Groping The Elephant

Talented Nobodies Live Longer

2012-02-13T04:55:00.003-05:00

It's happened again. A famous talented musical superstar has exited life's party way too soon. Beautiful songbird Whitney Houston died over the weekend at 48.

Was it a relapse into her prior drug problems? Was it a heart weakened by prior party-abuse? A freak accident? Bad genes (her mom, famous but lesser-known songstress Cissy Houston, has sadly survived her and is still going strong at 78)?

How different might things had turned out for Whitney, Michael Jackson, Janis Joplin, Elvis Presley - the list goes on and on and is too long to give here. And I'm not prematurely suggesting the exact cause of Houston's death. I'm just saying that the pressures of being famous contributed to a very destructive lifestyle for all these folks.

Yes, some music stars seem to escape that curse and go on into relative old age with only ravaged minds and bodies. But the life of a music superstar seems never to be trouble-free.

Our culture is obsessed with our musical heroes. They are - to borrow from a popular reality show title - our American Idols.

The struggle to get to the top and then stay there once there is a recipe for personal tragedy.

Whitney Houston's fall from superstardom, which coincided with her relationship with Bobby Brown, was a hard thing for her fans (of which I was one) to watch. The perennial question of why someone who seemingly has it all is not able to hold on to it was asked once again, just as always when one of music's icons self-destructs before our eyes.

Is this quest for fame and fortune worth it in the end? I think not. It is sad as I write this and think back to that first album she put out and which I listened to and enjoyed so much. The hits kept coming. Who would have thought then she would die so young? Her star kept rising. Then it suddenly burned out. And I can't help but wonder "what if?"

Thoughts On This Darwin Day

2012-02-12T06:39:00.003-05:00

I'm not a big lover of days named in honor of individuals, no matter who they are; nevertheless, Darwin Day is a day set aside by some to celebrate the contributions to human understanding of naturalist Charles Darwin and of science in general. In this country of ours, where so many still question the basic idea of human evolution, I think it is a worthy effort.

My first recollection of hearing about the scientist Charles Darwin was a little comic book by the fundamentalist Christian cartoonist Jack Chick. How big a role these little comic books played in my childhood, growing up as I did in a very fundamentalist section of town where they were frequently passed out as an evangelistic tool.

It was probably in my eleventh or twelfth year that Chick's Big Daddy? fell into my hands with it's lampooning of Darwin and evolution. I knew his idea was plain silly because God, I had been taught, was directly responsible for the universe and humans in particular, who were made in God's image. As my parents used to say, "maybe the scientists' forefathers swung by their tails from a limb, but not ours."

Big Daddy is available to read online by going here. This isn't the version I first saw. It has been revised several times since it first appeared and - believe this or not - the original was even more crude! However, it is good for a laugh if you know any science at all.

I, like many fundamentalists, grew up thinking that Charles Darwin was some moral monster who had an ax to grind regarding religion, that he was an enemy of God, and that his theory was just plain nuts and an obvious attempt to avoid the obvious. Sad to say I was an adult before I ever set out to learn the true history of this humble genius. How far was truth from the fundamentalist Christian view of him!

Shortly after Darwin's death his son, Sir Francis Darwin, edited a book of his father's correspondence. The son knew that his father's religious sentiments would be a point of curiosity for many and so dedicated a small section to that subject.

Far from being an enemy of God and religion, Darwin seems not to have invested much thought in the matter after his youth. A thirst for knowledge was his first love and to obtaining it he dedicated his life. He dealt with religion but very little publicly. The following excerpt from a letter gives us a good idea of how Darwin viewed the matter:

What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.

It is a well know fact today that many religionists, even Christians, do not find a problem reconciling human evolution with the Bible. Darwin himself was aware of that and in response to a letter from a German student he instructed a family member to write the following:

Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all. He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God.

Of course fundamentalists such as my family couldn't achieve a reconciliation with evolution because the book of Genesis was to be read literally. Besides that, the Lord Jesus had testified to the truthfulness of the historical Adam, so that was that. All we really knew about Darwin and his ideas were the comic book version.

As for the larger God question itself, in the final decade of his life Darwin responded Dutch student in the following way:

I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest.

It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is.

The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty.

So much for the argument that he was a hater of God and religion.

The truth is that Charles Darwin was a careful thinker, upholder of reason, man of science. I heartily recommend to my readers that if they aren't familiar with him they get and read The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin. You will be inspired.

What To Do About This Thing Called Religion?

2012-02-11T06:54:00.001-05:00

Slowly over time my religious faith began to be replaced with human reason. My former religious impetus is now completely taken over by humanistic philosophy. I guess that makes me something of a religious humanist. I no longer care for the postulates of faith, preferring the saner efforts of logical thinking.

Religious culture has played too big a role in the development of humanity for us to think the day will come when religion will suddenly vanish from the scene. The best hope seems to me to be an effort to make peace with the human religious impetus and attempt always to steer it in beneficial directions.

That is a difficult thing, as the poet John Dryden (1631-1700) explains in verse:

All faiths are, to their own believers, just,
For none believe because they will, but must,
By education most have been misled:
We so believe because we so are bred.
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the boy imposes on the man.

Reprogramming is such a difficult and time-consuming enterprise.

A Vote Obama Is A Vote For The Guillotine

2012-02-10T03:14:00.001-05:00

That is the warning sounded by surging GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. This week while in Plano, Texas rallying his troops, Santorum said:

They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

To view a video of Sanatorum's "inspiring" words click here.

God-given rights. There is a problem with that concept and it is this: If it is God who gives humans rights, then he may also withhold them. You see that for example in the struggle for gay rights. God doesn't approve of homosexuality, it is an abomination to God they tell us, therefore gays don't have rights. God does not extend to them the right to be who they are.

Obama is coming after the Catholics, as I wrote in yesterday's post, because his administration doesn't think Catholic employers have a right to impose their religious convictions onto others. But again, you must remember, their view is in accordance with God's plan for humanity, according to the Pope. And humans don't have the right to think differently.

Yes, I personally have a big problem with the idea of "God-given rights."

I can only sit back and shake my head in amazement at how well this "war against faith" idea will sell.

They came for the Catholics...

2012-02-09T04:52:00.000-05:00

Religious liberty is under attack, they tell us, by our Christian president and his administration - the same president that the right-wingers were accusing just the other day of injecting religion into politics at the annual Prayer Breakfast (or, alternatively, of getting it wrong when quoting the Bible on the matter - take your pick of attack).

Having already made an exception for churches in the current controversy of forcing employers to provide contraceptives in their health coverage, it is now a matter of great debate that the administration doesn't want to extend that exception to church-related employers such as universities and hospitals.

There's your war. And the logic - slippery slope in nature - is that if the Government can force Catholics employers to do something that is against their religious convictions (or rather, their religious institution's official doctrine), it's just a matter of time before the government forces YOU to act in ways that violate YOUR religious conscience.

What often gets lost in this that the majority of Catholics seem to favor contraception coverage. Sure, the men who run that organization and the guy who claims to serve as Jesus' authoritative spokesperson on earth don't favor it, but you know....

I just can't believe that President Obama is threatening our religious liberty this way by forcing Catholics to use artifical birth control! Right?

Can the Apocalypse be far behind?

Poor Folk And Toenail Fungus

2012-02-08T05:03:00.001-05:00

The fraudulent use of social programs intended to help those in need of a helping hand is a concern for those of us committed to the concept of the welfare state, the same as it is for those conservatives who would love to see the welfare state ended or at least seriously curtailed.

Perhaps the chief difference between conservatives and liberals on this point is that the former seem bent on portraying just about everybody in need as either a cheat or just plain unworthy of help. This was highlighted as I read a Media Matters For America article titled Right-Wing Media Aren't Concerned About Helping The Poor, But They Sure Want To Help The Rich.

That article contained the following "tweet" from radio commentator Neal Boortz:

Romney is right about the poor. When the heart of your country -- our economy -- is failing you don't concentrate on toenail fungus.

Lovely.

Are there things we could do to make our social programs more efficient and effective? I think so. Certainly it's a debate worth having? But how can dehumanizing a significant portion of humanity be considered anything other than heartless and cruel?

Israel Is Gonna Attack Iran: Woo Hoo!

2012-02-07T17:32:00.005-05:00

Yeah, I know. That post title is silly as hell. And so is the attitude of many of my area's "finest" minds when they answered a question that was posted on the Facebook page of one of my local television stations.

WRCB Channel 3 asked the question this morning on their early news show:

Do you think Israel is about to go to war with Iran?

I collected several responses from my fellow Bible Belters, up until I had to leave for work. I guess you can consider this something of a supplement to my earlier post about the Second Coming of Jesus. I'm sure they have added to this section, but if you care to do some serious scrolling (because that post is quite old now) you can check it out at this link.

Ah, where to begin with this idiocy?

One lady added this comment in order to let us all know just how important this potential conflict is:

The Bible talks of the end times. if you're not a believer or not accepted Christ its a good time to catch this train, because He's setting up to spilt the eastern skies. Everything has been laid out just as the Bible said. what more evidence do we need?

All aboard! The evidence is in. What??? Is she serious?

How about all the evidence that the writers of the New Testament were dead wrong about a first century consummation?

She's never heard it, I bet.

Another viewer chimed in with an amen to the above sentiment:

If not now, actually they will in the future. Keep your eyes on the Middle East. It's all Biblical.

And another:

Read your Bible and you'll see they will.

How about you folks telling us exactly where that can be found in the Bible, okay?

Still another lady tried to be a bit more specific than the previous two:

The angel, Michael, will have his work cut out for him according to escatology in the books of Daniel and Revelations during the end of time wars. If the US ever decides not to help Isreal ... We will fallout of God grace's and will be doomed!!

I'm sure she probably meant "eschatology" (theology of the end times), but was, I think, much more accurate when she referenced eSCATOLOGY.

Another thing, maybe a bit nit picky. It always annoys me when people refer to the last book of the Bible as Revelations the way she did. It is singular, not plural. You see, it makes me think the person doing the talking really hasn't studied the matter all the seriously or they would know the correct title of that last book.

Further, I just bet you that if I offered that lady a crisp new hundred dollar bill for her service, she couldn't point out such a prophecy in Daniel or Revelation. She would probably refer me to her pastor, who told her it's there.

One lady wanted us to understand:

Israel is God's country. Iran cannot win, no one ever will against Israel. Iran can pray to all the gods they choose, however, they will see who the One True God is when they go after HIS people.

And still another chimed in with a like idea:

Israel is Gods territory. Remember the old commercial? It's not nice to fool with Father God. The word is quite clear on this subject. All eyes will be on them. Hang on to your hats folks were in for a great ride.

Um, yes, I do remember that old margarine commercial. But wasn't it "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature"? Don't know about her but I would prefer a thunderstorm like Mother Nature sent in that commercial to a war like her "Father God" allegedly has up his sleeve.

And what is that business about hanging on to our hats because we're in for a "great ride"? Oh, yeah, now I remember. You guys are all going to be "Raptured" to Heaven so that you can watch all the death and devastation by peeping through the port holes of Glory, right? Great ride, that. Isn't Holy War a great thing?

Meet my neighbors, dear readers.

Perhaps Today?

2012-02-07T04:07:00.004-05:00

Jesus is coming soon, or as the above church sign I see every day on my ride home from work: Christ is coming; Perhaps today!

I've heard that all my life and I am 52 years old.

This is one of those ideas that Christian leaders insist is a part of the message of Christianity. It has been a part of it for more than two thousand years.

Does there come a time when believers might be justified in saying, "yeah, right"?

Anyone who will read the New Testament with an open mind cannot help but be struck by the many sayings that indicated that the writers thought they were living in the "last days" and that the end of the world and coming again of Jesus were near.

That was somewhat plausible in the early centuries of the Christian movement.

As the centuries dragged on it became more common to find "historicist" interpretations for the prophecies that allowed that a long period of time to lie between the first Christians and the consummation. But the "it could come at any time" interpretation has never gone away.

Signs of the times come and signs of the times go, yet Jesus does not come back.

Has the Second Coming been delayed or canceled? Was it ever anything more than a pipe dream?

The writers of the New Testament advised that believers in Jesus should "take no thought for the morrow," not worry about finding a mate or divorcing the one they have, not worry about gaining freedom from their slavery, to be content with having food and raiment - all which make sense if the time is short.

I don't see many Christians following such advice today. In fact, they conduct their lives as if they are in it for the long haul.

This question should be dealt with honestly: If the writers of the New Testament could be so clearly wrong about the soon return of Jesus, must any of the rest of their message be taken seriously?

Doug B: Humanist

2012-02-06T05:54:00.002-05:00

Just there to the right of this post is a little explanation of my blog's purpose. Especially note that I say that my blog is "a place where I reflect back on my youth as a Fundamentalist Christian and the impact that has had on me, and also examine my efforts to construct a worldview to replace that of my youth."

To understand me is to understand that I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and that my evolution from that into what I am today was a long, slow process. I am surrounded by fundamentalist Christians, have them for friends and family, work with them, encounter them daily when I go out into the world around me. I live in the Bible Belt, after all.

There is a verse of Scripture that best sums of the popular worldview around here and among those I'm closest to, and which provides the proper context for my professed humanism. That verse is Proverbs 3:5:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (NIV).

I do that latter thing. I use human reason, my own and that of those along side me, and also the collective human wisdom of those who have gone before me.

The fact is - and I point this out to religious believers - that God (assuming for the sake of argument a personal God exists) does not make himself available for questioning or to clarify his position on things. He is not here in person to direct us. Therefore, we are left with alleged intermediaries. And they all are humans just like myself.

My human reason tells me that they could very well be deluded about their perceived role. Their human reason tells them that other alleged intermediaries might be wrong wherein they differ with them and with each other. What their reason would tell them if they listened is that they can't all be correct, but they all may be wrong.

So absent God being here among us, we are all by default left to our "own understanding."

Whenever someone speaks about what God's will is or what God's position is about this or that matter, they are blowing hot air. There are many religions and many more variations on those themes. But we are left to the workshop of our own minds - if we choose to use it.

I do so choose.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary has a definition for humanism that I like, defining it as

a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.

Well, there I stand.

Granted, this position lacks the certainty and finality of "thus saith the Lord." That is why I chose the old parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant as the title for my blog of personal exploration. I don't pretend to be the final or even best word. But one thing about my approach: it puts us all on an equal footing.

The National God

2012-02-05T08:54:00.002-05:00

Most of us want to do the right thing, but there is no universal concept of what is right. People try to evade that problem by invoking the gods. I've noticed, however, that gods tend to be tribalistic in their thinking. The gods often divide humanity into groups, assign to them land, and then keep their best interests at heart.

The God of the United States - the person in whom we trust, at least according to our currency - is supposedly the god of Judeo/Christiand tradition. Whatever that means. But from way back, even with our Founding Fathers our god chose us through his providence and protects us the same way. Some of those founders spoke of something they called Nature's God.

He is with us when we go to war against foreign countries and their gods, strengthening us and justifying our holy cause - which lately appears to me to be the furthering of our national religious ideals into the territories of the other gods.

Uncle Sam may be our national symbol, but spin him around and you will see rising between his coat tails and running up his back the hand of our national god.

Don't try to understand our national god's will. His spokespeople are too fragmented. They can't agree exactly about what he wants. Sometimes he is identifiable with the gods of the foreigners, only he is more of a believer in democracy.

Our presidents probably have the best grasp of our national god. They pretty much agree that he is something of a humanist - but again with a definite democratic and capitalistic slant. He has through our nation's history tended to be something of a Lord of Hosts, or god of the army.

At one time our nation was so divided about god's will for our nation that we almost self-destructed in a vicious civil war. The president at the time wasn't so sure exactly where god stood on the matter, but was certain our national god wanted us to remain a united people.

At one time our national god was biased against Catholics. That was until a young man named Kennedy convinced us otherwise. Now the talk is he might be anti-Mormon.

The national priests on our Supreme Court canonized the concept of Ceremonial Deism. That is that our national motto as contained on our money has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

So in a sense, I guess, our national religion has little in the way of religious content.

But, boy, does our national god seem important in our nation's general discourse!

President Obama's Religious Outlook

2012-02-04T07:46:00.001-05:00

Not that there is a single thing that President Obama could do that his bitter enemies will not contort into evil and use to call into question our president's character, but as soon as I heard reports of his remarks at the Annual Prayer Breakfast earlier this week, I knew the silly pettiness and hypocrisy from those politicians and Americans on the other end of the spectrum was about to hit like a tsunami.

And it has.

Funny, but as President Obama was opening his speech he said:

At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down. They humble us. They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels. We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him. Avoiding phony religiosity, listening to Him.

Well, it didn't slow us down for long, as one Republican lawmaker (one of those afflicted with the Tea Party mentality) walked out of the Prayer Breakfast because he was "offended by what [he] said was an injection of political rhetoric into an occasion of non-partisan reflection."

I've read through several of the editorials and opinion pieces written to "correct" our president's misappropriation of the Bible's message to our times. My impressions are that these "corrections" are much more grotesque that President Obama's view.

Now what it is funny about all this is that those who now are so grievously offended by the president's references to the teachings of Jesus, the Bible, or religion in general, are the very ones who brought this subject into the fray to begin with. The very ones who have made questioning President Obama's Christian faith a common theme of their loyal opposition are now crying foul the loudest when the man defends his faith.

When you have a problem with something so all-embracing as these Obama remarks:

Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great -- when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey

chalk it up that you have become a partisan hack and have exited the arena of serious thought.

How can words likes the following be considered offensive?

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other. And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

Okay, so maybe those of us don't believe in a personal God might say the God is infallible thing is perhaps off the mark. But even considering as I do that God serves as a symbol of mankind's highest aspirations, it makes sense enough. And the "common ground and common good" make profound sense to me.

Now personally I don't think these Prayer Breakfasts with the President of the United States is a good thing. And that for the simple reason that religion seems to be so divisive these days - because those who aren't so broad-minded in their approach to the subject attempt to hold a corner on "the truth." The whole subject of religion has been polluted by its politicization. At the same time, politics - which is ugly to begin with - has been made even uglier.

But if calls for respect, the search for common ground and good, and calls for the advancement human compassion are examples of political rhetoric, I say we need much more of it.

Okay, Let's Get This God Thing Settled Once And For All

2012-02-03T03:46:00.000-05:00

Here's a letter-to-the-editor that I just had to share with my readers. It's not from around here, but rather from Muncie, Indiana. A lady writes to the The Star Press to confess that

I may not physically be able to prove that there is a God, but I can tell you that God is real. He has answered several of my prayers and I believe with all my heart that God is amazing.

Now fortunately she doesn't end there, but goes on to explain so that even a child can understand:

People tend to give up on religion because things don't go their way. Well, they aren't supposed to go your way. God knows what is best for a person. He only has your best interest at heart. He knows what needs to happen because he has a plan for you. You and I may not know what that plan is but he does.

Got that, dammit? Never complain, never explain. God knows what is best for you. Brain cancer? God figures it will do you good in the end. What, have a teenage daughter that has been abducted, beaten, and raped? God must be trying to teach you or maybe even her a lesson. Loved one murdered? God knows what's best. Don't question any of it.

Remember: Things "aren't supposed to go your way."

But there is more of this enlightenment:

They also lose interest in religion because they don't believe their prayers are being answered. This often also leads to them thinking there is no God. God works in mysterious ways, and he may not answer right away, but he eventually will tell you what to do.

Even if the answer is "just deal with it and don't ask why." Only believe. God has a plan for your life, even if it sucks to high heaven.

In summation:

People also believe there is no God when they keep getting bad news thrown at them. Instead of getting upset and not believing, you should just say, "God, I may not know why you are doing this, but I trust you." Trust God because he only has your best interest at heart.

So thank you, dear lady, for laying that out so clearly for us. I would love to hear what you have to say about the other problems we face.

And An Alabama State Senator Displays Some Idiocy

2012-02-02T05:55:00.001-05:00

Tennessee has no corner on political leaders lacking in common sense. This story is too long for me to quote in its entirety, but I hope everyone will follow this link and read it with your own eyes.

In effect Alabama State Senator Shadrack McGill is arguing that politicians should be paid more in order to help them avoid being susceptible to bribes, but at the same time teachers should be paid less, because - get this!- "It's a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach."

In my opinion that is exactly ass-backwards. Our politicians, when you think about the quality of work actually performed, are some of the most overpaid individuals in our country. At the same, our national penchant for scrimping on investing in education has lowered the quality of teachers willing to peruse that career, and has made it extremely difficult to the truly good teachers who are trying to make a difference.

About Those Drone Attacks

2012-02-02T03:56:00.001-05:00

One of the things our country does that drives me nuts is the way it publicly decries terrorism even as we practice a form of it ourselves. Our leaders demonize our enemies and this because their main evil is in disagreeing with what the United States thinks is right.

For example, this week our president, to the shock of many, openly discussed the so-called drone wars underway in Pakistan. According to this CNN story, in Monday's Youtube/Google forum our president said:

"I think that we have to be judicious in how we use drones," Obama said. "But understand that probably our ability to respect the sovereignty of other countries and to limit our incursions into somebody else's territory is enhanced by the fact that we are able to [execute a] pinpoint strike on al Qaeda operatives in a place where the capacities of that military in that country may not be able to get them."

One of of my chief criticisms of President Obama has been his continuation of many of his predecessor's policies, especially regarding this absurd war against terror (as well as continuation of Bush's tax policies regarding the wealthy).

Now it wasn't President Obama's administration that started this drone war in Pakistan. It apparently began in 2004 with a strike that not only took out Nek Muhammad Wazir, but two children as well. But it certainly has increased dramatically under President Obama, with 53 such attacks in his first year in office - a total exceeding the previous five years combined!

While statistics on death wrought by this drone war are notoriously difficult to assemble, the New America Foundation has made an impressive attempt at this and reports

Our study shows that the 283 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 70 in 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals, of whom around 1,424 to 2,209 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 17 percent. In 2010, it was more like five percent.*

[The asterisk is to note that these figures are current up to 11/16/11.]

What this means is that nonmilitant deaths in this time span were something on the order of between 293 and 471. Just "collateral damage" and typical casualties of war? In an undeclared war, yet? It is difficult for me to understand exactly how these things are going to make us safer from retaliatory attacks.

So while there is a certain logic in our president's justification of the drone attacks, in the broader picture I believe it is seriously flawed.

Every terrorist death is a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Every U.S. intrusion into foreign sovereign nations is a dialing up of the overall struggle. What might help is a clean break with the neocon imperialism policies. It is as morally wrong for the United States to attempt to force upon the other nations of the world our ideal of democracy and way of life as it would be for them to force theirs upon us.

You Think It Isn't A Problem?

2012-02-01T03:49:00.003-05:00

I've written before about the unjustness of churches and religious enterprises, which can generate huge sums of money, being exempted from taxation. And I feel "led" to do it again.

Look, these are hard times. Because so many people are out of work government revenues are way down. Social services are being cut at an alarming rate and to a stunning degree. Local governments are finding shocking ways to make the ends meet, including cutting off street lights, cutting back on police protection, not prosecuting domestic crimes. I've seen articles on all these things and more.

At the same time consider this. Yesterday the Daily Kos reported that in the great state of Kentucky

The Democratic governor, Steve Beshear, approves of the project and supports the huge tax break. Unfortunately at the same time they are cutting 286 million from education and cutting social services. Someone has their priorities out of order.

What project is this?

Only fundamentalist Christian Ken Ham's Creationist theme park. According to that article, Ham's little enterprise gets a 43 million dollar tax break for teaching that the Genesis "account" of creation is true.

This article at the above link well sums up this outrage:

A group that teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old, a group that teaches that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men and were on Noah's Ark.....gets treated with respect and given financial favors while education and social services go begging.

This is a wrong that is going to continue to be ignored because our political leaders are more concerned about staying on the government payroll themselves than leading our nation. Let's face it. In our land of mostly mindless conformists, you aren't going to get elected or reelected to public office by standing up to the vast religious lobby.

This is a practical matter and has no bearing on our great nation's stance on religious freedom.

What's Wrong With 'Em In Tennessee?

2012-01-31T18:24:00.003-05:00

Earlier this week I posted about a Tennessee State legislator who made one of the most idiotic statements I've heard about AIDS - and believe me, I have heard many of them.

Now another Tennessee State senator, Rep. Richard Floyd, has made the news, this time with bravado. A local newspaper reported it this way:

Floyd created a stir when he told the Times Free Press earlier this month that “I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.”

(Frankly, Floyd looks to me as if his mudhole stomping days are behind him.)

Floyd has introduced legislation that, according to the Times Free Press, is aimed at "barring transgender persons from using public restrooms and store dressing rooms if they do not fit the gender listed on their original birth certificate."

I'm a little fuzzy about exactly how the police would determine if someone had broken that law, but sometimes intelligence isn't a part of knee-jerk legislation.

Anyway, so I now see in this morning's Times Free Press a letter-to-the-editor from a lady who writes:

Thank you, state Rep. Richard Floyd, for showing us what a real man looks like. My husband would also protect the women in his life (wife and daughters) from perversion. I would be greatly disappointed if he didn't.

Oh, okay, so that's what a real man is: an aging fellow talking like a badass. And again I'm wondering how anyone is going to know when a transgender person is practicing their "perversion."

Are conservatives just so hung up on sex that it's about all they think about and then think that everyone but them is a pervert?

Need More Money? Test God.

2012-01-31T04:26:00.004-05:00

The above is a sign that sits in front of a smallish Baptist church just down the road from where I live. The church is comparable in size to the little Pentecostal church my family attended when I was a child. In neither case did the devoted tithing of its members seem to cause a blessed wealth explosion for the churches.

We were a poor family. My parents were uneducated factory workers. There were three of us children and with the just the expenses of daily living, it was a hard life. Yet my parents always devotedly paid their tithes, a tenth of their income, to our church.

Many were the sermons I heard growing up based on a text from the book of Malachi the prophet (3:10, God's Word Translation):

"Bring one-tenth of your income into the storehouse so that there may be food in my house. Test me in this way," says the LORD of Armies. "See if I won't open the windows of heaven for you and flood you with blessings."

No doubt that verse of Scripture is what is in the mind of the pastor of the Baptist church and his sign.

As a child I don't recall that flood of blessings. My childhood memories are of being clothed mostly with hand-me-downs and thrift store items, worn until threadbare or outgrown, shoes worn until they were outgrown to the point of causing toenail problems or becoming "fish-mouthed" from wear, and of being hungry a good bit of the time, not so much because there wasn't food on the table, but because there usually wasn't enough for everyone to have seconds. Our food was mostly rationed and childhood obesity was not a problem for me and my brothers.

Malachi's message is still thundered by preachers today. I know people who swear to me that they have more because of their willingness to "sacrificially give" to the Lord, as they term it. And I always ask them why God needs their money. But I am always told it is a faith thing. Just like believing in God in the first place.

It always angers me when I think of the people, many of whom have barely enough to scrape by in life, who are scared and badgered into giving money to their churches.

A Rabbi Argues For Capitalism From The Bible

2012-01-30T05:45:00.002-05:00

Rabbi Aryeh Spero begins his editorial What The Bible Teaches About Capitalism with a curious observation:

Who would have expected that in a Republican primary campaign the single biggest complaint among candidates would be that the front-runner has taken capitalism too far?

Now it seems to me that since the virtually unrestrained capitalism of recent years has nearly destroyed our economy and prodded the peasants to grab their pitchforks and begin to occupy in a cry for redress, the Republicans are long overdue in addressing that problem.

But what is more curious to me than that is seeing a Rabbi defending American-style capitalism by using the Bible. The Rabbi sounds a theme that would be more familiar to readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged than the Hebrew Bible, that of the priority of the individual:

Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good citizenship and happiness.

Really? How about redemption?

And how about this:

At the opening bell, Genesis announces: "Man is created in the image of God"—in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence.

I remember that story. The one where God from the get-go commanded obedience and more or less barks out directives throughout the rest of the Holy Book,too. Here's the kicker: He commanded the first couple to eschew the Tree of Knowledge. It was only after they disobeyed this directive that they became "like the gods" and had their eyes opened. Check it out for yourself.

Then there is this:

The mechanism of capitalism, as manifest through investment and reasoned speculation, helps facilitate our partnership with God by bringing to the surface that which the Almighty embedded in nature for our eventual extraction and activation.

Is Spero serious? Capitalism is the mechanism that facilitates man's "partnership with God?" Boy, Jesus sure missed the boat on that one, didn't he?

He ends his unbelievable screed with this:

God begins the Ten Commandments with "I am the Lord your God" and concludes with "Thou shalt not envy your neighbor, not for his wife, nor his house, nor for any of his holdings." Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

I would be happy to have Spero explain that section of Scripture to the bankers and financiers. It seems to apply more readily to them than the average proletarian.

A Church I Can Heartily Promote

2012-01-29T07:48:00.002-05:00

It's Sunday again and old habits die hard. For the first decade and a half of my life Sunday was a day of spiritual reverence. No, wait - that is what it came to be after I gave up organized religion and church. Sunday in my childhood home meant church, twice during the day. Now as an infidel to the Christian faith, I find there is still the shadow of the sacred on my Sundays. Truly, Sunday will never be the same.

As a Pantheist, Sunday for me is the perfect day for spiritual meditation (although the other six aren't bad, either). I am off from work on Sundays and have more time to think and enjoy the day than during the crush of the work week. Sunday is significant also because it was named for the Sun (literally, sun's day), the true sustainer of life on our planet. The sun is a good nature-worshipping symbol of the sacred and humanity has worshipped Mr. Sun for untold generations.

But it wouldn't be strictly true to say I have no longer have a church. In Greek the word church means those who are called out. In my old Christian theology the church was believed to be made up of people who heard the divine call and left the worldliness of this existence behind to follow God.

I have a better way of looking at it now, I believe, and it is laid out in the following little verse, which must remain anonymous until such time as I can find an author to credit. Anyway, this is the church I can heartily promote. Will it one day be a universal reality?

The hour is coming when men's holy Church
Shall melt away in ever-widening walls,
And be for all mankind; and in its place
A mightier Church shall come, whose covenant word
Shall be the deeds of love. Not Credo then;
Amo* shall be the password through its gates;
Man shall not ask his brother any more
"Believest thou?" but, "Lovest thou?"

(* A Greek word for love)

Tennesse State Senator Explains The Origin Of AIDS

2012-01-28T09:52:00.002-05:00

Sometimes living in the Bible Belt is downright embarrassing, as highlighted by a state senator from my old home state of Tennessee, one Stacy Campfield. Here is his take on how AIDS became an issue for humans:

Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community -- it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.

Proof positive that Yahweh was right along about the dangers of men lying with men as if they were women, right?

Certainly; if you are an idiot, that is.

And bullying gay young people? Why, Campfield says "[t]hat bullying thing is the biggest lark out there."

Sure, sure. Everyone one of those goddamned rebels ought to be badgered into repentance. Is that right, ye Biblethumpers?

Look, I have great sympathy for religion. But absolutely zero patience with religion used as a sword for bigotry. This fellow needs to be recalled. He needs to be taken to task by every sane person down here. But the truth is, he and his idiotic stance is going to be applauded by many of my fellow Bible Belt citizens.

Beliefs Are Funny Things

2012-01-28T09:01:00.000-05:00

I was having lunch with some friends at work on Thursday when one of them said: "Hey, I didn't know Mormons believe...." There followed among them (I chose not to participate, not having a horse in that particular race) a discussion about how odd the Mormon beliefs are in contrast to their own Christian beliefs. The fact that Mormonism is a division of Christianity wasn't addressed.

Time was short and I didn't get involved. But I did think about beliefs. Specifically about beliefs based on secondhand, thirdhand and beyond heresay rather than direct experience or personal investigation for opinion forming.

An evangelical or fundamentalist Christian will believe anything, no matter how far-fetched or outside the bounds of logic, so long as it comes from their Bible.

Their Moses can claim to have met and talked to God on a mountain and even to have received stone tablets upon which God wrote his commandments using his finger. Fine.

But that Joseph Smith could have scryed the Book of Mormon using a seer stone? Preposterous!!!

That is the whole problem with religious beliefs. If you are going to accept divine revelation as a legitimate means of gaining information, how can you decide what is wheat and what is chaff?

In truth, everyone's revealed religion seems a little kooky to someone of another belief system. And as has been pointed out by many, they cannot all right even though they might all be wrong. (Put me down as holding that latter idea.)

For the true believer it is enough to say, "that is wrong for it disagrees with my beliefs!"

Me 'n' Jesus

2012-01-27T08:03:00.000-05:00

I posted a little something about Jesus the other day and got a little more than I had bargained for in the comments section. But the healthy discussion that ensued and spread to two other blogs did get me thinking about my relationship with Jesus over the years.

I was raised a Christian. Jesus was a part of my family's every day life. We talked to Jesus every day. He looked out for us. He had cut a deal with his father, God, to make us a home in Heaven someday. He had done so much for us that he was our best friend.

As a child I remember being so moved by the gospel story of his crucifixion, of his dying in my place, taking the treatment that I - as a dirty, rotten sinner - so richly deserved. How could I do other than love him and consider him my best friend in the whole world, someone closer to me and more dear than even my mother, father, and brothers?

Beside my bed I hung a photograph of an actor portraying Jesus, cross upon his shoulder, making the long, tortured journey to Golgotha to be executed. And in my pocket New Testament was a painting of a hippie-looking Jesus in just a loincloth, bleeding blood red for me from the wounds in his hands, feet, side, and head while dying on the cross. I would study that image often as a child.

My parents' former pastor, a Baptist preacher who ministered to them spiritually before they moved on to Pentecostalism, who remained a close family friend until his death, used to preach about "making love to Jesus." By which he meant going to bed and instead of just paying attention to your spouse, to also whisper some sweet little nothings into Jesus' ear, to spend some time telling him how much you care. His rationale for that was the biblical book of the Song of Solomon, a bit of sacred erotic literature that theologians "spiritualized" into a love story between Jesus and his church.

But then I got older and was mature enough to really give thought to the question of how I could love someone I had never even met or had a one-on-one conversation (as opposed to one-way) with more than my family.

The old and very familiar gospel song What A Friend We Have In Jesus began to trouble me a bit as I thought of it all. There are lots of those songs in the Christian tradition. By the time I was in my teens I heard a song Tom T. Hall had out that had the following chorus:

Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'.
Me and Jesus, got it all worked out.
Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'.
We don't need anybody to tell us what it's all about.

That type of thing was beginning to strike me more and more as smarmy.

At the funeral of a dear friend - one whom I knew close up and knew was far from a saint - the lady's trio sang a song about "look for me at Jesus' feet." No, don't look by the walls of Jasper or upon the streets of gold, or anywhere amongst the "many sights untold" - just look for me at Jesus' feet. Yes, out of the millions and millions of Christians who have died and gone heaven, according to Christian theology, that dear man was going to elbow his way to the "Master's" feet! But those sweet voices, almost as a heavenly choir of harmonic sweetness, did bring tears to the eyes of the mourners.

Please don't think I'm expressing contempt here toward Christians. I'm really expressing my changing feelings about the matter.

Times change and so did I, and taking a more rational and critical look at the Bible, especially the New Testament, led me in a totally new direction.

Yet I still live in the same Bible Belt I grew up in. My family are Christians, at least culturally and many devoutly. Almost every one of my coworkers is at least a nominal Christian. Christianity permeates the local media. Yesterday, for example, they reported the sudden death of well respected local judge and offered their prayers to the man's family. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that that type of thing is a common and unquestioned occurrence in our local media with very little lip service paid to religious diversity.

Even on a national scale the Christian roots run thick and deep. A president or potential president had best be able to discuss a little pop theology if he wants to be taken seriously. The evangelical voting bloc is a sweet prize and much sought after.

So even if personally I could drop Jesus from my items of interest, the culture which I am a part of makes that practically impossible. Anyway, he and I go back a long way.

Don't Mix Religion And Travel!

2012-01-26T06:10:00.001-05:00

This one I find humorous in a way. From the Huffington Post:

After 30 years of giving passengers spiritual words to reflect on while they eat their meals, Alaska Airlines announced Wednesday it will be retiring the prayer cards from meal trays.

Airline spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said the decision was made after hearing from customers who preferred not to mix religion with transportation. The decision reflects respect for the diverse religious beliefs and cultural attitudes of Alaska Airlines' customers and employees, the company said in announcing the change

Don't get me wrong, I agree with respecting diversity and agree with this move. But sometimes this little war gets a little long in the tooth. Maybe it's because I was raised in a religious environment, conservative Christianity to be specific. But this is something I probably would either have laughed off or ignored altogether. Certainly it doesn't concern me as much as the mingling of religion and politics.

It's like the "Happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas" thing. More and more I've cultivated the habit of wishing the former. Many times I get pointedly corrected by Christians. That's fine, I celebrate Christmas, too; just not exactly in the same way Christians do. But why make a big deal about it?

I frequently have people tell me they are praying for me. That doesn't bother me unless they are clearly being condescending. If prayer can't help me it certainly can't hurt me.

I know a surgeon who before operating asks his patients if they mind if he says a little prayer with them. "Sure," I would say. And I would probably silently think "and rub your rabbit's foot, too, if you like." My thinking is: whatever, just get it done.

Does anyone else get tired from all this tiptoeing around a mostly minor issue?

Showbiz Politics

2012-01-25T05:26:00.000-05:00

I didn't get to watch President Obama's State of the Union speech last night. I would have had I not needed to get to bed early to prepare for my work day.

Reading reports on the speech and seeing clips on the morning news, I was gladdened to see our president addressing some of the key points. We do need to do something about the unfairness of our tax system. We do need to do something about the vast loss of American jobs. No, we HAVE TO do something about that,
or face national ruin.

Sometimes I think I'd like to see a scene like I've seen happen in Japan or one of those foreign nations, where the politicians get into an actual brawl while in congress. Not that I'm a fan of violence. I'm not.

But sometimes I get so sick of seeing this same scenario played out time after time. We have, and have had for a while now, a viciously divided political landscape. For years now we have been watching these State of the Union addresses where a president comes out and warmly greets a congressional leader(s) who opposes just about everything that president stands for - and that warmth is always returned on cue; we watch the president's opponent sit passively in the background, looking stonefaced as the president rails. There is the occasional burst of applause over those obligatory fluff sayings, designed to be things just about anyone could agree with. It ends on a friendly note, and then it's back to warfare later. That is politics.

But where is true conviction?

These are some big differences in the major political party approaches - theoretically, at least; differences that are ripping our nation apart and destroying its general health. Maybe a shoving match between President Obama and House Speaker Boehner would make sense. Instead it all strikes me as being similar to the way professional wrestling used to be before the Vince McMahon era. These guys oppose each other publicly, only to fraternize in private. They occasionally get together without violence for the purpose of setting up their next big match. It's just so fake.

Personally, I thought it was awesome when Congressman Wilson interrupted President Obama's '09 SOTU speech by calling him a liar. Yeah, it was rude as hell, to be sure. But it put things in better focus. I would have loved to have seen Speaker Boehner rise to his feet last night and interrupt our president by accusing him of fomenting revolution by suggesting that the rich pay more taxes. To which I would have liked the president to turn around and say something like: "Sit back down, asswipe, before I knock you down."

Okay, maybe that's a bit much. But what if Boehner had muttered something unkind about what the president was saying and then Vice-president Biden suddenly administered to him a Moe Howard-style eye poke?

Anything to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

But no, all is well. Decorum was observed. The war of words began afresh right after the president's speech. The theater continues and most likely nothing of substance will get done in this election year, and probably little in the immediate future beyond that. The show goes on, the players (our so-called representatives) will do quite well financially on our dollar, and we are to be entertained - only I'm not very entertained by it all.

Isn't it all about the show?

Cutting Jesus Some Slack

2012-01-23T05:38:00.001-05:00

Most of my Jesus postings have been retaliatory in nature. By that I mean that my firm belief is that the majority of those who thump their Bibles and wear the name "Christian" rather than being true followers of the original message of Jesus are followers of a certain mindset which they mistakenly call a religion; one that is merely about Jesus rather than based on his original message.

I have merely attempted on my blog to set out what I believe to be the truth; that is, that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of faith. His message has been corrupted and, what's worse, co-opted by the powerful as a means of control. It started with Constantine in ancient Rome and continues to this day in the modern Republican party. Jesus and his message make no sense when it is interpreted the way the controllers do it.

The fruits of my personal study of Jesus leads me to conclude that he never claimed to be God in human flesh as Christian orthodoxy claims. Viewing Jesus as a mere mortal and placing him in his proper place in history makes it possible to cut him some slack in his religious views. We should not find it surprising that Jesus the Jewish rabbi thought of Yahweh as the one true God and the religion of Yahweh as delivered by Moses and the prophets as the one true religion. His understanding of the matter stood in contrast with the many gods of the Roman pagan religious philosophy which stood in opposition to his worldview. And that Roman paganism itself had been corrupted by the leaders of Rome. In its most bastardized form, the emperors actually laid claim to being divine themselves. Religion and politics don't mix well: never have, never will.

When the Jews was a united nation with a national religion, they did have a system of tithing (taxation) and other laws that made care for the poorest people something of a civil as well as a religious duty. As the Jewish nation was conquered and overrun by invading nations they didn't fare so well. Under Rome they had a limited autonomy, but felt oppressed by the Romans. Certainly being taxed for the support of a Pagan State was something they objected to. Only the Jewish religious rulers who metaphorically speaking had gotten into bed with the emperor felt cozy under Roman rule.

Against that milieu came Jesus preaching deliverance and emancipation. The God of Jesus was a God who cared about the poor and oppressed. Jesus preached of a coming overthrow of the ruling Roman Empire and establishment of a Kingdom of God. A kingdom of justice and compassion. Jesus came preaching that

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money (Matt. 6:24, NIV).

Towards that end he renounced both the Roman oppressors and the Jewish religious leaders in league with Rome whom he saw as the chief offenders of the true religion.

As patron saint of the poor and oppressed, Jesus cannot but be applauded for his mission. Also, one cannot help but be struck by how vastly different it is from the message of the modern Republican party who pay such lip service to Jesus. According to Jesus one simply can't serve God and riches at the same time. A choice must be made. So a religious and/or political philosophy that degrades the poor and helpless while holding up a system that worships wealth is no religion at all and ungodly politics.

The person who can read the Bible and come away with the idea that Yahweh and Jesus were more capitalists than socialists have read with a strong bias rather than an open mind.

I am willing to overlook the close-mindedness of Jesus' overall outlook. He wasn't much of a believer in democracy. He was a theocrat. But he was a man of his times. And a poor peasant by circumstances has a limited understanding of the world around him.

He clearly was mistaken in his apocalyptic predictions of an impending "end of the age." Much of his teaching is limited because of that. For example, the idea that one should leave everything, family included, and renounce all earthly possessions and be unconcerned about tomorrow in order to follow him, would only be practical if there were few tomorrows ahead.

However, his warnings about the evil of disregard for the poor and the dehumanizing peril entailed in the worship of riches are as relevant in the modern United States as they were in the days when Rome began its sad decline on its way to collapse.

We Hear, Lord. And We Obey.

2012-01-22T08:12:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich is gaining for himself something of a reputation as the Comeback Kid after winning the South Carolina primary.

The New York Times has an interesting piece this morning about the exit polling for this contest and makes the following interesting point:

The contest was fluid until the bitter end — more than half chose their candidate within the last few days, according to a survey of voters.

What? More than half of the voters didn't know or weren't sure where they stood on the issues and who among the candidates best represented their stand until the last minute?

Well, it's hardly a secret that our mainstream media is controlled by Big Business. News isn't so much news these days as it is entertainment. And I can't help but feel that they use this to their advantage. There no doubt is a profit to be made by extending the uncertainty of who will be the Republican nominee in this long primary season. They literally can't afford to have a coronation. People love a horse race. And the MSM love the ratings that will garner.

It seems to me that media is making their news more than reporting it. I watched how they reported on the Iowa caucuses and actually seemed to be manufacturing a surge for Rick Santorum, with a "get on the bus!" style of reporting. Of course some folks are stubborn enough to stand their ground, but others will be swayed by the pressure of the bandwagon effect.

You would think that in a state filled with religious conservatives an adulterating hypocrite and serial liar would have trouble winning. Romney seemed to have had it all sewn up. Then the former Mrs. Hypocrite, er, I mean, Mrs. Gingrich comes out with an interesting interview charging Newt with being something less than a believer in the sanctity of marriage. He had the balls to come out swinging at that last debate feigning outrage that a reporter would make that an issue. His faux outrage and hardheaded, take no prisoners, debating style was all the coverage you could get. Then there was a steady stream of "this race is up for grabs" reporting that evidently swayed more than half of the weak-minded that Newt's the man.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I still think in the end the MSM will give the American people Obama versus Romney in November - but not before they drag the Republican process out a bit in order to give Romney a chance to pay lip service to the conservatives and "earn" their support.

The truth is, there is not a vast difference between Obama and Romney, and they both would do the bidding for Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.

The mainstream media, I am sure, will make that an interesting contest and those who are weak-minded enough to have their opinion forced onto them will be none the wiser.

The mainstream media's masterstroke is making the people believe they actually have a choice.

I Don't Do Funerals

2012-01-20T08:34:00.004-05:00

In recent weeks the spouses of a couple of casual friends of mine has died. Naturally my sympathies and thoughts are with them. But I have - admittedly with a twinge of guilty conscience - decided to forego the funerals and funeral home visitations.

Over the years I have thought more and more about death. I have thought more and more about a lot of things. And funerals and death itself are matters about which I now find myself well outside the mainstream. (Of course I'm there with a number of matters, I assure you.)

I have left strict instructions to my family and friends that I don't want a funeral service of any kind, period. I don't like them. I don't believe in them. In the truest sense of the term funerals are "against my religion." I'm a pantheist and believe that the universe or multiverse is divine. I am a part of that divinity, was before the unique combination of the elements which make up what is now considered to be me came together in their present fashion, and will be so still after the current configuration has been dissolved.

As Mary Elizabeth Frye so well put it many years ago:

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft star-shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.

My biggest difference with that is that I don't want a grave any more than I want a funeral. My wish is to be cremated and then my ashes are to be given either to a loved one or scattered back into nature.

In recent years I have attended but two funerals. The last was my stepfather's, a few years ago. That was for the purpose of being there and assisting my mother. A few years before that I attended the funeral of my beloved older brother, again to be there for my family. When my father died back in '97, being in charge of all his affairs, and after consulting with his surviving brother and mine, I was allowed to make the decision not to have a funeral for him. (Dad would have approved, believe me, as a hater himself of perfunctory and pretentious ceremonies.)

One of the many, many things about my religious upbringing that really rankles me is the popular idea that death is a punishment for sin and that "everlasting life" is a reward for obedience to God.

That to is a concept diametrically opposed to my mature worldview. I now think of death as a natural occurrence. Every living thing dies and from that death will spring more life. Fully coming to terms with that fact changed the way I looked at the subject and made our modern funeral traditions into something of a burlesque to my way of thinking.

It seems to me on reflection that funerals are all about the survivors, and the deceased merely serves as a backdrop of sorts.

I remember watching former president Reagan's funeral on television. I remember watching his widow sobbingly lay her head on his casket, her children having to assist her as she stood there in near collapse. Of course I was touched. At the same time I felt that was - or maybe should have been - a private moment for her, if she was being sincere. And I've seen such scenes repeated endlessly at funerals. In fact, along with the sad dirges and tear-jerking eulogies, they make up the bulk of the performance.

The writer of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes wisely wrote "the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing." I believe that is an accurate assessment. And to believe that is also to believe that the "pomp and circumstance" of funerals must be merely for the benefit of the attendees, not the deceased.

Consequently, I prefer to do my mourning in private, because that is about me and not the deceased.

Oh, and I wrote about that twinge of guilt. Being a walker of the path less traveled is a lonely journey sometimes. Most of the others won't or can't always understand you. This subject rarely gets the hearing it deserves because most folks don't like to talk about death in anything other than a superficial and distant manner, "someday when I'm dead and gone, blah, blah, blah...." Certainly it is rude as hell to talk about the insufficiency of the modern funeral rituals right after someone you love has died. I feel guilty for not being able to explain at that time my lack of enthusiasm for and desire to participate in the death ritual of people I know.

And when it's not "that time" no one is willing to listen.

Have You Pampered Your A** Today?

2012-01-19T04:16:00.003-05:00

My galpal and I had decided to have dinner together at a local Waffle House, but first she wanted to stop at one of our dollar stores to pick up an item. While there I decided I would pick up some toilet paper and paper towels.

As we were standing in line at the checkout counter my gal looked down at the package of toilet paper and said, "why are you buying that dollar-fifty toilet paper?" I suppose she was asking me why didn't I pay more than twice that for one of the name brands that is "quilted" or "extra soft" or whatnot.

A bit shocked, I replied "why not?" After all, as I told her, "I'm just planning on wiping my a** with it."

She shook her head and gave me that glance I've received so often down through the years when one of my women wondered how I can be so barbaric.

You see, some things in life are practical matters, I think. Toilet paper is one of these. This morning I saw a commercial about toilet paper in which a lady explains that she not only wants to feel clean, but pampered as well. I thought to myself "yeah, you also want to pay over twice what you should for your toilet paper, evidently." However, clean is enough for me.

Now let me stop long enough to say something about hemorrhoids. Not much, because I've never been party to a conversation about that subject that I found enjoyable. Still, I realize that people who are troubled by that problem place great stock in the softness of their bathroom tissue. Pssst: here's a secret: you can make a cushy bunch of toilet paper and dampen it slightly with water and get the same cleaning but gentle effect - and without paying extra!

Now for those who are more interested in matching your toilet paper to your bathroom decor, I can only say, "hey, whatever floats your boat!" I'm more interested in matching my purchases to my budget.

Okay, I don't want all of you to think I'm a harda**. I do pamper mine with the soft pillow I placed here in my desk chair. I spend a lot of time here. Now, admittedly, I could probably work a bit harder for its comfort by watching my weight a little more carefully so it doesn't get squished in too-tight pants. Buy I draw the line at buying expensive toilet paper. That just wouldn't be me, plain and practical to a fault.

Going Dark

2012-01-18T05:44:00.000-05:00

I really don't like to speak out on things I don't feel I completely understand. The proposed anti-piracy legislation in our Congress is one of those matters, although it is now much in the news. Of course I'm against censorship and all for free speech. And, of course, I'm against thievery. But both sides of this issue are accusing the other of misinforming us about it.

A lot of great websites are going dark today or protesting in various ways while informing us that the legislation would threaten the internet as we know it.

From what I've read so far, I have concerns about possible government heavyhandedness if the legislation were put into effect. These things only provide fuel to those who believe government is the problem. Again, having not studied the actual proposals, I don't feel qualified to speak on the matter.

I will say the following, however. I don't like our copyright laws. The very phrase "intellectual property" strikes me as bit humorous. I say that because as much as our thoughts are own in one sense of thinking about it, it is true that each of us has absorbed an enormous amount of information in our lifetimes. It is from all that input that we have formulated our thinking. Even the most radical ideas humans have hatched were suggested to them by other ideas.

You will notice that I have no copyright notice on my blog. Never have had. What I write is for the good of all. If you find something useful here, use it, promote it on your blogs and in your discussions and debates. Yes, the polite and the moral thing to do is credit your source - but I'm not going to get a lawyer and come after you if you don't do that. I have a job and am not trying to make a living through selling my "intellectual property."

People making a living and even becoming fabulously wealthy by being human strikes me as odd. There was a story on my local news a while back about several restaurants we have around here that feature open mike nights. You can eat your meals and enjoy amateur musical performances. And then the music companies swooped down and silenced it. You can't grab your guitar and sing a copyrighted song without first paying a fee. You know, me. I would just grab my guitar and either perform one of my own uncopyrighted songs, or I would dip into my vast repertoire of public domain tunes. I would be flattered if someone wanted to perform one of my works. All I did, after all, was just string together already existing notes and words into something unique. And for that I should be paid?

Likewise, I will probably never write a book. But if I did, I would want it read. I would want to feel I have something useful to say and, therefore, would like to gain a hearing for it. Charging a huge fee for that so I can be paid for my effort just seems hypocritical. That's what I like about blogging. It's free: both for me and for you.

Or take another example. Would medicine again become a truly healing art if those involved quit worrying about getting rich off technology and medicinal formulas? Rich folk worry too much about making a mint off the latest formula patent rather than finding cures for disease.

And what about one of the basic components of humanity, our religious impulse? It is essentially free, or should be. Yet we have those practicing "priestcraft" and using it as a cash cow. Spirituality is free, folks. A religious leader who charges for his or her teaching rather than giving it freely is a charlatan. Underline that in your mind.

I guess I sound naive in all this. "It would never work," you might be thinking. What a radical idea: whatever furthers the cause of humanity belongs to all humans.

I just believe that love of money truly is the root of evil. No one wants to do anything for anyone anymore unless it fattens one's purse. I think that is wrong. I think it is immoral to amass a fortune so vast that several lifetimes couldn't consume it. That only takes from others in need. I don't see a how a rich person can gain great wealth and hold on to it without at some point (several points, really) compromising their sense of decency. I believe the strong have a moral obligation to help those less strong.

So call me a simpleton if you like. But do call me a humanist first and foremost.

The Marginalization Of Jesus

2012-01-17T05:40:00.000-05:00

A letter to the editor of the Chattanooga Times Free Press this morning expresses an interesting idea. If only, some sincerely honest folks like this lady believe, the teachings of Jesus were embraced by everyone, something like the Millennium would descend from Heaven upon this earth.

She writes:

Our king today would be King Jesus and since he has been removed from every facet of our lives, every man or woman, boy or girl, does what is right in their own eyes, and to take it a step further right is wrong.

So many things wrong with that.

The idea that morality could somehow be tied to rulership and authoritarianism should be considered repugnant to any thinking person.

And then there is the matter that among those of us who are inclined to give historical credence to the life of Jesus, the record such as it exists indicates that he believed that God chose one group of people above all the peoples on the earth to be his chosen people and channel of blessings for everyone. That people is the Jewish people. Jesus came as Jewish rabbi and was considered by his followers to be the King of the Jews. Doing right according to the King of the Jews would have been obeying fully the Law of God as delivered by Moses. But I'm sure our letter writer has in mind the gentile Jesus of Christian tradition - a Jesus mostly stripped of his Judaism.

Finally, there is that absurd suggestion that Jesus "has been removed from every facet of our lives." If that is true of anyone it is a commentary on that person's own sense of prioritization and nothing else; for contrary to the popular Christian mantra, Jesus is quite present in our daily affairs. One has but to take a drive through their town and view the many churches in operation and in apparent vigor. Our airwaves are still filled with messages about Jesus. And our free press still provides a forum for people like the writer of the letter in question to talk about Jesus. Certainly our presidential election process hasn't been freed from the pressure of having to reach out specifically to Jesus' followers. So what's the problem?

Frankly I'm one of those folks who don't feel the "Ten Commandments" represents a very good code of morality. It upholds both slavery and the treating of women as chattel, as well as being dead set against religious freedom. And such was the morality of Jesus. (Plus, he apparently picked up some later ideas about post mortem punishment that wasn't originally a feature of Judaism.)

I greatly enjoy discussing matters such as this. The problem is, so many of the alleged followers of Jesus are so shallow in their thinking. In fact, it seems most of them don't think, but just blindly accept what they have been told.

Thoughts On This Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

2012-01-16T05:40:00.001-05:00

I still remember the day MLK, Jr. was shot and killed in Memphis, Tennessee. Those were tense times. Times of upheaval. Times when some mature folks, like my parents for example, were feeling really marginalized by the younger generation, and this tension only gave a greater importance to their conservative, apocalyptic Christian faith.

At that time the South was still struggling to complete the desegregation of the public school system. Jim Crow still had its defenders, and because of this President Lyndon Johnson had alienated many southern voters with his support of Civil Rights legislation.

In the forefront of all this was a Baptist preacher with a name (not his birth name, however) that recalled the great reformer of Christianity, Martin Luther, with his teaching of the Gospel of Grace. But this preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr., preached another gospel, a social gospel that is commonly described as Liberation Theology.
He was widely seen by the conservative southerners as an agitator, communist, and preacher of a false gospel. His message was sorely needed, was wholly good, but, sadly, overshadowed by the prejudices of the day.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s message of peace, love, and hope, of the embracing of human diverseness, is a timeless one. For many southerners it was ignored because he couched it in the culture of his religious outlook - and the Jesus King preached was not the Jesus of that conservative Christian theology.

Because of these things, I was slow to hear and slow to embrace the message of MLK, Jr.

So on the day King was killed, it was a bit beyond me why anyone would want kill a preacher, and also why a preacher would be so polarizing a figure. I can't deny that I was a product of my time and culture and this event was viewed through those filters.

Then one day I read his majestic Letter From A Birmingham Jail. Then - and at a time that I was reassessing a lot of the things I had been taught from childhood - I was able to put this messenger in a more proper context. King presented his message, as I suggested earlier, couched in the culture of his religious outlook, but the man was at the base of things a man of reason and a true humanist.

My personal Christianity eventually fell by the wayside in my quest to learn how to think for myself. Humanism in a framework of religious naturalism became my chosen spiritual outlook. But I, also, just like MLK, find the mythos of my childhood Christianity something that needs to be dealt with. For one, it is a part of who I am - or at least was. And secondly, I live in the Bible Belt, and the overwhelming majority of my friends, family, and acquaintances are Christians, at least nominally speaking. Unless I am able to speak their language and try to operate from within their worldview, much of what I have to say will fall on deaf ears.

Some words King wrote in his book Strength To Love (pages 15 &16) helped me to understand his position, and also serve as something of a model for my own thinking:

Softmindedness often invades religion. This is why religion has sometimes rejected new truth with a dogmatic passion. Through edicts and bulls, inquisitions and excommunications, the church has attempted to prorogue truth and place an impenetrable stone wall in the path of the truth-seeker. The historical-philological criticism of the Bible is considered by the softminded as blasphemous, and reason is often looked upon as the exercise of a corrupt faculty. Softminded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read "Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God."

This has led to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and toughminded scientists, but not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different and their methods are dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion keeps science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.

That seems to be something of an expanded version of Einstein's observation: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I always liked that.

Today the mature Doug B has Martin Luther King, Jr.'s message on his mind throughout the year, and not just on this day that has been set aside to reflect on his legacy. From the time a curfew was imposed on the city in which I lived on that awful day he was shot, and the time I "discovered" his Letter From A Birmingham Jail (over the years I've given away many copies of that letter), to the time I worked for a while with a relative of the man who was his accused assassin, Martin Luther King, Jr. and his message has never been far from my mind.

As King suggested in his immortal I Have A Dream speech, I also long for the day that freedom will ring "from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee." We still have quite a way to go here.

I Haven't Listened To The Radio Since The 80s

2012-01-15T09:04:00.000-05:00

All the kids did it when I was in junior high and then high school. We kept up with the latest rock music on the radio. Even now when I listen to "oldies" music, I'm taken back in my mind to those blissfully ignorant, but blessedly vibrant years of my adolescence.

During this same time period my mom and stepfather drove around town listening to the latest country tunes. Ah, those last years of true country music. Growing up listening to it, I learned to appreciate this, too. Saturday afternoons in our home were always spent with the Stonemans, Porter Wagoner, Ernest Tubb and their television shows, and a little later watching Hee Haw together became a weekly ritual. Then somewhere along the way, especially during the 80s, country music became detestable to me. It became pop music with a country twang. I liked pop music well enough, but didn't care for it sang through the nostrils.

The radio was stolen out of my truck a couple of years ago and I never replaced it. Most of my driving is to and from work, about six minutes one way. Most of my other trips are grouped together, therefore, I usually don't have long drives that would lead me to miss having a radio. Even when I had a radio in my truck it was usually tuned to a talk station. Not hard to do because they are all over the tuner now.

Well, yesterday I was getting my monthly hair cut when my stylist and the stylist nearest her station were discussing the CD that was playing in the shop. They were discussing the artists, all of whom I was in total ignorance about. When my stylist had her own shop, she always played "classic" rock from the 80s. Now this stuff we were listening to was sort of foreign sounding to my ears.

I got to thinking about the fact that I haven't been a serious radio listener since the 1980s. I don't keep up with who's who in popular music. The only real exposure I get to new music is through commercials on television, and even many of those songs are old, but because I quit listening to radio I had simply missed them. The only reason I know who Amy Winehouse was and who Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are is because I've either seen them on the news or read about them in some magazine.

I'm not really going anyplace with this. It's just a shocking observation I made yesterday, coming to grips with how really out of touch I am with the music scene - and I am a musician and guitar enthusiast! The kinds of music I really get into are classical and historical folk, and these sounds must be searched out in the catalogues. As a rule they aren't out there in our faces. I think that's sad.

The thing I like about the two genres I just mentioned is their timelessness. I frequently hear cellphone ringtones that are based on classical pieces like Beethoven's Für Elise or Tárrega's Grand Waltz. And if you've never spent a lazy Sunday morning goofing off with the newspaper, sipping your favorite beverage of choice, and listening to classical music playing softly in the background, you just don't know what you're missing.

Of course that's just me: a guy who left behind his radio some three decades ago and hasn't missed it.

Silly Apocalypticism

2012-01-14T09:21:00.000-05:00

I have an assignment this weekend. A friend of mine who is quite the one to worry about the Apocalypse recently received as a gift a movie about 2012, which according to some interpretations of the Mayan calendar is the world's last year, and she is afraid to watch it. She asked me if I would watch it and then explain it to her so that she might understand.

This isn't something I want to just sit and watch, so I'll probably have it playing in the background as I sit here at my desk and work. Disaster films are sometimes interesting, so I'll see if it catches my interest.

As for my friend, we have had countless discussion about why it seems the best interpretation of biblical prophecy (and she is first and foremost a Bible believer) that the Jewish apocalypticism of Jesus was just so much fizzled alarmism. But she is more interested in what her favorite preachers say than what the Bible actually says about the matter.

Still, I wondered to her why she has any particular interest in what Mayans had to say about the matter.

She doesn't know why, except that she seems to feel there is some type of convergence of prophecies from all sources pointing to our living in the last days.

The wacky weather we have been having is one of her favorite "signs." Somehow she has this notion which I have been able to dislodge from her mind that the Bible uses as an indicator of the approaching end that we will not be able to distinguish between the seasons. I pointed out to her that Jesus (whom she thinks taught this) said nothing of the kind. But no, "just look at this weather," she implores.

As for the Mayans, inasmuch as they didn't do so well predicting their own demise, I suggest we need not fear any predictions of theirs concerning the end of life on earth as we know it. And in fact, Mayan scholars have explained that these doomsday interpretations of the Mayan Calendar are just plain misrepresentations. I believe them.

But I will watch the move for my friend, and will tell her yet again that her fears are misplaced. "Go ahead," I'll assure her, "watch the movie you received as a gift the same way you watch any other science fiction potboiler." It's cheap entertainment.

That's the way I'm going to think about it as I now get ready to pop the movie into my DVD player.

America The Hypocritical

2012-01-13T08:49:00.001-05:00

The barbarians aren't at our gates. They are within. The United States, which loves to crow about being a light to the world and an inspiration to all nations, surely has faltered over the decades.

The latest international black eye - hell, it's more than a black eye, it's an absolute national disgrace - concerns the recently released video of U.S. Marines desecrating and urinating on the corpses of alleged Taliban corpses.

We would love to believe atrocities such as this are very rare occurrences, but when you do a little digging into the conduct of U.S. soldiers in this immoral "War on Terror," it's hard to resist the conclusion that our military is as brutal as any of our enemies.

Our forces have raped and murdered and disregarded the basic human rights of those our leaders have declared to be our enemies, and have done it in the name of God.

Of course to even suggest such a thing brands me as an unpatriotic radical. I don't care. I'm a humanist first and foremost.

But how in God's name - if that is where we want the argument to be grounded - can we justify our being so brutal and evil?

The most religiously vocal voters and representatives here at home, the conservatives, with their imprecatory rhetoric are untroubled by American war crimes abroad and constantly chanting for more war. We aren't fighting a war against terror, we are stoking the fires! And we are richly earning the charge of being Imperialists.

All the God talk in politics really gets on my nerves because it is so obviously pure propaganda. We have a system of government that is controlled by the richest and most selfish individuals, that is geared towards helping the rich get even richer, while holding under the troubled economic waters the heads of the commoners.

But our national motto is "In God We Trust" in this hypocritical land of ours. We are a religious, moral, justice-loving, law-abiding nation - or so we are indoctrinated from our youth to believe. And just don't mind the multitude of examples to the contrary!

When you think about: if we have no regard for our own people, how can we be expected to treat other nations with respect?

I've said it before on my blog but will repeat it now. I consider myself a citizen of the Cosmos. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is performing the bad acts. Evil is evil according to the pain it brings humans anywhere in the world.

We as a nation need to take a good, long look in the mirror.

Desperately Sick People In "The Best Healthcare System In The World"

2012-01-12T05:22:00.002-05:00

I've written before about the devastating effect my older brother's death had on me and my family. What I didn't go into details about was how being a member of the working poor in this land of "capitalistic healthcare" helped bring this about. After that I want to give another example of the same thing, that took place shortly after Christmas and involved the husband of an acquaintance of mine. I'm sure this story could be multiplied hundreds of times.

Approximately one month before my brother's death, he was getting ready for work and didn't feel quite right. Besides feeling weak and nauseous, he had a disturbing pain in his left arm that ached in his elbow then radiated to his armpit. He told his wife he thought he should go to the hospital instead of work that morning. A sensible thing to do.

At the hospital they performed the usual tests for such a complaint. They told my brother he was not having a heart attack but his EKG showed that he had previously had a mild one (news to him), but that he had no observable damage to his heart. They kept him overnight for observation and the next day performed a stress test. They wanted to do a little more testing but my brother, concerned about the mounting medical bills, persuaded his doctor to let him go home. He was boosted by his relative youth (51 years old) and having no heart damage. A false alarm he thought and convinced the rest of us.

Life went on for my brother - for another month. He worked the day he died. He felt ill on his job and had his wife come get him and take him home. The rest of that day he ached in his chest and lay around the house. He steadfastly refused to go to the hospital. Still falsely reassured by his age and lack of heart damage, and thinking his last hospital visit was just a very costly fluke, he unwisely chose to tough it out. That decision cost him his life. After watching a televised boxing match, he climbed into bed around midnight and shortly thereafter went into permanent cardiac arrest.

How might things have been different had we a national health care system that guaranteed medical treatment without regard of ability to pay, rather than the strictly for-profit system we have in the United States that leaves sick people literally gambling with their lives?

But fast forward to this past December. A lady I know had to leave work early one afternoon to take her husband to the hospital. Chest pains. Possible heart attack? The man was 54 years of age. To the Emergency Room for treatment. Routine testing showed up no heart abnormalities. He was treated for a pulled muscle. A few short weeks later, just after Christmas, as a matter of fact, he was getting ready for bed when he collapsed on the floor, dead. His pulled muscle turned out to be, as with my brother, an indicator that something was severely wrong.

It was only a few years ago that I awoke in the middle of the night with chest pains. I lay there in the darkness speculating about whether I should go to the ER. I was in my late forties and have no history of heart problems. It would have been the sensible thing to do. But like the two gentlemen above I hesitated over the possible costs, especially if it turned out to be a false alarm. I was lucky that time. The pain slowly subsided (indigestion?) and I have been hitting more or less on all six cylinders ever since.

I could tell many stories of people heading to the hospital with chest pains only to find they were suffering from minor problems. A costly reassurance, to be sure. Many do nothing the way I did, and have it turn out okay. Then there are a handful like my brother and the man above. Knowing how many bankruptcies are fueled by medical expenses, most of us poor folks with lousy health insurance are being forced into a game of Russian Roulette with our health.

I'll tell you, I'd rather have government get between me and the doctor. Call me a socialist if you like. The insurance companies who are between us now scares the bejesus out of me. I wish government really would "take over" our health care, and guarantee that those who need medical attention can get it without having to worry about destabilizing their entire futures.

Worried about care rationing and long waits with a national system? We have that NOW. Try to visit your doctor if you owe a balance. And how long is the wait to see the doctor when you don't have the money?

This deadly game needs to come to an end.

Why Biblical Ignorance Is Widespread

2012-01-11T04:36:00.000-05:00

I get many opportunities - living here in the Bible Belt - to listen to long harangues about the way everything is supposedly falling into place according the Bible outlook for these "last days."

And always I stop my lecturers long enough to ask them, "Wherever did you get such an idea?"

At most I will be referred to one of the biblical prophets, but treated to no in-depth study of pertinent questions such as who wrote that particular book, what was its historical setting, or even a brief survey of the historical interpretation of the book. There is a simple reason for this. Most Christians don't and never have seriously studied their Bibles. Oh, at most they read them religiously (sorry, I couldn't resist that) - but only according to the spin their pastors and favorite teachers have given them.

Case in point, from the Letters-to-the-Editor section of one of my local newspapers yesterday:

Could we be on the verge of World War III?

Ezekiel, chapters 38-39, tells of a violent war in the Middle East which includes countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and even Russia. This war will be against Israel and will take place in the latter days. No doubt such a battle will embroil the U.N., the U.S.A., and perhaps even China.

The daily news seems to indicate that an attack against Israel is imminent, and some of the countries listed in this Scripture are some of the ones that want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

The devastation will be so great that it will take Israel seven months to bury the dead of her enemies. There is not historical proof that such a war has yet been fought.

My question is, where will the U.S.A. be in this war? Whose side will we be on? The Bible is very clear that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. The fact that we have been friends to Israel for so many years is one of the reasons for America's success over the years.

Wow! That's quite a bold claim, don't you think?

Our letter writer not surprisingly overlooks the passage in the 39th chapter (verses 9 & 10):

Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons for fuel and burn them up—the small and large shields, the bows and arrows, the war clubs and spears. For seven years they will use them for fuel. They will not need to gather wood from the fields or cut it from the forests, because they will use the weapons for fuel. And they will plunder those who plundered them and loot those who looted them, declares the Sovereign LORD (NIV).

Now whether or not there is "historical proof that such a war has yet been fought," it does stretch one's credulity to believe that a modern war will be fought among those nations with the combatants using bows and arrows, clubs, and spears.

But again, these folks aren't students of the Bible, but instead dupes and parrots.

But I Don't Want To Compromise On "Entitlements," Mr. President

2012-01-10T05:05:00.000-05:00

My criticisms of our president have chiefly revolved around his lousy negotiations with the Republicans (starting the bidding with what he says he wants and then bargaining down to something quite less, rather than starting high and bargaining down to what he wants) and his lack of a firm commitment to save and even strengthen our nation's important Safety Net.

In this 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft from December past President Obama even uses one of the Republicans favorite buzzwords for our Safety Net programs, "entitlements." And he says this when pressed by Kroft as to why he was "stared down by John Boehner and Grover Norquist and capitulated":

What is going to really solve the deficit over the long term and not just the short term, it requires we Democrats to agree to make some modifications on entitlements so that they're sustainable and stronger over the long term. And it requires Republicans to get off the dime when it comes to revenues. And to make sure that everybody's doin' their fair share. And if we do that, we can solve this problem.

It would not hurt our president to make a firm commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare as we know them. In fact, I think it would improve his standing. Instead he makes the Republican's case that these programs must be "modified." The president has veto power and were I he, I would rather have a veto against "modifications" to Social Security and Medicare overridden than stand on the same side with opponents of these programs.

Some battles are worth fighting and even losing. Preserving and our nation's Safety Net is one of these.

What Religion Means To Me

2012-01-10T04:58:00.007-05:00

WPerhaps I have a different idea about what religion means. For me it is about finding meaning in this life. A religion, then, is in effect a person's worldview, or overarching understanding of the universe and how life should be lived in it. It is purely a human invention as evidenced by the fact that there are so many competing understandings of the matter. The scientific worldview gives us an amazing but - by its very nature -incomplete understanding of how things work. But if we look to science for morality, I believe we will come up wanting. It is in the human heart and mind that human compassion is born and nurtured. Our animal brothers and sisters have a crude code of group behavior that seems to be the starting point for our higher animal ethics, which slowly have developed over the millennia (and still are developing) . Religious mythology and symbolism provide a handy method of getting the point across, making the subject both interesting to the young and charmingly fascinating for the old.

With that thought, I pass along the following poem which I like:

Make Us A God

"Make Us a god," said man:
Power first the voice obeyed: And soon a monstrous form Its worshippers dismayed;
uncouth and huge, by nations rude adored, With savage rites and sacrifice abhorred.

"Make us a god," said man:
Art next the voice obeyed; lovely, serene and grand, uprose the Athenian maid;
The perfect statue Greece, with wreathed
brows, adores in festal rites and lyric vows.

"Make us a god," said man:
Religion followed Art, and answered, "Look within;
God is in thine own heart — His noblest image there, and holiest shrine,
silent revere, and be thyself divine ".- W. Y. Fox

I Hate It When We Make The National News

2012-01-09T17:31:00.000-05:00

And we were just talking about this the other day in my post about gun violence. In the "sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't" file we can place this hospital shooting. A man was having a disagreement of sorts with his estranged wife. Said wife and her mother was visiting a friend who was in the hospital's ICU unit. The spat got loud and hospital employees asked the man to leave. He did, going out to his car and coming back with a gun, with which he killed both his wife and mother-in-law. Shortly afterwards he drove to the police department and turned himself in. Here's a link to the story as covered by CBS News.

A friend of mine from work knew this fellow and grew up in the same part of town he did. My friend was shocked at this and told me that no way could he have imagined this fellow doing such a thing. In truth, he had no prior record, and to beat it all, he had a gun license and was even employed as a security guard!

Oh, the depths romantic love can plunge you into.

I suppose this fellow doesn't like sleeping in his own bed or sitting in his favorite chair as much I enjoy mine. Can any woman be worth that?

And did I mention that this hospital is the very hospital that I was born in so many years ago? I know it like the back of my hand. Who could imagine such a thing happening in a hospital of all places?

Well, like I wrote last Thursday, this stuff happens all the time down here. We've had a couple other shootings this past weekend. It's crazy. Too many guns and too many hotheads with guns.

Why Are They Not Paying Attention?

2012-01-09T05:01:00.000-05:00

Okay, I broke my own rule yesterday and tuned in to the Republican debate that was hosted by Meet The Press on NBC. The truth is, I usually have that program playing softly in the background on Sunday mornings anyway and this just provided me a chance to watch the clown show without giving up any sleep.

And what a clown show it was!

But perhaps the real clowns were the pundits, analysts, and reporters who seem bent on making the story about whether Mitt Romney can hold on, can finally be embraced by the conservative voters, can fend off the surge of Rick Santorum.

In my opinion the election of 2012 will be about the economy. The candidate who can demonstrate the most workable plan for nurturing a healthy environment for job creation, protecting those Americans who are having hard times, and provide a vision of restoring overall economic health to the country should win this election.

But I'm not encouraged when the coverage of events like the most recent Republican debates spend more time on Romney's front runner status than the specifics of what any of the candidates would do about the economy.

Isn't it newsworthy that they all stand for massive spending cuts to social programs intended to protect the elderly, poor, and disabled? Isn't newsworthy that some of them would eliminate key government departments? What about the fact that at the same time they are calling for cuts in social spending they mostly remain strong in their interest in feeding the military-industrial complex?

This is a scary bunch of politicians who have reinforced the image the GOP has for being the party of the rich. They want tax cuts and slashed spending and think those actions will restore national prosperity. They pose a more serious threat to our country than the most radical terrorists do.

What Keeps God Strong In America?

2012-01-08T09:58:00.000-05:00

Austin Cline at his Agnosticism/Atheism blog has a most interesting post about the way theistic religion has been on the decline in Europe even as it has arguably strengthened in the United States.

His thesis, citing for support the work of Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia, is that "in Europe governments created more secure, stable societies which made reliance on churches less necessary" while in America "government has not created a more secure, stable society."

Then in the following powerful paragraph Cline in my opinion places his finger right on the issue:

Conservative Christians and conservative churches are the biggest opponents of welfare, food stamps, and just about every social service or social safety net which the government might provide. And this is one reason why: when the government provides such services in a comprehensive enough manner to make people more secure and safe, the need for churches is reduced.

The idea of a Welfare State ("A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens," from the Free Online Dictionary) tends to undercut the need to rely on God for the necessities of life.

Before the Welfare State came into its own in our country, poverty was very widespread. Private charities such as churches proved woefully inadequate to deal with this. Herbert Hoover and his "voluntarism" was overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. President Franklin Roosevelt established something better.

It is a fact that most politicians today - conservative or liberal - aren't willing to discuss the fact the solutions to our problems lie with us, not the heavens. The notion we are "one nation under God" is more compelling than the idea that we are largely in charge of our own destiny. I mean that our politicians and national leaders will not separate God and politics as should be done.

"God bless America" prayers are not a substitute for standing up to our own responsibilities. Government is not evil, except to the extent that we the people allow evil people to manipulate it for selfish means. What we should do is roll up our sleeves and commit to our responsibility to provide for ourselves a safe and humane society.

Our modern political debate is way off track.

GOP Snoozefest

2012-01-08T08:11:00.001-05:00

Another day has come and gone and with it yet another in the long series of Republican debates. This one, according to the reports I'm reading (I don't watch these spectacles), was something of a let down. The professional pundits were expecting Romney to face some harsh attacks from his opponents looking to improve their stature. That apparently didn't happen, or at least not to the degree expected.

Is an air of inevitability about Romney's nomination setting in?

Even reading the reports of these debates which I never watch, I'm reminded of some lines from Goethe's Coptic Song:

Fools from their folly 'tis hopeless to stay!

Mules will be mules, by the law of their mulishness;

Then be advised, and leave fools to their foolishness,

What from an ass can you get but a bray?

Why bother to listen to these debates? We've heard these brayings before, empty, hypocritical, nonsensical. The Republicans are an insult to common sense.

Every Politician Wants To Be FDR (Or Should Want To Be)

2012-01-07T09:01:00.000-05:00

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is near the top of "Great Presidents" on the majority of historian's lists. For most of those who actually lived through the Great Depression, he was something of a hero. Even the man most responsible for the current attempts to dismantle Roosevelt's New Deal, Ronald Reagan, praised the man's leadership and claimed him as a political role model.

Our current president, as he was just emerging into the national spotlight, but before any of us seriously thought he would so soon attain that office, paid tribute to Roosevelt's ideology in a National Press Club luncheon talk:

Some thought that our country didn't have a responsibility to do anything about these problems, that people would be better off left to their own devices and the whims of the market. Others believed that American capitalism had failed and that it was time to try something else altogether.

But President Roosevelt believed deeply in the American idea. He understood that the freedom to pursue our own individual dreams is made possible by the promise that, if fate causes us to stumble or fall, our larger American family will be there to lift us up. That if we're willing to share even a small amount of life's risks and rewards with each other, then we'll all have the chance to make the most of our God-given potential.

And because Franklin Roosevelt had the courage to act on this idea, individual Americans were able to get back on their feet and build a shared prosperity that is still the envy of the world.

But perhaps most laughable to me was former president George W. Bush's homage to FDR in his pathetic memoir Decision Points (he really does seem to be hung up on his image as "the decider"), chapter 14, Financial Crisis. After explaining how he and his advisors began to react to the severe economic downturn that started on his watch and which we are still struggling to overcome, he says this:

"If we're looking at another Great Depression," I said, "you can be damn sure I'm going to be Roosevelt, not Hoover."

Well, fortunately we never got to see that played out as he retired shortly thereafter as his second term expired.

However, I'm thinking Hoover is exactly who he would have been, doing some things that would have been considered progressive, but failing to use the full power of the government to address the broad suffering across the land. (Presidents have a tendency to get somewhat pragmatic in the face of disaster.)

Of course the Tea Party nitwits, Tea Party influenced Republicans, Libertarians, along with some disgusting Democrats-in-name-only don't care much for Roosevelt's ideas about government involvement in protecting and guiding the nation through economic disasters.

But the best informed among us realize that FDR brought the presidency into the modern age, setting a standard that was something of an orthodoxy in both major political parties until fairly recently. The government can and should do a lot to help the nation through rough economic times and to protect its most vulnerable citizens.

The United States: Rich In Money, Poor In Compassion

2012-01-06T04:18:00.002-05:00

It is astounding to me the enormous wealth our country has when compared with the way we do things in terms of human compassion. I mean, all the other modern industrial nations have some form of a national healthcare system for their citizens. Yet we, while claiming to have the best healthcare system in the world, see multitudes die every year from preventable and highly treatable diseases and conditions, all because so many poor people have little to no access to medical help.

We have a safety net that is weakening. As poverty continues to grow in our nation, our leaders continue to speak of cuts, cuts, cuts.

And the one thing that could address these problems in a realistic manner - that is, returning our taxation system into a truly progressive one - is not being seriously addressed.

Where's the money?

The Economic Policy Institute reported last year that the top 5% holds an amazing 63.5% of our wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% fight over 12.8% of it.

Would it shock you to know that the United States has over 400 billionaires, compared to our neighbors to the North, Canada, who has but 24? Worldwide our closest competitors seems to be The People's Republic of China, with 115 billionaires.

We also top the list of millionaires as well with 2,886,200.

This is President Ronald Reagan's "Shining City Upon A Hill." He is the one who put into motion the changes that allow our system to funnel so much of our wealth upwards. He was the one who convinced America that government is not the solution to the problem, but instead is itself the problem. He made it acceptable to look down on the poor. His philosophy is now Republican orthodoxy, and it has even made strong inroads into the Democratic Party's thinking. This must change.

There is more than enough money in our nation to finance a decent safety net and establish meaningful national health care. We have but to muster the moral will.

Don't Pull That Trigger!

2012-01-05T05:06:00.002-05:00

I was just reading the sad story of the 15-year-old middle school student who was killed in his school by Brownsville, Texas police officers after he had brandished a gun (which turned out to be a pellet gun) and refused to drop it. Heartbreaking.

It is a sad reflection of our modern brutal society.

Way back in the olden days when I was a school kid, the only weapon I personally ever saw at school (more than once, I admit) was the small type pocket knife, more suitable to serve as a letter opener than a weapon. In fact, I can't recall a single time a knife was used as a weapon in an altercation. It was quite common back then for the boys to carry pocket knives for sharpening pencils and other small tasks. No one thought twice about it.

On Christmas Day the big city nearest to mine made the national news when there was a gang shootout with nine people shot, five of them juveniles. So much for peace on earth!

I'm not a hunter or a gun enthusiast. The nearest I came to a gun was many years ago when a friend of mine was showing me his new pistol in the small kitchen of his basement apartment. We both had been drinking and while he was handling the gun he accidentally discharged it, sending the bullet ricocheting in that enclosed area around our heads and busting his large glass change jar sitting on the counter just inches from where I was standing. My ears rang for hours afterward.

Well, just last week my ladyfriend and I were having lunch at a nice buffet-style restaurant when we noticed an older gentlemen (in his sixties, I'm confident) who had a gun under his jacket, strapped into a holster, sitting with his family at a table eight or ten feet away from where we were sitting. We watched as his hands shook and quivered Parkinson-style as he fed himself. Then we looked at each other and had about the same thought: Who, if someone did enter the establishment with a gun, intent on holding the place up, would we feel the most threatened by?

Guns are everywhere now and I feel threatened by it. I rarely see a local newscast that doesn't feature at least one gun incident. That's sad. Were those loud pops firecrackers or gun shots? Drive-by shootings are now commonplace. When I was a kid growing up westerns were all over the television. Now we have but to look out our windows to see shootings.

And even our institutes of education are not free from gun violence. Our children cannot fill their heads with learning without facing the very real risk of having their heads filled with lead as well.

Too many guns. And way too many irresponsible people using them.

Update: After posting this a short while ago, I found this item in a local paper from the big city that had the Christmas Day shootout:

On Black Friday alone, Tennesseeans bought an estimated 5,414 firearms, up from just over 4,000 in 2010, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

And further:

The TBI reports that for 2011, the number of recorded firearms background checks in Tennessee blew away 2010 figures, shooting up to 347,792 total checks. That's an explosion of almost 50,000 additional background checks, a 16 percent increase from the prior year.

Welcome to the Wild, Wild South, I guess.

The Problem With Mitt Romney

2012-01-04T04:27:00.001-05:00

According to the New York times update that arrived early this morning in my e-mail box, Mitt Romney emerged victorious in the Iowa caucuses by a margin of some eight votes over Rick Santorum.

In my gut I feel that Romney will be the GOP nominee. Towards that end I have been paying increasingly less attention to what the other hopefuls have been saying.

The biggest objection I have to Romney is that he, like most of the GOP hopefuls, has signed that idiotic Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes.

What that demonstrates to me is that he is not the one to lead America back to greatness, which can only be accomplished by addressing the unrealism of our present tax system. Close loopholes and restore true progressiveness to it, and all this talk about national bankruptcy and budget crises will in several years become a memory.

If we really want to see our economy improve, we should bite the bullet and increase the deficit now in order to allow for infrastructure rebuilding. Restoring jobs, and thus health, to our economy will increase tax revenues and pay a huge return on the investment.

But Romney remains stuck in the Reagonomics of the past: cut taxes and slash the budget in order to pay for those tax cuts.

A vote for just about any Republican is a vote for more fiscal irresponsibility.

Worried About The Mayan Calendar?

2012-01-03T19:15:00.000-05:00

Well, no, of course my intelligent readers are too sharp to be dismayed or unnerved by this type of thing, just as they weren't concerned when Harold Camping sounded another end of the world warning last year.

For the record, December 21 is supposed to be the end. Also for the record, there are many reasons to dismiss such silly speculation.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church, and we literally lived in the shadow of the Apocalypse with a steady stream of messages about the Second Coming of Jesus and the prophecies from the book of Revelation. The Mark of the Beast was everywhere - in barcodes and computer chips and various other places - even though the Beast himself was nowhere to be found!

It led to much melancholy in my youth to think that I would never grow into adulthood and have a life of my own. I used to wonder why I was so unlucky as to have been born in "the last days." I hated it and was resentful.

Now I'm looking back over half a century of memories. It has really zipped by now that I think about it. More than ever I'm absolutely astounded by how short a span of time a year is. Also I can say that somewhere along the line I've lost most of my anxiety about the future. What anxiety I do still experience is mostly about becoming increasingly dependent and helpless in old age, as happened to my dad and my grandmother. But I don't sit around worrying about it. What would be the point?

As a lover of history I find that the long march of time helps put things into perspective.

A lot of really bad stuff has happened on this planet and to the people on this planet down through the centuries - with more to come, I'm sure. And nobody knows how and when things will finally end. Perhaps it's best we don't.

So here's to today!

Who Will Protect Social Security?

2012-01-02T10:53:00.001-05:00

One of the most important and beneficial pieces of legislation that came out of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was Social Security. For decades it has stood as a barrier against abject poverty for millions of Americans.

Also for decades it has been a favorite target of politicians who believe that the best way to help the poor is not directly but rather through the enhancement of a wealthy ruling class who might carelessly drop enough crumbs from their tables to feed the less fortunate.

After all these years Social Security and Medicare have become so popular with voters of all political persuasions that it is now impossible to imagine their total dismantlement. All the major politicians instead talk of finding ways to strengthen these programs, even as they admit they must undergo some major changes (usually increased age qualifications and reduced benefits). Radical Republicans still fantasize of privatizing these safety net programs and continuously invent legislative initiatives that would throw open the doors to that eventual goal.

Fortunately, most Democrats are not impressed with the idea of privatization, but cede too much ground to the radicals and are willing to explore major changes to these systems that would weaken their overall impact and over time make the move to privatization more palatable, even reasonable. All under the mantra that these programs are not sustainable in their current form.

The blame for this situation can only be laid, again, at the feet of those who believe that tax breaks should favor the wealthy and feel that rather than shouldering a major part of the responsibility for keeping strong the system that allowed them to prosper, the wealthy should be allowed to endlessly hoard their funneled windfalls.

This post will present an overview how the major political parties are going to address the Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid) issues in the coming year and beyond.

First, I will look at the man I believe - once all the dust has settled - will be the Republican nominee for president this year and major opponent of President Obama, Mitt Romney. I've been wrong about such things before and may be proved wrong yet again, but until then I will ignore the other GOP hopefuls.

Like any shrewd politician Mitt Romney has attempted to articulate a mainstream position on this matter. He tongue lashed fellow contender Gov. Rick Perry at a recent GOP presidential debate in the following manner:

The issue in the book "Fed Up," Governor, is you say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure. You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it. The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security. Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure. It is working for millions of Americans, and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans. And we've got to do that as a party.

So we have the likely Republican presidential contender on record as saying that he is "committed to saving Social Security." Nice. And exactly how does Mr. Romney plan on accomplishing this? ABC news reported back in September told a Florida crowd

There are one of two ways you can make Social Security work forever.

One of course is to raise the retirement age by a year or two...The other is having slower growth in inflating the benefits of higher-income of Social Security recipients. Again, not current recipients but those in their 20′s, 30′s, 40′s and early 50′s.

That's the Romney plan in a nutshell: protect Social Security, but weaken it under the guise of preserving it.

Of course I'm disappointed but not surprised that he said nothing about taxation and seeing that those programs are comfortably funded therewith without major changes.

Now I want to switch over to look at the Democratic Party's approach under the leadership of President Obama.

I was called a liar the other day in the comments section of a friend's blog for pointing out the fact that President Obama has placed the "sacred cows" (his words, not mine) of Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table with the Republicans.

In response I quoted the following comments from President Obama which can be found here at the White House website:

What I emphasized to the broader group of congressional leaders yesterday is now is the time to deal with these issues. If not now, when? I've been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way. I've been hearing from them that this is one of the things that's creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. And so what I've said to them is, let's go. And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.

Now there is a bit more to this story and it is interesting. Later in the summer Social Security was reportedly taken back off the bargaining table by the president, as explained by his spokesperson Amy Brundage:

The president’s recommendation for deficit reduction will not include any changes to Social Security because, as the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits... He believes that both parties need to work together on a parallel track to strengthen Social Security for future generations rather than taking a piecemeal approach as part of a deficit reduction plan...There will be no Social Security in the recommendations....

On the matter of Social Security not being a driver of our deficits, he is certainly correct. That being so, whey then did he ever put Social Security on the table in the first place?

The answer can only be: for the politics.

Another question: Since he once did place Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table, can he now put the genii back in the bottle and keep it off?

The answer to that latter question, I believe, is no, he cannot and will not.

In February of the year just past President Obama created by Executive Order the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. A part of this commission's mission is stated:

In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

In November, the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery reported that

To meet that goal [of slicing nearly 4 trillion dollars from deficits over the next decade] , Bowles and Simpson are proposing to slay a herd of sacred cows, including the tax deduction for mortgage interest claimed by many homeowners, the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance and the practice of letting retirees claim Social Security benefits starting at age 62. The blueprint would raise the early retirement age to 64 and the standard retirement age to 69 for today's toddlers.

So regardless of what has been said, according to President Obama's own bipartisan committee, Social Security, Medicare, and a host of other "entitlements" are on the table. Now the president and the Congress are not bound by this committee's recommendations, but they can hardly ignore them either.

In the midst of all this the battle over extension of the president's payroll tax holiday is about to resume. This payroll tax holiday was an unwise move by the president, as it is extremely difficult, once enacted, to let these types tax cuts expire, as evidenced by the Bush cash cuts. And the dangerous thing to Social Security is that the defunding of the system by that tax cut is being offset with cash from the general fund. But that only serves to keep Social Security front and center in the budget debate and lend credence to the warnings that Social Security is becoming insolvent.

Again, as I said concerning the Romney Social Security plan, what isn't being addressed - and is very unlikely to be addressed in an election year - is making the tax code more progressive. In fact, the recommendation of the president's so-called Supercommittee proposes revising the current six tax brackets down to only three: 8 percent, 14 percent, and 23 percent, and lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 26 percent. That's astounding. That highest tax rate would be much lower than it was during President Clinton's term, the last time we actually managed to balance the budget.

The implication of all this is clear: neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are facing squarely the number one problem facing this nation. Under the leadership of either party the nation's safety net is only going to be cut and adjusted unfavorably.

Both parties are mostly in thrall of austerity economics, and that is a pity. President Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush, squandered a budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthy and immoral imperialism abroad. President Obama has done very little to undo that damage, and what is worse, is actually enabling this financial mismanagement to continue.

The voice of the people is the only hope that Social Security, Medicare and other essential social spending is protected.

Stop Playing Politics With Medicare

2012-01-01T20:19:00.000-05:00

President Johnson in his words over the signing of the new Medicare Bill on July 30, 1965, explained the vision this way:

No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts.

And no longer will this Nation refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to the progress of this progressive country.

But those who aren't so concerned about economic justice have, in the years afterward, mucked around with Medicare and made it a shambles. My mother pays nearly two hundred bucks a month for supplemental insurance in addition to her Medicare and still has trouble getting the care and medicine she requires, often getting caught in that damnable "donut hole."

As this latest analysis of the situation explains

Dial down the partisan rhetoric and surprising similarities emerge from competing policy prescriptions by President Barack Obama and leading Republicans such as Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Limit the overall growth of Medicare spending? It's in both approaches.

Squeeze more money from upper-income retirees and some in the middle-class? Ditto.

Raise the eligibility age? That too, if the deal is right.

Now what chaps me is this: we can always find the money for one more war, but whenever it comes to providing a solid safety net for America's most vulnerable citizens the politics always has to prevent doing the right thing. Democrats allowed themselves to get led astray in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the war drums are already beating for action against Iran - but always seem willing to play ball with the Republicans on these crucial welfare issues.

They shouldn't.

They have allowed themselves to be pulled so far to the political right that they are afraid to come right out and do what needs to be done: raise the taxes on the upper income brackets to something like previous levels, where they were when the welfare state hit its stride. Now I'm not going to duck and dodge from that term welfare state. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines welfare state as the "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens." There are really only two options: a government that provides a solid safety net to its neediest citizens in order to give them at least the basic necessities of life, or a government that, as President Franklin Roosevelt said, looks away. It's either welfare or no care.

I'm squarely for the welfare of the citizenry.

I'm one hundred percent opposed to any weakening or "restructuring" of either Social Security or Medicare. If we would stop giving tax breaks to the millionaires there would be plenty of money for social spending and infrastructure investment.

What's more, I'm really tired of all this talk about a budget crisis, especially when I hear Democrats engage in that type of foolishness. Do the right thing: restore our progressive tax system and then let's see where we stand. Stop allowing our "job creators" to ship American jobs overseas so that tax money can go back into our system rather remaining hidden in off shore tax shelters. More jobs equal more revenue.

And when you hear so-called progressives and liberals talking more about cutting spending than restoring economic fairness, call them out. Moderates are not liberals. Never have been, never will be.

Groping My Way Into A New Year

2012-01-01T07:43:00.003-05:00

My first order of business must be to wish all my readers a happy and prosperous New Year!

Secondly, I wish to say a little something about the state of my blog.

As you regulars have no doubt noticed, I decided to do a little bit of redesign work here. Hopefully, Groping The Elephant is a bit more readable now.

Also, at the suggestion of a couple of my readers, I finally got around to making up a list of "anchor" posts, Get To Know The Elephant Groper, that would give anyone who hasn't been with me for a while a chance to get the flavor of my blog at a glance by following the links provided there. I'm not sure how I really feel about that or if I will keep it up. I just know my About Me And My Blog doesn't provide a very in-depth summation.

Because I feel so lucky and energized to have the fellowship of so many fine cyber friends with blogs, I moved up the position of my Blogs I Like side item. It's still too far down to suite me perfectly, but I felt the introductory material should probably come first. And at the suggestion of my friend Sabio Lantz I put to use Blogger's feature that allows those who have posted most recently to be listed first rather than having the alphabetized listing I did before. (Maybe a small incentive there to get some of you to post more frequently!). If I have overlooked any of my cyber friends with a blog, or if you are planning on starting one, please give me notice in the comments of my latest post. I would be happy to have you on my list, which, in case you haven't noticed, is made up solely of "regular" folks just like me.

Looking at my blog archive I see that I wrote 372 posts for 2011. That greatly outdistanced my output for 2010, which was 316. It is very easy to get burned out on blogging - or at least it is for me. A few weeks ago I had come to the conclusion that I should probably cut back my posting to every two or three days. Then suddenly the thoughts inside me started swirling around and I had a rebirth of devotion to my writing here. Now I think I would like to continue my mostly every day posting habit as long as I'm able, with perhaps an occasional short break here or there.

Groping The Elephant is an ideas blog. It is about the quest to understand life a little better. Religious philosophy is an important issue here because it is important to the human animal, and because I live in a nation that is very God-conscious and in an area of this great land of ours which is very thick with religious devotion. Not only that, but as a recovered fundamentalist Christian, religion has left a deep imprint on my own life. To understand me is to understand a bit about my journey to now.

Then there is the other topic of which debate is assured: politics. For most of us our political views are intertwined with our religious/spritual or philosophical outlook. I have a liberal outlook philosophically speaking, am a freethinker and a humanist in ethics. That colors my political views. From time to time I get burned out on the bullshit that is politics and wonder sometimes why it even matters. Then again I think about the fact that I am a hardworking, taxpaying citizen. I read the newspapers and watch the news on television every day. I have something to say on the matter because it is a part of my everyday life - just as it is yours. Lately I've had more of an urge to express my thoughts on this subject. I don't want to bore anyone, but this being an election year I am sure I will have a lot of opportunities to scrutinize the bullshit of those political types who seek to herd us like cattle and treat us like children.

Then there are the letters to the editor and offbeat news stories, along with the always fascinating smaller aspects of life that provide grist for the windmills of my mind. Those all will still be a part of my blog. Hopefully, that can provide an occasional lighthearted break from the more weighty matters.

My blog is an attempt to encourage people to think outside the box and look beyond the conventional wisdom. I chart my own path here and feel no duty to be faithful to anything other than the principles of my own thinking. I encourage the same in everyone else. To that end, I don't feel dissent and debate are bad things. I don't mind people disagreeing with what I have to say here. The forum is open and as a lover of free speech, I don't edit or delete negative comments so long as they are within the bounds of reasonable good taste. It would be a nice thing if we could remain civil in our disagreements, however.

So with all that said I look forward to going forth into the new year with all of you and sincerely hope to make some new friends in 2012!

"People Love To Be Humbugged"

2011-12-31T10:10:00.002-05:00

That quote - or something similar - is popularly attributed to the great showman Phineas Taylor Barnum. I haven't been able to find a direct quote from the man himself, but I have found the attribution of it to him to be at least a hundred years old. Certainly it represents his flamboyant public persona and sums up his career.

The word humbug, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, means

1 a : something designed to deceive and mislead

b : a willfully false, deceptive, or insincere person

2 : an attitude or spirit of pretense and deception

3 : nonsense, drivel

Barnum made a fortune off the public's insatiable gullibility. So what if his famous Fiji Mermaid was really a fish's body crudely sewed to the upper portion of a monkey, or that his exhibit of George Washington's hundred-plus year old slave mammy actually turned out just to be a very old (but not that old) black woman, or that his museum's sign pointing "This Way To The Egress" was just a fancy, not too well-known alternative name for an exit. It was all in good fun and usually left people smiling.

Ah, politicians, too, are masters of humbug. They say the damnedest things, make the most contradictory and puerile of statements, and stretch the truth hundreds of miles - and the citizens mostly just smile and nod in approval. Especially when they are "in" on the humbug.

There is no lie which cannot be spun into a truth with sufficient audacity and sheer volume of wordsmithing. Right becomes left, down becomes up, and vice can be made into virtue, all sparkling and white.

Barnum was also quoted as saying: "I am a showman by profession...and all the gilding shall make nothing else of me."

Truer words have never been spoken nor ever will spoken by any of our politicians. It certainly applies to politicians in general, I believe.

Why I Am Not A Democrat

2011-12-31T08:19:00.002-05:00

I am a political liberal. I don't care how much that word has been demonized and totally misrepresented by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum, I still think it is a good word, that a liberal mind is a broad and kind mind, that political liberalism represents what is best about our country. So without any blushing or failure to look anyone squarely in the eye when I say it: I am a liberal.

Oh, time was I would make the statement that the Democratic party best represents my position on major political issues. That time, I think, is no longer. In fact, in my file of Things I Wish I had Said there recently was a politician - one who is running for president right now, as I pointed out yesterday - who succinctly laid it on the line to the Democratic party after he had received a fundraising letter asking for a donation and support for helping Democrats to stand strong. And here, in Rocky Anderson's own words, was his reply:

Until the Democratic Party shows some spine and draws a line in the sand — that an end to the tax breaks for the wealthy needs to be part of any debt/budget bill — please take my name off your list...How dare you send an email with the subject line "Standing strong"... You didn’t do it on Iraq, you didn’t do it on torture, you didn’t do it on signing statements, you haven’t done it on Afghanistan, you haven’t done it on defense spending, you haven’t done it on real health care reform, you haven’t done it on energy policy and the climate crisis, you haven’t done it on the evisceration of our system of checks and balances through the invocation of the state secrets doctrine, and you haven’t done it on the debt ceiling fiasco. Those who have stood strong in Congress can be counted on one hand — and they have faced nothing but opposition by Nancy Pelosi and most of the rest of the so-called Democrats.

Hear, hear!

Yes, my friends in Congress and in the White House: show some spine. I am a liberal and will no longer waste any votes on politicians who do not represent my convictions.

Have We No Choice?

2011-12-30T09:02:00.002-05:00

Say you are politically liberal as I am and was impressed by candidate Obama's soaring rhetoric and uplifting promises of change back in 2008; and say you are hugely disappointed by the fact that after election he mostly shut up and quietly took a moderate to conservative approach to the grave problems facing us as a nation; and say that you are irritated that now that reelection time is drawing near President Obama is out stumping and pushing again for the same liberal approach to problems that he promised but did not deliver the first time. What are you going to do?

I have a theory that President Obama and the Democratic party take the liberal vote for granted. After all, as some of my readers have suggested: who else is there to vote for? Better shall we not be for voting for Barack Obama than by voting for anyone in the Republican field who is running?

I do understand that line of thinking. But it is the chain that binds us to the plutocracy that has seized our country and is holding it in its viselike grip. It is the political version of Stockholm Syndrome.

So I would ask in return this question: If we really are concerned about the direction in which we are headed and want to see things change, how will voting for more of the same bring that about? A choice between the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. (And before anyone gets sidetracked here, I'm not calling President Obama evil; I'm suggesting that if we disagree with his approach yet think it is more tolerable than the alternative with which also we disagree, but maybe a bit less, we still in the end have willingly accepted something that we find undesirable.)

The truth is that President Obama is a plutocratic pawn. He promised as a presidential candidate to protect Social Security and Medicare but as president has willingly put those good programs on the table to be eviscerated by those who want to privatize them in the interest of Wall Street profiteers. He has repeatedly failed to address the regressive income tax system that has virtually eliminated the middle class and sent poverty and near poverty through the roof. He brought us a sweeping health care reform that is geared toward protecting the interest of the insurance companies more than recognizing it as basic human necessity. He has mostly continued the war policies (including the war against terror) of the neocons which seems to be the fulfillment of President Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. The economy, it seems, took a back seat through most of President Obama's term as he worried about other matters. Yet he came into office with a clear mandate to change the way things were being done, and along with that mandate and control over both houses of Congress he still delivered to us more of the same.

And now he wants our vote again.

A vote for President Obama is a vote for more of the same. We are implored not to waste our vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning. But is a vote of conscience ever a waste? Is sending a message to the Democratic party that our votes should be considered important rather than something to be taken for granted not a worthwhile thing to do?

If those of us who are sounding the alarm about the Plutocracy that has replaced our democratic republic are right, it will take more than the results of one election to change things. It will take a long and sustained journey to wrest power back away from the privileged few. There are things we can and should do and first among them, I believe, is refusing any longer to be sympathetic to our captors.

Saying Hell NO! is a first step.

There are some folks trying to do some things about the problems we face. One of those folks is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who has is championing the cause of protecting Social Security, and has recently introduced legislation that would strengthen the program. He has sent President Obama a clear "Hands Off" message after the president placed it on the bargaining table. Also, Sanders has formed a Defend Social Security Caucus and a petition which as of this writing has over 115,000 signatures. I urge my readers to follow that link and check out this man's mission.

Frankly, I would write in Bernie Sanders before I would vote for President Obama based on this one issue alone. It is, I believe, that critical.

Another person who is trying to do something about the mess in Washington and has been one of the foremost proponents of campaign funding reform is well-respected Democrat Russ Feingold. He has founded the political action committee Progressives United, which has as its stated mission:

To stand up to the exploding corporate influence in our political system by organizing and amplifying the voices of those who believe that corporations have too much power.

I am impressed with Mr. Feingold and hope he is able to get enough people fired up about this matter so as to get some things done in the way of addressing this important concern.

Finally, although it may be news to many, there are least two out and out political liberals who are also running for president in 2012, albeit without much fanfare. One of these is the Green Party's Jill Stein. Here is a link to her On The Issues page which details where she stands on things. I find her interesting and want to get to know her a little better.

And then there is Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson former Salt Lake City, Utah mayor. A man of unquestioned principle and a proven leader and pathfinder. He has started the Justice Party and is running on their ticket as a presidential candidate in 2012.

This shouldn't be considered as an endorsement (yet, anyway) but here is what a liberal prescription for what ails us looks like, taken directly from his website:

Economic and fiscal policy: Rocky supports increased tax on investment income; immediately ending the Bush tax cuts; cutting defense spending significantly; offering tax incentives to firms who hire US workers and disincentives to those that don't; splitting up too big to fail banks; and he opposes hiring ex-financial executives as advisors to the president on economic policy.

Healthcare: Rocky supports a system of universal healthcare, which would cost far less, be far more efficient, cover everyone, and achieve better outcomes.

Foreign Policy: Rocky has been a leading and unflinching opponent of the wars of the Bush-Obama Presidency.

Civil and Human Rights: As a lawyer, Rocky fought successfully to challenge abuses by government agents. As Mayor, he implemented an innovative restorative justice program. Named by HRC as one of the top ten straight advocates for the GLBT community, Rocky proposed marriage equality beginning in 1996. After completing two terms as Mayor, he founded High Road for Human Rights.

Environment: Rocky was named by Business Week as one of the top 20 activists in the world on climate change. As Mayor of Salt Lake City, he independently implemented the Kyoto Protocols and exceeded them by 48% (he attained 31% vs 21% as in the protocols => +48%). Rocky knows the solution to the climate crisis is not, as Pres. Obama calls it, clean coal. Rocky knows we must stop burning coal and destroying forests. Rocky will make climate protection a major U.S. priority – and provide sorely needed international leadership.

Okay, here is my point: we do have choices. We can vote for more of the same and be assured of getting more of the same, or we can say enough is enough and seek a new direction. I agree with Rocky Anderson when he said we no longer have a two party system ... there is just the one: Democrat-Republican. Whatever happens in 2012 will do little to change the status quo. What is needed is a long range plan for attacking the system that keeps the Plutocrats and their pawns in power. Revolutions take time, but they all begin with a first shot.

Speaking just for myself and with due respect to my fellow liberals and moderates who disagree with me, I don't see how I could in good conscience vote for Barack Obama. It would be a vote against the very things I hold important in facing our problems.

I'm not saying our president couldn't even yet change my mind about this. But it would take real and drastic action and not mere words to accomplish it. Honestly, I don't see how he would be in the position to do that even if in his heart he would desire to do it.

Yes, O Great Soul, We Are Blundering As A Nation

2011-12-29T08:04:00.001-05:00

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - or as he is most widely known, simply Gandhi - said many good and true things during his long life (and that life was shortened by an assassin's gun). Among my favorites of his many insights was the following list of human blunders

Wealth without work.

Pleasure without conscience.

Knowledge without character.

Commerce without morality.

Science without humanity.

Worship without sacrifice.

Politics without principle.

His grandson Arun Gandhi, in a book he edited and wrote the Foreword for, World Without Violence, added another:

Rights without responsibilities.

I really like that one and am glad he added it.

If these blunders don't serve as a concise commentary on out times, I don't know what else would.

Just a while ago I was watching my local early morning news program. On their Facebook page they had a poll asking viewers if they thought 2012 would be a better year than 2011. Not surprisingly many answers were religious in nature and stated the general theme that if we as a people would return to God and place him first in our priorities, then all else would fall into place.

We are a religious people, and the word God rolls off the tongues of most of our politicians. It rolls off the tongues of most of the citizens. I dare say, however, that our national religion is largely one of words rather than deeds. That is worship without sacrifice. And it is empty.

As for Gandhi's other suggested blunders, they serve as a true diagnosis for what ails us as a nation.

What prescriptions are we being offered by our national leaders?

Well, No Damned Wonder: Our Congress Is Made Up Of Rich Folks!

2011-12-28T09:23:00.002-05:00

Okay, let's talk class warfare. Ever wonder how our congress can dwaddle and play brinkmanship while important financial issues, bread and butter issues for millions of Americans, are delayed and then mishandled when they are no longer delayed? The common man and woman gets the shaft time after time, the poor, disabled, and elderly, are the victims of heartless budget slashing and we are told this is for our overall good as a nation.

The people telling us that and acting in so callous a manner are the rich people who purportedly represent us in Washington, DC. And we as people keep sending them back time after time and even send others just like them to continue the fleecing of the commoners in this funneling of our hard-earned money to our wealthy oppressors, who don't work so hard.

A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that 47%, or nearly half of the 535 members of both houses of Congress, are millionaires.

Moreover

Fully 37* Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010, according to the Center's analysis. The same was true of 110 House Republicans and 73 House Democrats.

That's a lot of rich folks.

Now granted there are poorer members of Congress (but the perks are quite good, anyway). I can imagine the great temptation there would be to brighten their futures and join that millionaire's club. And with special interest money that impossible dream can become quite possible. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision how corruption takes hold, how representatives of the people can quickly become representatives of their money sources.

Just bear in mind that on salary alone - which as of now stands at $174,000 per year for members of the House and Senate - they are financially head and shoulders above us struggling commoners. That's not bad at all considering the amount of work they actually perform, which for the most part consists of running for reelection in order to keep their cushy and prestigious jobs. I suppose most readers of my blog would consider themselves filthy rich if they drew a yearly salary like that. I certainly would.

I don't suppose those folks "representing" us can sympathize much with constituents who subsist on potted meat sandwiches and beans, who pass on medical care because it isn't in our budgets, who cut their medicine dosages in half and then into quarters and finally quit it altogether, whose homes are cold because the thermostats must stay low enough to allow us to pay the bill at the end of the month. Those cursed and much lambasted "entitlements" are all that keep some citizens from eating out of the garbage and living (and dying) on the streets.

Those who are out of work in this dismal job market, can only find part-time work or temporary work, or who have full-time jobs but with cut hours and wages, can only smile that mirthless smile as these wealthy government employees look into the television cameras and shout that government can't create jobs.

They don't understand. They don't want to understand. The evils and dangers of "Big Government" refer only to what government does to provide a social safety net to help the rest of us, not to the extravagances they enjoy through the benefit of our tax dollars.

The sad thing is, there is no real hope for change on the horizon. The upcoming 2012 elections offer little hope of much improvement. Without serious and realistic lobbying reforms and set term limits for Congress (just as we have with the presidency), there is little reason to think this government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich can be defeated.

Angry Followers Of Jesus Call For Boycott Of HBO

2011-12-28T07:53:00.000-05:00

Well, of course they would. After all, HBO is noted for its adult oriented programming and for showing movies with all the cursing, violence, and nudity unedited. Right? Surely a devout Christian should find plenty of reasons for boycotting this particular conduit of immorality.

But, nope, that's not it. This boycott is not because of televised vice. No, it is because HBO brings to homes everywhere Bill Maher's show Real Time With Bill Maher. And Bill Maher, just the other day, committed a big no-no in this country by "mocking Jesus." I actually don't think he did. I think he was mocking some of his followers, those who believe Jesus/God has a hand in whatever comes about in this ol' world. But even the perception of criticizing Jesus, especially during the season that celebrates his birth, is something that will raise the tempers of even the most hypocritically inconsistent Christians.

Tim Tebow is a well known athlete and Christian spokesperson. He plays football for the Denver Broncos and never misses a chance to say a few words about his religious beliefs, even crediting God with having had a hand in the Bronco's winning season.

However, on Christmas Eve, Tebow was having what he later called a "tough game," having thrown four interceptions among his mediocrity that night.

Bill Maher, no doubt mindful the opportunity a little controversy could provide for some free publicity for his new season on HBO (which starts in just a few weeks), went to Twitter to post the following message:

"Wow, Jesus just f**ked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere ... Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler "Hey, Buffalo’s killing them."

Anyone who knows even a little about Maher would not be surprised he said that. He says that type of stuff all the time and has been saying it for years, and even right there on HBO.

And really, F-bomb and all, that isn't so much aimed at Jesus as it is those who think Jesus is behind the scenes of everything that takes place in every Christian's life.

Of course Maher doesn't really believe Jesus screwed Tim Tebow on Xmas Eve. But if Jesus/God did indeed have an interest in the Bronco's season as Tebow suggested, it would seem that Jesus took Christmas Eve off to celebrate or something.

Well, I guess Jesus/God had his reasons (perhaps to strengthen Tebow's faith or something)....

Whatever. However, I doubt many Christians will yank HBO out of their homes over this. A little T & A each evening is worth overlooking Maher's supposed slight, I reckon.

Where Do I Go From Here?

2011-12-27T09:10:00.001-05:00

At just about the time I was thinking of slowing down on my post writing, I got really angry about the direction the presidential campaign is taking. Really, it is the same direction the whole country has been headed for a while now. Perhaps watching my mom struggle with Medicare has something to do with it. Politicians have tampered with Medicare, creating donut holes and making it more insurance corporation friendly, assuring also that Big Pharma is looked after by disallowing the program to negotiate for lower drug prices. All this seems to be a ramp up to privatization and an opportunity for fat cats to profit further at the expense of the poor and elderly.

The constant assault against the poor and needy has really gotten on my nerves. This eternal shell game of tax cuts and budget slashing to pay for them has destroyed our country from within even as we have waged war abroad in this War Against Terrorism. Frankly, I feel much more threatened by the former than the latter. When cutting off unemployment benefits to those who are struggling to find a job in a depressed job market is a popular option, it says something I don't like about us as a people.

Thus I did start blogging on political issues again, even though a part of me thinks the entire political enterprise stinks. So long as the corporatists are in charge of our country, we are only playing at democracy.

I have nothing nice to say about conservative politics, which is to say the modern Republican party as a whole. Nor do I feel all that cozy towards the Democrats. At least the Republicans are open about their agenda. The Democrats, because big money interests also have their hands deep in the jackasses pockets, are just as much to blame. What makes them particularly odious in my thinking is that they still talk as if they cared about the common citizen more than the fat cats. They are more hypocritical than their friends across the isle.

My political writings are just an extension of my overall liberal viewpoint. I like the welfare state, big government programs to assist the disabled, the needy, and the elderly. My idea of this huge safety net is in keeping with my religious humanism. The closer politicians come to that ideal, the more friendly I am towards them. The more they shill for the oppressors, the more I feel the need to criticize, regardless of whether there is an (R) a (D) or an (I) after their names.

Oh, yes, speaking of religion, that is another subject I deal with quite often in my musings. Again, my liberal mind freed me from the religious fundamentalism of my youth. Some might wish I would go all out and argue for atheism rather than muddy things up with my frequent confession to being friendly to religion as a concept.

In response I can do no better than quote from the first Humanist Manifesto's seventh affirmation:

Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

I am a confirmed naturalist. There is no hint of supernaturalism in my thinking. So although I don't shun the religion label, I am as opposed to bad religious thinking as I am bad political thinking. In my mind they are two sides of the same coin. Or along with Protogoras I feel that "man is the measure of all things." In my mind both religion and politics should be practical matters, useful for the furtherance of the human race as a whole.

My journey to my current state of mind has been the subject of many posts. I am a bit embarrassed when I spend time on myself that way. I do it because it provides context for my opinions, and not because I think my life and mind are of great importance. I do it also because it provides an opportunity for fellowship with others who traveled down the same road I traveled, or at least one very similar. I enjoy that fellowship greatly, and anything I can offer that helps other along their way gives me a sense of purpose that keeps life interesting for me.

Sometimes I'm arrogant enough (I suppose that must be what it is) to offer my opinion on the current events of the day or some interesting and unusual news story. I can only excuse this habit by stressing my commitment to the free marketplace of ideas. In other words, I like to provide a stimulus for deeper and more critical thinking. It isn't so much a mission of mine to convert people to my exact way of thinking (the furtherance of free thought, however, is a goal of mine because I feel it is the best tool for human progress) as it is just to encourage people to think for themselves, to step outside the box of convention and tradition and look anew at the world and all that is in it in a new, bold light.

If I can cobble together these elements into an interesting weblog, one that others of like mind can enjoy and maybe even find useful, again I will have found an instrument, no matter how soft among the louder instruments, with which to join and play in the orchestra of life. So I want to do my part.

I have no idea what shape this blog will take in the coming months. Reader input is always welcome and helpful. I don't want to be accused of playing only a one-note samba, however I want there to be a consistency of purpose that provides a firm foundation for what I am attempting to erect. And what is that? Maybe just a gymnasium for the mind.

And with that note, the mission continues.

With Christmas Past

2011-12-26T09:29:00.002-05:00

Christmas has once again come and gone, a month-long (in many cases longer) obsession that has made hectic the lives of many of us who observe the day. It was a good hectic. I'm not complaining, really. Just noting that for many of us a sigh of relief is in order. And a little rest, too, perhaps.

The merchants, of course, will continue their barrage of sales, now After-Christmas in nature. Santa has come and gone - but just in case he forgot a few things, these can still be procured for a good price. I hope this helps the economy and keeps the workers (of which I, thankfully, am one) busy.

All that talk about peace on earth and goodwill toward men can be tabled, I guess, again until next Christmas season as the petty bickering that makes up the daily grind of life resumes its normal course.

Hmmmm.

Elvis Presly was noted for his Christmas song Why Can't Every Day Be Like Chirstmas? The chorus of which was as follows:

Oh why can't every day be like Christmas
Why can't that feeling go on endlessly
For if everyday could be just like Christmas
What a wonderful world this would be

Indeed.

And yet I am one of those who grumble and complain when I see folks - and there are a few in my neighborhood - who leave up their Christmas trees and decorations the year round!

We don't want to lessen its impact through the constant exposure of its trappings. Right?

I don't know. Perhaps that hecticness I wrote of is because of how far we stray from the true spirit of Christmas throughout the rest of the year.

If we can come together - or at least strive to - at Christmas, surely we could make that same effort the rest of the year as well.

It's as if the strain of putting over Christmas is too much for us to sustain for long periods. Something like that. And it is a sad thing, I think.

Things will soon be getting "back to normal." I will miss this glorious Christmas season until it arrives again next year.

The True Spirit Of Christmas (According To Doug B)

2011-12-24T08:33:00.003-05:00

I thought I would add a qualifier to my post title. After all, ask a dozen people what the true meaning of Christmas is and you will get roughly twelve different answers (even if some of those are somewhat similar).

Christmas, properly speaking, is undeniably a Christian holiday, which literally means Christ's mass or The Mass of Christ. Now over time Santa has rivaled Jesus, son of Joseph, as a Christmas symbol. That isn't as nefarious as it might seem at first thought. Santa Claus is a gradual corruption of Saint Nicholas (by way of the Dutch, I believe). Nicholas, you probably know, was a Christian bishop of the fourth century fondly remembered for his secret giving of gifts, a not inappropriate emblem of Christian kindness and charity.

If over time the Christianity of Saint Nick (or Santa Claus) got somewhat lost in the shuffle, especially among the less devout, the celebration of the birth of Jesus was never overlooked by the faithful, except perhaps for a while by the Puritans, who overlooked a lot of the pleasures of life.

But Charles Schultz, in his still popular A Charlie Brown Christmas, reemphasized the general Christian feeling about the significance of the birth of Jesus, the Christ, as the character Linus read to his little friends the following words from the Gospel of Luke:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:8-14)

There was a movement among the first century Jews that recognized in Jesus the Messianic hope of their people. They hoped at long last he was the promised savior, or deliverer, who would restore the Jewish people to their former glory and initiate a righteous kingdom that not only would bless the Jewish people, but would be a light unto the Gentiles, who would flow into Jerusalem to learn the true ways of God.

Well, that was the way it was supposed to work out. It didn't, or hasn't yet. The Jewish people still await their Messiah (whom they don't think was Jesus) and the Christian followers of Jesus await his return to earth to set things right.

The key here, I think, is that word hope. Peace on earth and good will toward men has not been widely achieved on the earth, but we all cherish the hope that one day human nature can be reformed to the extent that that becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Now I will reflect just a bit on what history buffs already know. There was a "reason for the season" before the birth of Jesus, called the Christ, around 2,000 years ago. The Romans had their Sol Invictus, or cult of devotion to the sun. It was the Roman Empire that had its foot on the throat of the Jewish people (at least in their estimation). But it was this same Roman Empire that, just a few short centuries after the original Jesus movement, became the chief proponent of the Christian religion. The Catholic Church became a powerful political power in its own right, and the leaders thereof recognized the usefulness of Christianizing the Pagan holy days.

The widespread ancient tradition of solar worship became a rallying point for the Christian Church as they added yet another myth to the mix and made the birth of Jesus (right there at around the time of the winter solstice) the arrival of the true Son (Sun) of God and light to the world.

Whereas the ancient pagans celebrated the end of shorter days and "rebirth" of the sun, the sustainer of life on earth, the Christian religion heralded the arrival of that true light and source of life beyond this mortal realm.

For those of us more earthly-minded, the longer, warmer days are indeed a cause for celebration, and a spring of hope that earth's bounty will flourish and sustain us once again through another year.

Again there is that word hope. And for me that word encapsulates the true essence and spirit of this particular season, regardless of what mythology one cherishes. The old year is fast passing away and ahead of us lies another, full of uncertainties and unknowns. We face it with hope, for without hope we are the most tragic of creatures.

The GOP Needs A New Symbol (Or: Averting A Tea Party Christmas At Almost The Last Minute)

2011-12-24T06:33:00.004-05:00

Everybody knows by now that the House of Representatives finally got aboard the Commonsense Cannonball and agreed to the bipartisan payroll tax cut compromise that was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate.

Since I had blogged about the controversy earlier I felt I should say a word or two about its ending.

John Boehner and his Tea Party Republicans need to seriously consider dumping the elephant as their political symbol (although it does occur to me that that animal is not totally inappropriate inasmuch as it is capable of holding an enormous amount of Sh*t, the same as Republicans are capable of doing) and maybe wresting the jackass away from the Democrats. That stubborn donkey fits them better than the Democrats. The Democrats should not resist that but take up the humble jellyfish as their new symbol, fittingly for their general spinelessness.

Some are speculating the John Boehner has lost control of his caucus. Everyone overreaches sometimes, and Boehner's boner on this matter is another proof of that. (Can someone tell me how you get Bay-ner out of Boeh-ner?) Even the GOP-cozy Wall Street Journal criticized this rebellion against the compromise.

In a show of true statesmanship Boehner finally did the only thing he could do under the circumstances (short, of course, of graciously falling on his sword). Crisis averted momentarily with more theatrics to follow early next year. Not much to look forward to, is it?

God Commands That We Care About The Poor and Downtrodden

2011-12-23T08:04:00.002-05:00

As those who you have read my blog for very long know, I am a religious naturalist and religious humanist. I don't particularly care for the label "atheist." It is both too confining and too controversial for me to be comfortable wearing it. There is a sense in which I am an atheist, but I prefer if we are going to address the God question to be categorized (if that is even necessary) as a non-theist. That is, I do not positively believe in a personal God. I don't feel a need to go out of my way to deny that a personal God exists, but I do feel that it is not the best explanation for the human religious impulse.

Now mention God or religion and some humanists and atheists will get red faced and the veins in their necks and foreheads will pop out at you. About this I can only smile. Maybe it is because I come from a theistic, fundamentalist, very religious background. In a sense I still consider myself a religious or spiritually-minded person. I love science and I love logic. But I also love altruism and think human life is worthless without a heaping helping of it.

Most theists, I suppose, have this image of God as the perfect person. "That than which nothing greater can be conceived," as Anselm put it. This God is who we would be if we were perfect. I know the God of many - and, yes, here I am speaking of the religious fundamentalists of the world - is an image of God and justice that is inferior to anything a true humanist and humanitarian could abide by. But these fundamentalists lack that heaping helping of altruism of which I wrote.

Then, too, many of them are actually better than their religions and admit they don't understand why or how God could do or say some of the things their Scriptures say he did and said, but they must take them on faith, awaiting the day when God will further enlighten them about his ways. Fear of that God is usually a big factor in this line of thinking. And I think my parents fit into that category. They were better and more altruistic than their God by a long shot.

While I don't believe in perfection or a personal God, I do find such a concept handy. And inasmuch as so many, especially here in our own country, already have this type of God belief in place, I see no reason that I can't pull up a chair and join the conversation. When I speak of God I can imagine him or her as a symbol of the highest aspirations of compassionate humanism. And I do.

And if you think about it that way, you see how hollow and inferior the popular conservative worldview being expounded today in our nation really is, even as these folk repeatedly and loudly invoke God in defending their ideology.

For the reasons I explained above, I will stand back and say: God commands that we care about the poor and downtrodden, that those of us who are able should do our part to help those less able. I will pronounce their religion and their God false and harmful. It is they and not those of us who have liberal minds and hearts who are the true heretics.

Blame The Poor

2011-12-22T03:57:00.004-05:00

It is constantly harped upon that most of those who are out of work are out of work because they're too unmotivated to look for work. Or as Herman Cain so blatantly put it before he was forced out of the race for president because he is a cad: "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!

Yeah, blame the mucous, the scum of the earth, the poor and needy.

Right now John Boehener and the Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives are threatening to give the American people a Christmas gift of sorts by roadblocking the bipartisan Senate payroll tax compromise.

If that Christmas present is delivered, not only will millions of working Americans see their paychecks grow a bit smaller starting January first, but it would put some Medicare recipients in a bind, and cut the long term Unemployment benefits of others.

Frankly, I wasn't crazy about that payroll tax cut to begin with. It helps defund Social Security, which I think is part of the overall scheme to scale back that program and possibly set up another push for its privatization. But since that tax cut was unwisely enacted anyway and the working poor have adjusted their budgets accordingly, it will cause yet another pinch just as we are trying to finally round the corner in this terrible economic downturn.

What will happen to those dependent of their unemployment insurance in order to keep eating doesn't seem to be a concern of conservative politicians. After all, it's their fault they don't have a job. Right?

It is open season on the poor people in this great country of ours. The hunt is being blatantly played out in public. It is Christmas in our nation's capital and those who have spent the year protecting Wall Street and those who worship there are giving the economically challenged one last eye poke before the year ends.

"Jesus is the Reason for the Season" most of them would tell us. Yet his teachings about care for the poor are totally ignored. Also ignored are Jesus' provocative statements about wealth and rich folks.

Christmas Bells, Christmas Hope

2011-12-21T04:11:00.003-05:00

Once I outgrew the Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and Frost the Snowman phase of Christmas music, the song using Longfellow's poem I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day (with the Johnny Marks music) quickly became my favorite Christmas song. It remained so for many years.

The last two verses always resonated deeply with me:

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”

That message of hope still sounds across the lands wherever religion holds a prominent place. Yet as Lonfellow noted, hate sounds louder.

Where is God? Is he dead? Is he asleep?

My mother, devout in her Christian faith, feels there is a reason -- even if humans cannot understand it -- why God does not always intervene into the affairs of man. If we were playing Family Feud with a band of theologians, that would probably the number one answer to the problem of human suffering: we just don't know.

Will the wrong eventually fail and the right prevail?

We can only hope.

I think this poem/song meant so much to me because I always looked out at the world around me and ached. The strong always oppresses the weak. I always felt and still do feel so helpless. It's a problem much bigger than I am. A God-sized problem, I thought.

I no longer feel the same way about this poem/song, because now I feel any hope of the triumph of good over evil, any protection of the weak from the strong, any serious attempt at balancing the scales of justice, must rest in the hearts and minds of humans.

Prayers cannot and will not accomplish this. Too many of the oppressors go about claiming to act in the name of God.

The same manner of human hands and minds that fashion bells and pen poems of hope are needed to bring about the changes we need to accomplish. That spirit of Christmas must become the norm for the entire year. And if we can't do that, there really is no hope.

A Metaphor For Our Times

2011-12-20T05:14:00.002-05:00

I saw an edited version of the video on the early national news this morning. I searched out this link on the internet to get more details.

A young thug who boasts of being 6'8" tall thinks beating up a homeless man and videotaping the assaults is funny.

Imagine the person who finds humor in pummeling a poor homeless man and then stealing his bicycle against his anguished pleadings of needing his bike, all the while smiling into the camera and saying “Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah or whatever the (expletive) you are.”

Then, according the story I linked, they sought the man out again for a second assault and

In a second video, the young man is seen attacking the man from behind as the cameraman records the assault and cheers him on to “Go, go, go!” The victim is punched, kicked and knocked to the ground. He slowly gets up and looks directly at the camera.

“Oh, my God, you’re bleeding!” the cameraman says sarcastically. “We didn’t mean to do that. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. Wipe off the blood.

The cameraman then directs the young man to give the victim a hug. The bleeding victim reaches out to hug his attacker, who then rams his knee into the homeless man’s stomach or groin.

The homeless man begins to scream, prompting the attackers to leave, but not before the young man runs up and delivers a flying kick to the victim’s head, knocking him to the ground.

“You gave him the big boot!” the cameraman exults. “The big boot!”

This young ruffian thought this unfortunate homeless man was just "a bum," one of the dregs of society, totally worthless and apparently expendable. I suppose he thought that feeling was widespread enough that others might find it humorous as well.

It made me stick to my stomach. It made me sad. It made me angry. And it made me think.

There is widespread outrage over this incident, as there should be. But here is the metaphor: Our elected representatives in Washington D.C. do this same thing all the time, blatantly, on video (just watch the news), all the while showing the same disdain for our most helpless citizens. They do it and smile into the camera as they do. They do it proclaiming their patriotism and devotion to God. They do it and wish us all a Merry Christmas. They hug us and then kick us in our collective groin.

And whereas the ruffian in the above story is now in the hands of the justice system, our representatives in Washington are free to continue their assaults on the poor. It's perfectly legal and apparently widely acceptable. The political conservatives have done a good job of making the poor and defenseless into villains. They have become, in the words of Dickens' Scrooge, the surplus population.

Thinking on these things is certainly enough to dampen the holiday cheer.

With Georgia On My Mind As I Write

2011-12-19T03:34:00.002-05:00

Meeting like-minded folks through my blog has been a great pleasure. As most of you know, I live in Georgia, in a very conservative region. Yes, there are liberals here, but we are greatly out numbered. Conservative religion is a dominant force here, as is conservative politics. It isn't hard to find to some of the older southerners still pining for the days when Jim Crow was the accepted way of life.

Georgia is solid Republican country. In the past ten presidential elections the state has voted Democratic only three times. Two of those was when Georgia governor Jimmy Carter was running. Georgia voted for him even in 1980 when Reagan ran a strong campaign based on the sagging economy. In 1992 Georgia went with the southern Democrat Bill Clinton. By '96 the sustained conservative attack against Clinton took its toll and the state fell back into the Republican column, where she has remained.

I've no doubt Georgia will vote for a Republican for president in 2012, no matter who they nominate. This was once a solidly Democratic State (back before the realignment), but conservatism is considered as typically southern as grits or cornbread soaked in buttermilk.

Georgia is a beautiful state, visually speaking, with its tall pines, majestic mountains, and it acres and acres of verdant farmland. Her people, for the most part, are warm and friendly - especially if you are a fellow southerner. I came across the Tennessee border to make my home here some sixteen years ago. No big adjustment there. Being a southerner is all I know. And yet I've come to feel increasingly out of sync with my neighbors.

And that, I suppose, is what cyber friends are for. Bless each of you!

Mitt Romney: F**k The Poor People

2011-12-18T19:14:00.002-05:00

Well, that's the way I interpret Mitt Romney's assessment of possible budget solutions while being interviewed by Fox's Chris Wallace. His actual quote was:

Cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don't think will hurt the poor.

Now the question is, will the mainstream media give that callous falsehood the widespread attention it deserves?

And if they don't, won't it make one wonder why such a dramatic statement from a major presidential candidate wouldn't be considered newsworthy?

It certainly has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard a major candidate say this campaign season.

What kind of people are these conservative Republicans?

Mitt Romney is truly unqualified for and unworthy of the job of President of the United States.

Doing My Part

2011-12-18T09:00:00.002-05:00

Let me explain this if I can. I am a former fundamentalist Christian, was reared on the joy of Christmas as a religious holiday, later became a freethinker and Pagan and fell in love with the pagan roots of the Christmas season, and do love the Christmas season still. (I love and solemnize the Winter Solstice as well, but see no need to give up the former in exchange for the latter - they both fit together into my winter spirit of merriment.)

However, the sheer commercialization of it all, I am less fond of.

It is still undeniable that Christmas is a big season for our economy. It serves as a type of barometer of our country's economic outlook. When we are confident, the store shelves empty rapidly and the busy shoppers crowd the shops everywhere. When the mood is bleak, the shoppers move slower, choosing more carefully and frugally, are out in clusters rather than throngs, the receipts are down, the media bands together to rub it into our faces (and collective psyche), and the cloud of gloom thickens over our land.

This weekend I did my humble part to help the cause and remain in the holiday spirit. I bought my allotted portion of supplies for a Christmas party I am going to attend later this week with some of my coworkers. I also bought presents for the small number of friends and loved ones I have on my short list. (Okay, in recent weeks I bought myself some presents, too!) Along the way I did a few acts of random kindness which I don't care to elaborate on except to suggest to my readers that each of you should do the same if you are financially able. If you are not, a simple hug and kind words can go a really long way. The best gifts in life don't come from a store. I truly believe that.

I hope our country does prosper this holiday season and that the economic hard times lessen over the coming months. I hope the cloud of gloom over us begins to dissipate and that the sun breaks through again soon.

Peace and goodwill are certainly great places to start.

The Trouble With Capitalism

2011-12-18T08:25:00.002-05:00

Call me a socialist or communist if you wish, but I believe capitalism needs oversight and to be restrained or perhaps tempered with a sense of decency and common sense. The free market alone cannot solve all a nation's problems and will only eventually lead to serfdom for the majority without oversight.

It was President Herbert C. Hoover of all people, himself a business man of no slight repute, who well noted that

You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy.

Yep, the animal inclination towards utter selfishness proves our undoing time after time in life.

And please don't think that because I like this quote I am with Archie Bunker in thinking that "mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."

I do, however think that Hoover gets unfairly piled upon by historians and those, like my parents, who actually lived through the Great Depression. To be sure, his ideology and temperament left him at the mercy of the forces he was up against at the time. His voluntarism, although seemingly still popular today among his political heirs, proved completely incapable of solving the crisis.

When I was in my late teens I took the trouble of going to the public library and checking out his massive memoirs. I wanted to see how one human, a president of this great nation, no less, could be as cold and heartless as my parents portrayed him.

After wading through his huge defense of his presidency, I was convinced the man didn't have a heart of stone. Like most of us he was probably too stubborn and self-assured for his own good, but he showed a real intelligence about the matter of the depression.

I think Hoover did eventually take some radical steps for a conservative such as he was. And had he won reelection, I bet he would taken more. The truth is probably closer to the fact that the United States had changed dramatically during the decades of the industrial revolution. The do-nothing administrations of Harding and Coolidge sought to put the progressive genii back into his bottle. Hoover recognized that wasn't an option. He wasn't ready and probably not idealistically able to move as far in the direction as his successor did. So he went down in defeat and into history as the president who could not cope with the Great Depression.

But back to my original point, it was the blatant avarice of the capitalists who did the most to undo the economic soundness of our country both back then and in our day. And that because they are just too damned greedy and shortsighted. And because conservatives bow to them and refuse to place safeguards into the game.

Square Dealing

2011-12-17T08:36:00.006-05:00

Okay, here's my beef. The only power capable of reigning in the abuses of the masters of greed who currently rule this country - those who routinely buy elections and politicians like just another commodity, who use their vast fortunes to monopolize the mainstream media in order to slant the news towards their interests, who use riches to sway unscrupulous researchers and scientists into misdirecting evidence that would expose the callous disregard most capitalists have for the general welfare of humankind in preference to accumulating even more filthy lucre, and who use the power of their wealth to commit a thousand other atrocities - I say, the only power capable of offsetting the oppressors of the common citizen is the government.

And the government, make no mistake about it, is the power of "we the people." There has been a decades long attempt to brainwash people about that. Government is bad, government is the problem, government cannot be trusted, yada, yada, yada, they tell us. The same folks who strain hard to make us believe that corporations are people work just as hard trying to convince us that people are not government.

Looking back more than a century to the early days of what became known as the Progressive Era, we find an articulate and outspoken man who understood the above. This man became president of the United States accidentally, upon the murder of the sitting president. But when he ran for reelection in his own right was overwhelmingly reelected. So popular was the man and his concept of a Square Deal for Americans that he was later able to wage a third party candidacy for president and outpolled the incumbent. That man was Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, of New York. Yes, a Republican, back in the day when Republicanism meant something different from what it does today.

At a Banquet speech in Dallas, Texas in 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt defined his Square Deal concept in the following way:

When I say I believe in a square deal I do not mean, and nobody who speaks the truth can mean, that he believes it possible to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall not be any crookedness in the dealing. In other words, it is not in the power of any human being to devise legislation or administration by which each man shall achieve success and have happiness; it not only is not in the power of any man to do that, but if any man says that he can do it, distrust him as a quack...All any of us can pretend to do is to come as near as our imperfect abilities will allow to securing through governmental agencies an equal opportunity for each man to show the stuff that is in him; and that must be done with no more intention of discrimination against the rich man than the poor man, or against the poor man than the rich man; with the intention of safeguarding each man, rich or poor, poor or rich, in his rights, and giving him as nearly as may be a fair chance to do what his powers permit him to do; always provided he does not wrong his neighbor.

Then he went on to add the following, and how I wish the heavens would open and a voice from on high would echo his words:

This is not in the least a partisan question. It is one of those questions that affect all our citizens, a question that goes to the root of our citizenship; and when it comes to a question like that you citizens of this country have the right to expect your representatives in public life to join hands and work for the common good and without regard to any mere party differences.

Got that? It isn't a partisan question.

What we instead find in our day, as any close following of the doings of Congress will reveal, is a catering to the interests of big business and big money interests by the majority of our representatives of both major political parties. Follow the money trail and you will find the masters whose interests these servants protect. The only service these "representatives" render the 99% is in serving us the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich. And for that we are expected to be thankful.

What is sorely needed in our day is a recommitment to a Square Deal for the American people.

Who Speaks For The Poor? (Updated)

2011-12-16T05:03:00.003-05:00

The Boston Globe has a good little article on the Census Bureau's recent data showing that in this great nation of ours 1 in 2 people are now considered poor or low income. That's a lot of pain and disillusionment, my friends.

[Since writing the above early this morning, I was made aware by my cyber friend Paul Sunstone, of the excellent Café of the Cosmic Dance blog, that this 1 in 2 poverty/low income figure is suspect. In the comments section he included a link to the Slate article explaining this. It is possibly 32%, or roughly 1 in 3 Americans. Nevertheless, as I said above when referencing the Boston Globe headline, that's a lot of pain and disillusionment.]

The Boston Globe article also points out the following point with I think is especially salient here:

“Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich’ to qualify,’’ said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

I would have added unemployment insurance as well.

Of course cutting essential safety net programs is what the modern Republican party is all about.

Right now there is a fight on Capitol Hill over cutting unemployment benefits. Among the items that are targeted for budget slashing are Social Security and Medicare - again programs designed to literally keep people from dying from want.

The Republican Leaders are on television quite regularly telling us, in effect, "Hell no, we won't place any higher tax burden on the millionaires." Our nation's upper class has become our political untouchables. Our representatives are more than willing to stick it to the poorest Americans - a group which is increasing by leaps and bounds - but unwilling to inconvenience, even a little, those who control most of the nations wealth.

Even our president, who talks big about taxing millionaires, can always be counted on (along with his fellow Democrats in Congress) at the end of the day to capitulate to the Republicans and our nation's favorite special interest group: the wealthy.

It's as if our representatives have all dropped their pants, bent over, and given us citizens the old stink face.

The Pew Research Center has done some polling that was commented on by the Washington Post's Greg Sargent and an article about it can be read about at Think Progress, from which I take the following:

Roughly three-quarters of the public (77%) say that they think there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations in the United States. In a 1941 Gallup poll, six-in-ten (60%) Americans expressed this view. About nine-in-ten (91%) Democrats and eight-in-ten (80%) of independents assert that power is too concentrated among the rich and large corporations, but this view is shared by a much narrower majority (53%) of Republicans.

Reflecting a parallel sentiment, 61% of Americans now say the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy and just 36% say the system is generally fair to most Americans. About three-quarters (76%) of Democrats and 61% of independents say the economic system is tilted in favor of the wealthy; a majority (58%) of Republicans say that the system is generally fair to most Americans.

Now that's encouraging. Three out of four of us are tired of coddling the wealthy. More than half of us are willing to admit the obvious, our economic system is stacked in favor of the wealthy.

With numbers like these, why are President Obama and the Democrats not waging all out war on the austerity economics of the Republicans? The answer can only be because they, too, are indebted to the money interests which get them and keep them in office.

Rhetoric aside (which is mostly hot air anyway) what distinguishes The Democrats from the Republicans?

When the Republicans are finished slugging it out and one presidential contender is sent forth to battle President Obama, again ignoring the rhetoric, where will the difference lie?

The sad truth is there is no substantial liberal voice in D.C. looking out for the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. There is no political left anymore, only a right and far-right.

I submit that President Obama could switch his party affiliation to Republican and no one would be able to tell the difference. This should be obvious even to those who take me to task for criticizing President Obma's spinelessness when they point out that Republicans often end up contradicting themselves and opposing programs they once championed in an effort to bring Obama down.

Of course they do: there's really little of substance for them to attack with President Obama!

Most of my fellow liberals will go out next November and cast a vote for Obama because he has a D beside his name. They will do so because voting Republican is unthinkable. Do what you must. I'm just bemoaning the fact that we no longer have a real choice. That neither President Obama nor anyone else is out there tapping the growing outrage.

The Goddamned Lie Of A Right Or Center-Right Nation

2011-12-15T04:24:00.003-05:00

First, a short word about my use of what some people think is the supreme obscenity, the use of the prhase/word Goddamned. I used it for emphasis. But if you highly regard the Bible consider that Revelation 21:8 uses plain language in stating that God has indeed damned liars, specifically "all liars," and will consign them to the Lake of Fire on Judgment Day. The majority of conservative politicians these days want to bring God and religion into the debate, so let me humor them. I lay down this challenge to them: If you want to lead this country, start by ending the practice of telling Goddamned lies.

There is a mantra I keep hearing that our nation is really conservative or, at worst, center-right in ideology. No one wants to wear the liberal label anymore. It's probably more acceptable to claim to be a Satanist. In fact, the conservative liars would have you believe they are pretty much one and the same.

The fact is that the conservative liars dominate the airwaves, make much more noise than sensible folks, inflame passions to a greater degree, and are thus able to rally their forces to the polls on election day in larger numbers.

The citizens keep electing these right-wing and right-leaning politicians who continue to mishandle things and impede progress. The citizens continue to listen to the sheer idiocy spewed by the right-wing blowhards and even grant them credence by actually taking them seriously. Most decline to do a little investigating and thinking of their own (after all, it's far easier to get your opinions pre-thought out and complete with "talking-points"), and tend to be too polite as a whole to call these liars out on their lies.

Think I exaggerate instead of painting an accurate picture?

Have you ever noticed that despite all the media coverage of the great interest in the Republican debates, campaigns and intrigue over who the latest front-runner is, the majority of Americans in poll after poll feel the Government should do more to help the citizens? Yet that runs contrary to the very core of modern Republican dogma: Get government off our back and out of our lives, slash taxes and get spending "under control."

In this same vein, the polls show that the majority of us think that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate, again diametrically opposed to what the Republicans are saying. It may be more understandable that young ones who were born after the "Reagan Revolution" believe taxes are bad, bad, bad. But there is no excuse for those of us who have been around for a while. We shouldn't be shy about pointing out the way America flourished during those times when the higher tax brackets were more than twice what they are today. And make no mistake, the job creators were still creating jobs back then.

Take the matter of health care. I see lots of polling data indicating that Americans in the majority favor the concept that health care should be a right rather than a privilege. It's a national disgrace that the United States is dragging its feet about this matter that most virtually all of the modern industrial nations have already dealt with.

Social Security remains extremely popular with the majority of citizens. Conservatives are aware of this, are aware that gutting it is a political hot potato that none of them wants to handle in a direct manner. Therefore they set out to create this imagined crisis about the program's solvency. The Democrats seem only too happy to play along, to their disgrace. There are points that can be adjusted in order to get us over the hump until retiring baby boomers depart from the scene. Social Security is a good program and I can't imagine why any informed voter would pull the lever for a candidate who has not outright pledged to protect the program.

I've not gone into social issues, but again, an examination of the vast amount of polling data demonstrates that mainstream America does not agree with the vision for the United States that, say, Bachmann or Santorum bloviate about. Most Americans don't want abortion outlawed and gays forced back into the closet. We as a people are not as loopy as the Fox News set.

The Tea Party doesn't speak for the majority. It was the creation of the big money interests and is made up largely of slaves trying to convince the rest of us that the shackles aren't really all that confining and uncomfortable. They are being manipulated and haven't the good sense to understand it.

If we were not in the midst of an economic depression President Obama would be an extremely popular president. If we were prospering as a nation, the Republican field would sound like the extremists and whack jobs they are. Sorry. I can't think of a nice way of putting it. They aren't anything but lying opportunists, with no great interest about what is good for the country as a whole. Even the most liberal among them, the moderate Mitt Romney is lying about being moderate.

The mainstream media is in the pocket of the corporations. That is why the lie of the rightward slant gets traction. They report the truth, but not prominently, because the outrageous and sensational gets the ratings and brings more money into the pot. Sure, the right-wing commentators are for the most part a more sensational lot. Sure left-wing media tends to be more cerebral and less popular. I guess a lot of people are too lazy to think, consider the truth boring.

Hey lefties, the facts are on our side. What say we take the gloves off and take the fight to them anyway?

Three Out Of Four Americans Feel Country Is Headed In Wrong Direction

2011-12-14T04:20:00.003-05:00

I saw another one of these polls on last night's NBC nightly news program. I've been reading about them for the past year or so, always 70% or better of those polled say it. We're headed in the wrong direction. No doubt about it.

Our nation has been dominated by conservative politics and leaders for three decades. We've been cutting taxes and keeping our military active for three decades. Even the two Democratic presidents we've had in these years were moderates, not the dreaded L word, liberals. Back in the 1950s Clinton and Obama would have been considered Eisenhower Republicans.

Today there seem to be few Eisenhower Republicans. Republicans don't like Romney so much because 70 percent of them identify as conservatives and most of them consider Romney a moderate. I really can't tell. Romney is so busy pandering to the right it's hard to tell just where he really stands.

Personally, I'd love to see a return to those wonderful Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson days of outright liberalism. Jack those upper tax rates back up to where they were when we as a nation actually made a dent in poverty, when we actually invested in our infrastructure and education.

I am a liberal, and damn proud of it.

I still think Barry Goldwater was nuts in 1964, that his clone Reagan should have stayed in Hollywood, that George H. W. Bush was right before he was converted to the religion of Voodoo economics, and that his son George W. Bush was the worst president, bar none, this country ever had.

I believe Social Security should be protected at any cost and that the United States should enact a national healthcare program that would guarantee medical treatment to everyone without regard to ability to pay. I believe President Eisenhower was prescient about the Military-Industrial complex and we as a nation did not heed his warning.

Of course I'm under no delusion that all that is what the 70% mean by "heading in the wrong direction." They just want the good times to return again, even if it is yet another ill-fated bubble boom. They are too shortsighted to understand that a solid foundation is necessary for a sturdy edifice.

Throw out the illegal aliens and their children, give us and especially the millionaires yet another tax cut, privatize Social Security and end Medicare and Medicaid, post the Ten Commandments in every public square and every court house in our nation, bring compulsory prayer back to public schools, overturn Roe v Wade, outlaw gay marriage, bomb the hell out of Iran, and still, STILL we will not have a bright future as a nation.

We are headed in the wrong direction, and have been for three decades. Who is willing to shout back at those who are shouting so loudly now? Who is willing to actually defend liberalism, tout its many accomplishments, and wear the label proudly?

Once The Money Is Gone

2011-12-13T04:20:00.002-05:00

In these horrible economic times and with a barren employment landscape the Republicans are offering a proposal that is "expected to reduce the total number of weeks unemployed workers are eligible for aid by as much as 40 weeks and tighten rules for eligibility."

How nice. How absolutely lovely!

Do these elected representatives and their supporters ever stop to think about where unemployment benefits go? Are we to suppose these folks who have lost their jobs and with them the ability to provide for themselves and their families take these government "entitlements" and put them in Swiss bank accounts?

Now my thinking is along this line. These government "handouts" are actually good investments as well as a moral imperative. Unemployed people take their unemployment checks and do such things as pay bills and buy food - things that do their part, however humble, to keep our economy going.

To those are bent on cutting benefits and elements of our national safety net, we must ask them: What are the alternatives for those affected?

I don't see many legitimate alternatives.

Perhaps we should advise those whose benefits are about to run out to do the following: take those last checks and stock up on Ramen noodles and potted meat; find a close friend or relative to move in with; join a church or religious institute in hopes of receiving charity. If all that fails, move yourself and family into your car (if you still have one) and resort to begging for food and change.

Starting a new career might be an alternative. Perhaps desperate fathers could encourage their wives and daughters to stand on the street corner and offer their bodies for sale. These fathers could also establish themselves in the business of manufacturing Methamphetamine, for which their seems to be a flourishing demand.

Granted these are options which lie outside the law and could result in imprisonment. But, after all, even then one would have food, clothes, and a roof over his head.

It is a very simple question: Is it acceptable in this self-touted "greatest nation on earth" to have widespread hunger, homelessness, and hopelessness?

Are our citizens eager to vote for politicians who believe the answer is "yes"?

They should be looking at extending rather than cutting these benefits. It's the only right thing to do.

A Cold Winter

2011-12-12T04:38:00.002-05:00

Good Heavens! Check out this story about proposed cuts to heating aid for the poor, from which I take the following:

Congress, which is locked in a bitter battle over reducing spending, still must decide how much money to give the program for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

In fall 2008, amid concerns about rising fuel prices, the government nearly doubled fuel assistance, releasing $5.1 billion to states for the following winter.

But last February, President Barack Obama proposed cutting the program nearly in half, calling for about $2.5 billion. The House is considering $3.4 billion for fuel assistance, while the Senate reviews a $3.6 billion proposal.

Austerity economics is a cruel task matter. Our decades of listening to the Pied Piper politicians tooting away about cutting our taxes and letting us keep more of our money is coming home to roost. Our country always seems to be able to scrape together and borrow the funds for yet another war or military entanglement, but when it comes to our poorest citizens, the answer seems to be "F" you.

Cutting taxes on the alleged "job creators" (read: rich folks) has unarguably failed totally. The jobs they have created largely have been for other countries, where the wages are immorally low. That strategy is pulling down our wages here at home because we must now compete with these other countries.

Those of us who make up the vast working poor have indeed kept more of our money percentage-wise, due to this flawed economic concept, but so what? Our wages, hours, and benefits have been repeatedly slashed to the point that we are still quickly losing ground.

Now our government is looking at slashing aid to the poor, disabled, and elderly. Prices are high, wages are low, jobs are few, sympathy to assist the needy seems also to be in short supply.

Clearly this was a manufactured crisis, and we didn't go into it blindly so much as we just closed our eyes to reality and went along with the loud fluting. Make no mistake about it: The continual cutting of taxes always eventually leads to the cutting of our nation's safety net. Is that who we are as a people?

Meanwhile, it's going to be a long, hard winter.

Old Marley Was As Dead As A Doornail

2011-12-11T07:20:00.003-05:00

So it says in the opening lines of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

"There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate."

And away we are taken on a story of human redemption, a wild ghost story that always invigorates me with the Christmas spirit far better than the Manger story from my childhood. Not that the latter isn't warming to me as a relic of my childhood. It just doesn't seem overly practical to me now. At least not in the way Dickens brings out that humankind is everyone's true business.

Dickens was one of a small band of writers who laid the foundation for the traditional concept of Christmas, before it became politicized as it has in recent times and a battle ground for a religious war. Washington Irving and Clement C. Moore were also members. They made Christmas fun again, a time of celebration of the human spirit and goodwill towards mankind, and I bless their memories for it.

As a young man I formed the habit of reading A Christmas Carol every December. Now it suits me better to watch it as a movie. Last night I watched my favorite rendition of the tale, the George C. Scott version. As I recall, watching that for the first time back in 1984 was the beginning of the end of my yearly tradition of reading it.

I have accumulated on DVD four different version of Scrooge and Marley's little affair. All have their charms, but Scott's is my favorite. However, I have not had a chance to see the Patrick Stewart version from 1999. I started once to order it last year, but didn't want to spend the money for it. I didn't get the Scott version until last week, again having waited for it to go on sale. Maybe, if the price is right, I will order the Stewart version and give it a try later this month. But time is running short!

In the Scott version there is a theme song featured throughout the film, God Bless Us Everyone, that is quite catchy. In fact, I have been humming and whistling it almost continuously. Even took out my guitar to rough out a version of it.

Also, I like the way George C. Scott humanizes Scrooge. His isn't just an a-hole Scrooge. No, Ebeneezer is depicted as a soul hardened by the cruelties of life and having become misdirected by and obsessed with a quest for the security his childhood didn't offer him - which, sadly, he thinks can only be found in the accumulation of wealth.

It seems to be the case that there is at least a little bit of Scrooge in most of us.

Music Has Charms (Or: Stress Buster) - Updated

2011-12-10T08:30:00.003-05:00

Yesterday was one of those days you hate to have ... or at least I hate to have them. My elderly mom was out for her weekly beauty shop appointment and some other errands and while out encountered car trouble. Bummer! I hate when things go wrong for her, hate when she gets scared and feels so alone during a crisis. This happened as I was wrapping up my day at work, getting ready to shut everything down, and few people were still around to answer the company phones. My mother called my brother who also was unable to reach anyone. I shut my cell phone off when I am at work ... obviously I'm going to have to work something else out to make certain I can be reached in case of emergency.

To make a long story very short, my brother finally decided to just drive over to my place of business (about five minutes away) and speak to me in person. Putting our heads together we quickly formulated a plan of action and took care of Mom. (I'm the oldest son now; if that gives privileges they must be few, while the responsibilities remain many.)

But my mother, even when a young woman, never really handled stress and crises well. Calming her down is a very nerve jangling affair. It was yesterday, still running into today. Few things can upset me as much as trying to deal with Mom when she is in emotional overdrive. Before the day was over not only was Mom a nervous wreck but so was my brother, and I was also fairly chafed over it all.

Something I have found helpful in dealing with these stressful times of my life is to listen music. No matter how upset I get, now matter how low in spirit I might sink, music always - as William Congreve wrote - "has charms to soothe a savage breast."

A good melody can lift my spirits, a happy song can make smile, music can soothe my nerves and give me that warm feeling inside, can make me Doug again.

Thank goodness for my CD player this morning!

Obviously this isn't the post I intended to write, but I need to go listen to some more music. Hopefully Mom's car will be repaired and back to her later today. Then all I will have to worry about is the tow fee and repair bill. That I think I can handle at least somewhat gracefully.

I'll try again tomorrow to post something of general interest.

Update: Mom's car needed a new starter and was ready for me to pick up by 9:30 a.m. - but before I could do that I had to stop at the pharmacy and get her something for her bowels, which were out of control from all the stress! I delivered her car to her shortly thereafter (along with that familiar pink bottle of medicine). So, all's well that ends well, and maybe the Panic Button will be ignored next time something like this happens. It sure would save a lot of wear and tear on everyone's nerves.

As for me, I did go on to enjoy some music as I waited for the mechanic's call. After all that was taken care of I came back home for a snack and more music before my 2:00 appointment with my hair stylist. I had plans to take my gal pal out for lunch afterwards, but she didn't feel well and took a rain check.

I think I'll listen to some more music.

How We Did Christmas In My Childhood Home

2011-12-09T05:08:00.002-05:00

The way we did Christmas in my family back in the early 60s was as follows. First, we enjoyed Thanksgiving thoroughly, feasting on a big Turkey my parents always got from the yarn mill where they were employed. We ate one and put the other in the freezer for Christmas. The leftovers sustained us for the next several days following. Thanksgiving and Christmas were the main times when food was in abundance at our house.

The days following Thanksgiving were a brief respite before Christmastime proper began, a lull of sorts. But come the first of December our aluminum Christmas tree with revolving color lamp went up. I think we got that tree about 1965 or 66. Before that we got a real tree and decorated it with old Christmas decorations that my mom had inherited from her mom. I especially remember those bubbling Christmas lights. (We quit using those, of course, when we went with the artificial tree.) And it seems the balls were a very different variety than the newer balls. In fact, the older balls mostly weren't balls at all, but were different shapes and sizes and were wildly decorated with bright colors and lots of sparkle. Also from my grandparent's old trunk which held our decorations came various wreaths and hangings that were scattered about our home.

Then there was the music that added to the mood and which always, ALWAYS, played softly in the background on Christmas morn. You might think my devoutly religious parents would have gone over the top with religious carols, but that wasn't the case. The religious and the secular - Jesus and Santa - were intermixed throughout the season.

The plant where my parents were employed usually shut down the week of Christmas, or at least for a large portion of it. I loved those times, when the lights at home were put on low so we could enjoy the Christmas tree lights and the blinking lights we had hung around our windows. Mom always made sure we had apples, oranges - and sometimes tangerines! - mixed nuts (which Dad always cracked for us using his pliers) and that delicious hard candy. These were special times for us when we would sit for long hours in the evenings just enjoying each other's company, those wonderful days of my early childhood, before my parents divorced, when we all were together as a family.

At least once during the month we would load up in our Ford Falcon station wagon and go downtown to see the Christmas lights. And a grand show it was in those days! The wires and every telephone poll were heavily decorated with lights and greenery. Downtown still being a major retail center, with our sole mall just starting out, the stores went all out with Christmas-themed window displays. I never wanted those rides to end. Even now the closest thing to Heaven on earth I know were those treasured family times. I sometimes think that if given the chance I would give up all my tomorrows to relive just one of those magic evenings!

Our church also kept us busy during the Christmas season. There were holiday songs to learn and practice, the annual Christmas play had to be rehearsed and then presented to the faithful. I never realized that Jesus' father and mother, as well as the Three Kings, all wore bathrobes from Sears. And surely the baby Jesus must have been frightened out of his wits to open his eyes and see all those cardboard cutout animals standing around his manger!

The Christmas season really began in earnest for us kids when the last day of school before Christmas break was completed. Then we were free to concentrate solely on the Big Day. My older brother, Earl, had discovered that by pressing the wrapping paper on our gifts tightly against the box and holding it close to the revolving tree light we could sometimes make out the letters on the box and figure out some of what our gifts were. When that was difficult we resorted to shaking and rattling the gifts.

Finally the big day would arrive. Mom always had some set rules for this. First, we had to have breakfast. She knew that once the package opening started and then we started in with our new toys, eating would be the farthest thing from our little minds. How difficult it was to force down the chow knowing our presents awaited us, eager to be ripped open. One of us children would then be chosen to pass out the gifts (after we were old enough to be able to read the labels, of course). Then we would always open our presents in order, my younger brother first, then me, then big brother. Mom went next and finally dad got to open his tie and after shave (okay, sometimes it was a pair of slippers or a robe).

The tree afterward looked empty. The lights stayed on and the music continued for several more days. Finally Dad began wondering out loud when the tree was coming down. "It's almost Christmas again" he would always say. The tree was usually down and the living room space reclaimed by Mom by January 1st.

That was it until next December. It sure does seem to me now that a year was longer back when I was a child!

Childhood Christmas Wishes

2011-12-08T04:35:00.002-05:00

Despite my mother's best efforts to instill in her children the religious significance of the Christmas season, for my brothers and me it still had a lot to do with the presents.

We were a poor family, both my parents being lowly factory workers and at the mercy of a very unstable carpet industry. Work usually slacked off in the winter. Well do I remember my mom having to wait until the payday before Christmas - when she and Dad got their Christmas bonuses - before she could do her Christmas shopping. The crowds at the stores were maddening by then - the last minute rush - and most discouraging, she confided to me later, was the fact that by then "everything had already been picked over." My dad detested every aspect of it.

Despite all that we still managed to have memorable Christmases that my brothers and I discussed for many years afterwards.

Being poor made any gift special to me. One of my fond childhood Christmas memories was of the annual arrival of the Christmas catalogs. I poured over them for literally hours, pretending how nice it would be to have the various toys therein, trying to decide on an item or two I thought would make a nice a gift hint for my mother.

My favorite catalog, for some reason I don't now recall, was from a wonderful store we had near my hometown, Otasco Economy Auto. They always had a nice selection of things I wanted. When I was thirteen I saw an electric guitar, an off-brand, for $29.95 - cheap for a guitar even for 1973, but representing a huge portion of Mom's overall Christmas budget. Bless her heart, somehow she managed to get it for me and send me to Seventh Heaven.

Sears was another favorite catalog of mine. And my parents got the J. C. Penny catalog as well. These were massive "wish books" that a boy like me could literally lose himself in for hours at a time. And I did that.

Then one day a friend of mine introduced me to a store just blocks from where we lived. I was totally unaware of it's existence until that lazy Saturday when he took me there. Hamilton Distributors was the name and once inside it looked to me very like the Sears store out at the mall. And then he took me to a staircase near the back of the store, over which hung a brightly lettered sign that read: Toyland.

Boy, was it ever! Aisles and aisles of the popular toys of the day. Everything a young lad like myself could want, including bats, balls, baseball gloves, footballs, football helmets, and, I suppose, every board game in existence at the time. The wonderful thing about Toyland was the way it enabled me to actually handle and get a close up look at potential Christmas gift hints. (By the way, it was a great place to spend a lazy Saturday even when it wasn't Christmastime - I mourned Hamilton's passing as gravely as I did the passing of my first pet.)

All this seems a bit shallow now. But what do you expect from a child? One thought I did have frequently back in those days was this. I used to fantasize about being incredibly rich, to the point of being able to have all of these things I so wanted. It struck me even then that that might not be such a good thing. What would be left of life if I had everything? I enjoyed the ritual of seeing, wanting, wishing, hoping, and then seeing what I actually got.

Early on it seemed I learned what I believe is life's great lesson: Be content with what you get.

My Brother Earl

2011-12-07T04:57:00.003-05:00

Today would have been his 58th birthday. My brother Earl, my best friend, the one person I could totally be myself with and he with me, bowed out of this life six years ago. He was born on Pearl Harbor Day and died on Father's Day. Six years after his death it still hurts me to talk much about it. On the day he died I told my family I would miss him every day for the rest of my life, and that has been the case.

Ever since I can remember whenever my mom would talk about how much she loved her kids she would always say that if anything ever happened to one of her kids she would have to be put away in the "crazy house."

And then that dreaded day came.

When Earl's wife called me early that Sunday morning, awakening me from a blissful sleep, to tell me he was dead - a massive heart attack in their bed at the relatively young age of 51 - the first thought I had was: "This is going to kill Mom." And indeed that is what I told his wife. In all the frenzy that followed the failed attempt by his youngest son to revive my brother with CPR and the mad rush to the hospital where he was pronounced dead, she was unable to locate my mother's phone number. I was glad it was she, not me, who broke that news to Mom. I followed up a couple of minutes later with an attempted phone call to Mom to comfort her - but of course she was inconsolable. I got to make the phone call to my younger brother, who upon seeing my number on his caller ID at that ungodly hour of the morning thought it must be something wrong with Mom. He was stunned when I told him about Earl. In short, we all were in shock.

But this is the day of his birth, not his death, so I should make his life rather than his death the focus of my post.

How can I even attempt to put into words the hole his death has left in my life?

He was noted for making phone calls at odd hours. He would wake me out of a sleep, catch me as I was about to head to bed ... I never knew when he might call. He would always say, "hey, if I can't sleep, neither can anyone else." The phone calls always began after I said "hello" with his familiar deep voice intoning "hey, man" and off we would go, usually for hours. And when he was finished he was just as quick to say "I gotta get off here." And that was it until next time. God, how I miss those calls! How many times I have needed them!

My parents divorced when I was eleven. It was my older brother who then became the adult male figure in my life. I was around him more than I was Dad for most of those troubling teen years. We were close from the beginning. He taught me about baseball. He was an amateur statistician and tried to educate me about the wonders of mathematics. That was a task because math has never been my forte. It was he who gave me the most valuable info about the facts of life. He introduced me to Greek mythology. When I joined the Golden Gloves boxing program as a teenager, it was he who told me I was probably wasting my time seeking to be a boxer. He rightfully discerned that I lack that killer instinct. He was a freethinker before I was and most probably died a Deist. However, that was something we didn't talk a lot about until after I started my journey and got with him about God thoughts I was having. If there was any subject he didn't think deeply about and that we didn't discuss at least once, I'm unable to think of it right now.

I looked up to him from my youth and tried to emulate him. It was much later, only after I not only grew up but began to grow older, that he confessed to me that there were certain things about me that he had always admired: my calm levelheadedness (he tended to be overly dramatic and a hothead, like Mom), my determined consistency, things of that sort. We grew closer over the years and were true confidants, true friends.

On this anniversary of his birth, I miss my best friend ever in the world. There are so few things that can bring tears to the eyes of this jaded little fellow. Thinking about how much I miss Earl always does.

Chasing My Hairdresser

2011-12-06T04:41:00.003-05:00

I have an interesting head of hair. Lots of it, but texture-wise it is very fine. It grows slightly thicker on the left side of my head than on my right. Then throw in a couple of "cowlicks" and the person who cuts my hair has a challenge. This is why I like to use the same hairdresser. In fact, if I want good results it is essential. Once I find someone who can cut my hair to my liking, I stick with them. (By the way, the basic barber shop cut doesn't work well for me, so I always go for a stylist.)

The lady who cuts my hair now has been doing it for five or six years. I found her at random at a popular chain-salon, the same one my previous hairdresser worked at before she disappeared. I like the way she cut my hair that first time and have been with her ever since. Even when she left the chain - that was very near to where I live - and set out on her own (which meant driving further), I continued to use her.

In her new shop there was a robbery. The shop wasn't in a bad part of town, really, just near an apartment complex that was rumored to have some drug activity. Someone wondered in on foot - they think from said complex - and robbed them. After that the doors were no longer open. You had to knock and wait to gain admission, not unlike the way speakeasies were depicted in old movies. I didn't really care for that. It seemed a bit weird. But it made the all women staff feel safer, as did the "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason" sign that was prominently posted inside. But liking my stylist and the job she did on my hair, I hung in there with her like a hair in a biscuit.

And then last month when I went for my cut she told me the bad economy had finally taken its toll and she was closing shop. She took my phone number and promised to call me when she got situated some place else. Patiently I waited.

Saturday last my cell phone rang as I sat at my desk. It was my stylist - who just happens to have the same first name as my galpal - and when she told me who she was I thought it was my gal playing a joke. I had been expecting my girlfriend's call and then here is this woman with the same name but definitely not the same voice talking to me. It was awkward for a moment, but I recovered and scheduled an appointment for this coming Saturday. Although I'm sorry her business venture fell through, I'm glad I will now be going to a salon almost in the exact spot where I first encountered her, ten minutes away from my home.

Well, I'm sure this will only be temporary. Hairdressers have a habit of moving around. And no matter how crazy I am about my stylist - just like with my previous stylist - there is a limit to how far I will chase one. Then I guess I will have to "break in" another. Dread.

To combat this constant hunt and chase I've contemplated changing my hair style to something any barber could accomplish, say a simple buzz cut. But it seems such a waste to be a fifty-something year old man with a full head of mostly dark hair only to cut it all off.

A Plan B I've often contemplated is getting into a serious relationship with a hairstylist. That way I might even not have to leave the house at all to get my hair cut. But I'm almost four years into my present relationship, and I have a really good one with an honest, fun, albeit all too busy lady that I'm just crazy about. (Besides, Plan B is impractical because I've always had worse luck with lovers than stylists.)

I suppose I could just let my hair grow wild and long. But what's uglier than an aging hippy dude? And even when I was younger (and I have a few pictures to prove it), with shoulder-length hair I look like a homely girl. I'd have to let my face hair grow wild with the rest of it to keep that from happening again.

No, it seems I'm destined to play the eternal chaser after a stylist capable of keeping me looking presentable.

Why oh why can't life be simple for me?

The Busy Blogger

2011-12-05T05:38:00.001-05:00

I love my blog and I love blogging. Especially I love meeting and getting to know my readers who take the time to share a portion of their lives with me here.

I have a nice selection of people with interesting blogs listed under the Blogs I Like heading over there to the right. These are all folks I've gotten to know here. I love to read their blogs ... when I have the time. Sometimes I feel bad I don't spend more time visiting them and offering my valuable (ahem!) insights. [And speaking of blogging friends: Justin, if you read this, I love your blog and would love to comment, but I want more choices than just signing in under my Google account. That identifies me with more precision than I care for.]

One of the first things I do when I get to my blog is check out who has posted something knew and what it is. A lot of time there is something I find interesting but because of being in a hurry to tend to my own blog I'll leave with the intention of coming back later and commenting. Then I usually forget to go back or just stay so busy I run out of time.

There are many times - like this morning - when I start out visiting my friend's blogs and run myself short of time to post something on my own. And even so, I didn't get around to everyone!

For that reason and a couple others (one being the desire to free myself up a little more) I have been mulling over going to blogging only every other day or so. I'm thinking of doing that at the first of the new year and maybe at the same doing a little bit (not much) of redesigning. These are just some ideas I am kicking around. However, I do want to maintain some sense of regularity here, both to keep up my own interest as well as reader interest.

Another benefit of less frequent posting would be having the time to devote to properly responding to some of my reader comments. It's not a debate, but a discussion. The beauty of freedom is developing individuality. I love to hear the opinions of others and to pick the brains of other folks to see what makes them tick. Maybe a new subject everyday gives the sensation of too much happening at once for serious consideration. As always, I'm happy to learn what my readers think.

There Ain't No Freakin' Santa, Damn It!

2011-12-04T07:12:00.002-05:00

A Chicago anchorwoman spilled the beans about Santa Claus and quickly caught hell for it.

After reporting a story on the effect the struggling economy will have on gift giving this year WFLD's Robin Robinson cut loose with an apparently unscripted editorial rant, reported as follows by the Mediabistro website:

“Santa is a symbol of the generosity of the season. You go sit on his lap and we’ll take a picture,” Robinson said, suggesting that children should be told there is no Santa as soon as they’re able to talk. “But he’s not coming down the chimney, he’s not eating those cookies, he’s not bringing you anything!”

Amen! I appreciate the candor there, Robin.

But you can guess the viewer reaction. You would have thought she looked straight into the camera and announced matter-of-factly that there is no God sitting up high on a throne looking over and watching out for us.

So the following evening she tendered an apology. "It was careless and callous to say what I said," offered Robinson.

It was the truth. But most people can't handle the truth anyway, so there you go!

I have to say that as much as I grew up in the shadow of the Bible and belief that all those tall tales were literally true, my brothers and I never were saddled with this Santa thing, nor with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy or other such things.

And that was for the simple reason that my parents believed it was wrong to lie to their kids. Heck, it was a sin to lie, period. Just read the Ten Commandments.

For my mom it was also a very personal matter. Her very conservative mother taught her to believe in the jolly little elf with all the flying reindeer from up north. In fact, she was by her own account among the last of her childhood playmates who believed in Santa. She found out the truth during a sleepover at a friend's house. Not only was she crushed to realize that her parents would be unable to do much in the way of playing Santa Claus that year because her dad's job was on short time, but she was devastated that her mother, her Ten Commandments believing mother, had lied to her.

She early on decided that would not be case if she ever had kids. And it wasn't.

But back to Robin Robinson. Now how many children of Santa-believing age do you suppose was watching the nine o'clock news and heard her anti-Santa outburst? Even if some did it should have been a catalyst for a meaningful dialogue. If they are old enough to understand the point Robinson was making, they are old enough to hear the truth.

I like mythology. I like symbolism. I like the truth. I like what Robinson said.

I don't like the suppression of knowledge and information.

Robin, you go girl!

Judgment Day For Cain And President Obama Makes Up For Slighting God On Thanksgiving

2011-12-03T07:22:00.004-05:00

Herman Cain, that is. He has finally come home to discuss for the first time in person with his wife the latest of what fellow GOP presidential contender John Huntsman has characterized as 'bimbo eruptions." Then later today he will issue a statement on what he plans to do (most folks are betting he will drop out).

At about this time, considering the fact that Herman Cain somehow had never gotten around to telling his wife about this very long and apparently unique "friendship" he has had with business woman Ginger White, he is probably ready to say along with the original Cain (Adam and Eve's son):

My punishment is greater than I can bear (Gen. 4:13).

Facing a justifiably angry wife can create those feelings.

Whatever the exact truth is about the allegations of sexual harassment by Cain and his dealings with Ms. White, you have to say that this man either has testicles the size of coconuts for thinking all that would stay hidden in the background, or else he truly is stupid and so full himself he is living life in another sphere altogether.

Aside from his dubious character, his insane 9-9-9 tax plan and painfully apparent lack of Foreign Policy expertise are reasons enough that he should have been dismissed long ago. But no, conservative Republicans are apparently so bent on getting rid of President Obama they are willing to suffer almost any type of novelty as a presidential contender.

Hopefully this is the end of the Cain candidacy. And if so, good riddance!

Meanwhile, back at the White House, President Obama gave us all another of his little Christian history teachable moments at Thursday night's Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony:

More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among the cattle and the sheep. But this was not just any child. Christ’s birth made the angels rejoice and attracted shepherds and kings from afar. He was a manifestation of God’s love for us.

And if you think that will silence those who question our president's commitment to Jesus and Christianity you probably think Herman Cain is just the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Now personally I could do without all that. I like the way Thomas Jefferson handled the matter of religion and the presidency, feeling it is a private affair between the individual and his god and not a state affair at all other than guaranteeing the freedom to believe as one chooses.

Having said that, I do confess to getting a devious pleasure from watching the fine Christian folk on the other end of the political spectrum being forced into outright lying in order to carry on their attacks on the president.

So how much truth should we expect from the rest of their utterings?

My Spam Filters Are Working Overtime

2011-12-02T08:13:00.000-05:00

Spam: not the meat (which I love fried and served in a biscuit), but the annoying efforts by some to get your attention by any means possible.

Yesterday's post for some reason generated two legitimate comments, but over twenty spam comments. Usually I don't get spam on new posts. What, did the keyword "idiot" in my post title do the trick?

Besides the twenty or more spam "comments," my personal email box was filled with spam offer emails, all duly ignored. Now I usually get a few of these spam emails in my personal box every week, but for some reason I got more yesterday than any other day I can remember. Coincidence?

Now in case you've never noticed I don't post my email address on my blog. I was trying to avoid generating an avalanche of spam. Yet somehow this flood of spam on my blog and email box seemed orchestrated in some way.

I admit to being somewhat of a rube when it comes to how some of this high-tech snooping and observing is done, but I certainly seem to have been profiled. A lot of this spam is closely related to searches I have conducted on Google, as well as posts I have written on my blog. Some of course aren't and seem to be the typical bait for those searching for something for nothing.

I suppose all this comes with territory and is part of living in this great age of Big Brother. Privacy is fast fading away and more and more our lives are becoming open books.

I'm really not going anywhere with this post. It's just a reiteration of what I've written about many times: I think people suck!

With the advent of caller ID and my deliberate choice to ignore most knocks at my door, I have eliminated a lot of life's little annoying invasions. I don't stop when out and about for people who "just want a moment of my time." And when I tell a salesperson that I am just looking, I expect that to be the end of it - or else I leave.

Do I sound as if I'm becoming a bit of a misanthrope? Probably.

But how annoying is it to have a well meaning friend or acquaintance stick a cell phone camera in your face while you're eating, sneezing, bending over, or any number of non-posed situations, under the guise of capturing a funny moment? I'm not exaggerating. I actually had a lady friend of mine unexpectedly take a photo of me as we were sitting over lunch. She wanted to use it for my personal icon on her smartphone.

Hey, I'm drifting a bit. I know. But here I sit in the supposed privacy of my own home, enjoying my internet experience ... and all the while having snoops and would be con people trying to invade my space. But I guess that's what such people do.

Leave me alone, folks. Just leave me alone. Unless I've invited you in, leave me alone.

Rick Santorum: Idiot And Presidential Candidate

2011-12-01T05:10:00.005-05:00

You know, I really don't have a problem with creationists and religious fundamentalists. Once I didn't know any better. But way back then I did know enough to not talk about things I didn't know about. I just wish they wouldn't mistake their religious convictions for truth claims. That is what annoys me.

GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum has for some reason decided he is fit to be president of the United States and is demonstrating why my sarcastic suggestion of yesterday's post might not be such a bad idea.

Here is Santorum commenting on the state of education in our country:

It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate.

Wow. Just wow! Do you suppose Rick Santorum has any idea that the word science has it root in the Latin word scientia, or knowledge?

There's no nice way to put it. We have too many intellectually challenged people running for president, walking right now in the halls of Congress, and occupying positions of leadership all over our nation.

And the kicker is that most of the GOP are in favor of cuts in government spending and things like outlays for public education. I guess Santorum and some of these other folks just don't think education is that important. And it shows. People, IT SHOWS! Some of the GOPers would love to see our education system privatized. What a sad day that would be!

I guess the truth is we are largely a nation of what Fred Sandford would have called dummies. Creationism belief is widespread and widely tolerated. People can assault the efforts of the science community and be thought all the wiser for it. Conservative politicians especially do this and especially when it is a "science versus religion" matter. And by the way, somehow the idea of "man-made" global warming is somehow a religious issue.

Ah, well...

Presidential Jeopardy

2011-11-30T04:48:00.006-05:00

Just a few thoughts I've been having as I've been watching the Republicans presidential candidates battling it out. It seems to be a given that President Obama will be the Democratic nominee again.

My main thought: THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY TO SELECT A PRESIDENT FOR OUR COUNTRY.

First, consider what our Constitution (Article ll, Section 1, Clause 5) lays out as qualifications:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Is that broad or what?

That clause has allowed us to elect a few great presidents, a few near-greats, a host of mediocre specimens, and most unfortunately, some outright embarrassing duds. People not intellectually qualified to be president can - especially in this media-driven age - charm their way into the job.

It's impossible for me to imagine people without good sense being able to exercise good judgment, certainly one of the skills necessary for an effective administration.

Perhaps what would be better is if we somehow first selected the best qualified candidates and then had them play a Round robin tournament of Jeopardy. At least that would gives us some intellectual material to work with. And we would never have to worry about another Reagan or George W. Bush making it to the White House.

Maybe it would be good if we selected a president from among the ranks of those who are already in the business of governing a people on a broad scale, i.e., state governors, national Congresspeople. In other words, people who are already trained.

"Oh, but that's undemocratic" and maybe discriminatory against business people, lawyers, media stars and so forth, people will say. Yeah, but so what? We're electing a president. Or how about this: let those folks first work their way up through the ranks of government and prove they can do that.

Ronald Reagan, for example, may have been an actor originally, but he was governor of the state of California before he ran for president. (I just don't think he could have made it through Jeopardy.)

Donald Trump flirted with the idea of running for president. Ross Perot actually made a run for it, providing us with a few laughs in his bizarre campaign. But what were their presidential qualifications? Are we to assume that running a business successfully is proof one can run a country effectively?

Also, I don't like the role big money plays in our election process. Maybe the government should fund this thing. If we can blow nearly a trillion dollars on an immoral and unprovoked war, surely we can figure out a way to thriftily elect a president. It should not be the case that whoever has or can gather the most funds can control the process.

Perhaps we need a selection process from among governors and Congresspeople to get some viable candidates. Then we could do the Jeopardy thing and winnow out the less intelligent representatives. Let's get it down to something manageable like the three best qualified candidates (the winner and two runners-up) - just so we have a real choice. Then let the government fund and sponsor some debates and maybe a few media spots to reinforce their messages. No battle for who can spend the most cash in an effort to buy the election, just an equal opportunity to let us hear their vision for America and make an earnest pitch for the job.

Having done that, what say we get rid of that archaic Electoral College? Do we really need a president who collected half a million less votes than the "loser" (W. Bush versus Gore in 2000)?

I haven't said anything in all this about party affiliation. Maybe, just maybe now, touting a party label ought to be considered undignified for a United States president. That person should represent every citizen. That person that should be free to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, without partisan mudslinging.

Sure, President X might have always been a Democrat throughout his government career - but remember that now we are electing people who are highly qualified, not just any charming John or Jane Shmoe who happened to finance their way into the job.

Maybe its time we recognize that a person running for president and eventually being elected is now an Independent, free to follow solely their conscience and best judgment in deciding how to best lead our nation. Why in heaven's name should the gulf between Democrat and Republican be as wide as it is today? It used to be more a matter of degree. Today it is as if the parties speak entirely different languages.

Okay, so maybe my system isn't perfect. At least I've tried to address some of the problems that can't get addressed in our present corporate democracy.

Groper Poll: If You Don't Vote You Don't Have The Right To Complain

2011-11-29T04:56:00.002-05:00

There is a popular slogan - I've heard it all my life - that essentially suggests that if you don't cast your votes in our elections process, you don't have the right to complain about what our representatives are doing with our country.

The late comedian George Carlan had the following to say on the matter:

People like to twist that around – they say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain," but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.

A very funny man, in my opinion.

My latest Groper Poll question is:

Do you agree or disagree with the popular and much expressed "if you don't vote, you can't complain" idea?

And of course feel free to elaborate on your answer.

We Are Animals!

2011-11-28T04:39:00.001-05:00

Last week I did a post about Black Friday. In it I made the comment that I don't like what those events bring out in people. As usual, I wasn't proved wrong. From a lady unloading pepper spray on fellow shoppers, to this latest Black Friday horror story concerning a man's collapse during his shopping trip only to have shoppers climbing over him, totally unconcerned, in order to get their bargains, to thousands of presumably less newsworthy incidents, we have the worst side of our species put on display.

Were the words "it's a jungle out there" ever more appropriate?

Not that it takes a Black Friday to bring this sad aspect of our species out into view. It's literally everywhere we choose to look - sometimes even in our mirrors.

The religious tradition I originally came from has a neat little story about God creating man directly from the dirt and fashioning this mud man after his own image, then directly breathing life into him. It's just one creation myth among many. Still, it displays an early impression humans have that somehow we are a bit more than our animal brothers and sisters.

I left my religious tradition. I still have sympathy for religion as a means of bringing out the best in humanity and distinguishing us from the more brutish aspects of the lower animals.

I Remember JFK

2011-11-27T07:25:00.003-05:00

We just passed another sad anniversary, the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. There wasn't a lot of hoopla over it - expect that when the 50th anniversary rolls around - but it was noted by many Americans.

If you want to make yourself feel old just count the presidents you have lived through. For me, as amazing as it seems, that number now stands at 11.

Eisenhower was winding down his second term when I was born. President Kennedy was the first president I have memories of. My parents were big JFK fans, and my family always watched the evening news - a habit I have retained all these years. So I do remember when he was in office, and do remember watching his sad funeral on TV as I sat in my father's lap and asked endless questions.

Back in the 1960s, the Religious Right had not yet arrived on the scene. The fundamentalist sect my family belonged to were not big on voting. We were waiting for the Second Coming of Jesus, which was (as always) nearer than ever before. Christians were thought of as being "in the world, but not of it" and this made politics a worldly affair. The Millennium would not be brought about by man's efforts, but by the sudden and supernatural intervention of Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists (but of course not all) were content to keep themselves "unspotted from the world" (James 1:27) and stay out of the political fray.

My parents didn't vote. But my father especially was a staunch Democrat his whole life. My parents liked our young President Kennedy and were inspired by his vision of hope for America and by his positive rhetoric. Dad had confidence he would provide the working man a fair shake.

And then came Dallas, Texas and that horrible November day in 1963.

That made Kennedy something of a martyr, and his successor, President Johnson, used that martyrdom to push through some of the most landscape changing legislation in our recent history. I lived through all this during those turbulent 60s. Johnson did a lot to combat poverty, did a lot to advance the Civil Rights movement (which made him less popular here in the South), and unfortunately for him, became the scapegoat for the national embarrassment known as the Viet Nam War. That one had been in the works for some time and Johnson certainly did his part to make sure this tinder box became a full-fledged inferno. Still, it's interesting to speculate about how President Kennedy might have handled it.

So much of President Kennedy's presidency has become the subject of myth, some magical Camelot. He certainly had his moments as president. But he also at times displayed a certain ineptness that undermined his general leadership. His poor health and his character flaws, such as his philandering, of course were hidden from us by the press protocol of the day. Looking back, perhaps his personal charm was his greatest asset - and as was true with President Reagan, another charmer, that can both take you far and hide a multitude of shortcomings.

President Kennedy's sad and shocking end has always been a sore point for many Americans. Most of us doubt we have gotten the full truth on the matter. Personally, I can accept that Lee Oswald was the lone gunman. Yet the Ruby affair and the ever present hint of mob activity surrounding it causes me to wonder what was really back of this whole affair. We will probably never know for certain.

I remain fascinated by the first president I remember. His is a sad story filled with a ton of what ifs.

When It Comes To President Obama, Conservatives Just Can't Handle The Truth

2011-11-26T07:28:00.002-05:00

Leave it to the insane people at Fox News to create for their daft viewership a groundless and totally idiotic Thanksgiving controversy involving our president.

Yes, it seems that in his annual Thanksgiving message President Obama spoke of reasons to be thankful without specifically mentioning God, "from whom all blessings flow."

Eric Bolling was all over that with this insight:

I feel terrible — I absolutely think he should’ve had some sort of mention. We’re thankful to whom? About 86% of the country believes in some form of a God — whether it’s Christianity or Islam or what not.

We all know that President Obama is a professed Christian, does and has attended Christian church services, regularly quotes from the Bible in his speeches. Only a buffoon doesn't know to whom Obama is thankful. This is no missing puzzle piece that has fallen into our laps. It is understood that when a Christian speaks of giving thanks in this way, they are thanking their God.

So I guess Bolling is a buffoon, as is any Fox viewer who was enthused by this childish attack.

The article I linked to above also contains the vile ejaculation (yes, I chose that word for a reason) of another conservative commentator who wanted to weigh in on this, Ben Shapiro, who in the interest of partisanship decided to show his utter contempt for truth and reason by calling Obama a "militant atheist."

You see, with me it isn't the fact that we have basic disagreements with the way we look at things when I am dealing with conservatives. It is the fact that so many of them want to lie, to twist the truth, to say anything in some immoral spirit of "all is fair in love and war," all the while pretending to stand on the high ground.

So to the folks at Fox News, the worthless and hypocritical opponents in Congress of President Obama's efforts to restore stability to our wobbling nation, the rank and file citizens who will latch on to any hint of scandal involving the president, no matter how unfounded, I submit for their consideration the following quotation from someone they claim to revere:

You belong to your father the devil, and you want to do what he wants. He was a murderer from the beginning and was against the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he shows what he is really like, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

- Jesus

Writer's Diarrhea

2011-11-25T08:20:00.002-05:00

I planned to have this post up a few hours ago. And here is what happened instead. I had intended to write a little about the very interesting conversation I had with my mom and younger brother after we had eaten our Thanksgiving dinner.

Of course, in talking with my mother - my religiously devout and truly precious mother - God always has to take center stage. Now my brother is an interesting study, too. He isn't a devout and churchgoing man. He doesn't live what most Christians would consider a moral life. Not that he is a bad guy or anything; he, like his older brother, has condensed the Ten Commandments down to one: treat others with the same respect with which you wish to be treated. But he believes in a personal God, believes that their is a design and intent to the universe. He has a reverence for the Bible. And then there is me -- way out in left field, having long since relegated such concepts to the realm of metaphor.

That was a very interesting dialogue we had, covering many subjects. And I feel I have lost the ability to communicate effectively with theists because we just don't speak the same language. I don't believe God (Nature) had a choice in "creating" the universe the way it is. About the only thing I can bring to the table is my conviction that organisms evolve with reference to their environment. When I did believe there was purpose and intent to existence, it made me a bit bitter. It eventually became impossible for me to take seriously a God that I honestly thought did an inferior job of running things than what I could do given the same powers. Now what theist wants to hear that?

Okay, but what has that to do with writer's diarrhea?

Just this.

I wrote three drafts of my intended post, each different, each long and overflowing with detail. So long, in fact, I would have felt compelled to offer a prize to any of you who could have stayed around long to enough to finish it. Our after-dinner discussion yesterday was so rich, I couldn't hone in on one direction to follow. I do that a lot, you may have noticed.

Some bloggers are plagued from time to time by writer's block. Not I. I have the opposite problem. There is so much waiting to get out, the problem I have is deciding which of the many roads that lie before I should take and how far along I should travel with my readers.

So that's today's post. Not a recap of my family visit yesterday, but more of a brief summation of why I just couldn't deliver that recap I had intended to give. In fact, now that I look back over it, even my brief summation isn't all that brief!

A Non-theist's Thanksgiving

2011-11-24T07:12:00.001-05:00

I love Thanksgiving Day and what it has come to mean to me: a day to enjoy the company of friends and family and to eat more delicious food than is necessary or desirable.

As a person who does not find reasonable the belief that there literally is a personal deity or deities that organizes, and oversees the outworking of existence, I find the day means something a little different to me than it does to the majority. I'm pleased indeed with the good things in life, what the theists consider blessings from God. At the same time I'm painfully aware of the all the evils. I don't see how I can honestly say "thanks" without also saying "What the f--k?"

But being less philosophical, yes, life can be grand sometimes so let us enjoy the day, especially if we are not being bombarded at the moment with more than our share of life's evils.

The brilliant orator and freethinker Robert Ingersoll once said:

You know we have a custom every year of issuing a proclamation of thanksgiving. We say to God: "Although you: have afflicted all the other countries,, although you have sent war, and desolation, and famine on everybody else, we have been such good children that you have been kind to us, and we hope you will keep on." It does not make a bit of difference whether we have good times or not—the thanksgiving is always exactly the same. I remember a few years ago a Governor of Iowa got out a proclamation of that kind. He went on to tell how thankful the people were, and how prosperous the State had been. There was a young fellow in that State who got out another proclamation, saying that he feared the Lord might be misled by official correspondence; that the Governor's proclamation was entirely false; that the State was not prosperous; that the crops had been an almost utter failure; that nearly every farm in the State was mortgaged; and that, if the Lord did not believe him, all he asked was that he would send some angel in whom he had confidence to look the matter over and report.

Judging from the shape our country has been in in recent years - the depressed economy, living under the constant threat of outside attack, the near-breakdown of our governmental process, the draining strain of sustained war, more wacky weather events and natural disasters than in recent memory - it strikes me that the pious among us are actually groveling and instead of saying "thanks" are really saying, "Lord, please don't let it get worse," which of course it always could. Thus I find these national Thanksgiving Day proclamations mostly hot air.

Thanksgiving Day is for me as good a day as any to enjoy the good I find in life. As a matter of fact, I do that throughout the year. Also throughout the year I can't help wondering why, if God sits above all on his throne of glory and omnipotence, this sad old world struggles on in the manner it does. The theologians sound their most foolish when they attempt to deal with that problem.

However you celebrate this day, I wish each of you happiness and peace.

The 232,674th Coming Again Of Jesus

2011-11-23T03:56:00.003-05:00

Actually I grabbed that number out of thin air. There's just no way to arrive at a totally accurate accounting of those deluded souls down through history who have believed and attempted to make others believe that Jesus returned to earth in their own person.

The latest is an obviously mentally disturbed man by the name of Oscar Ortega-Hernandez. His main claim to fame is being charged with the attempted assassination of President Obama after having fired a few shots at the White House while the president was away.

I watched with amusement the other day as the national news played a clip of a video he had sent to Oprah Winfrey in attempt to gain an appearance on her new television channel. I guess Jesus, too, is in awe of the power and influence this woman yields over the massess who can't seem to get their acts together without a guru-type.

And from that video came these words from Ortega-Hernandez:

You see Oprah, there is still so much more that God needs me to express to the world. It's not just a coincidence that I look like Jesus. I'm the modern day Jesus Christ that you have all been waiting for.

Yeah, right. We all know what Jesus looks like because we have seen the paintings and the Hollywood movies. Oh, let's not forget that famous shroud that contains a "photographic negative" of Jesus. In fact, when I let my beard and hair grow out I look just like Jesus myself. Or Charles Manson. People have told me that.

Okay, snarkiness aside, just as a thought experiment I often ask Christians if they have ever given thought to how obnoxious, how just as unbelievable as we find these latter-day Messiahs, it must have seemed to the Jews in the first century when the original Jesus came forth preaching the Kingdom Of God and as he and his followers reinterpreted the Jewish scriptures in order to make them appear to apply to the events they were beholding.

People are often misled by two millennia of good press for orthodox Christianity. But for the early orthodox Jews, that idea was not only out of left field, it was blasphemous. And to gain a foothold among the pagans who did eventually come into the fold on the ground floor of the Jesus movement, the original story had to be paganized, which the priests were happy to do in order to win widespread acceptance. Eventually Christianity became the official religion of the crushing Roman Empire and the rest, as they say, is history. Nothing, it seems, does more to make a religion flourish than when it becomes intertwined with political power.

Okay, perhaps the majority would say Ortega-Hernandez blew it by taking shots at our president (or so he apparently assumed he was doing). Jesus wouldn't do such a thing, I'm certain they would say.

But many people have foolishly become convinced that our president is our enemy. Many supposedly rational people have been convinced that President Obama is the or an Antichrist. Jesus returning to earth to slay the Antichrist is an idea that is biblical to the core. Hear the last book of the Bible describing Jesus' return to earth:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh (Revelation 19:11-21).

Granted, Ortega-Hernandez's arrival on the scene seems to fall short of the vividness and grandeur of the above passage. But any Jewish scholar will tell you that the original Jesus fell quite short of fulfilling the messianic prophecies of their scriptures, too. It's a matter of interpretation.

Here you have both men claiming they were sent from God and bringing his message. Why would this man be deemed less credible than the historic Jesus? For that matter, why is the historical Jesus given such a lofty position among the masses?

Even to ponder questions such as these demonstrate the frailty of supposed divine revelation.

Is God Up With This Modern Computer Age?

2011-11-22T03:24:00.002-05:00

There are those Bible believers who confidently tell us that the Bible and its many prophecies are relevant to our day. Books propounding that idea continuously roll off the presses, and mostly become obsolete very soon thereafter.

You might think I am completely closed-minded on the subject. I have to admit that after years of study I believe the Bible and its prophecies are best seen as a historic relic. I don't say that lightly, defiantly, or tauntingly. It just seems so painfully obvious that the Bible does not foresee the modern age. Not that Bible students haven't tried to find modern inventions in certain vague descriptions of apocalyptic passages. I just don't find this approach very convincing.

If only the Bible had predicted that one day man wood walk upon the moon or investigate the heavens in indescribable "chariots." That would get my attention.

Then there is the matter of that great Judgment Day. Both testaments give an account of that great day, when the dead will stand before almighty God to give an account for their lives.

The Bible descriptions, first from the Old Testament:

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened (Daniel 7:9,10, KJV).

Next from the New Testament, from the last book of the Bible:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11-15, KJV).

Is such a scene conceivable in this modern age? Would the Almighty really keep his records in this way?

I suppose the major response from the Bible believers would be that authors were simply describing things in terms their readers would understand. But why would they do that? According the words of the Bible itself they were writing down what they say they saw. Say they had beheld angels sitting at a computer and gathering data for God. Would they have described that as rendered above? The ancients had boxes. And they knew what lights were. Would they not have described angels at a box with flashing lights, maybe that spat out parchment with writing on it? Instead they saw books, ledgers, just as was used in days of old.

These things make it difficult indeed to take the Bible as a true prophecy of far future events.

Black Friday Comes On Thursday. And?

2011-11-21T04:21:00.003-05:00

I've been reading about the unrest being caused by big box stores cutting more and more into these traditional holidays in order to allow more shopping and the making of more $$$. Mostly this is coming from the imposed upon workers who must leave their families or put family gatherings on the back burner in order to come serve customers.

Well, these are hard times. The financial crisis has driven consumer demand down and that has pushed unemployment way up. Many of us still lucky enough to have jobs have faced reduced wages and a cutback in working hours.

These are the realities.

I'm not defending the retailer's decision on this. My mother and my ex-wife worked in the retail business for many years, and it could be a real holiday-breaker. I'm just saying, I see where the retailers are coming from. And people realizing the value of a job grumble but do what needs to be done in order to make ends meet.

Perhaps the real fault lies at the doorstep of we the consumer. I say "we," but honestly, I never go shopping on Black Friday or on these holidays ... I don't care what is on sale for what price! I like a bargain as well as anyone. I just don't like watching what these "madness" sales do to my fellow animals, the behaviors they bring out. But everyone is different. I know many folks who live for these things.

Some folks are outraged by the commercialization of these holidays. But what hasn't been commercialized these days?

There would be no supply of stores open on the holidays if there were no demand on the part of consumers. If most folks declined to attend these sales, retailers would refrain from holding them. We can't condemn these practices while we heavily partake of them.

So I guess we must adjust to circumstances as we find them. Towards that end I am keeping my blog open on both Thanksgiving and Christmas. Drop by if you have time.

The Sedentary Life

2011-11-20T06:57:00.003-05:00

Health "experts" constantly warn us about the dangers of the sedentary lifestyle. To live long and healthily, they tell us, it is necessary to get regular, vigorous exercise.

However, that ever wondering skeptical side of me can't help but say, "Really?"

Personally, I know at least as many lazy people as I do exercise freaks. You know what? The lazy folks seem just as healthy, if not more so. In fact, the people I know who do go to the gym regularly have had some pretty serious health problems, including getting pacemakers, knee and hip replacements, etc. The non-exercisers, like myself, somehow seem to keep going and going. (And if I do someday come on here and write about a heart attack I just had, bear in mind that both my parents had heart disease and had heart attacks in their forties; I haven't and am now in my fifties.)

But I think what really got me to thinking about this is all the pets I've owned and those I have know down through the years. Lazy, every one of them, and that to an excessive degree. If their sedentary lifestyle impacted them negatively, I sure never noticed it. In fact, all the pampering seemed to extend their lives way beyond that of their "wilder" counterparts.

The noted "dog's life" consists of little more than lying around and "chilling out," not unlike those lazy characters on the old Hee Haw show. Old dogs can hang in there for a long time, it seems.

My cats play around a little and briefly chase an occasional squirrel or bird. That's about it. Oh, and they have regular sex. But my cats are outdoor cats and what happens to them most often is they get too far from home and meet the rubber of a car tire. I suspect that some less than cat-friendly neighbors may have picked a few off here or there. But I have been unaware of an epidemic of ill health among pets in general due to lack of regular aerobic exercise.

I'm sorry but I can't help wondering if all this emphasis isn't a bit misplaced. It sells books and programs and such things. It can make one feel better about his or her self-image and changes their body into something it was never intended to look like in the first place but that we have been sold on believing is beautiful. But is this really necessary to live well and live long?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating becoming a slug or a sloth (but even they seem to do okay). I'm just questioning whether this whole exercise thing is really the panacea these health experts say it is. One can be normally active and balance that activity with extended periods of relaxation and relative idleness (my idea of the perfect weekend) and do okay I think.

Are we that different from the lower animals?

History is full of idlers and many, many of them lived a good, long time. And I'm willing to bet with my life that this exercise faddism is mostly hype. My health advice has tended more towards what the incomparable Voltaire observed when an associate told him that his habitual coffee drinking was ingesting a slow poison. "It surely must be," observed he, "for I have been drinking it these eighty-four years and am not dead yet."

I think Bobby McFerrin's prescription may just be best: "Don't worry, be happy."

Overexposed

2011-11-19T03:41:00.002-05:00

With many blogs - like this one, for example - you get the chance to learn the blogger really well. Some of us are more comfortable than others with bearing our souls. Some my friends have written challenging posts containing some very personal information, revealing their deepest personal fears, scars from the past, and even their family secrets. There have been more than a few times when I had to really think long and hard before I clicked "publish." I wonder how many of my friends struggle with that before exposing themselves?

For me there seems to be two parts to that. One is psyching myself up to bare myself. The second is wondering what those I am exposing myself to will think. Will it make my readers uncomfortable? Will it offend them. Those of us who our blogs as a journey of self-discovery and even self-healing must take that chance.

Twenty years ago I probably could not have written this blog. I wasn't far enough along and into the process of life to be comfortable doing it. If I live and am still blogging 15 or 20 years down the road I think it will be easier still for me to sit down at my keyboard and let it rip. There seems to be something about age and maturity that makes being yourself that much easier.

During the early part of my life my religious beliefs kept me on edge, not wanting to be seen as lapsing into heathenism and a life of unbridled debauchery. Not wanting to disappoint my family and friends of a lifetime was a constant concern. Down through the years that has become less and less a concern for me.

I still have my mom and there is always that wee small chance that she will get wind of what I write from someone who knows someone who knows someone else who knows her. My fear there isn't so much from my self-exposure but that she will be hurt and feel I have unfairly exposed her. That is a consideration when I write about my life.

I do have a girlfriend and some friends and coworkers who keep up with my blog on an occasional basis. I have to be careful there because what I write could cause problems or have some rather unpleasant consequences. I've noticed down through the years that in close personal relationships, what you say will be remembered - and can and will be used against you down the road! Care and thoughtfulness is in order before you start baring everything.

Personal relationships aside, I have some thoughts on business and business management that might place my employability in jeopardy. Discretion is probably the better part of valor there. But I do have a lifetime of tales to tell on that subject.

Not being independently wealthy and unwilling as of yet to become a total hermit, I just have to deal with certain limitations on my soul-bearing.

Or maybe I'm just too timid.

I'm Here Because Someone Was Pro-life

2011-11-18T04:12:00.002-05:00

I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood this morning. It happens.

I have a friend who occasionally wears a T- shirt with the slogan: If you can read this it is because someone was pro-life.

Indeed both my parents were pro-life. Both my younger and older brothers, my mom tells me, were "accidents." But I was a planned baby. My mom is one of those who considers abortion to be murder. It's a theological view for her, not a logical one.

Of course my friend and I are both old enough that back in our day the only alternative to continuing an unwanted pregnancy was to attempt to induce a miscarriage or to visit an outlaw abortion provider. Both were risky endeavors, the latter was not only very dangerous but expensive as well.

I'm just saying that not everyone that can read that T-shirt necessarily owes that to a pro-lifer. I'm all for free speech, I just wish people would attempt to use it wisely.

As a rule I don't have a lot to say about abortion. Actually, it is an issue that doesn't directly affect me. I am a male and am unmarried. I have no immediate family that would be affected by the issue. I'm not "for" abortions. I'm also not for people pushing their theological viewpoint onto the masses as would be the case if Roe v Wade were overturned, the desire of so many religious folks.

For the most part, I avoid discussing abortion. There is absolutely no point in "debating" a person's emotions - and that is what I find is usually the real issue here. Those who believe abortion is wrong because of some form of the Divine Command Theory of morality would better defend that thesis first. That I will happily discuss. Settle that matter correctly and a whole world of options become available.

Personally, I think people who wear these T-shirts (or buttons, or who have similar bumper stickers on their automobiles) probably overestimate the value of their fellow humans and themselves. The concept that we humans are God's little sunbeams falls apart upon deeper reflection on human nature.

Towards that end, I think birth control is something I could be passionate about. I need to see what T-shirts are available with that theme.