405&set=a.123093991047761.20432.100000414830925&type=3" rel="theater" style="box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0470588) 0px 1px 1px; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 470px;"></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="js_4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 1.38; orphans: auto; overflow: hidden; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj59aEHMdITP9cKp_3CCX7tNQGjMGokC58WPpRbyuDqKYCdOtawG7CnMDMjZDMpFc_QX0T3KFhHtcjREUDi01R5YVG1lTuwAsMwC-rpLnqhho766OZfPDNk81X4P5vSL3lCN0G0GygdByY/s1600/13007100_10153833614762740_2026048974501160574_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj59aEHMdITP9cKp_3CCX7tNQGjMGokC58WPpRbyuDqKYCdOtawG7CnMDMjZDMpFc_QX0T3KFhHtcjREUDi01R5YVG1lTuwAsMwC-rpLnqhho766OZfPDNk81X4P5vSL3lCN0G0GygdByY/s1600/13007100_10153833614762740_2026048974501160574_n.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">My friend <a class="profileLink" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/user.php?id=727992739" href="https://www.facebook.com/marksandlin" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Mark Sandlin</a> posted this very amusing cartoon in a Facebook discussion about (so-called) "Libertarians" being selfish and uncaring. The Tea Party/ GOP poseur "Libertarians," perhaps. I've previously discussed in my blog how <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/republicans-have-hijacked.html" target="_blank">the GOP has hijacked and corrupted libertarianism</a>. But, I would like to comment on this cartoon, which although it gave me a good LOL, is inaccurate. Real libertarians, and anarchists, for that matter, understand that liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. We believe in voluntary cooperation among people for our mutual benefit. In order for that to work, a person's word must mean something and contracts that we enter into voluntarily must be kept. So if we accept a job as a lifeguard then we save people from drowning.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, this cartoon would be accurate of libertarianism <b>if</b> the lifeguard in the picture was replaced with a sign saying, "No lifeguard present. Swim at your own risk." You are free to take the risk of drowning if you so choose. Presumably one of the other swimmers would voluntarily save you, but if they don't, that is the risk you take. Libertarians do <b>not</b> believe in a "Nanny State." The government does not exist to babysit us or protect us from ourselves, to prevent us from swimming, surfing, skateboarding, smoking, snorting or other recreational activities. Adults should be free to do as we please, so long as we harm nobody else. Personal liberty takes precedence over safety.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 1.38;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">From a libertarian standpoint, the role of government is to protect the citizens from force and fraud. But, contrary to the Tea Party philosophy, this would include preventing such things as corporations exploiting employees' labor or stealing their retirement funds, banks gambling away their customers' savings accounts, and insurance companies collecting premiums and then refusing to pay claims. It would also enforce contracts, e.g. when a person hired as a lifeguard ignores drowning swimmers, a county clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses, or congressmen fail to appoint a Justice to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court - all of which were included in their respective job descriptions when they voluntarily accepted the position.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Interestingly, here in the Redneck Riviera (Panama City, Florida), we do not have any lifeguards - whether because we are an impoverished hick town despite being a resort destination, and/or because FL has no State income tax, or whatever. We only have a flag system: blue flag for calm conditions, yellow for medium hazard, red for high surf and double red for danger, water closed. The system is somewhat arbitrary, as the actual surf conditions at any given time do not necessarily correspond to the flags. We have a sign explaining the flags which says at the top, "No lifeguard on duty, swim at your own risk." However, the "risk" includes going to jail, because when the double red flags are flying, the police will arrest anybody in the water. They will not actually go into the water to try to save anyone; they stand on the beach and order you to come out, and if you drown in the process, oh well.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've been threatened with arrest twice while surfing when the red flags were up and the waves were just 2-3 feet and nothing compared to what I grew up surfing in California and Hawaii. One time an adolescent boy got caught in a current and was being pulled out to sea. An obese policewoman stood on the beach barking into her bullhorn, "Get out of the water immediately! You are under arrest!" She did not make any attempt to save him. There was a surfboard on the police vehicle but the officer was in no shape to use it, although I am sure she could float very well. I tried to go after the boy and was threatened with arrest for doing so, but in any case he was too far away. His father told me, "Don't worry, I taught him, he knows what to do." He waved and pointed to the left, the boy then turned and paddled perpendicular to the current and returned safely back to shore.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The flags do not, of course, prevent anyone from drowning even when the water is calm if they just don't know how to swim. A non-swimmer can panic and drown in a few feet of calm water. I have rescued a a couple of tourists on blue flag days. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 6px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.38;">With regard to the cartoon, a government-certified lifeguard, paid by our taxes, is the Democratic solution. A sign saying, "Swim at your own risk" or a caring and competent lifeguard, privately hired or volunteer, are Libertarian options. A police officer in the lifeguard chair is our Redneck Riviera flag-and-arrest system, the classic GOP response to drowning citizens: rather than hiring lifeguards, pay police to arrest the tax-paying swimmers who survive. Our taxes are paying for a babysitter who is allowed to spank us and cannot provide first aid or CPR if needed. </span><span style="line-height: 19.32px;">It is a travesty that violates safety, liberty and justice all at the same time.</span></span></div>
<div class="_5wpt" style="border-left-color: rgb(220, 222, 227); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 2px; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; padding-left: 12px;">
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-52207606249487416362016-03-13T04:26:00.000-05:002016-03-13T20:16:05.575-05:00Political Rant<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've been ignoring this for a while but tonight I've just had it and must say something! I am sick and tired of all the ignorant-ass comments blaming our President for everything from the economic crash that happened <b>before</b> he took office, to ISIS (which even Mr. Trump admits is a consequence of our ill-advised war in Iraq that was begun by the previous President), to the crab grass in your lawn. Until today I brushed it off as a few uneducated redneck mother-fuckers that didn't deserve any serious attention, and/or mentally handicapped who need our compassion. However, I now realize there are many more people holding these views, which is how Mr. Trump has become so popular. It's not just the lunatic "fringe." As <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2016/02/heres-my-video-3-min-where-i-explain-the-donald-to-you/" target="_blank">Frank Schaeffer says in the video</a> I posted earlier, "The lunatics have taken over the asylum." </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In a discussion on Mr. Schaeffer’s video, somebody said that we need to get the word out, but be sure to remain polite and civil and listen to the other person’s opinions, so as not to hurt anybody’s feelings, etc. Up until now, on the occasions that I’ve said anything about it, I have done exactly that. But, I’m over it now. No more Mrs. Nice Guy. I have fucking had it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The last straw was earlier today when I commented in a thoughtful political discussion posted by one of my friends about “personalities versus policies.” I said, "I have an issue with Mr. Trump saying 'I will make America great again!' because we <b>are</b> great. We are the greatest nation on earth." To which someone replied, "No, we are <b>not</b> great. This country won't be great again until we get rid of the current president." Another person said, "Yeah, name even <b>one</b> good thing Obama has done for this country." Really?! Yes, I know my Democrat friends have compiled quite a list which includes shaving $1 trillion off the federal deficit, but on a more personal note, “Obamacare” saved my husband's life by paying for surgery that he couldn't otherwise obtain. That counts for something, doesn't it? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But, what really pissed me off was this ignorant son of a bitch insulting my <b>country</b> - that my father and other military veterans risked their lives defending! - because he happens to not like the President for being half-black, or a Democrat, or going ahead and doing things for the country like making sure our military personnel got paid, and bombing the hell out of ISIS, while Congress sulked and threw temper tantrums, or whatever. I think he’s done a damn good job under the circumstances, especially considering that Congress fought him every step of the way.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Look, I'm not just saying this because Barry Obama was my classmate at Punahou School in Hawaii (where he was born) and a very nice guy. I'm not even a Democrat, for that matter. The voter card in my wallet says "Libertarian," which I've been ashamed to admit ever since the fucking Tea Party corrupted that term into something totally different than what it was when I joined the movement as a 14-year-old kid in Hawaii, back before corporations were "persons" with more rights than actual persons. Truth be told, I'm an anarcho-socialist (yes, the scary “A” word), but that wasn't one of the options when I registered to vote. More recently I actually supported Gary Johnson, the <b>only</b> candidate of any party that made personal liberty for actual persons, and ending crony capitalism, the priority of his campaign. I also like Gary because although he’s a millionaire, he got there the old fashioned way - by <b>working</b>. But even if Gary runs in this election, I will have to vote Democrat in the hope that somebody like “Dollars” Trump or, worse yet, “Theonomy” Cruz, doesn’t win.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Not that I have anything against the Democratic candidates. I agree with most everything that Bernie says, but talk is cheap, and apparently he hasn’t been able to get much legislation passed during his time in Congress. Also, I’m concerned that he couldn’t beat the GOP because the American people won’t elect an openly Socialist president. Hillary is a bit conservative, militaristic, and a little too chummy with the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street for my taste, but having said that, I think she’d be a great President. She is smart and strong, seems like she could be charming and diplomatic, or be devious and a Total Bitch if necessary to put fear into the hearts of our enemies. She would eat ISIS for breakfast.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But getting back to my argument with people so deluded that they will vote for the party that sees them as nothing more than breeding stock for soldiers and low-wage workers to be exploited by the 1%, I told the guy, “If you really don’t think America is great, then feel free to move somewhere else. I know a whole bunch of people overseas who would do <b>anything</b> to take your place!” Which is true. I have numerous friends on Facebook who want to move here <b>regardless</b> of who is President. They could give a flying fuck if Homer Simpson was President. So, those of you who support Mr. Trump, just answer this one question: If we are not “great,” then why the hell does he think we need to build a damn wall around our country to keep immigrants out?! Despite all our problems - yes, we have a long way to go and America is not “perfect” - we are still the place where people believe they can realize their dreams. That’s why they will risk everything to move here legally, illegally, or whatever it takes! Let’s face it, you don’t see a whole lot of people trying to flee this country, although we will certainly consider it if, God forbid, Ted Cruz were to win this election.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Whether you like the President or not, our country is way <b>more</b> than the President. <b>We the people</b> are America! Every single one of us has to do our part. So grow the fuck up and stop complaining. You’re a spoiled, rebellious teenager who doesn’t like the house rules. Try moving out on your own and see how you like it. You bitched and moaned because you didn’t think your little sister deserved the same allowance that you got, but that allowance was nice, wasn’t it? All you want to do is bad-mouth mommy and daddy because you don’t feel you should have to follow the rules and contribute to the household, so go ahead and move out. Who’s going to feed you now, punk? I hope you enjoy eating from trashcans. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">You fucking <b>hate</b> President Obama, for whatever reasons. I get it. But he’s still the President. And you know what? A lot of us weren’t real thrilled with President Bush Jr., either, especially my military friends at the American Legion (of which I’m a member of the Ladies’ Auxiliary) who watched their sons and daughters being sent off for repeated tours of duty over in Iraq to get their limbs blown off and/or their minds blown by PTSD when we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. We didn’t necessarily agree with all of his policies, but we nonetheless gave Mr. Bush due respect as our Commander in Chief, and the goddamn President of the United States. We knew that he was a human being who, having been elected to office by the people, was doing the best he could under difficult circumstances. We didn’t blame him for the crabgrass in our yards or every other fucking thing that happened over which he realistically had little or no control. And we wouldn’t have dreamed of publicly offering him for sale as a slave, “low price because he is lazy,” or recommending that he be hanged. Even those who thought Bush was a war criminal only wanted him brought to trial, not outright lynched. That’s just <b>way</b> over the top.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I’ve held my tongue for 7+ years listening to this bullshit and I’m done being civil. And if you don’t like it, y’all can bite me. If, God forbid, your party wins the election, you will get exactly what you deserve. You’ve made a deal with the devil, so don’t be surprised when he takes you to hell like the contract said, assuming you can actually read. Whew. There, I got it off my chest.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-1893775849866319332015-10-31T01:56:00.000-05:002015-11-12T23:26:41.017-06:00The Chicken and The Egg<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every time I think that I really have said everything I could possibly say about the abortion debate (1), I seem to encounter yet another bizarre twist to the arguments presented by the anti-choice side which makes me feel obliged to respond. I don't particularly want to get dragged into it again, but my conscience compels me to speak up on behalf of women and girls, as discussed in the first article of the series. In fact, I wrote the series to examine the various arguments in some depth, write it all down to link for future reference, and not have to repeat myself over and over in the ongoing discussions that I seem to get sucked into despite doing my best to resist. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The latest "twist," which I learned about from <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2015/10/by-her-own-standards-bristol-palin-is-worse-than-a-slave-owner-heres-why/" target="_blank">an article by pastor Mark Sandlin</a>, was presented by Ben Carson and Bristol Palin who have recently stated that abortion is the equivalent of slavery. I've heard this mentioned every once in a while in the past, usually in the context of, "Like slavery, abortion is a terrible moral evil and we must change the law." But Carson and Palin go further; they say that abortion is wrong specifically because it treats the unborn "child" as property which may be disposed of as the "slaveholder" (the woman carrying it inside of her body) sees fit. It should be noted that according to the biblical standards which Carson and Palin claim to support, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/children-as-property-the-common-root-of-religious-child-abuse-and-the-pro-life-movement/" target="_blank">children are the property of their fathers</a>. The Bible also condones selling a daughter as a slave, or to a man who rapes her, or to a legitimate suitor, <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2012/11/04/the-bible-says-yes-to-legitimate-rape-and-rape-babies/" target="_blank">whose property she then becomes</a>.<br />
<br />
In any event, I find this comparison of abortion with slavery quite ironic, because they have it entirely backwards. The policy they promote would make the fetus a slaveholder over the woman, demoting her from person to chattel. Now you could argue that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is the “morally right thing to do” (to save the fetus), but there is no way getting around the fact that it is “involuntary servitude.” That leaves us in the awkward position of concluding that while slavery is a moral evil on the part of any born person, it is perfectly acceptable when done by a fetus. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The anti-choice side tries unconvincingly to skirt this objection by saying that there can be no such thing as an “unwilling” pregnancy, i.e. “involuntary servitude” on the woman’s part, given that pregnancy is a known potential consequence of sex. They say a woman's "choice" is made every time she voluntarily engages in sex (2) because even if her intent is <b>not</b> to get pregnant and she is using birth control (which could fail), her participation constitutes de facto "agreement" to have a baby. Or to put it another way, by being sexually active a woman automatically forfeits her right of bodily autonomy and becomes a walking incubator belonging to the spawn of any man who manages to impregnate her with or without her explicit consent. An informal survey of sexually active women reveals that most of them don't recall signing any such agreement but, again, I have addressed this argument in <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2013/07/biology-personhood-and-civil-rights.html" target="_blank">previous posts</a>.<br />
<br />
Pastor Sandlin's article discusses the fact that in the natural course of events, <a href="http://amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf" target="_blank">loss of a fertilized ovum due to failure to implant</a> is statistically a much more likely outcome than successful implantation and pregnancy. Abstinence advocate Palin said her last out-of-wedlock child was a "planned pregnancy," which means that in the process of trying to have that baby, other embryos must have been sacrificed. So, according to the above-described logic, that a woman is responsible for the natural consequences of sex, by engaging in unprotected sex Palin would be guilty of causing the deaths of those embryos, or "babies" as she and Carson call them. Now, some readers commenting on Sandlin's article objected that a woman is not responsible for the loss of embryos because "they died of natural causes" and it was unintentional on her part. But, I think we can't have it both ways. Either we are responsible for the unintended biological consequences of sexual activity, including pregnancy and spontaneous abortion, or we're not. <br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Getting back to Palin's comparison with slavery, she argues that abortion is even worse because the slave owners, while racist, supposedly regarded their slaves as "sort of" (maybe 3/5?) human, whereas "abortionists" deny that a fertilized ovum is a human being at all - which, according to Carson and Palin, is a completely shocking and ridiculous notion that goes against science. They will tell you with a straight face that science "proves" a fertilized ovum is a "human person" for the simple reason that it has unique human DNA. Period. Yes, folks, that's right: All that is required for "personhood" is a microscopic clump of proteins. You don't need consciousness, sentience, or the tiniest flicker of awareness, and even among Christians the idea of a "soul" has become rather passe'. All you need is genes. (3) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now let's take a look at this notion that a fertilized ovum is a full-fledged human person. What if we were to apply the same scientific criterion to another creature, say, a chicken? (I apologize in advance to my vegetarian readers): </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You go to a restaurant and order fried chicken. The waiter brings you a fried egg. You say, "Excuse me, I ordered fried chicken." The waiter says, "This is fried chicken." "No," you say, "This is a fried egg." The waiter explains in a snippy tone, "This 'egg,' as you call it, is indeed <b>chicken</b>. It is fertile and therefore has the complete genetic material which, were it not for people like you <b>eating</b> them, would have ensured its development into a mature chicken." "But," you say, "It's <b>not</b> a chicken, it's still just an egg." The waiter says, "I assure you, this poultry specimen has pure DNA from the finest Plymouth Rock, with beautiful black and white plumage. It <b>is</b> a chicken." "Eggs don't have plumage," you point out. "Well you can't see the plumage <b>yet</b>, but genetically it is already there. How dare you criticize this bird because of its size. Just because it is small and undeveloped doesn't make it a non-chicken!" "Well yes," you say, "it kind of does..." The waiter interrupts and says slowly and clearly as if speaking to a small child, "Had it not been harvested at such a young age, it would have grown into a nice, big bird - <b>not</b> a dog, a cat, a monkey, or even a duck - a <b>chicken</b>! What other possible species do you think it could have become?!" "But," you say, "I mean, there are no wings or legs or -" The waiter heaves a sigh and says in a pained voice, "Very well then," picks up your plate and goes back to the kitchen. <br />
<br />
He returns shortly with a new plate holding a fried egg which, remarkably, displays in its center where the yolk would have been, a chicken embryo flayed neatly down the middle, the halves artistically arranged like mirror images. "There!" the waiter says triumphantly, waving his hand at the plate, "Look at this lovely chicken! The tiny sharp beak, the developing wings, the tender legs, the perfectly formed little feet. <b>This</b> is a chicken." You dubiously inspect the embryonic bird which, while the chef has somehow managed to make it appear halfway appetizing, looks more like a biology lesson than the "fried chicken" you had in mind when you ordered. "Um," you say, not wanting to be rude, "This is very nice, but I was really hoping for more meat." Waiter: "It's just young and tender. What you call 'meat' is the result of aging." "Look," you say, "I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but in most restaurants 'fried chicken' means literally, um, an already hatched, big chicken." The waiter replies peevishly, "You didn't specify an <b>adult</b> chicken! And what difference does it make whether it's hatched or not? Chicken development is a seamless process from fertilization to full maturity." Trying to defuse the situation with humor, you suggest, "Well, you know that old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched'..." The waiter, having reached the end of his patience, says, "You ordered chicken. If you were to take this bird to the lab and have its flesh analyzed, I promise it will reveal <b>chicken</b> DNA and all the <b>same</b> proteins found <b>only</b> in <b>chickens</b>! ergo, it is a chicken. What else could it possibly be? Are you insane?!" He rolls his eyes, stomps his foot and walks away in a huff. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Be honest, are you convinced it is a chicken? I didn't think so. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(1) <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-spread-your-legs.html">Don't Spread Your Legs</a>, and please see links at the bottom of that article for the full series.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(2) But, what if she was NOT a willing participant, i.e. she was a rape victim? Anti-choice people brush this off by saying such pregnancies account for only 1%, or maybe 30,000 per year, and therefore apparently can be disregarded. Sometimes they will claim, incredibly, that giving birth to the rapist's baby is "healing" for the woman. Carson has stated that it makes no difference how the baby was conceived and the victim should be forced to deliver it in any case, because "the offspring of rapists can go on to have useful productive lives in society." He does not address the effect on the rape victims themselves.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(3) They don't mention to what extent a pregnant woman may be a human person, but presumably to a lesser degree than the fetus which owns her body, although she too has her own unique DNA.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-38882420416536624672015-05-01T22:48:00.001-05:002015-05-01T22:54:23.578-05:00Why I Don't Call Myself a "Believer"In a previous post, "<a href="http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html" target="_blank">Another Look at Religion</a>" I discussed my view of religion as mythology, something that belongs in the same category as art, music, theater, poetry and literature, the purpose of which is not to “explain” but to “inspire.” More recently, in “<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2014/11/letting-god-out-of-box-reflections-on.html" target="_blank">Letting God Out of the Box</a>,” reflections on Frank Schaeffer’s delightful new book “Why I am an Atheist who Believes in God,” I described how for me “God” is not a “belief” but rather, a label that I use to describe my subjective personal experience. That post generated some wonderful, lively discussion. Thanks so much to everyone for your very thoughtful insights and questions! You have inspired me to discuss the issue of “belief” further and to explain why I don’t normally use the word “believe” in reference to God. <br> <p>
My description of “God” as Something I experience that is beyond intellectual constructs has led some readers to assume that my approach is non-rational or purely “emotional,” but that is an incorrect assumption. While the yoga/meditative practice results in a state which transcends both thought and feeling, my spiritual journey, far from being “non-rational,” has involved a great deal of rational analysis. A degree in philosophy along with studies in theology and comparative religions provided intellectual tools which could only take me so far. In philosophy we spend a great deal of time just discussing fundamental concepts like epistemology, i.e., “how do we know <strong>anything</strong>??” What I ultimately found was that both western and eastern philosophy are like a dog chasing its own tail, in terms of the limitations of human knowledge. Obviously I cannot condense my education into this short post, so you can either take my word for it or read a whole bunch of tedious books yourself, if you wish. But, what I would like to do is share with you my thought process about “belief in God.” <br> <p>
<br />
Words can mean different things to different people and in various contexts. The online dictionary defines belief as: <br />
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. <br />
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. <br />
<br />
For me, “belief” is an intellectual construct involving data, and I most often use the word with regard to verifiable events in the material world. For example, “I believe per the instructions, this 6-pound bird @ 20 minutes per pound will be cooked in approximately 2 hours @ 350 degrees.” Or, “Given the history of their legislative behavior, I believe the GOP will continue to support the rich and screw the middle class.” Or, “I believe I will need to order the next bigger size of flip-flops, as all the reviewers said this brand tends to run small.” <br />
<br />
Now if you ask me, “Do you believe in God?” it’s a funny question, like asking, “Do you believe in the sun?” I don’t need to “believe” in the sun because I can just go outside and see and feel it, at least during the day, and at night I “believe” it will reappear tomorrow as it has reliably done for 51 years. Likewise, after a lifetime of serious yoga practice, I can consistently perceive Something that I call “God.” My experiences of the sun, and of God, while “real” to me, are completely subjective. In both cases, because many other people assure me that they, too, experience these entities, I can reasonably conclude that they “exist” in some sense outside of my own mind, at least as a shared delusion, if nothing else. But that’s not to say they <strong>exist objectively</strong>! That conclusion would require scientific data which, in the case of the sun, is at least theoretically possible for me to obtain, whereas in the case of God, no scientific verification is possible even in principle, for definitional reasons, as I will explain later. <br />
<br />
I believe some things <strong>about</strong> the sun, e.g., that it exists in an objective sense, that it is a star like billions of others only much closer, which is to say, a spherical fusion reactor in space 93,000,000 miles away whose radiation would burn us all to a crisp were it not for the earth’s magnetosphere, and that contrary to how it appears, the earth is actually orbiting the sun at 19 miles a second and the sun only appears to be orbiting us because the earth is revolving on its axis at 900 miles per hour. How do I know this? Well, both from the <a href="http://www.metrolyrics.com/galaxy-song-lyrics-monty-python.html">Monty Python song</a>, and from textbooks written by scientists. And this requires a certain amount of faith on my part because I have to trust, or “believe in,” the scientists who provide this information. <br />
<br />
Don’t get me wrong; I <strong>love</strong> science! In fact, I love it so much that I considered getting a double major in philosophy and physics, but I already had a double minor in German and Russian languages, while physics required a math minor and there was a waiting list for the math classes. So instead I just took as many elective science classes as possible and read all the popular physics books I could get my hands on. But despite having a reasonably good education in science, my knowledge is relatively limited, as is my ability to verify information. I believe that you can’t travel at the speed of light because when I plug numbers into the Lorentz transformations, doing so results in dividing by zero, which I believe is impossible because I learned in algebra if you divide by zero, unacceptable things occur like 2 = 1. I believe that the universe could have emerged from nothing, only because I vaguely understand the mathematical concept that if you roll the dice an infinite number of times, <strong>anything</strong> is possible. <br />
<br />
As a child, I found a fossilized seashell in Colorado. I own a telescope that allows me to see 4 of Jupiter’s alleged 63 moons, and a microscope with which I can identify yeast and some other organisms. I can perform some basic experiments with gravity, volume and mass and even a little chemistry. I do not personally have access to a supercollider or an underground vat of cleaning fluid with which to catch neutrinos and other particles. But, the cool thing about science – and why it makes a good “consensus reality” – is that at least <strong>in principle</strong>, if I were rich and/or I knew the right people, I <strong>could</strong> send a probe to the sun and/or employ a device to catch neutrinos, Higgs bosons, quarks or whatever. Since that is not realistically possible, I am taking other peoples’ word for it, because I have no particular reason to doubt them and peers have duplicated their experiments and analyzed their data. <br />
<br />
If I have any skepticism about science, it is only due to my medical career of 22 years, during which I discovered to my considerable dismay that some of the things I’d believed were solidly “science-based” turned out to be either “market-driven,” dubious, and/or completely fabricated. I have also found that medical “news” as presented in the popular media is sometimes contrary to the information in the medical literature, which is accessible to me only because working in the field I know where and how to look things up, whereas even a very intelligent and educated layperson would have no way of knowing. I’m not going to go there right now, because every time I do, people are eager to burn me at the stake and in any case, it’s a whole ‘nother subject for another time. However, my experience in the medical field naturally makes me wonder whether similar misinformation could be happening in other fields where I have less knowledge, such as geology or hydrology. For example, if scientists tell me that fracking is perfectly safe and that peoples’ tap water catching on fire is a mere coincidence and has <strong>nothing</strong> to do with fracking, who am I to argue? I would like to think that the “hard sciences” are less susceptible to manipulation and deceit than for-profit medicine, but in the absence of available evidence, I take it on “faith.” <br />
<br />
But, I digress. The point I was making is that my beliefs about the sun and other physical entities can at least in theory be objectively verified via scientific experiment, whether performed by myself or some other trustworthy persons, and confirmed by peer review. The same cannot be said of a metaphysical entity such as “God” because science, by definition, does not concern itself with non-physical subjects, in the same way that you can’t get color video on a black and white t.v. and a radio won’t give you visual images at all, because it’s not designed to do so. One of the people [thx ban48!] who contributed a great deal to the discussion on my last post, and who helped to inspire this one, raised the question, “What is a physical consequence of your god?” None, unless you want to hook me up to an EEG or MRI, and/or measure my brain chemistry while I am hanging out with God. But, those same measurable neurological changes can occur as a result of the meditation technique itself, without a God. Otherwise, my God is like String Theory, making no verifiable real world predictions. <br />
<br />
Now I often say, “God is Love,” but this won’t help us, either, because Love, like God, is a metaphysical, i.e. subjective, entity. One of my atheist friends insists that Love, unlike God, is objectively real because we can measure the brain chemistry associated with it. Well no, actually we can’t; our understanding of neurochemistry is simply not as sophisticated as laypeople often imagine it to be. While we can track oxytocin and other hormones, it would be difficult to distinguish love from lust, infatuation or baby hunger. But, even if we could trace and analyze and document every single neurochemical interaction corresponding to the feeling of love, that still would not prove that the personal experience of “love” has any objective reality outside of the human mind. If anything, it would argue against it, since “love” can be easily explained to be nothing more than our hormones tricking us into breeding and taking care of our offspring, so as to pass on our DNA. Likewise, the changes in brain chemistry that occur when I am in a meditative state are indicative that I am experiencing Something, but in no way prove that Something has any objective existence outside of my own mind. I would go so far as to say that from the purely scientific standpoint, consciousness or even the “self” as such may be merely an illusion caused by chemical interactions in the brain. <br />
<br />
So, I have no material data, and no way <strong>even in theory</strong> of obtaining any data, that would support a belief in the objective existence of God, a metaphysical entity. And were it not for my consistent personal subjective experience of God over many years, I would have no reason to “believe” in God. I certainly would not believe based on the Bible, a clearly mythological book or collection of allegorical and poetic writings with, at best, some history thrown in here and there. I would not believe based on fundie preachers telling me that I must believe or else be sent to hell by a God that I had no particular reason to believe exists. And given my extensive study of comparative religions, the fact that every religion claims to be the one and only Truth, which none of them can objectively substantiate, would also raise a red flag. On the other hand, I might conclude that God is, at the very least, a nearly universal human phenomenon – which, again, is <strong>not</strong> the same as objective existence and may well just describe the shared archetypal collective unconscious of which Jung speaks. <br />
<br />
The second definition of “believe” in regard to persons, which many if not most “believers” consider God to be a Person (although God can also be impersonal), presupposes the existence of that person and refers to their character. If I say I “believe in” Barry Obama it doesn’t mean I believe that he exists; I take that as given. Rather, it means that I think he is a person of integrity, that he is the right man for the job, and/or that he is doing a great job under the circumstances. That is merely personal opinion. It’s not a statement of fact and has no objective consequences. But, I can “believe” factual things <strong>about</strong> him, such as, I believe he was born in Hawaii because I attended high school with him at Punahou, and I happen to know trustworthy people who knew his parents from the University of Hawaii and saw baby Barry when he and his mom got out of the hospital. <br />
<br />
I should probably also address, because somebody will inevitably bring it up, what about the Creeds that we recite in church, where we chant, “We believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth…”? This brings us to the contextual use of the word “believe.” It is my understanding from church history that the Creeds were not so much formulated to make a statement about physical or scientific reality but rather, to differentiate our particular brand of religion from competing factions and to take a stand against heresies such as Docetism (the doctrine that Jesus’ body was only an illusion). So within this <strong>context</strong>, I “believe” certain things. For example, I believe that the sacrament of Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ, as opposed to a “mere symbol.” But, do I believe that laboratory testing would reveal it to be human DNA of a guy who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago? Of course not! We’re not talking about science here. Do I believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Yes. I also believe, in the context of the LOTR story, that Gandalf rose from the dead after defeating the Balrog in the mines of Moria, and that Eowyn slew the Nazgul at the battle of Pelennor after he said, “You fool, no man can kill me!” and she replied, “I am no man!” and drove the sword through his skull. Note, some LOTR fans believe that it was actually the hobbit Merry who killed the Nazgul by striking him from behind with an elven sword. A case could be made either way, again within the context of the story. But that’s not to say that elves or hobbits objectively exist. <br>
<br />
Finally, there is a fundamental reason why I don’t use the word “believe” with regard to the objective existence of God. As Frank Schaeffer discusses in another of his wonderful books, “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Patience-God-People-Religion-Atheism/dp/B003NHR708">Patience with God, Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion {or Atheism}</a>,” according to the Orthodox apophatic tradition, “neither the existence of God nor nonexistence , as we understand these words in the material world, applies to God.” We have already seen that it is impossible even in principle to demonstrate the existence of a metaphysical or non-physical entity using physical science, our consensus standard of “objective” reality. But there’s a deeper reason that the objective existence of God is moot. <br />
<br />
The very use of the word “exist” with reference to God is theologically problematic. The word “exist” comes from the Latin “existere,” “to arise or stand out from.” As <a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/433240/jewish/God.htm">Rabbi Tzvi Freeman</a> puts it, “G‑d is not a thing… G‑d is isness itself… ‘Does G‑d exist?’ In Hebrew, that's a tautology, somewhat the equivalent of ‘Does existence exist?’" Richard Bach likewise refers to the Divine in his book “Illusions” as “The Infinite Radiant Is,” and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/christiansmisrepresented/posts/522898524413927">Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong</a> has stated, echoing Christian existentialist philosopher Paul Tillich, that God is rather the Ground of all Being from which everything else emerges, the Source of life and love. My teacher Mark Whitwell, <a href="http://www.heartofyoga.com/">Heart of Yoga</a>, likewise calls God, “Source Reality.” <br />
<br />
The eastern tradition also sees God as the ground of all being, but with a twist: that same Divinity is the essence of our own human soul! <a href="http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_2/practical_vedanta_and_other_lectures/practical_vedanta_part_i.htm">Swami Vivekananda</a> explains, “As certain religions of the world say that a man who does not believe in a Personal God outside of himself is an atheist, so the Vedanta says, a man who does not believe in himself is an atheist… Where is there a more practical God than He whom I see before me — a God omnipresent, in every being, more real than our senses? For you are He, the Omnipresent God Almighty, the Soul of your souls… He is the Oneness, the Unity of all, the Reality of all life and all existence.” <br />
<br />
So, when my atheist friends insist, “the burden of proof is on those who say God exists,” while that may be true, it is a moot point because no objective proof is possible even in principle, and “exists” is meaningless in this context. But, that’s fine with me because I don’t need to prove the “existence” of the God I experience as Love. I’m content to subjectively enjoy It and to be an expression of It in the world. And unlike the fundies, I don’t believe that my God who is Love would send you to hell [if there were a hell] for your failure to believe based on using the rational intellect that He gave you; therefore I have no vested interest in convincing anybody of anything. <br />
<br />
If you were so inclined, I could easily teach you <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbQwfcwYnuY&index=1&list=PL1658788281BF703B">yogic techniques to experience It</a>; no “belief” is necessary. The techniques work very well for the vast majority of people, including my atheist students, (although I’ve recently been informed that some folks lack the requisite gene). If you do the practice consistently you will more than likely experience Something and you may call it Whatever You Wish. Or, you could leave that Something nameless and just enjoy It as you would a beautiful painting or poem, a sunset at the beach, or a song that touches your heart and inspires your own existence – assuming you and I “exist” at all apart from complex chemical interactions in our fleshly primate brains, which is itself a dubious proposition.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-64776640168814972802015-04-03T00:35:00.000-05:002015-12-19T20:51:31.244-06:00Shoebat, Islam and the Antichrist<div class="MsoNormal">
This being the Easter season, I thought it might be an
appropriate time to discuss a fascinating mythological conflict that was
brought to my attention last winter by a friend on Facebook re: the eschatology
or “end times” prophecies of the 3 Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity
and Islam. Many religions have some kind
of end times prophecy with their own heroes and villains, e.g. the Norse
religion predicts Ragnarok, an event when the world will be destroyed in a
battle between the gods and the giants, and created anew by the dying and
reborn solar deity Baldr. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What is particularly interesting about the respective prophecies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
is that because these three religions (“People of the Book”) have some
scriptures in common, including the Old Testament prophets, their eschatologies
overlap and feature some of the same characters. Judaism, of course, preceded both
Christianity and Islam, with their origins found in the Old Testament story of
Abraham and his sons Isaac and Ishmael.
Isaac, the son of Sara, was the ancestor of David, the lineage from
which Jesus would be born, and Ishmael, the son of Hagar, was the ancestor of
Mohammed. So Abraham, the Jewish
patriarch, is the great-grandfather of both religions and they draw upon the
Jewish prophecy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
According to the Old Testament prophets, the Jewish Messiah
was to be an earthly king from the lineage of David, a great political leader as
well as a high priest, who would destroy evildoers, overthrow corrupt
governments, reestablish God’s covenant with Israel, and rebuild Jerusalem
including the Temple. With the Messiah
on the throne, the entire world would then recognize Judaism as the one true
religion and everybody would worship the One God and live in peace, justice and
prosperity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Christianity adopted the Jewish prophecy, proclaiming Jesus
to be the prophesied Messiah. Judaism
does not recognize Jesus as Messiah because he did not establish an earthly
kingdom the first time around. Unlike
the Jewish Messiah, he said “My kingdom is not of this world,” and instead of
overthrowing Rome as expected, he was executed by the Romans. According to Christianity, Jesus <b>is</b> the Jewish Messiah, but the Jews
overlooked the part of the prophecy where the Messiah first comes as “a
suffering servant.” The Christian
eschatology postpones the earthly reign of the Messiah to a future time when
Jesus, having been resurrected and ascended into heaven, would subsequently
return, overthrow evildoers including Rome and the Antichrist, and establish
God’s kingdom on earth as per the original Jewish prophecy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Islam added another twist to the end-times story with the
appearance of their hero Imam Mahdi, a descendent of Mohammed. In the Islamic version of the prophecy, Mahdi
rides in on a white horse along with Jesus (“Isa”) and together they overthrow
all evil in the world and defeat Dajjal, the Antichrist, the Deceiver who will
assert that he is divine and claim to be Jesus Christ and/or the Jewish Messiah
and use occult powers to perform “miracles.”
Other Muslim scholars suggest that Dajjal is an atheist/materialist who encourages war in the Middle East, deceiving the People
of the Book (Jews, Muslims and Christians) and provoking them against each
other for his own political ends. In any
case, Dajjal is defeated by Mahdi and Isa, who then declare Islam as the one
true religion and eliminate all false religions and heresies – including the “heresy”
that Jesus is divine, because the strictly monotheistic theology shared by Islam
and Judaism rejects the Christian belief that God has a son or that any man
could be a divine incarnation. So, Isa
will explain that this is an incorrect interpretation of scripture, and together
with Mahdi he will establish God’s kingdom on earth, ushering in an age of
peace and prosperity. This, at least, is
the mainstream Islamic version of the prophecy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, here’s where it gets really interesting: There is yet another version of the Islamic
prophecy described by Walid Shoebat which turns the story completely upside
down. Shoebat, a self-proclaimed former
Palestinian terrorist, now convert to Christianity and champion of Israel*, says
that in the version of the prophecy which he was taught in the radical Islamic
school he attended in his youth, Mahdi is the first of the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse, a conquerer carrying a bow and wearing a crown, riding on a white
horse as described in Rev. 6:2. Although
some biblical scholars identify the first Horseman as a prophet like Elijah or
John the Baptist preparing the way for the return of Messiah, other Evangelicals
identify him as the Antichrist. Shoebat
agrees with the latter interpretation of Antichrist, and says that the Muslim
Jesus (Isa) is the False Prophet mentioned in Rev. 19:20. Moreover, in this version of the story, Dajjal
is the false Jewish Messiah who claims to be God – i.e., the Christian Jesus! While
the part about Mahdi is somewhat plausible in that Muslims do refer to the
first Horseman as describing that prophet, Jesus as Dajjal is not. Dajjal is described as a short, fat man with
reddish skin, deformed legs and missing one eye and with the word “infidel”
written on his forehead, a cruel and violent man who, in the original story, is supposed to be defeated by Jesus and Mahdi. Shoebat's version of the story would make no sense to mainstream Muslims who hold the Christian Jesus, the son of Mary, in very high regard as a an important prophet as well as end-times hero. Shoebat’s associate Joel Richardson discusses this alternative eschatology at great length here: <a href="http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm" target="_blank">“Will Islam Be Our Future?”</a> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Shoebat asserts that Islam is fundamentally anti-christian
in its nature, a false religion established by Satan from the beginning to deceive
people and turn them away from Christianity.
To support this claim he quotes the scripture: “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus
is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.” (I John 2:22 ) Shoebat says the Antichrist must be a Muslim
because he denies the divinity of Jesus.
The obvious problem with this theory is that the same criterion would
apply to Judaism, which like Islam also denies the Trinity and the divinity of
Jesus on the basis that it would be polytheism.
However, Islam does affirm Jesus as a prophet in the line of the Old
Testament prophets and also acknowledges the virgin birth, which Judaism does
not, and thus it could be argued that Judaism is more “anti-christian” than
Islam. An atheist Antichrist would also
fulfill this scripture perfectly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bible scholar Dr. David R. Reagan <a href="http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_islam6.php" target="_blank">analyzes Shoebat’s and Richardson’s books</a> in some detail and finds their argument to be unconvincing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the popular imagination, the Book of Revelation is seen as
a prophecy regarding the End Times, and many Christians throughout history have
identified people, nations and events in their own culture as corresponding to
the prophecy. Some evangelicals insist
that the book describes the United States, President Obama, and other modern
characters, but most Bible scholars say that the Book of Revelation is properly
understood as referring to experiences of the first century Christians in Asia
Minor, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. With this understanding of scripture, the
Antichrist is actually the Roman Emperor Nero.
The author had to write everything in code and allegory to avoid being
burned alive by Nero, who enjoyed setting Christians on fire, <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/31/four-big-myths-about-the-book-of-revelation/" target="_blank">as Elaine Pagels explains</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In order to properly interpret scripture, it is important to
understand what the writings meant to the people who wrote them and what they
were trying to say to the readers in the context of their cultural tradition in
the time and place where they lived. This
principle is applicable both when reading our own scriptures as well as those
of other religions. It is especially
tricky to avoid imposing our own bias on scriptures which overlap to some
extent – but not completely! – with those of our religion, as is the case with
the Jewish, Muslim and Christian End Times prophecies. Therefore the interpretations of these
prophecies by Mr. Shoebat and other modern evangelicals who are reading their
own agenda into the scriptures ought to be taken with a grain of salt. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*[It should be noted that Shoebat’s account of his personal
history as a Palestinian terrorist who bombed an Israeli bank and spent time in
prison has been investigated and thoroughly <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Features/The-Palestinian-terrorist-turned-Zionist" target="_blank">discredited by the Israeli authorities</a>, which is why he was allowed to remain in the U.S. This does raise the question whether perhaps the
version of Islamic prophecy that he describes is also a fabrication, although
it is interesting nonetheless.]</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-14485483464742746202014-11-23T01:35:00.000-06:002014-11-23T16:59:38.792-06:00The Constitution, Cato and the Kochs: One Libertarian's Journey to Disillusionment<div class="MsoNormal">
This post was inspired by discussion with some of my young
friends overseas who dream of coming to America, “the land of opportunity,”
“flowing with milk and honey,” “with liberty and justice for all,” a nation
based on Equality from its very beginnings, a place where any hard-working
person can succeed. I once believed all
that, too, when I was young. The only
difference is, I have actually lived here for 51 years. I love my country. America is certainly one of the best places
on earth and I am sure it compares very favorably to any third-world nation
assuming, that is, that we don’t become a third-world nation ourselves, which
is liable to happen if current trends continue and if our GOP Congress
successfully implements their policies, which I once supported.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our conversation began when I posted <a href="http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/18600000-vacant-homes-united-states-enough-every-homeless-person-six.html" target="_blank">an article</a> revealing
that we now have many more empty houses in America than we do homeless people,
of whom there are 3.5 million including, to our great shame, many military
veterans who defended our country at the cost of limbs and PTSD, who upon
returning from overseas, found themselves homeless and without medical
care. I was subsequently accused of
being un-American or unpatriotic for daring to suggest that our wonderful
country is less than perfect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My accuser is a very bright and enthusiastic young man whose
goal is to become an American citizen and serve in the Marine Corps, and I very
much hope he will succeed in so doing!
In fact, I offered to write him a letter of recommendation. I am from a military family myself and a
member of the American Legion. My young
friend and I have some other things in common.
For one, we are both citizens of former colonies that had to fight for
our independence from Great Britain.
Additionally, and rather coincidental to this discussion, we both
attended college programs funded by the Koch Foundation, where we received a
rather one-sided perspective on American politics and economics. And like him, in my youth I believed in their
claims whole-heartedly. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By now it should not be a huge shock to most people who know
me, that my voter ID card says “Libertarian” on it. It was kind of my dirty little secret, until
I blogged about it quite a bit over the last few years. I
refer the interested reader to these links which explain more about what happened and
how I became disillusioned:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/republicans-have-hijacked.html" target="_blank">The Republicans Have Hijacked Libertarianism</a>, wherein I
discuss the utopian vision of my youth and how it has very little in common
with what is called “Libertarian” today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-i-am-not-thrilled-with-government.html" target="_blank">Why I Am Not Thrilled with Government</a>, where I describe how,
as a tax-paying citizen and owner of several [failed] small businesses,
government regulation has had a negative impact on my ability to make a living
and for the most part, social programs have not provided any help when I needed
it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberal-libertarian.html" target="_blank">A Liberal Libertarian</a>, in which I discuss, “Clearly there is
no way to get to my Ideal World from the Real World.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But why a “dirty little secret”? I was once proud to call myself “Libertarian”! In short, “Libertarianism” today has been
taken over by the Tea Party, whereas when I joined as a teenager, I shared the
views of Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky. Of course, I also read Ayn Rand (obligatory for Libertarians), but while I
enjoyed her books, even as a child I sensed that she was a rather disturbed
individual and not someone I would choose as a role model.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In any event, what attracted me about libertarian philosophy
was one thing: Freedom! The liberty of all men and women to live our
lives as we please, so long as we do not harm anyone else, including, but not
limited to, what business we may conduct in the free marketplace, what jobs we can
have, whom we may marry, and very importantly, bodily autonomy including whether,
when and with whom we will choose to have children, or even what types of
plants, medicine, food or drinks we may ingest. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It was my passionate commitment to freedom and the 13<sup>th</sup>
amendment that led to my giving a speech at a rally against the draft in Honolulu
in 1980 when I said on national television, “While it is important to defend
our nation against foreign enemies which would seek to conquer us, we must also
be vigilant to prevent the rise of tyranny from within. If we enslave our own citizens, what is left
for us to defend?” I also knew, being a military brat, that an all-volunteer army has better morale and is a more efficient fighting force, but that is beside the ideological principle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My opposition to involuntary servitude likewise motivated me
more recently to become involved in reproductive rights. I had believed in my youth that this was
already accomplished, but it has since come under attack from the same
politicians who most loudly proclaim their defense of freedom and private
property, <b>except</b> when it involves a woman’s sovereignty over her own
body. One of the things that made me
really question the Libertarian Party was when I discovered a group called, “Pro-Choice
Libertarians,” which was founded in 1987, and I wondered why on earth such a
group would need to exist. Isn’t
“choice,” after all, essential to the definition of “Libertarian” or, for that
matter, “American”?!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, maybe not; at least, not in the beginning. And this is where we must take a closer look
at the doctrines we hold so dear and assume we know what they mean, or once
meant. Everyone loves to quote from the
Declaration of Independence: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“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.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem is, <a href="http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/jefferson-s-all-men-are-created-equal-1.410746" target="_blank">when Jefferson wrote “all men”</a> he clearly
did not mean “all,” because he, like several other Founders, owned slaves. <a href="http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/todays-view.html" target="_blank">What the phrase really meant</a> at that time was
“all white male land owners.” It did not include Africans, Indians, or
even the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims survive their first year here,
and women, of course, also were not included.
I and my friends who were discussing these unalienable rights would not
qualify for them! While the principle of
Equality was there from the start, its actualization only happened recently in
history. Slavery officially ended in
1865, Black men got the right to vote in 1870 and their full civil rights in
1964, while women were not able to vote until 1920, and in 2014 our Equal
Rights Amendment has not yet been approved by Congress. America is still growing into her full
potential. Our Founders’ vision of
Equality, Liberty and Justice for all is a work in progress. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, how did we get here today where, in one of the
wealthiest nations on earth, 3.5 million people are homeless while 18,600,000
houses are empty, and many people working full-time need government assistance
to feed their families?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many people mistakenly blame our economic situation on Mr.
Obama. Although the President has many
talents, time travel is not one of them, and the collapse of our economy occurred
in 2007, the year before he was elected.
Other people are quick to blame President George Bush Jr., because the
expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan created a huge deficit, the economy was
sluggish during his administration, and many of our jobs were sent overseas. But Mr. Bush did not start this problem,
either. Rather, it all began 20 years
earlier during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, whose economic
advisors, including Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, convinced him to cut
taxes on the rich and deregulate the banks and corporations. The theory behind this policy was that the
Market could be trusted to ensure that businesses would prosper, jobs would be
created, and the wealth would “trickle down” to benefit everyone, not just the
rich. Unfortunately, it didn’t
work. Or rather, it worked extremely
well, but <b>only</b> for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Over the next 30 years the wealth “trickled
up,” making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class increasingly
poor. But, to be fair, it seemed like a
good idea at the time, and Reagan had no way of knowing what would happen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, I realize I will be attacked as stupid and naïve for
saying that. Most liberals like to paint
Reagan as an evil, heartless man who purposely instigated the destruction of the
middle class. I, however, liked
President Reagan. My impression of him
at the time was that he was a warm, caring person who genuinely meant
well. I prefer to believe that he was
sincerely convinced those economic policies would work. He, being a generous person, naively assumed
that the wealthy CEOs of the major corporations would do the right thing,
investing their wealth wisely for the benefit of the whole country. Instead it mostly went into their
pockets. How was he to know? Unlike our current President, Mr. Reagan was
not a constitutional scholar. He was a
Hollywood actor who became Governor of California not because of his economic
or political knowledge, but rather, his charm.
As President, he believed what his trusted advisors told him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am not sure that President Bush Jr. can be given the same
benefit of the doubt, since by the time he was elected in 2000, the effect of
20 years of Reaganomics should have started to be noticeable. Or, some would argue, it was noticeably
beneficial to all of his very wealthy friends in banking and industry and
therefore he chose to continue those same policies, which likewise were being
promoted ever more vigorously by the Republicans in Congress. Meanwhile, wages for 99% of Americans had
been steadily falling since the 1980s relative to the cost of living, despite
worker productivity and corporate profits being at an all-time high. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In any event, <a href="http://www.stockpickssystem.com/housing-market-crash-2007/" target="_blank">deregulation of the banks</a> led to unwise (some would say, "predatory") lending practices in which people were given loans that they were unable to pay
back, and the banks would then foreclose and take their homes. At the same time, the unregulated stock
market was having huge success selling “derivatives,” a complicated sort of
gambling whereby investors could make money on the sub-prime mortgage loans in a
manner which I do not fully understand, and as with all gambling, a “winning
streak” cannot last forever. At some point
in 2007 it all came crashing down, the banks and corporations began to fall
like dominoes, and the stock market plummeted. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That was not supposed to happen, according to what I learned
at my Libertarian college summer school at the Cato Institute, which the Koch
Foundation had given me a generous scholarship to attend. The students were told that free market
capitalism was essential to our constitutional freedoms, and that the
government should never interfere. The
Market was something almost sacred which, if left alone, was self-regulating and could be completely trusted
to provide the best possible outcome for everyone. Therefore, regulation of banks and industry,
and labor laws like the minimum wage and overtime pay were “un-American” and dangerous
to Liberty. This is the belief still
promoted by the Koch Foundation and the GOP – not because it is true, but
because it advances their agenda of corporate control over America. Contrary to what we were told, deregulating
Big Business over the last 30 years did not result in prosperity for most Americans;
it was a catastrophe for 99% of us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While my favorite Libertarian, Dr. Mary Ruwart, <a href="http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/" target="_blank">describes in glowing terms</a> how a truly free market would create jobs and opportunity and
wealth for everyone, unfortunately we can’t get there from here. There is no “free market” in America because
the playing field is not even close to being level, and the game is already
rigged to prevent competition. I am
quite sure this is <b>not</b> what our Founders intended, and it is the key point
where I differ from "libertarian" philosophy as it is commonly presented today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The word “Libertarian” as adopted by the GOP has come to
mean the liberty of corporations to exploit peoples’ labor and rip us off to
the fullest extent possible. These faux “libertarians” who want to deregulate
the banks and industry are perfectly happy to regulate the hell out of ordinary
citizens in our own bedrooms and small business owners in our attempts to compete with Big Business. That
is why they support the Citizens United ruling which awarded “personhood” to
corporations and equated money with “free speech,” thereby essentially handing
over our elections to them. This
collusion of government and industry, i.e. fascism, is the opposite of liberty! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 2008, with an epidemic of people losing their homes in the
wake of the stock market crash, the government stepped in to save the tanking
economy, offering bailouts. The GOP
supported the bailouts as a necessary response to the emergency situation. But, the bailouts were <b>not</b> given to the
citizens who had lost their homes and their retirement, or people drowning in
debt from high-interest student loans or credit cards, or those bankrupted by
medical bills. Family farms and small
businesses were not eligible for help. No,
not a penny of the bailouts went to the American people. Rather, the money was given to the same banks
which had issued the bad loans, foreclosed and taken the peoples’ homes, and
gambled with their derivatives, and to the insurance companies who had either
refused to insure them, or else collected their premiums and then failed to pay
the claims.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because of my belief in the Constitution and the principle
of Liberty, I supported Gary Johnson in the last election. This was despite my affection for Barry
Obama, with whom I attended high school in Hawaii and who I think has done an
amazing job in the face of continual opposition from Congress. Unbelievably, the GOP treason went so far as
to shut down the government, including suspending pay for our active duty
military, in protest of the Affordable Care Act because they did not want the
American people to have the same health insurance that they enjoy, which our
tax dollars paid for! The President finally wrangled an agreement with Congress so that our military personnel could pay their rent and feed their families. Since then Congress has agreed to hardly anything.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway, while I respect Mr. Obama, Gary Johnson was the <b>only</b> candidate in the race with the balls to openly state in his platform that he
would oppose “<a href="http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/what-is-crony-capitalism/" target="_blank">crony capitalism</a>,” another name for fascism. He also was the only candidate to fully
support bodily autonomy, equal rights for all Americans including LGBT, and the
legalization of cannabis, which our Founders grew and is now illegal in most
states, primarily due to the pharmaceutical industry lobby. Interestingly, while David Koch once ran as
Libertarian VP and has funded many campaigns, he did <b>not</b> donate to Gary
Johnson, on the basis that Gary was “too extreme” in his support of personal
liberty!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our Constitution states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“We the People of the United States in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While I still believe in the Libertarian principle that the
primary function of government is “to prevent force and fraud,” over time I
have come to a broader understanding of those terms which recommends government
intervention to a greater extent than I once thought necessary. The “free market” sounds good in theory, but
what happens when unrestrained capitalism is unjust, upsets domestic Tranquility, fails to
provide for the common defense, damages the general Welfare, and conflicts with
the Liberty of individual citizens and their right to private property? If it comes down to a choice between
capitalism and the broader principle of the Constitution itself, which is to
protect our country and its people, then I must choose the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The sort of “liberty” advocated by the Kochs and the GOP is the freedom of
citizens to be mercilessly exploited by the banks, insurance companies and corporations, to work
long hours at low wages insufficient for survival, to be sent to war and then
cast off like damaged goods, to become homeless, to starve, or to die from lack
of medical care. Conservatives obsess
over the “free market,” which is not actually mentioned (only implied) in the
Constitution, while completely ignoring the “promote the general Welfare” part. That is because they are doing the bidding of
their corporate masters. Congress does
not represent us, the ordinary working people whose taxes pay their salaries
and provide them with generous benefits including the best health care
available. They represent the
billionaire donors who have paid for their election, made easier by the
Citizens United ruling. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our Founders came to the new world for Liberty. They fought a war for independence from Britain
motivated in part by “taxation without representation,” as well as their
opposition to the monopoly of the East India Company, the “crony capitalism” of
its day. The current policies supported
by the GOP and promoted by the Koch Foundation would turn Big Business loose to
devour America and take away all the protections that our citizens have
enjoyed. This has been made possible by unlimited
campaign financing and laws enacted to take away our representation and hand it
over to the corporations, all in the name of so-called “constitutional
liberty.” The Constitution was written
to define and limit government in order to guarantee the rights and liberties
of the American people, <b>not</b> the multinational corporations. <o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-732851591397625052014-11-13T22:36:00.000-06:002014-11-14T03:24:35.636-06:00Letting God Out of the Box – Reflections on Frank Schaeffer’s “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God.”<div class="MsoNormal">
I wanted to write a formal “review” of this book, but
initially couldn’t think of anything to say other than, “Fabulous book! Everybody should read it.” On second thought, while I absolutely <b>love</b> the book, I predict that most atheists and Christians will probably hate it,
and I’m not here to try to convince anybody.
The book is not a theological treatise and presents neither an argument
nor an apology. Rather, it is a personal,
candid and heartfelt discussion of the author’s journey of faith, seeking to
“give love, create beauty and find peace” in the face of limiting and
dehumanizing dogmas. The intimate
writing style, as if we were sitting and having a conversation with the author,
invites honest reflection on our own journey, and in response to that invitation,
the words came pouring out! So, I hope
you will indulge me, before I return to reviewing the book. While I am no longer an atheist and God is
not per se a “belief” for me, I can very much relate to what Mr. Schaeffer has
written.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I became an atheist around age 11 or 12 as a result
of having attended evangelical private schools which completely turned me off
to Christ. From my perspective today, being
totally in Love, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could manage to make
Jesus unappealing, but they did. In
addition, I was a big fan of science from a very early age, thanks in large
part to the t.v. show “Star Trek,” which I began watching with my father when I
was just a toddler. I had already
concluded that the religious world-view was at odds with a factual explanation
of how the universe works. Now, I could
have lived with that, if religion as it was presented had been attractive for
any other reason, which it was not. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My childhood understanding of “Christianity” could essentially
be summarized as: “Everything that is fun is bad,” and God was a mean old man
on His throne up in the sky, ready to send us to hell for the slightest
infraction, even though He had already allowed His own son to be tortured to
death on our behalf to somehow appease His righteous wrath over the predictable
sins of creatures whom He had endowed with free will. It seemed to me that, being omniscient, He should
have known what would happen. Moreover, He would send starving people in Africa
to hell merely for not believing in Jesus, Whom they had never heard of, and it
was our parents’ fault for not giving more money to the church’s missionary
projects, and by implication, our fault for not nagging them sufficiently to do
so. I had other theological doubts, but
the last straw was when they told us that rock music was from the devil, which
I knew in my heart of hearts could not possibly be true. So, I threw out the Babe with the bathwater,
but I felt like Something was missing. I
began to study Zen and yoga.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My atheism continued until my first year of college in
Florida, when I ate magic mushrooms which grew at cow farms near my school in
the springtime. That experience of
infinite Love, Being, Consciousness and Bliss demonstrated Something beyond a
shadow of a doubt. As an atheist I was
inclined to believe that It was a phenomenon created by my own brain, but it
must have been a part of the brain that was previously inaccessible to me. It was Beauty and Perfection completely beyond
anything that I could ever dream or imagine despite my best efforts. People commonly called this “seeing God,” but
I was reluctant to call It “God” because It bore no resemblance to the angry
old man in the sky. One of my
companions, when asked if he had seen God, replied, “No, but I saw where He
lives!” Thereafter, I was motivated to
study yoga/ meditation more seriously and in greater depth, and my practice
really began to bear fruit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While pursuing my degree in Philosophy, I studied theology
and comparative religions and hung out with people of different faiths,
including Buddhists, Sufis and Hindus. I
began to realize that my childhood fundamentalist education had been quite
limiting, and maybe God really wasn’t so bad after all. My Hare Krishna friends presented God as
friendly, fun, beautiful and cool. Like
Christianity, the Hindu religion also imposed a fairly strict moral code which,
if violated, could send you to a bad reincarnation for many offenses including
illicit sex (anything outside of marriage, and contraception within marriage!),
drinking alcohol, or eating meat.
Nevertheless, their positive input inspired me to again consider the
possibility of a Personal God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Years later in southern California I rediscovered Jesus
thanks to Jon, (ironically!) a rock musician, one of the coolest people I’d
ever met. I was surprised to learn he was
quietly a mystical Christian, and he also practiced meditation. Through Jon I met some loudly Christian metal
musicians and began attending Calvary Chapel, mostly because a lot of my
friends went there. The music was great
and it seemed pretty hip, although I soon learned that in reality their doctrine
was rather fundie. Among other things,
apparently gay people were going to hell and while rock music was not, after
all, satanic, yoga <b>was</b> and I needed to immediately stop doing it lest demons
take over my body. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Shortly after my conversion, I ran into an old childhood
friend Pete who, it turns out, had been a Christian all along but I never
suspected it, because he smoked pot and listened to Black Sabbath and Iron
Maiden. We were discussing my newfound
faith and he asked, “So – do you believe the Bible is the literal Word of
God?” “Yes!” I said, as per my
indoctrination. Pete smiled, raised one
eyebrow, and asked, “And you’ve actually <b>read</b> it?” “Yes.”
I had, indeed, been forced to read it quite thoroughly and to memorize
parts of it, as a child. “Ok,” he said,
“then what do you do when scripture says something that you just know in your
heart, cannot possibly be right? Do you
blindly believe it, or do you use the mind that God gave you?” “Is this a trick question?!” I wondered, because as far as I knew, we really didn't have a choice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Encouraged again to trust my heart over propaganda, I kept
doing kriya yoga and meditation, where with increasing consistency I
encountered that Love, Bliss, Beauty and awesome unity that the humble fungi
had revealed to me many years before. Having
given it much prayer and after visiting a variety of churches, eventually I
found myself quite at home in the Episcopal Church due to its Liturgy and
sacraments, “all the pageantry, none of the guilt,” a strong tradition of
spiritual practices, ecumenism and support of vocations, and so comfortable
with paradox, ambiguity and diversity even to have a couple of atheist priests
among its clergy. I enjoyed a beautiful,
wonderful, ecstatic relationship with God for many years thereafter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I tried being an atheist again in 2010 when I was mad at
God. He had allowed my mother, a saintly
woman with pure childlike faith who never doubted, “Whatsoever you ask in
prayer, believing, you will receive,” to die a horribly painful, slow,
agonizing death involving loss of limbs, sanity and dignity, which dragged out
for years despite her own prayers and those of myself, my sisters in the
convent, and all our faithful friends and family. When He didn’t heal Mom and her condition
worsened, we prayed for a quick, merciful death, and that didn’t happen,
either. So I decided, clearly this God
thing was all a lie, a fantasy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I told myself that we were, after all, just clothed monkeys
with guns, who threw verbal feces at each other; monkeys who made art and music
for no purpose whatsoever, and bombs to blow each other to smithereens,
breeding mindlessly and without restraint, to the point that we were depleting
our finite resources, destroying our habitat and drowning in our own
waste. We were really just walking,
breathing bags of skin containing chemicals, like biological batteries which
can recharge to a limited extent by taking in nutrients until entropy finally
catches up, the bag starts to leak, the chemical reactions cease and we’re
gone. Unlike batteries, these bags of chemicals
were seemingly conscious and capable of reproduction, but to what end – to bring
more bags of conscious chemicals into a universe with no God, no Love, no
Beauty, no meaning, only eternal darkness and despair?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I tried, but it didn’t work.
It was just too awkward, like when you’re mad at somebody and trying to
ignore them, but you keep running into them at the grocery store. It was no longer a matter of “belief” for me,
because I didn’t so much “believe” in God, as I <b>experienced</b> God. No matter what else might be happening in the
external world, when I did my yoga, I experienced that incredible Love, Being,
Consciousness, Bliss that had become more Real to me than anything. Now, when I was mad at Him about Mom, I just
avoided doing my spiritual practice for a while, but that couldn’t last. It was like cutting off your nose to spite
your face. Anyway, God would sneak in
when I looked at the moon and stars, or listened to Om roaring in my ear as I
surfed in the tube of a wave, or felt the kiss of the sun on my cheek. I don’t know why He let Mom suffer so, but in
our Episcopal mythology of the Incarnation, He suffers with us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my darker moods, especially now that I am perimenopausal,
I do sometimes flirt with nihilism, but it’s become more difficult. The yoga I started in 1976 made big promises,
and in 2011 it finally delivered. A few
minutes after I began doing <a href="http://www.heartofyoga.com/" target="_blank">Heart of Yoga</a>, a seemingly minor refinement of the
breathing technique that I had just learned from Mark Whitwell, my entire
reality changed. The Love, unity and
clarity that I had first glimpsed with the help of the fungi, and subsequently
experienced with increasing consistency during my daily meditations over the
years, suddenly burst forth and took over my everyday consciousness. This is what yoga is supposed to do, but I
was nonetheless surprised when it happened.
Since then I have experienced the Presence of God essentially all the
time, closer than my own heartbeat, and Love pouring through me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe it is just “all in my head,” a new trick my brain
learned from an improbable symbiosis between fungi, cows and humans, reinforced
by years of practice. It makes no
difference. Whether God is “real,” or
whether we are just pitiful monkeys who, in between throwing feces at each
other, make up stories to console ourselves in the face of a dark, empty and
meaningless universe, either way, what else is left, but to <b>be</b> that Love in the
world?! I teach people yoga to allow
them to experience for themselves the gospel that God is Love, and I join my
voice with others in the hope of making the world a better, more humane place
before the darkness swallows us all up.
And this brings us back to Frank Schaeffer’s delightful book. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This book resonated with me on many levels, although I am no
longer an atheist and I find the word “believe” problematic. It is probably a “niche” book, but perhaps a
niche whose population is growing as more and more people begin to question
their childhood faith and search for deeper meaning. If you love Jesus but hate religion; if you
believe in a God Who is bigger than the Bible; if you are confused about the
difference between science and religion and/or you’ve been told you must choose
between them, this book is for you! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Be honest, my Christian friends: Do you ever feel embarrassed for the God of
the Old Testament? What do you do with
the “unpleasant” bits of scripture, like (just to mention a few), the several
occasions where God tells his people to kill their neighbors, including
pregnant women and little babies, but keep the virgin girls as booty? Or the incident when God sent bears to maul 42
children for making fun of the prophet Elisha’s bald head? Likewise,
perhaps you find dubious the doctrine of hell, whereby God would condemn mortal
beings to eternal torment even for merely having incorrect beliefs. On a recent episode of “The Simpsons,” Bart
and Lisa use an iRunes app to open a portal into a school in hell, where they
see a young man writing something over and over on the blackboard; Bart asks,
“Hey, pal, what are you in here for?” “The
heresy of Docetism, the belief that Jesus' body was just an illusion.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frank poses the question, “Can you imagine me consigning
Lucy [his granddaughter] to oblivion because she had wrong ideas about me? Can you imagine me burning her forever
because she didn’t believe in me, forgot my name, called me the wrong name,
thought I had six arms… or brought me fruit when I asked for a lamb?... I am
not a good man and yet can you imagine <i>anything</i> that would cut [his
grandchildren] off from my love?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Faced with such issues, we have a choice. We can do mental contortions in attempt to invent
clever explanations and apologies for God, as Frank’s evangelist mother did in
the previous book (<u>Sex, Mom and God</u>), but the results are unlikely to be
satisfactory. Alternatively, we can let
go of dogma and trust God to be God. Let God out of the box! As we are told in the <u>Chronicles of Narnia</u>, “He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion."<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some of my other progressive Christian friends try to modify
the religion to be more in line with scientific and historical “reality,” which
involves eliminating doctrines about miracles, the virgin birth, the Trinity,
even throwing out the entire book of John (my favorite gospel!), and/or re-defining
the “historical Jesus” as a mere man, which IMO is kind of like neutering the
lion. Mr. Schaeffer takes a different approach. He is not very concerned about doctrines per
se. Rather, he comes from the Orthodox apophatic
tradition, which says that God is beyond doctrine and cannot be defined by the
intellect, but only experienced.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The title of the book, “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in
God” is, as my husband and many other people have pointed out, contradictory
per the definition of “atheist.” From the
apophatic standpoint, “believes” could perhaps better be replaced by
“experiences,” but I am sure the author was very aware of the contradiction and
purposely chose the ironic and thought-provoking title. Frank is an “atheist” in the sense that he
believes in the scientific explanation of the material universe which, I think
it is safe to say, most educated people do.
As I have explained previously in <a href="http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html" target="_blank">my blog</a>, there is no
contradiction once we understand that science and religion are two separate
spheres or dimensions of human existence which serve completely different
functions. This brings us to the central
premise of the book, which is that we humans are multidimensional creatures who
experience reality on different levels. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of my very educated and intelligent friends told me,
“Religion is silly! I choose science.” But, the question is, “Choose it for <b>what</b>?” The purpose of science is to objectively
explain the nature and workings of the physical universe, which it does quite
well, as far as it goes. Now, my friend
would say, “Science fully describes reality, because the physical universe is
all there is!” The problem with this
assertion, of course, is that any such statements about Ultimate Reality are
necessarily metaphysical in nature and therefore can neither be confirmed nor
denied by physical science. It would be
a circular argument akin to the fundie dogma, “The Bible is the only and
complete word of God. How do we
know? Because the Bible says so!” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In any case, the purely physical approach is inadequate to
express the entirety of our human experience.
For example, according to science, “love” is simply evolution using your
hormones to trick you into breeding, passing on your DNA and caring for your
offspring so that they, too, can pass on their DNA. The magical feeling you share with your
spouse that makes you believe he or she is the most beautiful, wonderful person
on earth can be objectively explained by chemicals in your brain; however, it
can only be enjoyed subjectively. Love,
like Beauty, belongs to another dimension of human existence: the subjective realm of art, music, poetry, mythology
and religion, the purpose of which is not explanation, but inspiration. There are different kinds of “truth.” It’s not either-or. To choose science “instead of” religion is
like choosing dinner instead of dessert when you could have both; you will
certainly survive although you may become bored. Choosing religion instead of science may seem
delicious, but it’s not a balanced diet in terms of your physical health.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When challenged by his atheist friends, “Frank, God’s only
in your head!”, he answers, “Yeah, whatever.
What isn’t?” This is very true
because, as Frank points out, ultimately the “physical world” as such is a
perceptual construct of the human mind and senses, whereas we know from physics
that what we perceive as solid objects actually consist of mostly empty space. He says towards the end of the book, “My hope
is that a trillionth of a second before the Big Bang the energy animating the
mystery of matter being created out of nothing was love.” I believe that, and it’s the same Love that holds
the universe together, which I experience in the center of my being.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, we are multidimensional creatures and in at least one of
those dimensions, we can experience God.
Religion is merely the sociocultural context which frames that personal experience. Being
freed from dogma, what happens to our faith?
It is a huge relief to realize that God does not need to be defined, defended
or explained. We can enjoy religious
mythology when we stop trying to pretend it is something that it isn’t. If there is a God, He cannot be confined to
the man-made box that is religion. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frank makes the case that following Jesus is not about
believing certain doctrines, but rather, how does our experience of the sacred
affect our life? It should move us to express divine Love
through our actions. He discusses at
some length the humanism of Jesus, and even suggests that the Enlightenment was
a Christian heresy, the results of which can be seen in “godless” countries
like Denmark today where most of the population is atheist, and yet their
social policies are more consistent with Jesus’ teachings than our own “Christian”
nation. They take care of their widows and orphans,
provide universal healthcare and education, and enforce laws preventing the
powerful from preying on the weak. On a
personal level, letting God out of the box has made our faith stronger, our joy deeper,
enabling us to give love and create beauty, and in so doing, to find
peace. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-55434644169872118192014-07-18T00:35:00.000-05:002017-11-14T21:51:20.762-06:00I Give Up<div class="MsoNormal">
I have been writing for 45 years. My mother taught me how to read when I was just a toddler, and at age 6 she taught me how to type on an ancient Underwood
manual typewriter. I’m sure you kids
today have never seen one of those, except perhaps in a museum. It
did not even use electricity! You may
understandably find this dubious and demand to know, “How did it work, then?!” Believe it or not, it was purely
mechanical. You had to actually tap the
keys with enough force to engage the little gear that caused the letter on the
other end of the connecting rod to strike an ink-soaked ribbon against the
paper. When you made a mistake you had
to insert a little strip of paper coated with white chalk, retype the offending
letter, backspace, and then type back over it.
I know, it’s really hard to believe, but trust me, I am not making this
up. That is how long I’ve been writing, ever since back in the dinosaur days.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p>My first project, when I was 6 years old, was a series of “books” about a pony named Babby. Each book was a dozen pages or less, lovingly bound together in a construction paper cover and illustrated with crayon drawings. The principal put them in the school library for the other kids to enjoy and told my mom that I would surely be a famous author someday. That never happened. Not even close. But I kept on writing. </o:p>As a child I mostly wrote about horses. I was completely obsessed with horses to the
extent that some suspected it might be evidence of mental illness. But, my parents indulged me and bought me a
horse for my 11<sup>th</sup> birthday.
The obsession fulfilled, I then went on to write about other
things. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In high school I was very
involved with politics. I had the
privilege of volunteering in the campaign, and later as an intern reading and summarizing legislative sessions for
then-senator (now Governor) Neil Abercrombie while attending Punahou School in
Honolulu, where Barry Obama was one of my schoolmates. Working for Senator Abercrombie taught me a lot
about the political process and I was eager to use that knowledge. Having been
born at the tail end of the baby boom generation and following in the footsteps
of the hippies and activists who were slightly older than me, I wanted to change the world. I marched in protests, gave speeches and gathered signatures for petitions. My particular goals were world peace,
personal liberty, equality and saving the environment. The local newspaper published many of my letters to the editor and I was even given a few (non-paying) guest
editorials.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In college I majored in philosophy and wrote (using an
electric typewriter!) about spirituality, consciousness and physics, as well as
continuing with my political efforts.
But, I gradually became disillusioned with politics and began to suspect
that the only way to really change the world was by raising awareness, one by
one. I focused more on my yoga practice
and spent lots of time in meditation. I
stepped back from the world for a while, although I continued to participate in
consciousness-raising groups and events. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I went on to get my Master’s degree in psychology and wrote my thesis on the <u>Bhagavad Gita</u>, using an actual computer this time! (but still no internet). I became further disillusioned with The System when the State changed
the rules and took away my school’s MFCC licensing right before I
graduated, leaving me in student loan debt and unable to legally practice my profession.
After that I was mostly occupied with trying to make a
living and maintaining my own sanity while doing soul-sucking clerical jobs. Having studied pharmacology as a “hobby” since my teens, I went back to school again and then spent the next 22 years working
in medicine until I retired from it earlier this year. It was largely as a result of my formal training
and work experience in the medical field that my initial enthusiasm wore off
and I became a “medical heretic,” leading me to write about that subject.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the last few years, in response to the alarming decline of our society, I have once again become very involved
in the political process through my writing. I have blogged extensively about issues like reproductive
rights (something which I never dreamed would still be controversial in 2014!),
public health, the economy and corporate welfare. Thanks to the miracle of the internet, I have
been able to reach and interact with more readers than I ever would have thought
possible back in the days when all I had was an electric typewriter. Now, I can share my ideas with people across
the country and even around the world.
One of the greatest things has been the ability to network with
like-minded people through the social media and various political websites,
where we can rejoice in knowing that we’re not alone and cheer each other on in
our efforts. I began to feel that there
is hope after all, and that we really can change the world by sharing
information and raising awareness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I got mixed results when publishing my blog in the social
media, where most people really aren’t there for political reasons and might
not be educated or interested in the areas that I write about, especially
medicine and public health. I had
thought that carefully explaining an argument and presenting the facts,
documented by links to reliable sources like the CDC and ACOG, would be enough,
but it wasn’t. What I found was that no
matter how many times I repeated the facts, or how carefully I tried to explain them in simple layman’s terms, or even provided links to sources that I was sure my readers could trust, it made no difference. People just didn’t “get it.” Some even told me flat out, “The facts don’t
matter.” Their minds were already
made up. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, I was encouraged when I started sharing my writings on
a popular liberal blog site where, to my surprise, the response was overwhelmingly
positive! I couldn’t believe so many people
not only read my writings, but recommended and even “hot listed” them. It was difficult to keep up with the huge volume of comments. All that supportive
feedback gave me a sense of solidarity and the feeling that together we
can accomplish anything. Of course, I
was preaching to the choir, as these readers already shared my perspective due to
the nature of the site. Emboldened by the positive response, I decided to reach out across ideological divisions within the movement, to open up dialogue and try to build bridges between separate factions among my comrades such as atheists and liberal/ progressive Christians, with the hope that we would be more effective working in harmony together to oppose the fundamentalist takeover of our society. I wanted to deconstruct the rigid doctrinal lines that divided us and try to find common ground. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What happened
next was a huge learning experience which has led to the return of my former
disillusionment. I quickly discovered that
when I examined underlying presuppositions, questioned the status quo at all, or pushed the boundaries even a little
bit, the backlash was immediate and fierce. People who had been my allies in the birth control battle were ready to
stab me in the back once they learned I was a [liberal] Christian. Although I explained that we reject
the fundie doctrines and oppose their political views, the label of “Christian” automatically rendered me ignorant and my words invalid. People who shared my love of science were appalled and angry when I wrote that pharmaceutical industry lobbying has sold us a bill of goods saying our for-profit medical system is “evidence-based,”
when the evidence suggests that maybe it is actually marketing-based. This was absolute heresy! Never mind that I could back up my claim with facts from reliable sources
until I was blue in the face; the facts don’t matter. Peoples’ minds are already made up. Period.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This surprising failure to find common ground, mutual understanding and open minds even among literate
and well-educated people who are supposedly on the <b>same</b> side of the
sociopolitical battle has been, to say the least, a rude awakening. It has led me to conclude that there is
really no hope of changing minds or raising awareness among the general public
due to very thorough indoctrination by the corporate media. All I can offer is reason, facts and friendship,
which are no match for the billions of dollars spent on brainwashing and polarization
to prevent us from uniting our forces against the corporate overlords. They’ve won.
My writing cannot change the world.
In a lifetime of trying I have not succeeded in changing even one mind. I give up.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I will probably still blog about the issues that concern me,
only because I can’t help it. When I
read about something that “gets” to me, the words accumulate in my mind and
demand to be released, and like mental vomiting, I feel better after letting it
out. But I won’t waste any more of my
time and energy trying to reach people who don’t want to be reached, or to change
a world that doesn’t want to be changed.
I am going back to my cave now. I
will continue to write my yoga blog and perhaps books that may benefit the
people who are actually interested. As
for the rest of the world, it can go to hell, where it seems intent on going
anyway. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-2015752838856885642014-07-11T22:25:00.000-05:002014-10-11T20:00:20.766-05:00Women's Liberty and Bodily Sovereignty<div class="MsoNormal">
The heated debate over reproductive rights in America today,
in 2014, is both bizarre and frightening for a woman who grew up in the age of
Women’s Liberation. We thought these
issues had been settled long ago and indeed they were, from a legal standpoint. The Supreme Court had ruled to legalize both
birth control and later, abortion on the basis of “privacy,” a right which
conservatives deny exists, except when it refers to a corporate bank account or
a politician’s tax return. These rulings
have been debated over and over but they nevertheless remain the law of the
land. This has not, however, prevented
the anti-choice movement from finding clever ways around the law which have resulted
in successfully regulating many abortion clinics out of existence as well as
reducing women’s access to birth control through their health insurance. As I watch this process, I can’t believe it
is happening; it’s like a nightmare and I can’t wake up. But it is all too real.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Reflecting back on my life, one of the things for which I am
most thankful above all else is the liberty of bodily sovereignty, made
possible by modern law and medicine. I
grew up taking for granted that it was my natural right as a woman to control
my fertility, to have sole authority over my own body, to decide whether and
when – IF ever! – to have children. This
sovereignty over one’s own body is so essential that all other “freedoms” are
meaningless without it. When I said this
on Facebook, one of my male friends replied incredulously, “No way, really?!” He thought my statement was absurd. I explained, what good is the right to vote,
or to work, or travel, or whatever, if my own body does not belong to me? How am I a “free person” if I am merely a
walking incubator, my uterus property of the spawn of any man who manages to
impregnate me with or without my consent?
My friend sincerely didn’t “get it,” perhaps because as a man he cannot
even imagine what that would be like.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Women take this precious freedom for granted in America
today, or at least we did until recently, but the fact is, it is a profound
departure from the normal state of existence for most women around the world throughout
history. With a very few real historical
or even mythological exceptions, women previously were condemned to a life as
broodmares. This was in part due to
social inequality in cultures which treated women as second-class citizens
and/or slaves of their husbands.
However, even in the rare cultures where women were afforded more
respect and autonomy, e.g. a feminist friend of mine pointed out, Sparta,
biology was still destiny. If you were
born with a womb, you were destined to be a baby factory – perhaps highly
respected, able to choose your own mate and have some control over your life
circumstances – but still at the mercy of biological fate. Without reliable contraception, a woman would
have babies, lots of them. Many of the
babies would die, and many of the women would die in childbirth. In fact, until the 20<sup>th</sup> century,
childbirth was the #1 killer of women.
Let that chilling fact sink in for a moment. The conservatives argue that birth control is
not preventive healthcare because “pregnancy is not a disease,” it is a mere
“inconvenience.” A sometimes deadly
inconvenience.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2010/04/part-four-gift-of-life.html" target="_blank">My mother narrowly avoided becoming one of the statistics.</a> A type 1 diabetic, very
petite and in fragile health, she had been forbidden by the doctors to get
pregnant. But because she desperately
wanted a baby, she chose to ignore their advice. At 7 months something went seriously wrong
and they told her, “We need to get this baby out of you NOW!” and took her to
emergency C-section. Probably the only reason we both survived is
that we were at Bethesda Naval Hospital where the best possible care was
available. We didn’t have the
opportunity to “bond” before I was immediately whisked away to a NICU incubator
and Mom to her room in critical condition.
The doctors sternly warned her she must NEVER get pregnant again because
they would not be able to keep her alive, and although she adored babies and wanted
more children, our brush with death frightened her enough that she obediently
began taking the Pill. I never got a
brother or sister but at least I had the companionship of my dear mother.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Throughout most of history, even if you were one of the
lucky women blessed with broad hips, safe births and healthy babies, you were
nonetheless still a slave, literally, to biology, because having successfully
delivered those children, you then had to raise them. That was your role as a woman, unless perhaps
you were wealthy enough to afford a nanny to care for the children so that you might
pursue some other activity, if permitted by society. But most women didn’t have that option and regardless
of whatever other skills, talents and interests they may have had, faced a life
as mommy and housekeeper. While many
women enjoy that life and find it very fulfilling, for me it sounds like a
living hell.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fortunately – and again, I thank God for this daily – I was
born in America in the early 1960s, so for me, not even the sky was the
limit! I went through phases of wanting
to pursue different vocations: a
ballerina, a jockey, a veterinarian, an astronaut. The latter was a very good possibility because
my father was an Air Force officer and was able to get me into <a href="http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2009/12/academy.html" target="_blank">the Academy</a>,
although I turned down that opportunity.
But, my parents always told me:
You can be whatever you want to be!
Maybe even the President someday, who knows. I was raised with the understanding that as a
woman, it was up to me to choose my life path.
I could have any career I wanted, OR I could be a stay-at-home mom, if I
so chose, in which case my husband would support me. Note, back then we had a CHOICE, whereas
nowadays the economy requires both parents to work, and women are expected to
have a job AND raise the kids and keep house, which in my opinion is NOT “progress.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In any event, a large part of what made this wonderful
freedom of lifestyle choices possible was the miraculous invention of The Pill
which gave women control over our reproduction.
In the past, random pregnancy was often viewed by employers as a reason
not to hire or promote women. And there
are some jobs you just can’t do while pregnant, like ballet, horse racing or going
into space. I didn’t need to worry about
that, being fortunate to have access to The Pill throughout my fertile years
because, at least until around 2000, I had good insurance that always covered
contraception – yes, even when I worked for Christian companies!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My introduction to the Pill occurred when I was a teenager
in Hawaii. My mother found out that I
had lost my virginity, whether through “motherly intuition” or maybe she
overheard me talking on the phone to my best friend Kat. Angry and sobbing, she proceeded to tell me
that she didn’t understand this “sexual revolution” stuff. My grandmother had taught her that sex is an
unpleasant duty that a wife must endure to make her husband happy and to have
children. When she was my age, good
girls didn’t have sex, mostly for fear of getting pregnant. Those who did were SLUTS, and if a shotgun wedding with the boyfriend was not arranged, the
wealthy ones went abroad to study in France, while those from lower-income
families were sent off to stay with their aunt in the country for a year. My mother told me she had only had sex with
one man, my father. She paused her rant
for a moment, and then said quietly, misty eyed, “You know, I probably would
have wanted to explore my options, if we had the Pill back then. There was this boy that I really loved…” Pulling herself together, Mom sat up straight
and said sternly, “Anyway, I don’t approve of what you are doing! You were supposed to wait for marriage. But the worst possible thing that could
happen to you right now is to get pregnant, which would totally ruin your life. SO, I am taking you to the doctor to get on
the Pill!” And God bless her, she
did. I respect my mother so much for
having the courage and the wisdom to handle the situation in that manner.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ironically, shortly after I got on the Pill, my boyfriend’s family,
also in the military, was transferred to California. We had only had sex one time, with a
condom. It was a horrible experience, as
he had explained the first time often is, but he assured me that it would be
wonderful the next time. But, we didn’t
get the opportunity, and I never saw my first love again. I missed him so much, and did not have another
boyfriend until after I went to college.
It was nonetheless a relief, however, just knowing that IF I were to get
into a sexual relationship, I would be protected. In college and later in my 20s while seeking
a life partner I dated several young men, but none of them wanted a long-term
commitment, so I was very glad not to have become pregnant during those
relationships. Religious opponents of
contraception blame birth control for this modern social phenomenon where men
have access to sex “without consequences” and thus don’t need to make a
lifelong commitment. While this might be
true, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing. Contraception allows women to play the field,
looking for compatible candidates while weeding out the men who might not make
the best husbands and fathers, unlike the olden days when you were pretty much
stuck with whomever got you pregnant, only to discover down the road that he
was a poor match.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, while I wanted a life partner, I never particularly wanted
kids, for a few reasons. For one, I have
always been quite concerned about population growth and the environment and
thought there were already enough humans on earth. More importantly, I didn’t think I would be a
good mother. I completely lack the
maternal instinct. Unlike my mom, who
would not hesitate to grab and smooch the daylights out of a baby belonging to a
complete stranger, I find nothing attractive about infants. Now, many people have told me, “Having a baby
changes you. You will feel differently
after you have one of your own!” However,
a baby is not a science experiment and I would hate to test the theory, only to
find that those people were wrong and that I did, in fact, possess zero
maternal instinct. I have always
believed that people should not breed unless they are seriously able and
willing to be good parents. It doesn’t
seem right to me that an innocent child should be brought into the world “by
accident” or as a “whoops!” or an afterthought, but only if they are truly
wanted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh often argue, “If
women don’t want kids then they just shouldn’t have sex!” <a href="http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/05/yoga-brahmacharya-and-relationships.html" target="_blank">As discussed in another post</a>, I’m not
convinced that they seriously want us to stop having sex, based on my
experience. After failing to find a desirable partner, I became
a Third-order Sister. I was voluntarily celibate
for 14 years and received fierce criticism from all sides, especially from
conservatives, regarding my lifestyle choice.
Friends, family members, coworkers and complete strangers told me that
my lifestyle was abnormal and wrong!
Society is, after all, oriented around couples and family life, and sex
is the glue that holds romantic relationships together. So while the conservatives claim to support
celibacy in theory, it's quite another matter when you actually practice it,
then suddenly you are going against God and Nature. Basically, in my experience you are damned if
you do and damned if you don't! And
incidentally, while I thought I wouldn’t need the Pill anymore since I was celibate,
it ended up being prescribed to treat my anemia related to excessive menstrual
blood loss.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Life rarely turns out the way we planned. After 14 years of celibacy, when I had long
since completely stopped looking for a partner, I met my husband at age
42. Had I followed my mother’s
old-fashioned morality, that we should “wait until marriage” to have sex, it
would have been a very long wait indeed!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I did not become a ballerina (at least not professionally, although I dance at karaoke bars during long instrumentals),
or a jockey (although I have raced my own horses at local fairs), a
veterinarian, an astronaut, or President (although I went to school with one,
Barry Obama). My “career” involved mostly
just boring secretarial jobs, followed by 22 years in the medical field. Now I work as a yoga teacher, psychic and
holistic wellness counselor. My adult
life has not been the most exciting nor successful from a career
standpoint. But, it is MY life and I am
very happy to have lived it my own way.
Thanks to modern medicine being upheld by the Supreme Court [until recently], I have managed to avoid the one
career that I specifically did NOT want, namely, motherhood. I cannot imagine not having had that choice. I want my goddaughter and stepdaughter to
have the same freedom that I enjoyed, to live their lives as they see fit, to
become mothers if and when they choose.
I pray that we won’t return to the dark ages when women were broodmares.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1330344368580329011.post-91175619095926185182014-07-10T00:43:00.000-05:002014-11-30T18:29:21.255-06:00Religion, Science and Dogmatism<div class="MsoNormal">
Note: I shared this post on a popular blog site recently and to my surprise, was immediately accused of "attacking atheists." That certainly was not my intent. If anything, I was "attacking fundies" and reassuring the atheists that despite what they may have heard, liberal/progressive Christians are on their side in terms of public policy! The main point of this post is that dogmatism and uncritical thinking of any variety is dangerous. I apologize that the point did not get across.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
In the wake of recent events, particularly the Supreme Court
ruling that corporations owned by fundamentalist Christians can obtain a
religious exemption from insurance coverage of birth control, there has been an
understandable backlash against religion.
My atheist friends have been commenting, even more so than usual, that
religion is the source of all human misery and must be stamped out if we are
ever going to have a truly civilized, enlightened, rational society. They perceive religion as rejecting science,
oppressing women, gays and other minorities, and seeking to impose as law an
archaic “morality” from a mythological book written thousands of years ago. This perception is, again, very
understandable in light of recent events involving not only Christian
fundamentalists here in the U.S., but also Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists in
other parts of the world. But, what the
atheists don’t seem to understand is that the fundies do <b>not</b> represent all
religious people and in fact, we liberal and/or progressive persons of faith
stand solidly on the side of secular humanism when it comes to public policy!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As discussed in my previous blog post, <a href="http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html" target="_blank">Another Look at Religion</a>, we <b>do</b> believe in science! And
we know the difference between science and mythology. We understand that religion and science are
two totally separate fields of human experience which serve completely different
purposes. We do not follow “biblical
morality,” nor do we want to base our laws or public policies on scripture. We believe in equal rights and social justice
for everyone. Therefore, my atheist
friends, we completely sympathize with you and we do not deserve the accusations which are properly aimed at the
fundies.
If anything, the fundies annoy <b>us</b> more than they do you, because they
make religion look bad and in addition, they have somehow managed to convince
you that they speak for the rest of us, which they do not.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With regard to the assertion that religion is the source of all
ignorance and misery, I would argue that it is not religion per se, but rather, uncritical acceptance and imposition of <b>any</b> dogma, which is
the source of humanity’s woes. An
example from history would be the completely barbaric “communist revolutions”
in places like Cambodia and China which inflicted considerable suffering on
their populations although they had abolished religion. In modern times we need look no further than
our American atheist conservatives like S.E. Cupp who, despite their rejection
of a belief in God, persist in almost religiously pushing the conservative
political agenda as if it were gospel truth.
And while atheist conservatives are relatively rare, they are certainly
nowhere near as scarce as unicorns; according to a recent Pew Forum survey, 19
percent of conservatives are unaffiliated with any particular religion, and 14
percent of atheists identify as conservative.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So it is possible to be an atheist while at the same time
being a dogmatist, and converts to atheism do <b>sometimes</b> (not always! and by no means all or even most atheists!) transfer their former
religious zeal onto a new object of worship, usually science. Perhaps the human psyche needs to believe
in something, and when religion is thrown out, we look for some other focus of devotion to fill that void. It could be argued that science is a more
appropriate object of worship than a mythical Mean Old Man, Santa Claus or Wish-Granting
Genie in the sky. However, as we have discussed
previously, religion is not science, nor is science is religion, and therefore worship
or uncritical acceptance is not an appropriate response. Unlike [fundie] religion which insists on blind
faith in ancient and unchanging dogma, science encourages that we remain
open-minded and educate ourselves as new data arises, rather than clinging to
current scientific theories as if they were eternal truths. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It can be difficult to keep up with the changing data, in
that science has many different specialties and we cannot be experts in every
field. I adore quantum
physics, but because I took “Advanced Physics for Liberal Arts Majors” I don’t
have sufficient education to really understand it in any depth. The best I can do is to read popularized
books on the subject such as <u>Taking the Quantum Leap</u> by Fred Alan Wolf or <u>Wholeness
and the Implicate Order</u> by David Bohm, or articles in <u>Scientific American</u>. I would imagine that if you’re
going to have blind faith in anything, math might be a better object, because as
far as I know, they don’t change the rules and there isn’t much controversy
there, although I could be wrong because I only got through integrals in
calculus and maybe at the higher levels of math there are disputes or changing
theories that I don’t know about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I can tell you, though, is that I see a fair amount of blind faith on the part of atheists in a field with which I am very familiar,
namely medicine. Those of us who love
science are naturally enthusiastic about “evidence-based medicine,” although
more often than not, it isn’t. Rather,
at least here with our for-profit medical system, it’s often marketing-based as
opposed to evidence-based. Unfortunately
the layperson has very little opportunity to become educated enough to be able
to tell the difference. This is in part
due to the information available to the public being limited, on purpose. Most of the articles on breaking new data are
published in association journals such as JAMA and BMJ which require membership
in order to read them, and the information eventually trickles down
through the popular media in a watered-down form and usually for purposes of
marketing. E.g., <u>The Wall Street
Journal</u>, which depends on advertising from the pharmaceutical industry, likes
to publish “research” that conveniently coincides with the impending release of
a new drug by one of its corporate sponsors, and avoids publishing research supporting alternatives/ competitors, or that raises questions about the safety or efficacy of its sponsors’ products.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Medicine makes an attractive new object of religious zeal,
in part because it is already set up that way.
The doctors are the High Priests who hold power over life and death, and
guard their secret knowledge from the laypeople. In addition, medicine offers rituals like
mammography and sacraments such as vaccination whereby people can receive from
the Priests the blessings of life and health, and ward off the evil spirits of
sickness and death. Believing these procedures
and medications to be evidence-based, scientifically-minded people enthusiastically
participate in and proselytize these sacraments and harshly criticize anyone
who does not share their faith. Fancying themselves modern-day Grand Inquisitors, some even make it their personal mission to promote medical dogma as unassailable Truth, condemning anyone who dares question any aspect of it as a heretic. Meanwhile, those of us who actually work in the field know that
medicine is constantly evolving and we retain a healthy skepticism, not because we “oppose science,” but rather because of our
familiarity with medical science and our awareness of new developments and controversies that we learn about in the course of our occupation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently some of my friends jumped on the bandwagon
promoting the pertussis vaccination for everyone, on the mistaken belief that
the outbreaks which have been happening were the result of a decline in
vaccination rates. Even people in their 50s went out and got the
sacramental shot, confident that in fulfilling this religious duty they were protecting
the people around them such as infants or the immunocompromised by helping to increase
“herd immunity.” Unfortunately, their
faith was unfounded, as I learned recently during my ongoing study of the <a href="http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1402.7332.pdf" target="_blank">latest medical literature</a> which has not yet filtered down into the popular media. It turns out, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24216286" target="_blank">vaccination rates</a> were <a href="http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/training/documents/2013/ChasDeBolt.pdf" target="_blank">surprisingly high</a> among the populations infected, and the reason for the
rise in pertussis cases was that the vaccine was found to <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127" target="_blank">wear off more quickly, and be less effective</a>, than was originally hoped.
In addition, and very alarming from a “herd immunity” standpoint, fully
vaccinated persons can be <a href="http://www.pediatricnews.com/specialty-focus/vaccines/article/acellular-pertussis-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission/f48fe16ddc0efa59380cce715eab74ed.html" target="_blank">asymptomatic carriers of pertussis</a> and unknowingly
transmit it to the very people whom they were trying to protect! While the shot will probably protect <b>you</b> for a few years from getting symptomatic disease, it unfortunately will not prevent you from <a href="http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article" target="_blank">carrying the disease</a> if you are exposed, and inadvertently passing it along to others.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I discovered this information, I did share it on Facebook, but I did
not engage in any discussions about it with laypeople. Doing so would have certainly provoked pointless arguments with medical devotees who passionately believe in one of
the central doctrines of mainstream medicine, namely, “Vaccines are safe and
effective in preventing disease.” To
question that dogma at all, even in a <b>specific case</b> such as pertussis (1) is heresy! Indeed, when I shared the new information about the pertussis dilemma, I was immediately accused of being an "anti-vaxer." The fact that simply discussing the well-documented ineffectiveness of one particular vaccine qualifies as "promoting the anti-vax agenda" suggests that medical dogmatism among laypeople is alive and well. A scientific approach entails being open to new information and examining the data, not immediately rejecting it because it contradicts our existing beliefs. Meanwhile, the infidels would argue that the pertussis outbreak proves <b>all</b> vaccines
are bad and ineffective, which of course it does <b>not</b>. There are many different kinds of vaccines and the situation is a lot more complex than most people realize. The discussion is very technical and beyond the scope of this blog, which in any case is not about vaccines, but dogmatism. I am merely using the pertussis problem as one example of how blind faith in our beliefs about medical science can have undesired consequences.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those whose skepticism has caused them to leave religion
behind should be mindful to ensure that they are not simply replacing one dogma
with another, including the dogma that all religious people are ignorant science-deniers. It is very possible to participate in liberal/progressive religion and enjoy the rituals and pageantry while also being scientific and
open-minded. Reasonable people who understand the
difference between science and mythology can work together to create a better
society. My atheist friends, we are right here now, standing with you against fundamentalism.
It is not religion as such that is the source of our ills, but rather,
dogmatism of any variety.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
(1) or the oral polio vaccine (which we now know <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polios-last-act/" target="_blank">can cause polio</a> and therefore is no longer used in the United States), or the flu vaccine (the effectiveness of which is probably 60% at best).<br />
<br />
http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html<br />
http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1402.7332.pdf<br />
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24216286<br />
http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/training/documents/2013/ChasDeBolt.pdf<br />
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127<br />
http://www.pediatricnews.com/specialty-focus/vaccines/article/acellular-pertussis-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission/f48fe16ddc0efa59380cce715eab74ed.html<br />
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00926190160643713538noreply@blogger.com1