CUUMBAYA

Captive Samhain

2011-11-01T20:33:00.002-04:00

I apologise to those readers I still have for neglecting my blog, but I've been in prison the last few months. Several prisons, in fact, including the Womans prison... as a member of the Indianapolis Pagan Prison Ministry, created by the inimitable Colleen Kelly I lead a Wiccan group at the Indianapolis ReEntry Education Facility, and both a Wiccan group and an Asatru group at New Castle Correctional, an hour's drive away.

It's a fascinating and rewarding experience... and humbling, to learn how little I truly know. Luckily for me, they're usually happy with the answer, "I don't know- but I'll find out!" And it's equally fascinating to learn about them... on one hand, it's often easy to see why they're there, even though I don't know a thing about the particulars. ("What did you do" is a verboten question, by both rule and custom) Nonetheless, you can often see things; the poor reading skills of some, the impulse control of some, the attitudes of some- as one told me, "I used to be epically selfish." But for many, you won't have a clue how they wound up there- a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps.

But they know. And that's why they called for us. They're trying to put their lives back together, trying to learn how to fit into society again- and for some reason, the church of the childhood has failed them. Or they might have deliberately chosen a Pagan path for another reason- as one told me, "I finally figured out that I was the reason I'm here. Not my parents, or society, or ony of those other things. Me. My choices. And suddenly, Christianity didn't fit any more. This is my responsibility; I can't pass it off on someone else, not even on Jesus Christ." And so he chose a religion that reflected his sense of responsibility.

But I've learned a lot about bureaucracy, too. Even when the chaplains are sympathetic- and at New castle, they called us- there is still a lot of hoops to jump through, Tees to dot and I's to cross. And then there's the guards and administration, who naturally have different concerns than the chaplains do, and may or may not be communicating all that well. The Samhain feasts Monday were an excellent example.

Their rule require them to provide a feast for the Pagans on certain holidays, Samhain being chief among them for the Wiccans- and while the Blot is a lesser one for the Asatru, well, it's still a feast, isn't it?- you take em when you can. But... we have the biggest Pagan groups in the state at New Castle; it's difficult logistically to accomodate sometimes, with a hundred Wiccans and around thirty Asatru. So three cornered talks involving chaplains, caterers, and guards became quite a dance.

First there was the issue of Samhain being on a Monday, not my normally scheduled days. I assured them that I was willing to show up on a non-scheduled day for the Samhain ritual. Then I guess there was concern about enough physical space for the two groups, so they then made it two different days for the two groups- I agreed again, and they were appreciative of my being willing to make the hour's drive three times in one week. And then the administration and the caterer wanted them to do them both on the same day after all, that day being Monday the 31st. The Asatru would be at 11:30-1:00; the Wiccans from 12:30-2:00. Some overlap, but fine. That was the state of things as of last regular service the week before.

So Monday, when I arrived at 11:00, (always early, after the debacle of my first visit when they couldn't find the gate release), I found no preparations had yet been made. I inquired, and they called for some trustees to come and set everything up. While this is happening, I notice the appt board has both groups listed for 11:30-1:00! I ask if that's correct, and am told yes, it is- is that a problem? Well, of course it is, as I hate being cut in and out of a sacred circle, but I say, "We'll cope." Then it's 11:30, and no prisoners. 11:35. 11:40. I ask where the prisoners are, and am told they can't be called out until the morning count is over. "We've been meeting at 11:30 for months, with no count issues- is today different for some reason?" "I'll check" I'm told.

About 12:00, prisoners start arriving, and we're able to start formalities by about 12:10- but not the ritual feast, which hasn't arrived yet. Then another hang up- one of the leaders of the Wiccans was in lock up and we're told that all the ritual materials are listed as his, and cannot be released even to me. So the prisoner group leaders say, "Listen up! We need ritual materials- I know you guys must have some bits and pieces, let's see what we have!" I volunteer my cane for a ritual staff; one of the trustee types runs out and returns a moment later with a Styrofoam "chalice". Somebody's needle point becomes an altar cloth, and someone else's fancy painted pentacle becomes an altar tile... a combination pen/ letter-opener becomes an Athame, etc... within just a couple minutes, we had a complete improv ritual set going.

By this time, about 12:20, the feast arrives, and the Styrofoam trays are stacked in back while ritual is opening. I leave the circle and go through the partition door to check out the Asatru... The Asatru had all arrived by then, and were ready to start- perfect timing. They opened their ritual circle, and started the remembrances ritual. I ask to go first, as I had to check on the Wiccans, and they agree with good humor. I say my remembrance for my father in law, Phil, who I had been missing recently. "Hail Phil!" They shout, and I slip out, kinda fogged up, and slip back into the Wiccan circle- they, too, are doing memorials at this point, and the raw emotion displayed by hulking, tatooed monsters is very touching. By now I'm feeling like I have a foot in three worlds; to paraphrase Jim Morrison, there are the sacred Wiccan circles, the sacred Asatru circle, and between them are the Doors- and me! I tell them that I may say this only once a year, or maybe never say the words aloud again... but there's nowhere on Earth I'd rather have feasted than here. And I meant it.

At about 12:55 several of the prisoners asked if I could ask that a restroom be opened for them. I go ask the chaplain. He says, "That's not really necessary, is it? It's supposed to be over at 1:00." "Even though the prisoners didn't get here until after 12:00, and the food, 12:30, instead of the scheduled 11:30?" "What?!?" (he hadn't been told of the hold ups) He starts talking scheduling with a trustee; after a few minutes of debate he agrees to ask a guard to open a restroom, and will allow the feast to continue for a few more minutes.

Quite a day. Despite fate's attempts to monkey wrench it, services continue to improve, and yesterday's Samhain was the most touching I have seen in a long time. Thank you, Colleen, for getting me involved.

The Obama/Pelosi Doctrine

2011-06-17T10:49:00.003-04:00

Now that the deadline is approaching for seeking Congressional approval of the "kinetic military action" in Libya under the War Powers Act, (we don't know when the deadline is for Yemen, because that one began in secret), President Obama has announced the law does not apply to him because it's not really a war. Ex-Speaker Pelosi agrees completely.

This begs the question of what they would consider a war- after all, we are making deep strikes into sovereign nations, killing foreign soldiers, (and often civilians by mistake), degrading (that means blowing up) their defense infrastructure, and demanding their governments step down. Most dictionaries would call these things acts of war, but Obama and Pelosi assure us they are not. Why?

The answer is clear from their various statements, a new definition we can call the Obama/Pelosi Doctrine: it's only a war if Americans are dying. Since our attacks are conducted by unmanned drones or extremely high altitude bombing, there's little or no chance any Americans will be killed; so no matter how many die as a result of our actions, it's not a war, and therefore the President needs no Congressional approval. The War Powers Act applies only to even exchanges, not to one-sided massacres.

And why are we doing this? Not in retaliation for attacks upon the United States, nor any of our allies; there have been none. Nor is it to preempt an attack upon ourselves, or any ally; none were planned. Not by any treaty obligation. We attacked a sovereign nation to protect its citizens from their own government Doesn't that sound like... the world's policeman? We are demanding their governments step down, because we believe a government that looks more like ours would be better, and we're willing to go to war- excuse me, to kinetic military action- to ensure it happens. Gee... aren't those Neocon doctrines?

Now, I don't expect war protesters to start showing up at Obama speeches, or Code Pink to start trying to make citizen's arrests of administration officials for war crimes; those are purely partisan organizations. But here's a chance for UUs and the UUA to step up and prove that their eighth principle is not "The Democrat Party, may she always be right- but the party, right or wrong!" Here's a chance to say that the law and the Constitution apply to politicians we like as well as those we don't. Here's a chance to say that American exceptionalism doesn't mean that only American lives matter. I imagine I'll see a firestorm of blogposts and AIWs and SOCs about this.
　
Any minute now.

UPDATE: The video has been taken offline; I can't imagine why. here's a story about it instead.

It really is the people

2011-05-30T13:45:00.002-04:00

We just returned from the Outer Banks of North Carolina on a trip that involved vacationing and visiting both friends and family along the way. We stopped in Washington, D.C. (friends) on the way to, and Cary, North Carolina (family) on the way out- with stops at Young's Jersey Dairy both directions. We spent most of our time, however, in the cities of Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, and Nags Head- and despite all the things to see and do there, I'm declaring it's the people that make it special.

A few examples. We had car trouble. The nice people at The Front Porch Cafe gave us a phone book and recommendations of local repair shops. (and darn good coffee, too) We called ABC Towing, who was willing, just on the strength of our phone call, to call in rush parts orders to the mainland before we had even brought the car in to them. It was a major repair- six hours labor, by the book- and it had to be done twice, because the first time it broke again on the test drive and they had to repeat the work with replacement parts. So again they paid for rush shipment of new parts- got the first batch approved for warranty, no extra charge to us- and got it all finished before we were due to leave... and the final bill was, according to my brother, the mechanic, not only fair but less than many places here in Indianapolis would have charged.

One restaurant we went to, Owen's, was so superb that even though we normally never repeat a restaurant while on vacation, looking for new experiences, we knew we'd have to go back there before leaving, and we told them so. They said it was their pleasure, and they'd watch for us. Well, any decent businessman would say that, right? But they must have meant it... when we were there the first time, I had asked to swap chairs; because of some back and hip issues, I cannot sit in some armchairs. When we returned a few nights later, and the hostess led us to our table, there was my chair, waiting for me!

Lots of other experiences... chats with people as I flew a kite in Ocracoke while Ginger was admiring the wild ponies... a discussion of the scandalous Washington infighting surrounding the Smithsonian, Professor Langley, and the Wright brothers with chatty and knowledgeable rangers at the Wright Memorial... nice ladies at Enterprise Car Rental pulling out three different cars before finding one that we and our stuff could fit in, and being helpful and cheerful the whole time. Thank you, OBX!

That was then...

2011-05-03T14:28:00.002-04:00

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

This is now...

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Three years ago, when I was predicting that Obama's war policies would be exactly the same as McCain's, everyone thought I was crazy. Perhaps now that the President has renewed the Patriot Act, kept Guantanamo open, restarted the military tribunals, launched new offensives in both Iraq and Afghanistan, (not to mention quietly giving up on timetables and admitting that we're not leaving 'til it's done), launched a war "of choice, not necessity" in another Middle Eastern country, and violated the sovereignty of a supposed ally by sending a mordgruppe in to launch an attack on their soil without their permission or consultation, my predictions look a little less silly.

I am not criticizing President Obama; it was, and is my contention that a President's actions are largely defined by physical and political realities, and that Obama isn't, and Bush wasn't a villain. No matter how much they might long to, a President cannot effect real change by himself; I wish people would invest some of their attention into the Congressional, Gubernatorial, and State Legislature races instead of thinking a single vote every four years is going to fix everything.

The false intimacy of church

2011-04-28T15:11:00.002-04:00

Anyone even the slightest bit outgoing makes friends quickly at church. After all, you're self selected to be compatible; you believe the same things, or nearly enough. You're there for the same reasons and purposes- that produces an infectious camaraderie, an intimacy.

But it's a false intimacy. You have no idea how huge are the differences that can be masked over by a common ideology or a covenant, how little of the real person is conveyed by a religious identity until there's some decision, some committee vote that makes you say, "That isn't the man I know. That isn't the woman I know. Who are these people who have been so large a part of my life for so many years?" And then you have to decide whether it's possible to fellowship with the real people in the room, rather than the illusions you had been fellowshipping with.

I hope you have no idea what I'm talking about. I hope you never do.

Why do people feel they have to lie to enhance a perfectly good argument?

2011-04-21T11:00:00.002-04:00

I've said before that lying, even in a good cause, is wrong- and now here's an even more egregious example. First listen to the President speaking about budget proposals:

Sounds compelling to me! How can anyone justify cutting infrastructure spending, when the lack of maintenance caused that bridge in Minneapolis to collapse? 13 people died in that tragedy; what bastards those Republicans are to not care how many more they kill with their penny pinching!

There's just one minor detail, a mere quibble, really: It's a lie! The bridge collapsed because of a design flaw, not poor maintenance. According to the NTSB, the primary structural members, "gusset plates", were too small even for the original design weight, much less the extra abuse they were heaping on it when it fell: "On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a significant factor, but that inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional.[135]" (Wikipedia) You could have given the maintenance crews an extra billion dollars, and it wouldn't have saved the bridge, because they were maintaining a fatally flawed structure. Extra maintenance dollars don't mean much when you're loading more than a half a million pounds onto something that wasn't up to code to begin with!

The rest of the President's argument was good enough in its own right- why did he feel he needed to lie to strengthen it? Are politicians unaware that when they're caught at it, people often consider the entire position discredited? Why do they risk it?

Oops, another correction to "Why all this deficit stuff matters"

2011-04-18T21:38:00.007-04:00

In that post, I said, "And "tomorrow" no longer means some far-flung future; city and state munis are being de-rated by bond companies right now, and we're hearing the first hints that it could start to happen to federal bonds, too. Within just a few years, we could be paying junk bond interest rates for T-bills, which would make everything I've outlined above far, far worse." Well, I was wrong- it's not "Within just a few years", it's right now Standard and Poor issued the threat today: "NEW YORK (Reuters) – Standard & Poor's threatened Monday to downgrade the United States' prized AAA credit rating unless the Obama administration and Congress find a way to slash the yawning federal budget deficit within two years." I hate to say I told you so, but...

No, actually, I don't hate it at all.

A correction to "Why all this deficit stuff actually matters"

2011-04-18T13:21:00.002-04:00

In my previous post, I said that only those working in the private sector, paying taxes, can pay off the national debt; there being 108 million people working, and a $14 Trillion debt, that's $129,630 each. A friend has pointed out an error in this calculation.

The error is this: just because you have a job, that doesn't automatically mean that you pay any federal income tax. In fact, with tax breaks and dependents, Nearly half of US households escape federal income tax "In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax... The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."

So only the top 53% of wage earners are actually expected to pay back the national debt. If you are one of the 57,240,000 people earning over $50k/year, congratulations! Your share of the national debt is $244,584.

Why all this deficit stuff actually matters

2011-04-15T10:52:00.007-04:00

In my post, On extending unemployment, I noted the difficulty of working with unemployment numbers, and based my discussion on employment numbers instead; there's no debate over how many are working. I noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that there were fewer people working today than in 1999. Evidently things have gotten worse since I wrote that.

According to the USA Today article, More Americans leaving workforce, "Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record." But what kind of jobs are being held by those who do have jobs? According to a Wall Street Journal article, We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers, it's government jobs. "If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government. It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. (emphasis mine) "Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods... Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees."'

Why does this matter? Public employees, while they pay taxes as individuals, are net tax expenses. If you combine public employees (22.5 million) with Social Security recipients (59.6 million), that's 82.1 million living off the taxes 108 million are paying... not counting poverty assistance programs, of course. Then we have to look at the 76 million Baby Boomers. I don't know how many of them are currently employed, but starting this year, and running for the next twenty years, they're all going to shift to the Social Security side of the ledger. That's in addition to the current 59 million. Now, yes, I know some of the current 59 million recipients will die before the Baby Boomers finish swelling the ranks, so the total living off the government will be less than 82 + 76 million; but then, the numbers of public employees will also go up starting in 2014 as the healthcare legislation takes effect. No matter how you figure it, in just a few years, there's going to be more people taking money from the government than paying into it. A LOT more. And despite knowing this day was coming, we haven't saved a single penny to pay for it.*

This means we're going to have to borrow money to pay even essential services, let alone SSI, etc. Banks who loan to governments look at the same thing they would in extending credit to a business or an individual: the ability to pay it back. And the biggest single factor in that equation is current debt load. As of right now, that's $14 Trillion... or as so many pundits like to point out, $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The problem is that banks know that every man, woman, and child don't pay loans back; people with jobs do. Private Sector jobs. If you divide the current national debt by the people actually expected to pay it off- the 108 million employed- that's $129,629 per taxpayer!

That's today. At the current rate of increase in the national debt, in just four years that will be $20 Trillion- $185,185 per taxpayer. The average income is about $35,000. Would you loan more money to someone who earns $35K and owes $185K? Yes; if his children, and his children's children cosigned the note- which is what it means to be a citizen of a debtor nation. But that banker, knowing full well that that kind of debt cannot be paid off in a single lifetime, will charge enough interest to make his money back just on the interest rates... and municipal bonds will begin to look like credit card statements instead.

But wait! We have the new budget cutting agreement just passed by congress- $38 Billion cut! That's a good start, right? Okay... a Trillion is just a Thousand Billion; let's drop a dump truck load of zeros, and pretend this was a small town council meeting with the state comptroller. First meeting, September 30, 2010:

Comptroller: It says here that your town is $14,000 in debt. How much do you collect in taxes?

Council: $2,000 per year.

Comptroller: And how much are you planning on spending this year? Council: $3,700.

Comptroller: (sigh) Go make some cuts- and remember, the budget is due tomorrow!

April 14, 2011

Comptroller: You've been arguing for six months! Have you made the cuts?

Council: Big cuts. Women and children will die. We're going to become a Third World village, but we know how important this is, so we made the cuts!

Comptroller: I'm Impressed! How much have you cut?

Council: $38. (shout from the back) And 50 cents! Don't forget the 50 cents! Right! Make that $38.50!

Comptroller: Which takes your $1,700 deficit all the way down to... Council: $1,661.50!

Comptroller: I see. And if you continue to make huge cuts like that, spending $38.50 less than the year before, the budget will be balanced in the year...

Council: 2374. Provided, of course, that in the meantime we have no new economic downturns, no new wars, or serious hurricanes, or terrorist incidents, or anything else of a disruptive nature...

Now some people would prefer to tackle this from the revenue side instead. Now surely, if we repeal the Eee-Viiile Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich (tm), that would balance the budget, wouldn't it? Make the millionaires pay their fair share? Well, no, actually; it wouldn't...

Look, folks, it's no longer a matter of whether cuts will happen; we no longer have time to tax our way out or grow our way out. The choices are: severe, painful cuts today of our own choosing, or devastating, draconian cuts by force tomorrow. And "tomorrow" no longer means some far-flung future; city and state munis are being de-rated by bond companies right now, and we're hearing the first hints that it could start to happen to federal bonds, too. Within just a few years, we could be paying junk bond interest rates for T-bills, which would make everything I've outlined above far, far worse.

*Don't talk to me about "Trust Funds", or "Lockboxes". Do you know what's in those "Lockboxes"? T-Bills. Treasury bonds are not funds. They are not money. What they are is a promise from the government that they will keep taxing us until they scrape enough money together to pay it off. That's what all your taxes have bought you- a promise that they will keep taxing you. That's all.

Loosen up!

2011-04-11T12:12:00.000-04:00

I had a seriously brilliant post written about things said and done in the budget debates by politicians, pundits, and bloggers... but then, reading it for editing, I asked what purpose could this post serve, for all its brilliance? I pondered that for a while, then decided to chuck it and post this instead:

Chris Matthews' leg must be tingling again

2011-04-09T09:47:00.000-04:00

Listen to his coverage of the continuing resolution compromise...

Can't you just hear him doing a karaoke of this?

Those aren't secret "Black Sites", it's just Kinetic Questioning!

2011-04-08T19:11:00.002-04:00

From the Associated Press: "“Black sites,” the secret network of jails that grew up after the Sept. 11 attacks, are gone. But suspected terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press. The secrecy under which the U.S. runs that jail and about 20 others is noteworthy because of President Barack Obama's criticism of the old network of secret CIA prisons where interrogators sometimes used the harshest available methods, including the simulated drowning known as waterboarding. Human rights advocates say the severest of the Bush-era interrogation methods are gone, but the conditions at the new interrogation sites still raise questions. Obama pledged when he took office that the United States would not torture anyone, but former detainees describe harsh treatment that some human rights groups claim borders on inhumane. "

We can't blame it on the locals or our allies, either; this our project, which the "sovereign" Afghanistan government has no control over: "The status of the temporary facilities likely would be negotiated as part of a future security agreement, transitioning power to the government of Afghanistan."

I did predict in September 2008 that Iraq was a non-issue because candidates Obama and McCain would behave identically regarding the wars. I had hoped I was wrong, but we've already gotten news that we'll be in Iraq past 2012, in Afghanistan past 2014, (after new "surges" in each) started a new war in Libya (and anyone who thinks the no-fly zone is the end of it should read up on the no-fly zone we imposed on Iraq in 1991), re-started the military Gitmo trials, made secret deals to supply arms to the Libyan rebels, and, apparently, opened new Black Sites as fast we closed the old ones. I don't see how McCain could have done more.

Important words spoken in jest

2011-04-06T10:48:00.000-04:00

One of the best written comedy websites out there is CRACKED.com One of the things that makes them so good is that often their articles are the straight dope- but being about people, they're naturally funny. And sometimes, they include really important words that people need to hear, like 5 Complaints About Modern Life (That Are Statistically B.S.)

Plus ca change-we-can-believe-in, plus ca la meme chose

2011-04-05T10:06:00.000-04:00

A Modest Proposal

2011-03-30T12:24:00.007-04:00

Because of a congressional walkout here in Indiana over a number of issues, including school vouchers, I thought I'd republish my voucher proposal from many years ago. The exact dollar figures are of course out of date, but the ratios are still valid; just adjust for inflation.

This is the proposal that started it all, as heard on the Hot Seat segment of the Greg Browning Show (NewsTalk 1430 AM, Indianapolis), April 20th 2004. Following this original text I have included supporting text and extra material too detailed for a radio show. For those outside of the state of Indiana, ISTEP is our skills test each grade must take. The figures related here apply only to Indiana- but I'm sure the principles are the same in your state, whatever that state is!

Dear Editor, The editorial in the Sunday Star, March 28, about controlling rising college tuition costs, combined with a number of articles and letters recently about Charter schools inspired a comprehensive plan covering grade school through college that will provide a free college education for every Hoosier child without a tax increase!

The first step in this four-step plan is to take the money we’re already allocating from all sources to each student, approximately $8,700, (source: The Star Press.com, 3/29/04), and put $3,700 of it into a savings account (more about this account later). Take the remaining $5,000 and issue it as a school voucher. As this is more than the average private school tuition, and more than double the cheapest, there will be no difficulty finding the child a school for this amount.

The second step is to discorporate the various public school systems, and turn the facilities over to the teachers who already work there, letting them function as independent, employee-owned private schools. This should result in big pay increase for most teachers. Consider: multiply the average class size of 25 students by that $5,000 voucher, and you get $125,000per classroom! Subtracting that one room’s share of the utilities and the mortgage (assuming there is one- the average public school mortgage was paid off some time ago), and there’d be plenty left for the teacher!

The third step starts when the child graduates high school or passes the ISTEP. Remember that savings account from step one? $3,700 per year times twelve years of grade school and high school is $44,400, not counting interest. (more about the interest later) That $44,400 is issued as a voucher good at any state supported university! That’s enough for a four year degree at any of the state supported colleges, with enough left over for books and incidentals at most of them!

Step four takes the interest from those savings accounts- a very substantial sum- plus the accounts of those children who die, move out of state, or cannot qualify for college even when it’s free, and the excess from the accounts of those who opted for two-year degrees, and uses that money to cover all the administrative expenses of the new system! Odds are there’d be money left over to return to the general fund.

The results: as a grade school student, the child’s parents have freedom of choice. The teachers get a raise. All the state colleges get a huge influx of cash and students, allowing them to bid on the best professors from all over the world and build the finest research facilities. Business would be anxious to relocate to Indiana- indeed, their employees would demand it! And all of this without spending an extra penny!

All we need to have a world class education system for Indiana is the courage to change a system designed in another century, for another century. Our educational system was originally designed to serve pre-industrial farmers; and unless we change it, that's what our children will become. Joel Monka

EXPANSION Financial notes I had said in step 1 that $3,700 of the per student allocation would be put in a savings account. We all know that in real life this would never happen: no politician from either party can bear the sight of money just sitting there, not being spent to buy votes. (excuse me, of course I meant to provide public services) But what if we DID put it into a savings account, letting the total ride, compounding annually for 12 years? Interest Rate/Amount of Interest 5.0 % = $17,438.10 5.5 % = $19,561.90 6.0 % = $21.763.40 Remember... that’s per student!

Can you really educate a student for $5,000? Any professional educator will tell you that you cannot run a modern school system for $5,000 per student, and they’d be right- you can’t run a school system for that price; but you can run a damn fine school at that rate.

In a story in the Indianapolis Star 4/23/04 about budget woes in Pike Township we find figures to support this. It mentions a $63 million budget for 10,000 students- $6,300/student. It also says that 85% of this is salaries- a commendably high figure, actually. But then it mentions that makes up 700 teachers and 650 non-teaching supporting staff! That’s 50% staff! I’ve been in those schools, and just like the schools I attended they do NOT have a staff member for every teacher- those positions are needed to run the system, not the individual schools. Let’s say a reasonable number of staff members for a school is one for every two teachers (and most schools have fewer than that): cutting half of 85% of $6,300/student yields $5,000/student! This confirms the private school averages of $5,000 per student or less.

Put it this way: what does a school system that operates ten schools do that ten independent schools without a system don’t do? School systems do not train the teachers, they do not license the teachers, they do not write the textbooks, they do not even control the curricula- the ISTEP test does.

The school systems say they set uniform standards- but the wildly divergent results from one school to another within the system forces one to believe that either it’s application is less uniform than claimed, or that a one-size-fits-all approach is the problem in the first place.

The school systems cannot even be trusted to decide which children go to which school without oversight; their long history of racial segregation resulted in the Federal government having to intervene. What does a school system do that is worth the high cost?

OBJECTIONS You cannot eliminate the public school systems- the state has an obligation to educate the children. Yes, the state Constitution says so- but it doesn’t say what form that system must take. We feed the hungry, but we don’t have government run farms, butchers, bakers, and grocery stores; we issue AFDC and WIC vouchers. We provide shelter with section 8 vouchers, we provide medical care with MEDICAID and MEDICARE vouchers- in fact most government services take the form of vouchers; why should education be different?

Voucher systems only help the rich. In past plans, this was often true; the amount offered as a voucher was only a fraction of the amount the public schools got per student, and was not enough to cover tuition. Under this plan, however, every child gets the same allocation, which is enough to cover tuition.

Voucher systems have been tried before and failed. No pure voucher system has ever been tried before- it has always been public schools plus limited vouchers. Under such a system, the government allocates $8,000-$10,000 or more per student to the public schools, but if the child goes elsewhere he only gets $500-$1,500 in vouchers. It is true that $500 will not buy the same education that $10,000 will.

A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification. Which is exactly what we have right now- are you saying the Carmel schools and the Center Township schools are equal? The greatest stratification exists between the ruling classes who go to private schools and the rest of us who go to public schools. Bill Clinton opposed vouchers; his daughter went to private schools. Jesse Jackson opposes vouchers; his children went to private schools. Do yourself a favor; ask any politician who opposes vouchers where their children went to school- it’s very enlightening.

How would you handle busing for racial balance? Busing for desegregation was intended to redress past racial segregation by the public school systems. If there is no public school system, there would be no organization having a history of racism, and no past offenses to redress. The situation would be analogous to using a MEDICAID voucher- the government wouldn’t bus you from Wishart to St. Francis for racial balance. If an individual school practices racial discrimination, there are already laws on the books to address that.

The First Amendment prevents any government money going to religious organizations- including schools. That’s not exactly true- for example, MEDICAID and MEDICARE vouchers often go to hospitals run by religious organizations, and the courts have upheld their doing so. When a religious organization is only one of many possible choices, and it’s the consumer making the choice rather than a government official, such payments have always been upheld. The problem arises when you have a public school system on one hand, and private schools that are 90% religious on the other; this means that the voucher choice is not really public vs. private, it’s secular vs. religious. But under my plan, with the formerly public schools now being independent private schools, the secular choices will actually outnumber the religious, and this will restore Constitutionality.

Who will pay for transportation- the school the child wants to go to may not have buses. Even public schools do not always provide free transportation- due to budget cuts, some school districts are now charging for the bus rides- regardless of ability to pay! (Indystar.com, 4/20/04, ‘Budget cuts stalling school buses‘) To add insult to injury, they’re having to pay for rides to go to a school they had no choice in choosing! If there is no public transportation, (in the old days, many children rode city buses to school), and there are no schools within walking distance, and the family is below the poverty line, I’m sure some provision could be made. Remember when couples used to choose where to live to be close to the schools they wanted to send their kids to?

QUESTIONS How would the local school boards be able to oversee dozens of independent schools? School boards exist to give the parents a voice in how the school systems their kids go to are run. If there are no school systems, and the parents have control via the voucher system, then schools boards- and their attendant budgets- would be eliminated as unnecessary and redundant. We would still need a state Superintendent of Public Instruction to set ISTEP standards and such, however.

Don’t charter schools already give us choice in schools? This isn’t just a choice issue- it’s a question of economic efficiency and opportunity as well. But remember that the public school system still runs the charter schools- isn’t that like saying Microsoft gives you choice because they have Windows XP AND Windows NT?

What about the home schooled? The home schooled would be covered by this plan. As long as they’re passing ISTEP, all reasonable education expenses should be voucher eligible. Then if they passed the high school ISTEP, they would get college vouchers like everyone else. In fact, without the need to save for their kids college educations, I would expect a lot of two-income families could afford to have one of them quit their job and stay home with the kids- I would expect to see a huge growth in home schooling.

What about problem students? There wouldn’t be much of a change that I could see. If the problems are physical, what we do right now is mainstream when we can, and institutionalize when we must; those are pretty much the only options under any system. If the problem is behavioral, there are limits to what even public schools will tolerate, and beyond that the kids receive tutoring in juvenile detention. Again, what other options are there? At least this way, if he cleans up his life while in detention, and can pass ISTEP, he’ll get a college voucher when he gets out.

If there’s no public school system, how can you guarantee that small rural districts will have schools? The public schools make no such guarantee; rural students are bused to consolidated school systems. Under the pure voucher system, at least there’s a chance a local school would open. Especially if restrictions on who can teach are eased; then someone home-schooling their child could take in a neighbor’s, too. The entire system of licensing teachers should be re-examined. Under Indiana law, Stephen Hawking is not qualified to teach high school physics and Andrew Lloyd Webber is not qualified to teach music; but someone with a generic degree in education can teach either one. Why? I figure that licensing is unnecessary. If a teacher can’t teach, the school will fire him rather than risking de-certification for vouchers for flunking ISTEP. If the teacher can teach, the job is secure; he’s bringing home the bacon. Either way, the license is meaningless.

ONE LAST TRY... I know that even after reading all the above there are still those saying “I don’t know why not, but it still can’t work.”, so let me make one last attempt. Let’s make this really simple: we’re currently spending $8,700 per year per student on education. That makes the total obligation for the twelve years through high school, in constant dollars, $104,4000. If we divided that total by sixteen years instead, to reflect the extra four years of college, that would be $6,525. Can you buy a year's tuition, at any level from first grade to college senior for $6,525? Hell yes- there are grade schools charging as little as $2,500, and Vincennes University charges less than $3,000!

So why didn’t I say it that way in the first place? Because nobody would read past that simple sentence; half would just run off and tell people this guy says you can run the school system for $6,525 per year, and the other half would say we can afford $6,525 vouchers without ever mentioning that the school systems have to be dismantled before that is possible. Anyone saying that can be easily proven wrong, and that would be the end of the story.

Until you have it firmly in mind that the traditional style of school systems, for all the good they have done for the past- and they really have- are obsolete, nothing else can be done. We are running our schools in the least efficient manner possible because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. Can we really afford the high price of this nostalgia?

Coda to "Why I'm Not A Universalist"

2011-03-28T22:19:00.007-04:00

Well, to a lot of my posts, really. I've been loading programs into my new computer, and a little while ago loaded my CD collection of Mad Magazines- every issue up through December, 1998. Naturally, I had to test the installation by reading a few of my favorites. For those not familiar with the Mad Magazine of yore, it was quite the literate magazine for the first 25 years or so- gonzo, yes, but not juvenile. The contributors also had a keen understanding of the American zeitgeist- that's what made their satire so funny. Even when you knew their portrayals were twisted, you knew they were the conventional wisdom. So check out this piece from nearly 40 years ago.

Mad Magazine, September 1972

The Mad "Religion In America" Primer

Chapter 8 The Minister

This is a Baptist Minister.

He is delivering a sermon.

It is a very important sermon.

It is all about non-religious people.

He tells about people who worship idols.

He calls them Paganists.

He tells them about people who aren't sure there is a God.

He calls them Agnostics.

He tells about the worst people of all.

People who don't believe there's a God.

People who are threatening to destroy religion as we know it.

He calls them Unitarians!

My watching the President’s speech was interrupted...

2011-03-28T20:36:00.000-04:00

…by someone at the door. I answered the door prepared to unleash a curmudgeonly blast at whoever it was, and had my guns spiked when I opened the door- it was uniformed boy scouts collecting canned goods for the poor. If you've ever wondered why I talk about my neighborhood so much, that's an example... Norman Rockwell's ghost lives here. And hey, I can always get the speech online.

Why I am not a Universalist part 2

2011-03-24T15:56:00.002-04:00

Continued from the previous post
I set ground rules for my religious quest: First, anything I discovered had to pass the gut check; the whole reason for the quest was my visceral rejection of the story as I understood it. Second, it had to make sense intellectually; it had to result in something I could understand and use in my daily life, or else what was the point? I also decided to start with all the basic schools of Christianity I could find, in case it was just the church I had been raised in that was the problem, not Christianity per se. I was in a good position to do this, as the Indianapolis suburb I lived in- Irvington- had more churches per capita than most any place on Earth. It had been the home of Butler University, and within a five minute walk of my front door were five giant Gothic Cathedral type churches, from Catholic to Christian Scientist, (to this day, on a Sunday morning one can hear dueling carillons); the international HQ of a Christian mission, the home convent of an order of nuns, and another half dozen storefront churches.

Two in particular caught my interest. First was Calvinism, which taught that belief itself was impossible for flawed humans, and was the gift of God. What you had to do was to behave as if you believed, and prepare yourself for when the gift was given to you.* It would certainly explain why I couldn't believe. But upon closer examination, it didn't make sense either- how could belief be the test if you had no control over your belief? Under this doctrine, the only part in your control was your behavior, which made it salvation by acts, rather than by belief- a direct contradiction to John 3:16 and 18.

The second to catch my interest was Universalism, the doctrine that Jesus' sacrifice paid for all of mankind's sins, and so salvation was universal.** This was on all fours with John 3:17, and at least the first clause of 3:16, although a contradiction of 3:18. Nobody goes to Hell.*** This seemed better at first, but it still required belief in the rest of the story, if not in damnation; could I do that? No. Universalism didn't make sense either... yes, it's nice that everyone gets saved, but it did nothing to address the issue of why we needed salvation in the first place.

We needed salvation because one must be perfect to enter Heaven, and no human being is capable of achieving perfection; the Bible makes that abundantly clear. The effective result is that we're born damned; we are going to be judged by a standard that we cannot meet. That is so patently unfair as to be irrational; you cannot condemn a quart jar for not holding a gallon- especially if you're the potter that cast the quart jar! God knew full well the risks of giving his creations free will when he made Adam and Eve- he'd gone through that scenario before with the angels... But okay, let's assume for a moment that it makes sense; after all, the story isn't all that well told, and maybe I'm missing something. What's next?

*16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. I don't get it. If God loved us that much, why didn't he just change the rules? I actually asked that one; I learned the meaning of "doubletalk" that day. But okay, we've got to be purified, and that takes a blood sacrifice. Says who? Didn't God make the rules? Never mind... So he gave his only begotten Son... "Only"?? So, what, is the rest of the human race chopped liver? We're all his creations; are some methods of creation more precious than others?

Sorry; I digress. To make a long story short (Too late!), I could not believe that we needed to be saved; I could not believe that salvation required a blood sacrifice; I could not believe that Jesus was the only son of God- and I could not believe in the Trinity. I could not be a Christian Universalist, by the standards commonly understood forty years ago. There are newer versions, like the Christian Universalist Association that I could live comfortably with- but I'm already a Pagan; why change names?

*Yes, I know this is an oversimplified and somewhat flawed explanation. This is a memoir, not a doctoral thesis; I'm relating what I took from how it was explained to a young person.

**See the first footnote.

***I had problems with Hell as a concept, aside from the question of who deserved to go there. Reread John 3:16- do you see any mention of Heaven or Hell in it? The choice was not between Heaven and Hell, but between eternal life and eternal death. It is stated that way very explicitly in quite a few places in the Bible. "I am the resurrection and the life." But if you do not believe, well, "...let the dead bury their dead." So how can you suffer eternal damnation if you don't have eternal life? At what point did God decide that stripping you of eternal life was not punishment enough, that he had to resurrect you and punish you again?

Why I'm not a Universalist (part one)

2011-03-24T15:46:00.003-04:00

I'm coming late to the discussion of Universalism that was sparked by Rob Bell's new book. The reason is that I wasn't sure I wanted to write this, but my own hesitation convinced me that I needed to write it. Then having written it, there was the question of whether I should publish it. My fear in publishing was because I thought that some would read only a couple paragraphs and decide it was yet another Unitarian criticizing Christianity and the church he was raised in. But it is not- I never felt oppressed by Christianity, never had any church related trauma... but it never connected with me, either; it was no more real to me than the Greek and Roman mythologies. What follows is not a bitter criticism of Christianity, but the description of one person's religious journey- a journey that passed through Universalism.

But a failure to connect with Christianity did not make me an atheist- I very definitely felt a connection to God. Please understand how utterly bewildering this was to a young child in the 60s, raised by fundamental Christians. As far as I knew, had been taught, (and who questions their parents when all grownups you know agree) this was a contradiction in terms: there was the God of Abraham, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and there were false gods invented by Satan to confuse people and separate them from the Holy Trinity. Period. I knew all these things well; I had gone to Sunday School, I had been given explanations by my parents. I knew that everything boiled down to a simple binary: either John 3:16-18*, or the lies of Satan. I knew it, but I couldn't accept it. It was wrong. Understand that I was preteen at this point; I had no rational arguments to make, no list of grievances, no 95 thesis- I simply knew. I could no more have accepted the story than I could have prevented my knee from jerking under the doctor's hammer.

The natural reaction was to wonder what was wrong with me. I remember well laying awake at night- sometimes all night- wonder why I couldn't see, couldn't believe what was so obvious to everyone else. I knew I wasn't dumb; I was in all the accelerated classes in school. And I knew how important it was- John 3:18 states quite clearly that belief is the test- if you don't believe, you are condemned, no matter how you lived your life. My obstinacy was suicidal- I spent many hours searching for the flaw in my mind or my soul that was risking my eternity.

I was put on a new track by a book; not a religious text, but a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein titled "Revolt In 2100". It was about a future America that had become a theocracy in the early 21st century, and the revolt that restored democracy. What excited me was that one of the protagonists had had the same problem as I. He decided that if he couldn't believe what he'd been told, he'd better find out for himself what he did believe. This was a stunning concept- it had never occurred to me that you could do that. Regular people didn't create belief systems; religions were handed down to you from above, by God or Satan. I couldn't do that- how would I know what was right? After all, if I didn't have faith in the Word of God, how could I have faith in anything else I found?

That's when I had my first breakthrough: I realized that when I was asked to have faith in the Bible, I was being asked to have faith in men, not God- and that was true even if the Bible really is the word of God! After all, how did I know the Bible was the word of God? Because I had been told that it was by men, some of whom I knew (though I didn't dare say) were not as smart as I was. When I carefully broached the subject to my elders, I was told to pray, meditate, and sleep on it, and I would see the truth. Well, I had been doing exactly that for a couple years at this point, and either God hadn't spoken to me, or he had- in which case Christianity, at least in the way it had been explained to me, was wrong. This gave me the courage to start my religious pilgrimage.

*16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Anti-war, or merely anti-Republican?

2011-03-23T15:52:00.000-04:00

We've seen many times in the last two years the...ah... flexibility of former Senators Obama and Biden's deeply held principles...

But now I'm wondering about the UU blogosphere- aside from my previous two posts, a search through UUpdates shows that a lobster could count on one hand the number of UU bloggers who have even mentioned the attacks on Libya. This strikes me as very odd. It's a stunning attack- the British are actually running out of cruise missiles, and a single US B2 Stealth sortie dropped 90,000 lbs of bombs, and we've flown hundreds of sorties. And yet the UU response could be described by Paul Simon- "...And my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the sounds of silence..." Could you understand why the casual observer might conclude that we base our religious principles on our political principles?

The Devil skated to work this morning

2011-03-21T20:40:00.002-04:00

I found myself in complete agreement with Rep. Kucinich.

So we've gone to war again

2011-03-19T18:26:00.001-04:00

A couple hours ago, Saturday 3/18, the US went to war without a Congressional vote, against a country that had not committed any act of war against the US, nor had any weapons of mass destruction, nor initiated any terrorist acts against the US since 1988.

Given the way US wars have been blogged about the last ten years, and the recent debate on making the UUA an official peace church because of those actions, I expect UU bloggers will be ripping into the President with a vengenge. I can't wait to see it.

Any minute now.

UPDATE: If you had some kind of fantasy that it was going to be okay with the Arab League for American forces to bomb Libya just because they asked us to, read this Reuters story, dateline 03.20.11, 21:45 : "The head of the Arab League, which supported Libyan no-fly zone, said his organization had not endorsed attacks on ordinary Libyans. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Amr Moussa said, announcing an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss Libya.

Moussa's comments followed a demand by Russia to stop the "indiscriminate" use of force it said was killing civilians in Libya.
The air strikes exceed the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution, which approved a no-fly zone and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians, Russia Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement."

The Arab League cannot pretend it did not know what is involved to enforce a No-Fly zone; the scenario has been played out many times in their neighboring countries. But by pretending not to know, they can use us to rid themselves of a dictator they didn't like, and simultaneously gin up outrage against us for domestic consumption- for doing what they asked us to do!

Rev Fred Phelps inherits the wind

2011-03-17T14:06:00.000-04:00

From CNN: Estranged son of anti-gay Westboro pastor says father does 'evil'

KSA syndrome

2011-03-13T19:49:00.003-04:00

Since Christmas, my beloved has developed a syndrome that I understand many people are showing signs of these days: KSA, or "Kindle Separation Anxiety". Symptoms include planning one's wardrobe around being able to secure the Kindle to one's person; panicking at the first sign of malfunction, dashing to get dressed and drive to Staples quick before they close; and an eerie LED glow emanating from under the covers late at night.

Kindles are selling so quickly, and are so addictive once owned, that physical books may soon go the way of 8-Track. Which means that the next generation could hear a whole new set of clichés...

The judge threw the Kindle at him.

"Kindle 'em, Dano!"

He was making Kindle on the side, but he wasn't a full time Kindlee.

The crooked accountant was cooking the Kindles- at least, that was no form of Kindlekeeping I'm familiar with.

The acts Kindled for tonight are...

He was clever, but not much for Kindle learning.

The minister read from the Kindle of Common Prayer.

One of the main attractions at Dublin's Trinity University is the Kindle of Kells.

How many Kindleable hours do you have this month?

He's quite the Kindleworm.

Who wrote the Kindle of love?

He does everything strictly by the Kindle.

There were no receipts or certificates; it was a Kindle transaction.

"Waste not, want not," as the good Kindle says.

I've cast the hexagrams; now to consult the Kindle of Changes for their meaning.

At least, I hope this is the kind of clichés we'll be seeing. If Borders beats Amazon despite Amazon's early lead, I'll have to rewrite this list with permutations of "Nooky".

Cats are smarter than Sith Lords

2011-03-11T10:03:00.002-05:00

We have a new kitty in the house. Last week an intruder cat entered the house, which normally would have been shooed back out, but he was too pitiful to shoo. An orange tom, scrawny, (How scrawny? We later found out from the vet that he weighs 6.9 lbs. He stands the same height at the shoulder as our Simon, who weighs 12.4 lbs.) he had a bad paw and several owwies on his face. (At least one of which I'm sure our kitties inflicted as he entered the house) Upon closer examination, we could tell he was only half grown, and must have been living hand to mouth. (Paw to maw?)
He was yowling quite piteously, and there was no way we could turn him away when he had risked so much to come in.

After he ate... and ate... and ate... all the while making the funniest noises as he tried to simultaneously purr at us, growl at the other cats, and swallow kibble. In fact, he made a lot of noise; he's by far the most vocal cat in the house. Which immediately suggested a name; he's vocal, he was in Dire Straits- clearly his name was Knopfler.

What's all this to do with Jedis? I'm getting to it, I'm getting to it. When we got Knopfler back from the vet, and he'd had a day to sleep off all the medical attention, he started exploring the house. In the course of this, he discovered the joys of napping in the overstuffed living room chair. Now, this is much disputed turf in our house; he hadn't been in the chair thirty seconds before Simon noticed the fact and tried to hiss him off it. A kitty conversation ensued, and it struck me as very familiar, but I didn't know why- then I realized I was thinking of the third Star Wars movie. The scene I'm thinking of is the end of the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin, on the high sloped bank of the lava river; they had the same conversation, but with a different ending:

Simon/Anakin, "I'm going to come up there and kick your ass."

Knopfler/Obi-Wan, "Don't try it- I have the high ground."

Simon, "Oh- yes, I see that; I'll be moving along now." Anakin, "Hah! Watch while I... oops... fall to the ground in four separate pieces."

Cats are smarter than Sith lords.

In Video: NPR Exec Slams Tea Party, Questions Need For Federal Funds

2011-03-08T19:21:00.001-05:00

From The two-way, NPR.org's news blog has an updated-every-few-minutes story on ex-executive Ron Schiller, who was wee tad indiscrete on tape- most recent update from CEO Vivian Schiller: "In no way shape or form do they reflect what NPR does and who NPR is," NPR' chief tells Folkenflik in his report for today's All Things Considered. "I find it affront to the journalists that we have around the world — including in hot spots — in harm's way. This is NOT what NPR stands for." Here's the highlights video:

The full version, with context, is here. It should be understood from the beginning that NPR acted properly in trying to vet the organization, and refusing to accept their donation when it looked hinky. What's upsetting people is the personal views expressed by the NPR executives.

UPDATE: Two new items this morning- an update from The two-way, and the Washington Post reports that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron Schiller) has resigned.

Stunning artistry

2011-03-08T09:30:00.001-05:00

If you're a Michael Jackson fan, you know that "Smooth Criminal" was one of his more challenging pieces- would believe the whole thing can be performed on just two cellos?

If

UUA President Rev. Morales endangers the human race!

2011-03-07T09:55:00.001-05:00

I was just told that Rev. Morales recently met with Daleks! Now, I'm as accepting and welcoming as the next UU, but Daleks are evil, bloodthirsty, mechanized mutants! If you try to meet them as equals, they will ex-ter-mi-nate all life on- huh? What do you mean I've got it wrong? Haven't you seen- it wasn't Daleks, it was Dalits? You mean the oppressed people of India? Oh.

Not Daleks, then?

Oh. Well, meeting with Dalits is a good thing.

Never mind.

Questioning the moral authority of the UUA and leadership

2011-03-06T15:43:00.003-05:00

Sunday's post on "Boy in the Bands" begins, "I’ve had many misgivings about the UUA over the years: its direction, its leadership, its poor service providence, its continuing exclusion of Christians, its culture of preciousness, its old boys and girls networks, its relevance in today’s world." What moved him to write was a guest post on Musings and Essays by the former District Executive of the Clara Barton District, describing how she'd been forced out of her position. Coming as it did after the controversial firing of the Pacific Central District Executive- over the objections of the PCD board- it's easy to understand why Scott says, "...but now we have the suggestion of a plan."

I imagine that Scott was reminded, as I was, of the way Boston mishandled the disaffiliation of the Independent Affiliates, something that has left lasting resentment and bewilderment... and they seem to have learned nothing from it. It's especially ironic when you consider how we try to lecture our political leaders about transparency in governance, even to the point of our previous Association President praising Iranian President Ahmadinejad for meeting with him and answering questions, something he presumed that our own President would not have done. (Not that he had actually asked) And yet our own Association leadership is scarcely a role model to emulate.

When you think about it, "Do as I preach, not as I do," seems to be our motto. We are busy right now lecturing everyone through open letters and a "Standing On The Side Of Love" campaign about how collective bargaining for public employees is a human right, and yet this summer we will, for the fifth time in sixteen years, hold our General Assembly in a state where it's forbidden by law. We are always lecturing others about class, race, and racism, and yet our own experience with racial issues begins with the Black Affairs Council walking out of the 1969 General Assembly, and disaffiliating from us the following year... and since then, we've been the only mainline church in America to actually get whiter and richer over the years. We are always faxing Washington about wages, immigration, even minutia like transportation policy, and telling them that our policies are the way to future growth and national prosperity... and yet our five decades of stagnation and failure to thrive have resulted in Association layoffs recently. It's a wonder that every Congressman we've emailed hasn't replied with a link to this song:

I may start referring to such things as "mote" issues in the future- as in, "...how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

UU, Alzheimer's, and politics

2011-03-05T10:26:00.002-05:00

"Plaidshoes" really struck a chord with me with her Tuesday post, Tired of Defense. If you haven't read it, you must- and read the comments also. I was caught from the beginning, "I had a bit of a disturbing parking lot conversation today. I mentioned to a friend that I had seen her friend at my UU church. I thought of it as a positive. Another way that the world is so small that we all seem to run into each other. Well, my friend stated that she was not happy about this. It caught me completely by surprise. She flat out said it like that. I asked her why, and she stated that it would mean her friend was no longer a Christian." It reminded me of my wedding- and my mother.

That may sound strange to you- if it does, the explanation will be stranger still, but it's true. You see, in the months before my wedding there had been disagreement among we four brothers about our mother. She had been deteriorating of recent months, and several doctors had said she had Alzheimer's. We were split, 2-2, on whether she really had Alzheimer's, or whether this was one of her manipulative schemes. (Fred Sanford was a rank amateur in the manipulation business) The question was settled when she came to my wedding- at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church. Everyone agreed that she had to be genuinely out of it to set foot inside the temple of the Antichrist.

So I understand plaidshoes' irritation at her friend's comment, and why she feels tired of being on the defense. In fact, I have an extra layer she does not- a political one. When I joined All Souls, a friend of mine had said, "I thought you were a Republican." I said yes, I was. His puzzled reply: "But you know they're a communist front organization, don't you?" Mind you, he wasn't trying to be derogatory or insulting; he was simply stating common knowledge- just as plaidshoes' friend had.

Both of these misunderstandings raise a question that plaidshoes does not address in her post: Why did her friend think that UU was not a religion? It would be easy enough to blame Mad Magazine, The Simpsons, Garrison Keillor, but none of their jibes would have stuck had there not been a kernel of truth in them. That's why stereotypes stick- Scandinavians really are often blonde; they really do eat lutefisk. If you tried to create a new stereotype that didn't reflect what people see in their daily lives- oh, like all Scandinavians eat grits and collard greens- it wouldn't stick, and people wouldn't repeat it. So clearly, the general public doesn't see us doing the things that a religion does; the question is, are we just poorly communicating what we do, or is their perception better than ours?

It's a long and winding road...

2011-03-03T10:09:00.002-05:00

... that public school administrators must take to get rid of a bad teacher. In a previous post I mentioned job security as a benefit of public employ, one that all in the private sector envy. To illustrate my point, the Chicago Tribune ran a story entitled Why Bad Teachers Survive It has a flowchart, with timeline, of what's required to fire a tenured teacher. The process takes 27 separate steps and not less than two years, but can run as long as five years- during which the teacher is still being paid with full benefits.

Think that's bad? It's only average- look at the flowchart for firing a teacher in New York that one of the Tribune commenters posted- it covers two full pages. But in real life, I'm told, it never goes that far. Unless the teacher has made it easy by committing a class A felony, they usually just find a way to live with the bad apple, whatever it takes. If they really, really want the teacher gone, they offer a cash buyout* instead.

Now how does one account for that level of job security when comparing private and public sector wages? What's the cash equivalent of tenure? In the private sector, one would give up a lot to have those kinds of protections. In most states, absent gender or racial discrimination, the firing process is just one step- the one trademarked by Donald Trump. The appeals process consists of saying, "Oh, dude, come on... please?". But in the public sector, one gets the protections outlined above and wages comparable to the private sector.

So think about that next time you see a statehouse protestor with a sign claiming to be the poor, oppressed last bastion of the middle class. Think about it, but don't bother asking the protestor carrying the sign; odds are, at least here in Indiana, and I have to believe in Wisconsin and elsewhere as well, that the protestor is not a teacher at all, but a paid surrogate.

*This used to be called "Danegeld"- but as the Danes actually have a much better public school system than we do, I don't think it's appropriate.

How far can you chop logic before you've made hash of it?

2011-03-01T12:16:00.002-05:00

Almost everyone has asked the following question: "If God answers all prayers, why didn't he answer mine?" And if you asked an experienced Christian apologist, you received the following answer: "He does answer all prayers- 'No' is also an answer." If you were a child when you asked and received that answer, do you remember how betrayed you felt? If you were an adult, do you remember how frustrated you were with the "Heads I win, tails you lose" logic? Hold on to that for a while...

Judge Gladys Kessler has just handed down a ruling on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. By my count, that's five rulings so far, three upholding the law, two upsetting the law, with about twenty more suits in line unless the Supreme Court intercedes. I find the logic used in the decision... interesting. To explain why I find it so interesting, we'll have to backtrack a little to show how we got there; this will include recycling a couple paragraphs from a previous post from a year ago, in which I predicted that this would happen.

When the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court was to consider only certain types of cases, among them being cases involving interstate commerce. Those were simpler people, living in more primitive times; they innocently believed that words meant what the dictionary said they meant- for example that "interstate commerce" was, well, commerce, that was conducted in kind of, you know, an interstatey sort of way.

But that was then; this is now. Today, we live in a post modern, Alice In Wonderland world where words mean what we say they mean, and dictionaries be damned. "Interstate Commerce" no longer means what a dictionary might say that it means; this was established in WICKARD v. FILBURN In that case, a farmer had been charged with growing more wheat than the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 allowed. The farmer claimed that the wheat had not been sold, it had been used to feed his own family; no commerce was involved. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt with commerce, and none had occurred, it wasn't any of the government's business what his family ate. To counter this seemingly reasonable argument, the court invented a new legal doctrine called "Total Incidence", which in layman's terms means "What if everybody did that?" If everybody grew their own wheat to eat, that would depress the price of wheat, which would have an affect on the whole wheat market; therefore the bread on his table, despite having been neither sold nor bought, nor ever crossing a state line, was involved in interstate commerce.

The irrationality of this argument means nothing to the law. Of course "everybody" isn't going to grow their own; growing wheat is an expensive, difficult, time consuming process that few would undertake- that's why wheat farmers exist in the first place. Hells bells, I once killed an air plant. But I digress.

This bogus expansion of the commerce clause was taken a step further with GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al. In this case, the federal government overruled California's medical marijuana laws, which allowed citizens of California to grow marijuana for their own consumption. California argued that as there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, the commerce clause did not apply, so the 10th amendment rules. But, of course, there was no way such a reasonable argument was going to be allowed to stand.

The court said "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market... Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Did you catch that? "fungible commodity" means something that can be transported, and doesn't have anybody's name on it. Which means that it's physically possible for a California cancer patient to carry his joint across state lines, and once there, sell it. So despite the fact that the smuggling and the resultant sale are both already illegal, he is, by the Wickard precedent, involved in interstate commerce, and the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the price and market conditions even of a market that has no legal existence. And inherent in the logic is the government's right to assume that capability implies intent; a new precedent in its own right, in my opinion.

To any rational person, this argument too is bogus. It is tantamount to saying that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate your sex life because since you can carry your genitals across state lines, you might then indulge in a little prostitution, which would then be interstate commerce. But again I digress.

So now we come to the Kessler decision. In the quotes you're about to see, there are ellipses- these do not represent missing words; the text is complete in each quote. But court decisions include references to precedents, with names and long series of numbers I find confusing and irritating to read; I presumed you would too, and deleted them. if you're the type who actually enjoys that sort of thing, the entire decision is here.

There were two classes of plaintiffs involved in this suit. The first were people who had never bought health insurance, nor ever intended to do so in the future- they intended to self insure. That being the case, they asked, by what Constitutional authority can they be required to buy private insurance? When did not engaging in commerce become commerce? Judge Kessler had an answer for them: "As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality."

I can certainly agree that Judge Kessler had "little judicial guidance" in her decision! She is making the same argument that the Christian apologists make regarding the answering of prayers... to conduct interstate commerce, one must decide to do so, and so the act of making the decision is part of the commerce; since "No" is also a decision, you've just made a decision, and therefore engaged in commerce! With that kind of convoluted logic, one might have expected her to be a theologian- but the second half of her decision kind of precludes that possibility.

Remember I said there were two classes of plaintiffs? The others- names Lee, and Seven-Sky, belong to faiths that believe God provides, and that prayer is the only medicine they will ever use. To buy health insurance is to demonstrate a lack of faith, that you're making provisions for God's failure. By what Constitutional authority, they asked, could they be made to buy insurance that they do not need, will never use, and even the owning of which is blasphemy?

The judge began her answer by doubting their resolve, saying that it's one thing to claim you'll never use the doctor, and another to actually refuse the care in the face of an actual illness. But she had a back up argument just in case someone objected that questioning one's faith is not a legal argument: "Even assuming for the purposes of this Motion, however, that Plaintiffs Lee and Seven-Sky do remain committed to refusing medical care throughout their lives, Congress may still regulate the larger class of individuals when it “decides that the total incidence of a practice poses a threat to a national market.”... Consequently, the Court looks not to Plaintiffs’ particular situation, but must ask instead whether the practice of the broader class of uninsured individuals threatens the national health care market. However, “when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so.’”... Because this Court has determined that the practices of the broader class of uninsured individuals substantially affects the health care market, Plaintiffs’ own individual activity may be regulated pursuant to Congress’s Commerce Clause power."

Ah, the "total incidence" argument again- you remember, "what if everybody did that?" If everybody asked the ambulance to take them to a Christian Science reading room instead of the hospital, that would affect the insurance market; therefore nobody can be allowed to do so. And the blasphemy? Well, we're not requiring that you use the doctor, only that you pay for him!

So to sum up: I can be forced by the government to buy a commercial product from a for-profit company because by virtue of not previously buying that product, I had in fact been involved in that industry; the service or product involved need not be traded across state lines or even legally exist at all to be interstate commerce that the government can regulate; and that any action which, if done by everyone everywhere, would have some effect on some type of commerce, whether or not that commerce currently legally exists, is behavior the government can legally control- and this vast authority trumps religious objections.

It took 146 years to get from writing the Constitution to Wicard, only 67 years to get from Wicard to Gonzales, and only six years to get from there to Kessler. If you can't see a slippery slope, you need to buy an inclinometer.

I have a serious question

2011-02-26T23:51:00.001-05:00

If the right of collective bargaining for public employees is so critical to our principles of human dignity and the democratic process that it justifies an emergency email from the Congregational Advocacy & Witness Director asking us to sign a petition from Interfaith Worker Justice and to participate in a strategy call with labor leaders; if it's a basic human right enshrined not only in our principles, but in the United Nations Universal Human Rights Declaration and in the first amendment to the Constitution, then why are we holding our General Assembly in North Carolina, one of only five states in the nation to outlaw collective bargaining by public employees? Why did we hold the 2005 GA in Texas, one of the other five? If "Standing On The Side Of Love" means fighting for the right of public sector employees to use collective bargaining, then why are we rewarding states that outlaw it?

We're famous for our rigid stands on human rights. We boycotted Arizona just because they didn't make MLK's birthday a holiday. We spent last summer furiously blogging about Arizona again, holding special conference call meetings to vote on cancelling our GA there because of 1070. We're also famous for the way we vet venues- every last detail must be accessible, recyclable, fair traded, capped and traded, sustainable, renewable, local, and prevailing waged- how did we let a basic human right slip through the cracks?

Don't tell me that this is a new situation; it's not. In 2005, Indiana revoked collective bargaining for the public sector- indeed, Indiana was the inspiration for Wisconsin's actions, as we managed to turn red ink to black despite the horrible recession. (although Gov Walker seems not to notice that in Indiana we also had some tax increases) There was no outpouring of outrage by UU ministers and bloggers then- had anyone cared, we might have had emergency "Move the GA from anti-union Texas" meetings that year, and we certainly wouldn't have selected another anti-union state for this GA had there been an uproar. But there wasn't. So why do we suddenly care about public sector unions now when we never did before? What's changed between the selection of an anti-union state for our GA and now?

Could it be that we choose our issues by wetting our finger and holding it in the air? There is a lot more press and public uproar over Wisconsin than there was over Indiana; it's a lot more fun signing petitions that someone might actually read, and having conference calls with real activists instead of the same voices you heard at GA. Could it be that this time the DNC is involved? They were in no position to exploit the situation in Indiana in 2005, but they're having a field day in Milwaukee. I've noticed over the years that our actions and concerns track the DNC's pretty closely- remember our rather fluid positions on the filibuster? Could it be that we've taken so much flak for being elitist that we're suddenly desperate to prove solidarity with the middle class?

Don't like these theories? What's your explanation?

Umm, Hey, can we discuss this...

2011-02-24T15:12:00.001-05:00

...before we go making the SEIU the UUA's seventh source? I just got an email from Susan Leslie, UUA Congregational Advocacy & Witness Director, asking me to "Please join UUA President Rev. Peter Morales and sign on to IWJ's Open Letter from Faith Leaders: Stop Attacks on Public Sector Workers and Unions." Coming as it did after such UU blog posts as One possible litmus test for UU Culture, Collective bargaining is a human right, An open letter to religious leaders in support of collective bargaining, Drops of water turn a mill, singly none..., and a number of others I've lost my notes on, I'm afraid it's already become one of those creeds we deny having, but I'm going to speak anyway.

Public employee unions are a different kettle of fish than ordinary unions. This is a truth that not a single one of the writers mentioned above seems to grasp. I'm going to quote a letter from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees: "...Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." (full text available from The American Presidency Project)
　
To put it into my own words, there are two very big differences between private industry unions and public employee unions. The first is that the private union is trying to get a piece of the profits for the workers who had a big part in creating them. That's only fair- go for it. But governments do not generate profits! Public employee unions are not negotiating for a piece of the profits, they are negotiating for a tax increase.

Another difference is that while the ordinary union is speaking for people who have no other way of making their corporate bosses listen to them, public employees do have a voice: it's called democracy. The public employees' boss isn't C. Montgomery Burns, it's we the people. But it's just too much work to go to town hall meetings, write letters to Congressmen and the editors, or actually vote I guess.

Let's not forget that we're not talking about minimum wage flunkies here, either. Much has been said about the middle class in these posts, but from where I sit a lot of those public employees look like millionaires. How can I say such a silly thing? Benefits- particularly healthcare and most particularly retirement. Read The Millionaire Cop Next Door from Forbes. The short version is this: "City officials have said that in Carlsbad, the average firefighter or police officer typically retires at age 55 and has 28 years of service. Using the 3 percent salary calculation, that person would receive an annual city pension of $76,440.
That does not include health benefits, which might push real retirement compensation close to $100,000 a year." Let's ignore the health benefits for the moment, and just take the pension- round it to $80K. How much would you have to have in a private retirement fund to get $80K a year? "Investment pros like my friend Barry Glassman say 4% is a reasonable return today. That’s a pitiful yield, isn’t it? It is sure to disappoint the scores of millions of baby boomers who will soon enter retirement with nothing more than their desiccated 401(k)s, down 30% on average from 30 months ago, and a bit of Social Security.
Based on this small but unfortunately realistic 4% return, an $80,000 annual pension payout implies a rather large pot of money behind it–$2 million, to be precise.
That’s a lot. One might guess that a $2 million stash would be in the 95th percentile for the 77 million baby boomers who will soon face retirement."

Do you have two million dollars in your retirement account? Knowing many of my readers, I'm guessing not. Now ask yourself how much you'd have to earn to save, over and above living expenses, two million dollars in only 28 years? And this completely ignores the security factor in government jobs- four of the last five jobs I lost were because the company went out of business; relatively few American government bodies go out of business. Now tell me again about how the public employee unions are representing the downtrodden middle class...

One last beef I have with Susan's email: she repeats an untruth: "This is not about balanced budgets; it is about power... If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them." It was understandable a week ago when Rachel Maddow said this; she was fulminating off her own misreading of the budget numbers. But since then several nonpartisan organizations have refuted this; PolitiFact's refutation has been repeated and referenced widely. To be repeating that canard now is highly irresponsible, and makes it look like our UUA spokespeople get their facts from the Daily KOS.

UPDATE: Knowing that not everyone reads comments, I wanted to add this from comments:
But my primary point, the raison d'etre for this post, is that there is plenty of room for disagreement and need for debate on this issue- I don't want it declared a basic tenent of our religion until such debate has taken place. I don't want Boston taking a position on my behalf without such a debate. I don't want clergy out there declaring that support for the unions in Wisconsin is an extension of our faith, an inseperable part of our principles, until we have had that debate. That would be irony indeed- basing a political position upon our democratic principle without a democratic debate and vote!

What apps does it have?

2011-02-24T09:42:00.001-05:00

Is it really green?

2011-02-23T20:51:00.002-05:00

I remember when stores first started saying, "Paper or plastic?"- I had the following conversation more than once:
"Plastic."
"I guess you don't care about the Earth."
"Actually, if not reused and recycled properly, paper bags are worse for the planet than plastic."
"That's not true! What do you know about it, anyway?"
"I work in the industry."
"Well, the Vice President says using paper bags is one of the things we can do to save the planet. Who knows more about it, you or Al Gore?"
"Well..."
"GOODBYEHAVEANICEDAY!" (slam)
According to the Daily Mail, I did know more about it than Al Gore- paper bags need to be reused three times to fall below the environmental impact level of plastic bags- and that's assuming you didn't reuse the plastic bag. And that's simply not possible, because the paper handles come off of an third of them between the store and the car- I've learned to stoop and waddle when using paper bags, so that when they rip or the straps fail they'll only have a inch to fall, and hopefully the groceries won't break open.

Then came the cloth bags, with things like "I heart the Earth" on them- now there's a reusable bag that's definitely an improvement over the plastic! Or maybe not... "As a greater amount of energy goes into making a cloth carrier than a polythene one, a cotton bag has to be used 131 times before it has the same environmental impact than its plastic counterpart. And if a plastic bag is re-used as a bin liner, a cotton bag has to be used 173 times - nearly every day of the year - before its ecological impact is as low as a plastic bag on a host of factors including greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime." I don't know how they got "nearly every day of the year", but if you normally shop once a week, you'd have to use the same cloth bag for three and a half years just to break even with the plastic bag. And that doesn't count the environmental impact of the vivid plastisol designs silkscreened on them- you don't want to know the impact of those chemicals!

Then there's those damn Compact Flourescent bulbs. I've written about them before, here and here, but here's a simpler way to think about it: you've heard the environmentalists' slogan, "Think globally, buy locally"? Well, no CFLs are made locally- all CFLs are imported, all of them.

I know what I'm about to say can be applied to a whole lot of things, but... why can't we think things through before committing so much to them?

Media coverage of the Tea Party has a liberal bias

2011-02-21T18:58:00.001-05:00

Who says so? Rush Limbaugh? Fox? How about MSNBC?

UPDATE: First, watch this video of Chris Matthews:

As Politifact reported, the unions were split on their support of candidates. Then-candidate Walker got the endorsement of two police and fire unions with a combined total membership of 2,275; his opponent received the endorsement of police and fire unions with a combined membership of 14,000- more than six times as many. And anyone even loosely following the story knew that even before PolitiFact ran it; I read it last week. So for Chris to ask the question he did, phrased the way he did, when he did, I see only two possible explanations: either he just reads activists' faxes without fact checking or vetting them, or he is knowingly attempting to deceive. I'm not sure which is worse.

Joe Republican

2011-02-16T16:35:00.002-05:00

That's the title of a Facebook essay by Jeff Parker that I just saw, attention being drawn by Desmond Ravenstone. In this essay, Joe Republican goes through a normal day, and we see how his life is made better by things Republicans opposed. (We'll set aside for the moment that the very concept of the essay- Republicans believe all government is bad- is a straw man; after all, the reason there is a Republican party is because they believe there is a place for government- otherwise, they'd be anarchists.)

It starts off with his pills and his breakfast- "Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry." Hmmm, what girly-man liberal would that be? The Food and Drug Administration was created by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, the "Rough Rider", "Big Stick" girly-man.

In the second paragraph, "Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air." Ok, let's see; what wacko liberal was it who proposed and signed into law the Environmental Protection Agency? That would be Richard Millhouse Nixon. He goes on to talk about the subways, but I can't comment on that- like 90% of all Americans, I don't live anywhere near a subway. I do pay for them, but I don't get to use them.

He then talks about Joe's job. "If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune." Well, it's hard to talk about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat here, because these things are administered at the state level, and individual states have different political histories. But there are some federal guidelines written by the Department of Labor. And what stupid liberal took the bureau of labor out of the back offices of the Interior Department and made it a cabinet level department in its own right? That would be Republican President Taft.

Then Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae mortgage... gee, I wonder if that's one of the subprime mortgages that destroyed the housing industry, and made for the half a trillion dollar bailout? I'm afraid Jeff's got me there, that is a Democratic project.

He then plans to visit his father, in a car that's safe because of government regulations... Is he referring to regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the office that regulates industry for the safety of both the workers and their customers- created by that bleeding-heart liberal Richard Nixon? His father lives in an old house- "The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification." I wonder if he's referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the government corporation that brought electricity to the vast center of America, the portion hardest hit by the depression... you know, the creation of Republican Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska.

On the way home, of course, Joe listens to talk radio- "The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day." Perhaps he doesn't mention it because it isn't true.

Breaking news: Mubarak has resigned

2011-02-11T11:14:00.002-05:00

Al Jazeera English Live is reporting that Mubarak has resigned, military in command.

"Family Feud" shows us

2011-02-07T09:37:00.000-05:00

that families have changed over the years...

Hope springs eternal

2011-02-02T13:49:00.000-05:00

This aphorism was proven once again today by our enormous tomcat, Garfunkle. (I've written about him before)

Now, Indianapolis is in the middle of a winter storm emergency. We're not as bad off as Chicago, but we are in the National-Guard-taking-EMTs-on-runs-because-the-ambulance-got-stuck phase. Evidently Garfunkle didn't believe what the morning TV said, because he went to the front door and asked to be let out. When the door was opened, however, he recoiled in horror and ran the other direction. That other direction was to the back door to see if it was frozen there, too. When the back of the house was seen to be the final circle of Hell, too, he turned and walked away... to the basement door, which he started scratching at to be opened.

Garfunkle is convinced that one of the doors around here must be the door into summer.

Maybe that's why we get along so well.

New Healthcare Law unconstitutional,

2011-01-31T20:52:00.000-05:00

Says federal judge Roger Vinson. In a ruling handed down this afternoon in the northern Florida district, the entire law was struck down because it depends upon the offending portion to work- the requirement that individual citizens buy private insurance under penalty of law. The judge said that Congress doesn't have the power to pass that sort of mandate, quoting an opposing Senator: "...if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,...” What kind of racist, right wingnut Republican said such a silly thing? Senator Obama

Update to Monday Potpourri

2011-01-31T09:42:00.001-05:00

In last Monday's"Monday Potpourri", I linked to an article about a study showing that elected officials know even less about the US Constitution than the general public. Here is a clip from a CNN interview in which Senator Chuck Schumer, (D, NY) delineates the three branches of government: The House, the Senate, and the President:

An unlikely savior

2011-01-30T20:40:00.000-05:00

The scene: New Year's Eve, Red Square, Moscow. The plot: A terrorist bombing in one of the biggest crowds on Earth. Method: A "Black Widow" suicide bomber will wander into the crowd; the brains of the operation watches, waiting for her to be in the perfect position for maximum lethality, then triggers the explosive vest via a message sent to the attached cell phone. The flaw: The device explodes prematurely, killing only the woman wearing it. The explanation: An error assembling the belt? No. A mistake by the bomb handler? No. So what went wrong?

A spam message from the phone company wishing their customers a Happy New Year triggered the bomb. Read more here.

Why it is so hard to lose weight

2011-01-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

That is the title of an Alternet article by one of my favorite bloggers, Greta Christina. It reminded me of how I explain the difficulty of losing weight to those fortunate few who don't understand.

Have you ever smoked? Did you smoke for a number of years, then quit? If not, run this past one of your friends who did. Imagine cutting down... but never completely quitting. You're not allowed to cold turkey. You have to smoke five cigarettes a day: morning, noon, and night, with two unscheduled "snack" smokes. Never less- five smokes. But never more, either; if you cheat, have too many, you can't make up for it by skipping one the next day- it's not that easy. No, for every one you cheat with, you have to spend a week smoking the same five smokes, but half length cigarettes- just a couple puffs, not enough for satisfaction, then put it out. No matter how much you want one more toke, put it out, try to hold out 'til the next smoke... which will also be too short, until you've worked off that extra one you had.

If you're not a former smoker, ask one- there are tens of millions of us; statistically, I know you know one. Could you do it? Spend the rest of your life smoking five cigarettes a day, never more, never less?

That's what it's like losing weight.

Monday potpourri

2011-01-24T10:53:00.001-05:00

Cleaning out the old files...

10 Funniest Windows Error Messages

In Oakland, CA, 2nd graders had sex in class, while the teacher was present, on at least two separate occasions, according to this CBS story. Now, I've gotten used to the idea that kids will screw in class, in front of the teacher, their peers, and the recording eye of cell phones nowadays- judging by this story and this story and this story and this story and this story and this story and this story. But at least those kids were ten or more years old; the kids in Oakland were 7 and 8. Now maybe it's true, as was suggested when I brought the subject up the first time, that kids from the fifth grade on up have always screwed in class, and I just didn't hear about it when I was that age- but I'm finding it hard to believe that of 7 year olds. I tend to blame the coarsening of the popular arts for the sexualization of children these days, but like Tipper Gore and Dan Quayle before me, I get laughed at for suggesting it. I notice, however, that some of the same people who believe raunchy TV and videos have no effect on kids are the same people who think a few words from Sarah Palin will turn adults into mind-numbed robots programmed to kill.

9/11 Museum execs cash in big. "Schoolchildren thought their penny jars and bake-sale proceeds would go toward building a 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero -- not the six-figure salaries of nonprofit execs. But 11 staffers at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum each pulled down more than $170,000 in total compensation in 2009, according to the most recent filings. Four execs took home more than $320,000."Read more here

Did you think it was just a stunt when the newly elected Congress began with a reading of the Constitution? It might have been more needed than you think- according to this study, elected officials tend to know even less about key provisions of the Constitution than the general public!

Ever had a hard time getting out of jury duty? this cat knows how you feel!

The difference between private schools and public schools.

The recent astrology controversy made this blogger realize that Astrology is like Nascar

Today is the 50th anniversary

2011-01-20T10:27:00.000-05:00

Of President Kennedy's inauguration. I wish he could have celebrated it himself. Here is his inaugural speech- one of the best speeches of any kind, by anyone, in my lifetime.

How is President Obama like President Bush?

2011-01-19T19:09:00.005-05:00

They both called for a gentler tone in public debate, and both were ignored by their own parties. One week after one of President Obama's best speeches, with an impassioned plea for civility, Democrats are right back to calling Republicans Nazis.
I'm sure by morning Republicans will be calling Democrats socialists*, and we'll be back to normal.

*I wasn't referring to Bernie Sanders, who actually ran as a socialist.

UPDATE: The Congressman defends himself in a CNN interview by comparing the Tea Party to the KKK. His proof? That they speak of wanting to "take the country back"- which, as I pointed out, was the title of a book by Democrat party chairman Howard Dean, and the motto of out-of-power candidates in every election cycle.

A friend sent me

2011-01-19T15:02:00.001-05:00

this video, and if I could remember who it was, I'd thank him or her.

What a long, strange trip it's been

2011-01-18T15:33:00.002-05:00

This post has been bubbling around in my head for a while now, and recent events and discussions have brought it to the fore. I keep hearing people bemoaning how things are worse than they've ever been, and I think of my childhood and wonder how they can believe it. In the wake of the Tucson shooting, I hear people talking about the vicious, violent political rhetoric of today and I feel like I'm channeling Crocodile Dundee: "That's not vicious, violent political rhetoric- this is vicious, violent political rhetoric..." That's when I remember that I'm older than many UU bloggers, so my perspective is different. I think it's important for us to reflect just how far we've come, just in my lifetime.

I was born two weeks after the lynching of Emmet Till. It was well past the heyday of lynching; there were no box lunches or commemorative postcards sold- still, I would be a teenager before the practice stopped. Call a black man "Mr. President"? They wouldn't even call him mister- I was nine years old before the Supreme Court ordered federal courts to use honorifics when addressing black men and women. But there was no such requirement for newspapers, magazines, state and local government offices, and the general public to do so, and they generally didn't. The man we know as "Mr. President" would back then have been known simply as "Barry". I was twelve years old when Sidney Poitier's delivery of the line, "They call me Mister Tibbs! in the movie "In The Heat Of The Night" became a stand up and shout at the screen moment so big they based a sequel on that one line; I would be old enough to vote before all mainstream newspapers and magazines would routinely use honorifics.

Violent politics? While I don't remember the first, unsuccessful attempt on President Kennedy's life, I certainly remember the second one. I also remember the assassination of his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King, and several civil rights leaders. I remember the assassination attempts on Wallace, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. I remember the riots the assassination of Rev. King caused- all told, 150+ killed and 2,000+ wounded across the United States, in addition to property damage so great many neighborhoods still haven't recovered.

Think the targets-on-the-map articles by Palin and the DLC are oh, so violent? I remember the SLA filling the hollows of their hollow point bullets with cyanide before attacking a school board meeting. I remember the Weatherman's bomb throwing. Think Code Pink or the Tea Partiers are the ultimate disrupters of public gatherings? I remember the riots at the 1968 Democrat National Convention. I remember how Vietnam war protests routinely turned into disruptions, if not always full fledged riots, until the protesters learned what a dangerous game that was at Kent State.

Oh, by the way- all of the above occurred while the Fairness Doctrine was in full effect.

And it's not just in the US, or the G-8 nations that progress has been made. When I was born, the majority of mankind lived in absolute dictatorships; today, only a handful of absolute, not answerable to the public in any way dictatorships survive. And the whole world is learning that violence doesn't have to be the answer- the peaceful breakup of first the Soviet Bloc, then the Soviet Union itself show that empires don't have to devolve into endless civil wars. And speaking of wars, we've now had the longest period in recorded history in which none of the European powers have gone to war with another!

For all of mankind's history, from the first curious ape to the last few decades, our politics, philosophies, and religious truths have been based on the underlying fact stated so well in "Jesus Christ Superstar": "Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot? There will be poor always pathetically struggling..." This is no longer true- as George McGovern wrote in the United Nations Chronicle "Here are some other encouraging statistics: the world now produces a quantity of grain that, if distributed evenly, would provide everyone with 3,500 calories per day, more than enough for an optimal diet. This does not even count vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, poultry, edible oils, nuts, root crops, or dairy products." We now have the capacity to feed, clothe, and house every man, woman, and child on Earth- we need only find the political path to do so. And the history of the last couple centuries have shown that once it becomes technically possible to relieve suffering, it will eventually become politically possible as well- if only to allow the powers that be to enjoy their comforts without listening to the rest of us whine.

All this progress has come while simultaneously improving the environment, not making the situation worse. From the Cuyahoga river catching fire, to being able to develop photographic film inn the waters of lake Ontario, to the destruction of the Aral Sea, economic or technical improvement has often meant environmental degradation in the past; but today's technology means that as the Third World catches up with us, they don't have to go through those destructive stages- they can leapfrog to societies that are both modern and clean, while we developed countries continue to work on cleaning up our past.

Wow... 900 words, and I still haven't gotten to advancements in Gay rights, Women's rights, the rights of minority religions, Voting rights, OSHA and workplace safety, product liability laws, any number of things that makes this a better place to live than when I was born. So when you hear worst-evers and never-befores and other such negative superlatives, take a breath and reflect. We've come a long, long way in a very short span of time; don't let impatience and frustration at imperfection blind you to that fact. Remember that exaggeration and hyperbole are an activist's job, to claim things are much worse than they actually are, so that when s/he compromises, s/he'll be getting what he actually wanted. Avoid the greatest trap of the social activist: believing your own propaganda. You'll feel better.

There's something about being President

2011-01-13T09:45:00.001-05:00

Most of the time, when we think of the President, we think of him as the leader of his party. It's only natural; most of the time he is- after all, people run for President so they can do things, and use "the bully pulpit" for that purpose.

But there are other times... rarely, at times of national pride and accomplishment, like the Moon landing; more often during times of heartache, when we really need the president to be The President of the United States. And there is something about being President that affects the occupant of that office, something that elevates them to another plane of performance at those moments- no matter who they were before, or who they will be after, they become in that moment the archetype we carve into the sides of mountains. They become my President, our President. It happened last night, at the memorial in Arizona.

Here is the finest moment, an ad lib, added to the prepared speech at the last minute:

Dedicated to us all

2011-01-11T21:40:00.001-05:00

Rhetoric redux

2011-01-11T13:57:00.005-05:00

There are still today quite a number of blog posts decrying the political atmosphere they say- while admitting there's no evidence of it- contributed to the mass murder in Arizona. The latest angle, echoed in at least two UU blogs, ( Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell and RevThom ) concerns campaign imagery. Says Rev. Thom, "Giffords’ opponent in the last November’s midterm election traded in disturbing imagery. His campaign photos depicted him dressed in camouflage and holding an assault rifle." But when I Googled for more such campaign pictures, I found this...

Yes, that's Representative Giffords holding an assault rifle. And not just any assault rifle, but a semiautomatic version of the famous Soviet AK47.

Look people, as I noted in my previous post, nobody has an exclusive on over the top rhetoric. (Note that the phrase "Over the top" is of military origin, from WWI) Now, many have said that the right does so much more of it that the left's few examples hardly count, and to you I say, with feeling, Bullshit.

Perhaps it's because I'm older than many of my fellow bloggers; born in the 50s, I grew up in the 60s... my first memories of political violence was the assassination of JFK- by a communist. I remember the SDS and the SLA, who considered murder, bombs, and bank robbery political acts. I remember Bernadine Dhorn and the Weathermen, and their bombs. I remember vandalism at college campuses, the destruction of ROTC classrooms, and attacks on draft centers. I remember mass rioting, cities all across America burning. I remember the 68 Democratic Convention devolving into shouting inside and rioting outside. Maybe you don't remember, but what got Nixon elected- despite the fact that even a lot of Republicans thought he was a pig- was that the nation was sick of the hooliganism of the left. So I repeat- nobody has any room pointing fingers on political rhetoric.

And worse, it's insane to ascribe reasons to irrationality. From William McKinley to Harvey Milk, from Reagan to Giffords, none of their actual or attempted assassins have had a coherent political philosophy. If you wanted to ban those things that are proven to incite political assassination, you'd have to ban Twinkies and Jodie Foster movies. Call for the moderation of political rhetoric all you want- I did plenty of it in the last few election cycles. But pretending that standard political phrases and/or tactics that have been around for decades or centuries are newly minted, violent, or racist hate speech is indulging in the demonization of your enemies (who should be your loyal opposition), not warning against it.

Explanations for the recent bird and fish kills

2011-01-10T20:55:00.000-05:00

It started with 5,000 dead blackbirds in Arkansas. Then 100,000 dead fish in Arkansas... then more dead birds in Louisiana... then reports from around the world. Science has yet to provide answers- but Hollywood has! See 6 Disaster Movie Explanations For All These Dead Birds

That awful, violent, Palin/Tea Party rhetoric

2011-01-10T13:49:00.003-05:00

I've been reading a number of UU bloggers writing about how right wing rhetoric lead to the tragedy in Arizona. They may have a point- listen to this exhortation: "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America" Take our country back from whom? Why, obviously from the black man in the White House- just another example of racist Tea Party rhetoric, with that extra little "restoring democracy" dig as a reference to Obama's non-citizen status that the TP types all believe, that democracy has been subverted and they must "restore" it by throwing him out. I've had it explained to me at length a number of times.

Of course, "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America" is actually the title of Howard Dean's book. I will grant that it was written by a white man, though.

Well, ok, but what about the map with the targets on it? There I have to agree; that's irresponsible at best and incitement to murder at worst- I mean c'mon, look at it:

Oops, my mistake, that wasn't Sarah Palin's map with the surveyor's targets on it, that was the Democratic Leadership Council's "Targeting Strategy" map, with shooting range bull's eyes on it. That's a relief; it's ok when Democrats do it.

At least that's not as bad as when Glenn Beck said he'd cut Obama's nuts off! Oh, wait, my mistake again; that was Jesse Jackson

Hmm. This is getting complicated; why don't we try to find out if Jared Loughner is sane enough to have even had a coherent political stance, then try to sort out whether that stance is left or right from all the conflicting nonsense before we start saying whose rhetoric is to blame?

UPDATE:

Panda ministry

2010-12-29T09:20:00.000-05:00

This guy does more good for mankind than most ministers I know.

My take on the Christmas story

2010-12-24T14:52:00.001-05:00

A year ago I made the following comment during this discussion on the origins of Christmas, and I still hold to it: "That touches on something I’ve long thought about the Christmas story, but have never seen any other commentary on- that what the manger scene really demonstrates is what heartless bastards the people of Bethlehem were. Seriously. I’ve seen travelers at a bus station pool their money to buy a crying girl a bus ticket home- but in the Christmas story, we have a teenage girl hours away from giving birth, and nobody will give her as much as a spot on the floor inside where it’s warm. No room at the Inn? What decent Innkeeper's wife wouldn’t have told her husband to sleep on the floor and given Mary the bed? In fact, some women I’ve known, had they been that Innkeeper’s wife, would have told her husband and Joseph both to go sleep with the other animals, and she’d call them if and when they were needed.

To me, the lesson of “Be nice to everyone, because you don’t know their role in the universe” and “As you do to the least of them” is an important one for children to learn- and here is the perfect illustration, and no one is using it."

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

At last, a "How To" video we really needed

2010-12-21T10:14:00.001-05:00

Most "How To" videos on the internet are of use only to obscure hobbyists, like "How to build a linear accelerator out of Lego's"; you never see anything you really need, like how to find a 'possum's chakras...

WikiLeaks: Cuba banned Sicko for depicting 'mythical' healthcare system

2010-12-17T21:09:00.002-05:00

One of the confidential US embassy cables revealed by WikiLeaks reports that Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko: "...the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".

Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them."

Our schizophrenic reaction to tears

2010-12-14T16:27:00.000-05:00

Speaker elect John Boehner cried once again in last Sunday's 60 Minutes interview, and is once again being ridiculed for it- the women of The View being particularly nasty about it, worse even than outgoing Speaker Pelosi was previously. I find the different reactions to tears by public figures, especially politicians, puzzling.

Pat Schroeder was roundly criticized for a few seconds of tears during her announcement that she would not be a candidate for President. At the time, many said that the criticism was a double standard- that men like Ronald Reagan were allowed to tear up, but women weren't. But try telling that to Ed Muskie, whose career was destroyed by "melting snowflakes". It has been suggested that the difference is that a Reagan or a McCain has enough macho bona fides that it wasn't a sign of weakness, but I've noticed that even those who ridiculed G. W. Bush's military career didn't make fun of him tearing up at a number of emotional events.

I'm also confused by the fact that women are so much nastier about it than men are. From Muskie to Boehner, you have to do a lot of Googling to find any man as nasty about public tears as the many very public comments from women. Ask Pat Schroder: "She's still catching flak about it today, mostly from women. "Oh, my gosh, I got a devastating e-mail about it from a woman writer just a couple of days ago," Schroeder said in an interview. "I want to say, 'Wait a minute, we are talking 20 years ago.' It's like I ruined their lives, 20 years ago, with three seconds of catching my breath." To paraphrase Scrooge, there is nothing on which women are so hard as coldness; and there is nothing they condemn with such severity as the expression of emotion.

I guess I'd be in trouble if I ever became famous. I've cried during discussions, I've cried at movies, plays- hell, I've even cried at a Star Trek episode. Good thing for me I don't give a good Goddamn what the women of The View think.

On extending unemployment

2010-12-10T12:02:00.002-05:00

My favorite talk show host, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, ran a little experiment, inspired by things callers said while debating the extension of unemployment benefits. Abdul tried his hand at job hunting, and managed to land an offer in just four working days, which he says is proof that there's plenty of jobs if you're willing to work look for them, and that if you're unemployed long term, that you're just not doing it right- he's going to have people on his show to give tips on resumes and interviewing.

I believe that his experience proved only that in this instance, a good looking young man with a related degree and related experience was able to get an entry-level job offer. Here is what I commented to his blog:

You said about your job hunting experiment that "This was about proving a point. The point was that there is work out there if you are willing to work to look for it." But your experience in finding a job was no more "proof" than the experience of friends and family who haven't found a job is proof- the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

So what would be data? We can't use the announcements of new jobs created, because those announcements rarely state "On the other hand, 5,000 old jobs disappeared." We can't use unemployment statistics, because they're always changing the criteria on those- it's amazing how many circumstances can result in one not having any work, income, or benefits and still not be counted as "unemployed" for the sake of official statistics. (A more cynical person might suspect that politicians were fiddling the figures) But if we don't know how many people are unemployed, we DO know how many are employed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps running totals on how many are employed- and these are unambiguous numbers; even a one-employee Mom & Pop shop must report that employee to the government. What do these numbers show?

In 2007, just before this recession began, there were 115,380,000 people employed in the private sector. As of September of this year, the most recent count, there were 108,068,000 employed. That's 7,312,000 fewer people employed. I don't care how willing to look one is, if there are 7 million fewer jobs extant today than three years ago, somebody is going to be unemployed. You think it's unfair to use the 2007 high point? There are 618,000 fewer people working today than there were in 1999, eleven years ago!

And who is it most likely to be unemployed? In 2007, there were 13,879,000 manufacturing jobs; today there are 11,672,000. In 2007, there were 7,630,000 construction jobs; today there are 5,672,000. Those two categories alone total more than 4 million jobs lost. And this is admittedly anecdotal, but in my experience the older employees, 45-60 years old, are the hardest hit. Would you care to estimate the chances a 55 year old construction worker has of getting that call-center job you got an offer for?

Let's suppose he did- we'll assume that when he was laid off two years ago, he went back to school, finished his degree, then went to an employment consultant to learn the new power words and gimmicks used in modern resumes and interviews, and he got the job. That doesn't mean that one more person is employed, it merely means that he took the job away from a 22 year old recent college grad who is now yet another over-educated waiter... and he took the job from an 18 year old high school grad- unemployment, like water, runs downhill. Which is why the under-25 crowd has, depending on city and demographics, a 40-70% unemployment rate. But it is far, far more likely that a younger, degreed person got that call center job, and the 55 year old is still unemployed.

No matter what kind of tips you and your guests are going to give us on snappy resumes and interview banter, if there are 7 million fewer jobs than there are workers, there will be 7 million unemployed people. And unless we can manage continual churning, such that each of those 7 million gains and loses a new job every two years in perfect balance, somebody is going to need those extended unemployment benefits until the economy recovers.

And lastly, the term is not "Unemployment Charity", it's "Unemployment INSURANCE". What is insurance supposed to do? Restore or rectify the situation- however long that takes. Putting a time limit on unemployment insurance when there are simply fewer jobs than there are people, and therefore no genuine solution, is like health insurance putting a time limit on insulin- if you've been a diabetic for 99 weeks, maybe the problem is you!

sources: http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politics/1250-zero-private-sector-jobs-created-in-past-11-years

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Giving thanks

2010-12-01T15:16:00.000-05:00

After the opening words and hymn, the Minister called for Joys and Concerns.

A lady stood and walked to the podium. She said, "Two months ago, my husband, Tom, had a terrible bicycle wreck and his scrotum was completely crushed. The pain was excruciating and the doctors didn't know if they could help him." You could hear a muffled gasp from the men in the congregation as they imagined the pain that poor Tom must have experienced.

"Tom was unable to hold me or the children," she went on, "and every move caused him terrible pain.

We prayed as the doctors performed a delicate operation, and it turned out they were able to piece together the crushed remnants of Tom's scrotum, and wrap wire around it to hold it in place." Again, the men in the congregation were unnerved and squirmed uncomfortably as they imagined the horrible surgery performed on Tom.

"Now," she announced in a quavering voice, "Thank the Lord, Tom is out of the hospital and the doctors say that with time, his scrotum should recover completely." All the men sighed with relief.

The Minister rose and tentatively asked if anyone else had something to say.

A man stood up and walked slowly to the podium. He said, "I'm Tom." The entire congregation held its breath.

"I just want to tell my wife that the word is sternum."

Unitarian Universalism as the standard to measure a religion by- plus lampshades, coyotes, and more.

2010-11-28T14:58:00.002-05:00

Time to clear out the file of blogpost ideas I've been too busy to do justice to...
A new trend in newspaper and magazine stories about NeoPaganism I've noticed- UUism always enters the discussion. As an example of alternative theologies? No. As in this article, as an example of how small a recognized religion can be, and how quickly a mainstream religion can be overtaken by a growing new faith.

Can a lampshade be haunted? read this before answering.

All around the country, people are wanting public displays of the Ten Commandments. I wouldn't mind if they included a display of The Commandments of Coyote.

I wrote before about the fears that most of the jobs lost in the last three years will never come back, as we are moving from a jobless recovery to a jobless economy. One of the technologies I described as costing us jobs now, and more in the future, is the 3-D printer, and I included a video of Jay Leno 'printing' spare parts for his collector cars. In the short time since that post, the state of the art has progressed to the point that you can 'print' the entire car!

I have never been a fan of modern art, feeling that most of it was weak even as a linoleum design, and wondered how the artists ever made a living. Turns out they had a patron. An eccentric millionaire? No- the CIA!

According to the Daily Mail, it's normal for people to be naked, bound and blindfolded!

A Madison, WI, UU minister, Jane Esbensen, was the subject of a human interest story in the WI Isthmus. They had evidently never run across a minister who said "People who do not believe in God are actually kinder, gentler people," before. I find it reassuring- I had kind of stopped searching out the local UU church in every town I travel to, for fear of not finding it welcoming. But I don't have to worry about Madison, what with her being kinder and gentler than I am.

And lastly, a video of a cat having a bad day at work...

Did you see it or hear it?

2010-11-04T10:26:00.000-04:00

There's a similar effect in politics. When you watch a politician speak on TV or in person, the speaker makes sense; but when you watch it play out in real life, it turns out to be bollocks.

If you think campaign rhetoric is bad this year,

2010-10-31T10:18:00.000-04:00

check this out from a slightly earlier campaign:

Dedicated to the politicians amongst us

2010-09-20T20:48:00.000-04:00

I thought of the chorus of this song when I heard about Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell's old interview tapes being played during the campaign, but in fact every politician should remember it.

Another perspective

2010-09-16T11:57:00.000-04:00

A number of blogs and editorials have commented the last few days about the thwarted burning of a Quran in Texas. This entry from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA is typical. I made the following comment to a similar post on Will Shetterly's blog: I've been thinking about this for a while. I was applauding like everyone else yesterday when I saw the video, but this morning I woke up with a nagging thought. Another way of describing this incident is that we showed up in large numbers and physically intervened to prevent a man's constitutional freedom of expression, intimidating him into leaving the park. Mild, as shows of force go, but is this really a slope we want be slipping on?

The reason I decided to post about it myself is the last line from the UUCVA post: "Thought I would share the story that all the YA's in my community are excited about right now." In other words, they are excited about the use of force and intimidation to counter protests. Yes, as I said above, it's a mild show of force- but in that very counter-protest some were carrying signs saying "Where they have burned books they will end in burning human beings". Shouldn't we be warning those YA's that a slope is slippery from both sides?

I'm shocked- SHOCKED!

2010-09-08T19:43:00.000-04:00

The Dove World Outreach Center- the church where Dr. Terry Jones will burn a couple hundred Korans Saturday- admires another small, notorious church. They have even done joint protests together. Can you guess which one? I knew you could- click here to see pictures of the joint Dove World Outreach Center/Westboro Baptist Church protests from their own website.

Hat tip to The Liberty Pundits

Living your faith

2010-09-02T10:28:00.001-04:00

Faith is not just a declaration of the attributes of your God, if that is what your faith is based on, but a system of behaviors devoted to something greater than yourself. Living your faith is not just attending services regularly or mouthing words, but behaving in accordance with its precepts. This is true whether your faith lies in God, Gods, or simply the greater good of mankind.

Zack Nash lives his faith. Zack, a 14 year old freshman at Waterford Union High School, is an amateur golfer of considerable promise. On Aug. 11, he won the boys 13-14 age division at the Milwaukee County Parks Tour Invitational, a tournament for accomplished juniors run by the Wisconsin PGA Section. While talking to his mentor, the club professional, afterwards, he discovered he had violated a rule- he had been carrying one too many clubs. He hadn't used the extra club, but that wasn't the point; the rules said 14 clubs, and there were 15 in his bag. Had he discovered this during play, he could have taken a four stroke penalty and still finished second- but he hadn't; and that meant that he had signed a fraudulent scorecard at the tournament.

There was only one thing to do: he returned the medal and disqualified himself. It would have been easy to rationalize keeping it- it's a picayune rule, and he had gained no advantage from breaking it. But to Zack, you either play by the rules, or you don't. He plays by the rules.

I have no idea what Zack's faith is, whether he believes in God, or Man, or Golf. But his beliefs are devoted to something greater than himself, and he lives them. It's my belief that the world is a better place thereby. The full story is at The Journal Sentinel Online

Who does America really hate?

2010-08-25T16:12:00.001-04:00

It sometimes happens that a number of seemingly unrelated blog posts, conversations, and forum threads start to form a pattern. The blogosphere has been abuzz lately with the discussion about the Cordoba Initiative mosque/no-it's-a-community-center, with half of them bemoaning America's raging Islamophobia. Then today in Greta Christina's blog, I saw Atheist Meme of the Day: Atheists Experience Discrimination. But then, I've often told Atheist friends- who laughingly agreed- "You think you've got it bad? We Pagans catch flak from Christians and Atheists alike!" But wait a minute, Christians say, what about the secular progressive war on Christians? It seems we all have a persecution complex- but who does America really hate?

I didn't bother Googleing for polls on the subject; for various reasons polls on this sort of thing are notoriously unreliable. But it was Greta's post that gave me an inspiration- some of what she described are hate crimes, and we keep statistics on that. My reasoning was thus: if everybody hated each religion equally, and given that nutjobs are distributed more or less evenly, then people would become victims of hate crimes in approximate proportion to the demographic numbers of their religions. I reasoned that the skew of the numbers between the demographics and the percentages of hate crime victims would give us a hint of how people really feel. It wasn't hard to find both hate crime statistics and demographics by religion for the same year, 2008, and the results are fascinating.

Let's start with the opposite end of the spectrum to test methodology: who does America love? Protestant Christians make up 50.9% of the population, but only 3.6% of the victims of religious bias based crimes; clearly, America loves Protestants, victimizing them at only 1/14th their demographic percentage. America loves Catholics, too, although not as much; they make up 25.1% of the populace and 5.1% of the victims, for a 1/5th rate. And what about Atheists, the inspiration for this exercise? Turns out America kinda likes them; Atheists and Agnostics are 1.6% of the populace, but only 0.8% of the victims, half of what you might expect.
What about Muslims? Muslims make up 0.6% of the populace- but 7.5% of the hate crime victims. That's 12.5 times their demographic share. That makes a Muslim 62.5 times more likely to be a hate crime victim than a Catholic, and a whopping 175 times more likely than a Protestant. That's terrible- but it's not the worst. There's another religion that, judging by the hate crimes Americans commit, is hated far, far more than Islam- can you guess what that is? Go ahead, guess; I'll wait.
*
*
*
Jews comprise 1.2% of the population in the US... and 66.1% of the religious bias based hate crimes victims. A Jew in America is 4.5 times more likely to become a hate crime victim than is a Muslim. And judging by the categories of the crimes, not only do more Americans hate Jews than Muslims, but the hatred runs deeper. In the 2008 numbers for religious bias crimes, we find simple assault matching the demographic; there are twice as many Jews as Muslims, and they suffered twice as many simple assaults: 30 attacks on Muslims, 58 on Jews. But aggravated assault- a much more serious attack- tells a different tale: 5 anti-Islamic attacks, 25 anti-Jewish. And vandalism is even more striking: 30 assaults on Muslims, 742 against Jews. And that's 7 years after 9/11.

I tried to think of a witty summation, but couldn't, so here's the credits instead: religious demographics from TeachingAboutReligion.org, hate crime statistics from the FBI

Enough about the Ground Zero mosque already

2010-08-17T10:38:00.001-04:00

President Obama is absolutely correct; the Cordoba Initiative has every Constitutional right to build their mosque and community center there. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church has every Constitutional right to wave signs saying "Thank God for IEDs" at soldier's funerals, just as the American Nazi Party had every Constitutional right to march through the Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived. If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to demonstrate the wisdom, sensitivity and human compassion of Rev. Fred Phelps and NSPA Chairman Frank Collin, we have no legal or Constitutional standing to prevent him from doing so.

The best of Jane Austen

2010-07-26T13:07:00.000-04:00

High school would have been more enjoyable had this work been recommended rather than "Sense and Sensibility".

A love that dare not squeak its name

2010-07-23T09:18:00.000-04:00

And people say that crocs aren't sexy...

Argentina legalizes gay marriage

2010-07-15T20:12:00.000-04:00

Associated Press story, via Yahoo News- Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote "BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina became the first Latin American nation to legalize gay marriage Thursday, granting same-sex couples all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexuals."

Funny, isn't it? It's been more than twenty years since a Muslim nation, Pakistan, elected a woman Prime Minister; we have yet to manage even a Vice-President. Now a Catholic nation, one that mentions God by name in their constitution, has legalized Gay Marriage while we, supposedly a secular state, haven't even revoked "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet. Do you suppose that the American Catholic and Mormon churches are more powerful than the Roman Catholic church in Latin America, or are their gay rights advocates more persuasive than ours?

Of polar bears and computers

2010-07-13T09:33:00.000-04:00

Sorry my posting has been erratic lately; things should calm down around here soon. In the meantime, here's some useful tidbits I've found... Want to boycott the oil companies? Consider riding a polar bear to work Got some solid nerd cred? It's better to pretend you don't know anything about computers

Life imitates blogging

2010-06-16T16:17:00.000-04:00

A couple years back, in a blog post titled I am frequently asked how I can always be so optimistic, I reported on an experiment by Reader's Digest in which they dropped ten wallets loaded with ID and money in a number of cities to see what people would do. Most were returned, with the money- some cities, ten out of ten were returned.

Well, our DRE here at All Souls Indianapolis just confirmed the test- in spades. She just returned from a sabbatical spent in Europe; here is a Facebook entry: Nancy Renner Clear Stranger mailed my billfold that was stolen in Europe...without asking for thanks or reimbursement....What a wonderful surprise to get in the mail! She continues in a comment, The cash was gone, of course, but it was stolen in mid-March and was returned with everything else intact...and this after a couple of days of feeling loved and welcomed back by many...It's even healing my "flu"...It can be a wonderful world!

Yes, it can. We should all remember, whenever you read some horrible news story and start to believe that people aren't worth saving, that the reason it was news is that there are 6,000,000,000 people who aren't like that!

Oil spill help refused and other news

2010-06-11T14:31:00.002-04:00

"Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.
It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston." Read more here A related story, closer to home: "John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.
He’s already had a representative from BP visit his factory and inspect his product. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, visited the facility and made a video plea to no one in particular to close the deal. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins wrote a letter on May 21 to the secretary of the Interior, the administrator of NOAA, and the commandant of the Coast Guard to alert them to the existence of Packgen, their supply of boom, and their demonstrated capacity to make more. I have no idea if those are the correct persons and agencies to notify about the manufacturing capacity and the availability of boom. One wonders if the senators know." Read Miles of Oil Containment Boom Sit in Warehouse, Waiting for BP or U.S. to Use

Astroturfing for Elena: the DNC wants you to call talk shows.

Reuters once again alters photographs used in coverage of Israel.

"Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican?", asks the NY Times "Most notably, the study found that the more economics classes a person took, the more likely he or she was to be a member of the Republican Party and to donate money to a political candidate or a cause." The Wall Street Journal answers the question: "Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.", says Daniel Klein.

In twelve states, it's illegal to video police brutality.

A pair of studies with relevance to the marriage equality debate: Study finds teens raised by lesbians are well-adjusted, and a study showing- amongst other things- that a child raised by two gays is better off than a child raised by a single straight parent.

And, some levity to lighten the Friday

Whatever happened to the Karate Kid?

2010-06-11T10:40:00.000-04:00

Warning: language

Wax On, F*ck Off with Ralph Macchio from Ralph Macchio

"I've got something to tell you"

2010-06-05T10:21:00.000-04:00

UU parents- would you be understanding if these were your kids?

If I had told you ten years ago

2010-06-02T10:15:00.000-04:00

That the Clinton marriage would outlast the Gores', would you have laughed?

No words. Just watch.

2010-05-31T11:04:00.001-04:00

Pictures from the spill

2010-05-27T09:42:00.000-04:00

A picture is worth a thousand words... in this case, unprintable words. Have a look

Don't pin your hopes on lawsuits, redux

2010-05-20T22:34:00.001-04:00

Back in March, I posted Obamacare opponents, don't pin your hopes on lawsuits, listing reasons why not to expect the Healthcare reform to be overturned in court. Now I think the same must be said to opponents of the Arizona Immigration law.

I was prompted to reexamine my assumption that SB 1070 was unconstitutional by something President Obama said in the joint press conference with President Calderon- he said that he was instructing the Justice Department to "...look very closely at the language of this law to see whether it comports both with our core values and existing legal standards as well as the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy." Did you notice what is different about that from what other members of the administration like Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Michael Posner and P.J. Crowley of the State Department said? President Obama didn't say it was unconstitutional. Given that all the others mentioned admitted that they have not read the law, and the President sounded like he had, I began to wonder if the President was using more circumspect language because he wasn't so sure it would be overturned.

That caused me to do a search for a legal opinion of the law that was written by someone not involved in the suites against it, and I found I may indeed have been wrong in my assumption that it is unconstitutional. Here is an article from The Jurist: Arizona's Immigration Law: Constitutional, But...
JURIST Guest Columnist William G. Ross of Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, says Arizona's controversial new immigration law appears to be constitutional, at least on its face, but the state must be scrupulously careful to avoid even the appearance of any kind of discrimination against Hispanics...." From the The Washington Times: "WINN: Arizona law will triumph in court
Constitutional challenges have little support in case law... John Winn teaches business and constitutional law at Shenandoah University in Virginia. He served in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps from 1985 through 2005, including five years on West Point's law faculty." From The North County Times (a San Diego newspaper): "REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional Arizona's controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors."

If you're as surprised as I was, here's the short form of the argument: the federal preemptive power only matters if the state law is in conflict with the federal law; states make laws identical to federal laws all the time, and the courts uphold them. Reading that, I remembered a USA Today story from yesterday about a court decision in banking law: "In a partial victory for banks, the Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed an amendment that would largely prevent states from writing new laws to protect consumers from questionable financial products even if no federal law exists. However, the measure preserves states' authority to enforce federal rules." (my emphasis) Does the Arizona law agree with federal law? Well, reading the law, I saw that every section uses the federal statutes for definitions and procedures. In fact, in fifteen pages of actual text, federal law is referenced eighteen times! There are other points discussed, but you're better off reading the professors than my interpretation of them. The net is that there's an excellent chance the law will be upheld in the courts. And they didn't say it that way, but it seems a near certainty that it will be upheld with whatever minor changes the courts might demand.

If upheld, it is another certainty in this climate that other states will in fact pass such laws- and not just the seven states already considering it; here in Indiana there are at least two state senators waiting only for the court results to introduce similar legislation, and I'm sure many other states are doing the same.

This suggests to me that going to Arizona and protesting will have more impact than boycotting. On one hand, winning the hearts and minds of voters seems the only way to stop the promulgation of the law if it is constitutional. On the other hand, if that many states do pass the law, we might wind up boycotting so many venues that the only place left to hold a GA is Oaxaca. Assuming we have our papers in order, of course.

You may think you know where Waldo is

2010-05-17T19:15:00.000-04:00

But do you really know where he's at? And did it ever occur to you that he's really kind of... creepy? Me, neither, until I heard it read by Werner Herzog.

Pew, another poll

2010-05-12T16:48:00.002-04:00

Another poll about the Arizona ID law, this time a national one from The Pew Research Center, and recent, conducted from May 6-9. Plus, on page two, it explains methodology, which is a help in considering these things.

"Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove."

This suggest a course of action to me. The boycott resolution that will be voted on at GA next month calls for an amount of money to be raised equal to the penalties we must pay for the Standing On The Side Of Love campaign. I propose that if the resolution fails, that provision be submitted separately, with the money to be used to place a series of articles in major publications delineating the Constitutional issues involved. Appealing to emotions clearly isn't working; perhaps appealing to the general reverence for the Constitution will. This course of action has the following advantages:

That is the argument that will appeal most to conservatives, Republicans, and those over 50- the groups that currently most strongly support 1070. Splitting off the more libertarian minded conservatives will erode support for 1070 more than any amount of protests would.

We may be able to partner with a legal organization such as the ACLU, or another church to split costs. There will probably be famous name lawyers who will submit such articles at reduced cost or even pro bono, as it's an educational effort.

An educational program like that can be used for other social justice issues in the future; some of the partnerships we might form putting this together may become long term.

It would be a great thing to have our name attached to. We are proud of being the church where reason and religion meet; what better way to show it?

Softball- or political hardball?

2010-05-12T12:43:00.001-04:00

Wall Street Journal has been catching flak for publishing a picture of SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan playing softball: Was it code language (code image?) calling her a lesbian? Yes, says Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamatio- "It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It's just too easy a punch line." No, says Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston- "If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message."

I'll admit to being not qualified to judge. In the first place, I seem to be a bit tone deaf to code language- for example, I didn't get that complimenting a fellow senator for being very articulate was racist code language. My first thought seeing that picture was, "Cool- a Justice who's regular folks, playing softball and drinking beer, (One follows the other, right?), not another martini-sipping relic of earlier times, no more headlines like Supreme Court clueless about pagers, texting and e-mails..." I took it as a play on "stepping up to the plate"; "switch hitter" didn't occur to me. To tell the truth, I still don't quite get a relationship between softball and lesbianism; I've played softball with women that I had very good reason to believe were heterosexual.

My second thought was code language or not, what difference does it make? I was remembering an exchange many years ago with a friend who did not yet understand the difference between a libertarian conservative and the religious right. I had been admiring a K. D. Lang tune, and was asked, "Does it bother you that she's a lesbian?" I said, "Well, it's not like she was going to f*** me, anyway- who cares?" This isn't the 1940's- we have out of the closet elected officials nowadays; does it matter to anyone other than the obituary writer who will someday write, "She is survived by..."?

Is she gay? Or has she just not found a guy she wanted to marry? I don't know, and I don't care. And you know what? I don't think the general public cares, either. The public is often underestimated. I'm remembering a ABC TV segment where actors were sent into a sports bar in New Jersey- a gay couple, and a provocateur couple to make homophobic comments. Much to the surprise of ABC, the regular patrons of the sports bar challenged the nasty comments the provocateurs were making, and demanded that they leave.

I have a novel idea- instead of asking her why she isn't married, how about asking her about her opinions on the extensions of the commerce clause, or her criteria for eminent domain?
　

A new poll on Arizona

2010-05-11T17:39:00.003-04:00

My attention was drawn in the UUA Facebook debate on boycotting Phoenix for 2012 to a new poll. The new poll says that support for the new law within Arizona is lower than reported by Rasmussen previously; 52% support overall, 56% of registered voters.

But more importantly, this article gives details the Rasmussen article did not- the actual question asked, and a demographic breakdown. Here is the question: "Next, a new Arizona law may soon go into effect regarding one’s U.S. citizenship status and right to be in the U.S.. The new law would require police officers in Arizona to question anyone about their immigration status if an officer suspects the person may be in the country illegally, including anyone who looks or sounds foreign. Those found to be here illegally could be jailed up to six months and fined $2,500. Do you favor or oppose the governor signing such a law if it is sent to her by the legislature?” Some might say the question is just a tad biased, as the words "including anyone who looks or sounds foreign" not only do not appear in the law, but are explicitly forbidden as the sole determining factors- but leave that aside for the moment. Here are the demographic breakdowns:

-------------------------------Favor --Oppose --Unsure
Overall ----------------------52 %-- 39 % --------9 %
Republicans ---------------76 % --15 % --------9 %
Caucasian ------------------65%---28 % --------7 %
Age 55+ --------------------62 % --31 % --------7 %
Independents -------------60 %---30 % ------10 %
Men -------------------------56 % --40 % --------4 %
All registered voters -----56 % --34 % ------10 %
Age 35 to 54 --------------53 % --41 % --------6 %
Women ---------------------49 % --38 % ------13 %
Age under 35 --------------45 % -43 % ------12 %
Democrats -----------------30 % --58 % ------12 %
Non-Hispanic minorities 29 % --63 % --------8 %
Hispanics -------------------21 % --69 % ------10 %

Note those last two lines- even with what might be called a leading question, more than one in four Non-Hispanic minorities supports the law, and more than one in five Hispanics. That suggests to me an answer to who is right- the Governor of Arizona, who says "In 2009, Phoenix had 316 kidnapping cases, turning the city into the nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of the people kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.", or her critics who say that crime is going down in Arizona. If those crimes are not happening, why would 21% of Arizona Hispanics support the law, with another 10% not sure?

That is not a good argument for an unconstitutional law, but is sure is a good argument for securing the border.

The Fourth Law of Thermodynamics

2010-05-11T07:41:00.000-04:00

Not even the Jaws of Life can hold open a bag you're trying to get something awkward into; not even duct tape can hold closed a bag into which something horrible and messy has been put.

Discovered by Sir Isaac Newton on trash day as he heard the cart approaching.

"some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,"

2010-05-10T17:18:00.000-04:00

Said President Obama at Hampton University, Virginia, Sunday. One such claim he made himself- "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work --..." That wasn't the impression I got a couple years ago:

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt; perhaps he plays his games on his Blackberry; after all, "...information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"

The new woman's movement

2010-05-10T11:08:00.000-04:00

Is the Tea Party, according to Wall Street Journal "Forget "angry white men." In the male-dominated world of conservative politics, the tea party stands out as a movement of energized and organized women. In particular, moms... In fact, a recent Quinnipiac poll of voters found a majority of tea party supporters—55%—are women. To put that in perspective, only 48% of women voted for George W. Bush in 2004. And just two years ago, President Obama won 56% of the female vote."

Why? Michael Graham, author of "That's No Angry Mob—That's My MOM!" (Regnery, 2010), says, "Many women gave the most obvious answer: "If we waited around for you men to do it, it would never get done.", and provides some quotes to illustrate: "When I asked Christen Varley, the Boston tea party leader, she said it's because moms tend to be "the CEO's of our households. We do the shopping, bill paying, budgeting, etc. We know less money means less freedom. Maybe if the president and Congress did the grocery shopping, they'd know why we're mad."... "Motherhood itself has become a political act," says Ms. Loesch. (co-founder of the St. Louis tea party) "And the tea parties are an extension of our need as moms to protect the future for our children."... The tea party idea "just clicked in the minds of conservative women," she (Keli Carender the Seattle-area mother of the tea party movement.) says. "Most women I know are thinking 'I'm taking care of my family and the government's taking care of it's business—right?' Then they see what the government is really doing and they saw 'Whoa, whoa! I guess I've gotta take care of their mess, too.'"

It's only fitting that this story was published on Mothers Day; mothers usually have to be the ones to take care of childish messes... here's hoping that we, as a nation, stop behaving childishly so the mothers of the nation won't have to clean it up in the future.

Student gets a week's detention for possession

2010-05-08T11:04:00.002-04:00

No, not pot, not crack, not PCP or LSD; the hard stuff- Jolly Rancher. No, that's not some modern teen slang we grownups don't get; it's the rectangular, intensely flavored hard candy. In the latest example of public school's get tough zero intelligence (excuse me, I meant tolerance) policies, a Texas girl gets a week detention for possession of a single piece of candy.

I do agree with the mother's take on the important lesson her daughter should learn from this; indeed, from my experience in public schools, I'm surprised it's taken her 'til third grade to learn it.

P.S. It occurs to me that her having only a single piece may be a clue to why she got the harsh treatment; they were probably trying to make her squeal on Mr. Big, the supplier.

What is a soul?

2010-05-07T13:39:00.002-04:00

That is the first question thrown out by the new UU Salon. "Does it exist before we are born? Does it disappear when we die? It is unchangeable, or capable of growing/shrinking/strengthening? Can you lose your soul, or gain one?" Here is my take, though I'll take the points slightly out of order.

To answer the question, "What is a soul", I need to ask a different question first. Who’s in control of your life? No, I’m not asking if you have an overbearing parent, spouse, or boss, or whether you’ve committed your life to Jesus or to Satan. What I’m asking is, when you speak, who’s talking? If your answer is, "I'm in control of my life," we need to look a little closer.

Do you prefer Ginger or Maryanne? (Or Bob or Steve?) Why? Any healthy body would satisfy instinctive/biological needs. What is your favorite color? Blue? Why? Some have told me it was the color of their favorite flower, but... so what? Why do you like that flower? What is your dream job? What job would you hate to be stuck in? Why? What rational process did you use to choose any of those answers? Odds are, if you keep asking why, your ultimate answer will be, “I don’t know- I just like them.” If you did come up with reasons, I’ll guarantee those reasons won’t bear close examination. All of them will boil down to "I just like that one."

The being who made those decisions- all the important decisions of your life- is the real you, a soul. All those things we think of as "me"- our rational minds, our proud intellects, our conscious selves- are tools the soul uses to manipulate its environment, no different in essence from our hands. The conscious mind does not control our wants, our dreams, our identity- that is why, for example, one cannot decide to be straight or gay. The soul is the "you" who has the answers to all those questions. That soul is who the Divine speaks to.

Some people I've tried to explain this view to have thought that I was saying that the soul is just the instinctive, hard wired, "lizard brain" level of ourselves- but it much more complicated than that. As I mentioned above, there is no biological imperative to preferring Ginger over Maryanne. There is no biological explanation for preferring a red car to a blue one, or the scent of lilac over roses, dogs over cats, rum over (shudder) bourbon, etc.

Does the soul grow? Yes. Although the conscious mind, what we normally call our "self", does not control our behavior, it does influence it. It's a symbiotic relationship; the soul depends upon the mind for its perceptions, its understanding of the world. We are composite creatures, in this respect; we live in two worlds- that which we can see, and the virtual world in our minds. The lowest animals live only in the world they sense around them; higher animals add memory of where they've been, a virtual expansion of their senses. Still higher forms add speculative imagery; they extrapolate what they can expect to find in new but familiar territory. By the time you get to higher mammals, their virtual world is detailed enough to predict cause and effect- anyone who's been around dogs and cats can see them sometimes obviously performing thought experiments, trying to figure a situation out.

But the human virtual world is so complete that we can mistake it for reality. It has been demonstrated that false memories can be implanted by another, or accidentally developed by one's self. Perceptions can be altered deliberately. Take the classic "Is it a vase, or two faces" optical illusion- with practice, one can train one's self to always see it one way, so much so that it now takes an effort of will to see the other. This is how the mind can influence the soul, by changing the perceptions the soul uses to make decisions. I was panicked by a false perception, and countered it with another, in this incident.

It's not just one-time events that perceptions control, but entire lives. People troubled by a conflict between their sexual identity and the instinct to fit in- a powerful instinct; while we were still evolving, it meant life or death- has driven some to deprogrammers, trying to change who they really were. But a change in perceptions- first, that most people don't actually care what one does behind closed doors, and that perhaps it's those who object that are not normal, in that they lack basic human empathy- can help resolve the conflict. Changing one's perceptions of those who disagree with you from enemies or fools to fellow travelers who've had different experiences and perspectives brightens one's spirits and makes one a more persuasive debater in the bargain. Things like this are growth of the soul.

But the opposite can also occur- a bleak outlook can make one ill, physically and emotionally. As I wrote here, "Is life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.", or is this "the best of all possible worlds", with any hardships being just a foible in a thing of beauty, like getting a flat tire on a Lexus? Both are equally true, for by believing them, you make them so."

"Does it exist before we are born? Does it disappear when we die? These questions beg the question, "Does the soul exist independent of the body?" I don't know that this can be resolved, as the conscious mind that considers such questions is utterly dependent upon the physical shell. How can one have memories from before one had the capacity to form conscious memories? As to surviving after death, one can make a case; we are no more our brains than the word processing program I'm using is the computer- we are software, not hardware, and it's possible that the energy patterns are recorded somehow. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. "One reality at a time," is my motto; the Divinity I perceive is not petty or small; if I make myself worthy of this existence, I need not fear the next.

To me, undue concern over an unknowable future in an unknown reality is an abuse of religion. I believe that the proper role of religion is to address the needs of the soul in the here and now... helping one make sense of life's daily absurdities, sharing pain and joy, understanding how to live and how to die.

Passed at the UUA Board Special Meeting May 6, 2010

2010-05-07T07:08:00.002-04:00

Business resolution for the 2010 GA:

Whereas the state of Arizona has recently enacted a law—SB 1070--that runs counter to our first principle, affirming the worth and dignity of every person,

Whereas the Association stands in solidarity with allies using a widespread economic boycott of Arizona as leverage for Love against this hateful legislation;

Be it resolved: we will not meet in a state of fear.

Accordingly, the Assembly hereby:

• Directs the UUA General Assembly Planning Committee to recommend to the Board of Trustees an alternate location for General Assembly 2012 at a location outside the state of Arizona;

• Pledges to generate from Member Congregations the amount sufficient to cancel arrangements in Phoenix for GA 2012;

• Pledges further to generate an equal or greater amount to fund ongoing efforts to Stand on the Side of Love in Arizona.

• Pledge to renew and redouble our efforts to become a multicultural, anti racist Association; to live as a people standing faithfully in opposition to systematic racism in our congregations, local communities, and in our own lives.

*******
This was passed at a special online meeting* of the board that as many observers as the technology would allow were invited to participate in- a procedure I applaud and appreciate. The discussion was wide ranging, with many points brought up that are worth all our consideration. I have names attached to some of these, but as I wasn't able to capture actual quotes, it wouldn't be fair for me to put words in their mouths by attributing my faulty memory to them.

Cancelling will cost about $615,000 in penalties; shortfalls would have to come out of programs. (That's why fundraising is mentioned in the motion) It may also cost us in the future, as the convention business community is actually pretty small and tight-knit; cancelling may mean other cities might require advance money and more penalty clauses.

The deadline for making a decision is somewhat uncertain. As I understood the procedure, we have "dibs" on the dates in 2012, but not an absolute commitment; if another convention inquires about using the facilities, we will then be given a few days to make a decision. Since there's no way of predicting when or whether someone else will ask, the deadline for the decision is not at this moment firm. (If this is incorrect, someone in the know please correct me)

It was pointed out that going to Phoenix may put some of our own members at risk, and that they may not attend for that reason. A potential boycott of our own GA by our own members was also brought up as a risk of keeping GA in AZ.

The question of our selection policy was brought up, including the risk of our moving the 2012 GA to another city that would be unacceptable to some for different reasons.

There was discussion of whether it might be better to go and protest, that if our intent was to do something rather than make a statement, that might be more effective. Inquires about groups putting together public witnessing were made.

One question I have concerns the 2011 GA in Charlotte. In the most recent "Standing On the Side of Love" email, we were warned about seven other states that were contemplating passing their own 1070- and North Carolina was one of them. If this happens, would we be able to boycott, or would there not be enough time to change plans?

I wish I were able to attend GA next month; this may be an historic debate.

*If we can put together a virtual meeting at a moment's notice, how come the Global Warming conferences always have to be physical meetings at places like Helsinki, with all the burning of jet fuel that involves? Just asking.

Credit cards come through

2010-05-06T15:11:00.001-04:00

for you, and I bet you've never even tried them- read about the concierge service!

UUA Board to meet over moving the Phoenix GA

2010-05-06T11:27:00.000-04:00

From UUA Email: "The UUA Board of Trustees will hold an online Board Meeting on Thursday, May 6, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Time to determine how and when adecision will be made to affirm or change the location of GeneralAssembly 2012, currently scheduled to be held in Phoenix, Arizona. UUAModerator Gini Courter called this Special Board Meeting following thepassage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. This meeting is open to observers;"
I have registered to attend, and will blog about it- live blog if possible. More tonight if live blogging; otherwise tomorrow.

Why do I do it?

2010-05-04T10:55:00.001-04:00

Why do I defend the supporters, if not always the organizers, of things like the Tea Parties or the Arizona immigration law from charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, or all the other "isms" that get thrown around in UU blogs? Why did I speak up before the Presidential election against UU bloggers who said candidate Obama's poll numbers proved how racist America is?*

To begin with, it's simply not true. Tens- depending on the issue, hundreds- of millions of Americans are not "ists" who base all their decisions on "isms". That's a problem with calling our position on everything "Standing On The Side Of Love"- sometimes we come to really believe that those not standing with us are all haters. It seems to me that some UUs, despite all our vaunted reason, understanding, and tolerance are simply incapable of believing that anyone could genuinely care for people and still come to a different position than ours.

Secondly, it's counterproductive on many, many levels. To begin with, when you call someone an "ist" of any kind, you've just written them off in your mind. After all, "isms" are irrational, and irrational people cannot be convinced by rational argument. If you've been doing this, I give you the words of Benjamin Franklin from 1776: "These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, they are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home! In any case, stop acting like a Boston fishwife."

And, of course, they will write you off as well. You just deeply insulted them; they can here the contempt in your voice. They know that you, too, are incapable of being moved by their arguments, so why should they bother to enter a dialogue with you? For example, last night Mayor Bloomberg of New York speculated on the nature of the terrorist who planted the car bomb in Times Square: "Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." How do you think NY attendees of Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings who opposed the Healthcare reform bill felt, knowing that's how he sees them? What do you think the odds are that they'll ever listen to another word he says on the subject?

And, of course, if you assume irrational motivations for all your opposition, you won't even try to understand their actual motivations, their real fears. And since you don't understand what they really want, you'll miss all opportunities to find a genuine compromise, or an outside of the box answer. If, for example, you're convinced that all those against the "living wage" proposal are just a capitalist pigs operating on the "I got mine, Jack!" principle, you'll miss opportunities to get their cooperation on other assistance programs that don't trigger their fears of economic backlash.

And lastly, it's just plain unseemly. We're religious bloggers. We're supposed to be the good guys. If we can't discuss an issue without demonizing the opposition, who can? If UU bloggers- including ministers and religious professionals- cannot write with compassion, cannot display any faith in their fellow man, what does that tell the world about UU itself?
　
*To this day, I cannot understand how polling better before the election than any other candidate of his party since Roosevelt, and getting the highest first-term landslide in a century is evidence of racism. OK, technically, LBJ got a higher vote, but I don't think that counts as he was a sitting president, even though not elected.

Sign of Spring

2010-05-03T09:45:00.000-04:00

Although this video is from NC, it sure reminds me of Spring and Summer in Indiana. (Caution- audio protion NSFW)

Ginj and I could have shot this video ourselves a few years ago, if we'd had the technology on us...

CUUmbaya commits blasphemy- again

2010-05-01T20:27:00.001-04:00

I committed blasphemy once before, and managed to dodge the lightning. That experience gives me the courage to confess to this one, even though it is a deeper, and to many, more offensive blasphemy.

Today is a serious religious ritual for the devotees of Equus like my beloved- The Kentucky Derby. I was never a horse person before meeting Ginger; I have since learned that the animal hierarchy goes cats, people, horses. For that, and other family tradition reasons, the Kentucky Derby is a ritual at our house, one I've come to enjoy very much. I love the food- last year we had burgoo; this year hot browns. I love examining and selecting horse for the family betting. I love the hats and outfits. (I almost picked the winner on the basis of the jockey's silks looking like the Star Trek logo.) I love almost everything about the Derby.

There's just one dark cloud in this glorious sky: the Mint Julep. I cannot abide Bourbon. To finish a Julep would require from me a greater control of the gag reflex than that demonstrated by Linda Lovelace. So throughout the festivities I consumed Martinis. Wait, I tell a lie- some of them were Gibsons. I confess it! When the trumpet sounded "To The Post", I saluted with a Martini!

I'm sure most UUs will forgive me; we're good with blasphemy. But I'm not a fool- I'll give it a month or two before entering a Kentucky congregation.

One last word about the Arizona immigration law

2010-05-01T12:28:00.001-04:00

Read this NY Times editorial by Kris W. Kobach. It addresses most of the points being discussed in this and many other blogs.

US Senator favors deporting all undocumented aliens

2010-04-30T15:21:00.000-04:00

Even the gainfully employed with families. No, wait, that's a former senator. I bet he thinks the issue is more complicated now.