The myth of overpopulation

Whenever politics or environmentalism is discussed, the “fact” that the world is overpopulated is bound to come up. It is a central tenet of groups like “Earth First!” and “ZPG”, and has even been an issue agreed upon by GA vote of the UUA... but these votes don’t make it true. The arguments are based on two things: world hunger, and mankind’s “footprint”. Let’s discuss hunger first.

Is hunger caused by there being too many people for the available food supply? Not according to the United Nations! George McGovern, (U.S. Senator, 1963-1981; Presidential candidate 1972; first Director of the United States Food for Peace Program, United States Ambassador to the United Nations agencies on Food and Agriculture in Rome) writes in the United Nations Chronicle : “Hunger is a political condition... 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.” I took the initiative of counting those foods he left out (the numbers are readily available from the UN and the US Dept. of Agriculture): including protein cakes and edible oils from soybean, rapeseed, cottonseed, groundnuts, etc; fish; eggs; meats, including beef, lamb, pork, and poultry; milk and cheese; vegetables; and fruits: 2.59 billion metric tons per year! That’s .43 metric tons per person per year, or 2.6 lbs of meats and vegetables per day- on TOP of 3,500 calories worth of grain products! That’s enough to make every man, woman, and child on Earth morbidly obese- so why is there world hunger?

Is it because the developed countries refuse to share? Not according to the U.N.- again quoting Ambassador McGovern: “...78 per cent of the world’s malnourished children live in countries with food surpluses.” What he doesn’t say, and again is readily available information, is that nearly all the rest live in countries bordering those with surpluses. The answer is politics. War. Dictators routinely withhold food to punish provinces that revolt. Civil wars prevent food distribution. Remember the famines in Ethiopia and Eritrea? Remember those commercials with Sally Struthers telling us that pennies a day would save those starving children? What she didn’t say was that even as she was begging for pennies, the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea were spending millions a day on a twenty year long war!

So much for food- what about the damage Humankind is doing to the Earth? Again, it’s a matter of mismanagement, not necessity. For example, outside of the G-8 nations, agricultural practices are- and let’s be generous- 100 years out of date. In large portions of the third world, agriculture still means a wooden plow pulled by an ox, with the ox providing the fertilizer as he goes. Production per acre in the U.S. has increased twenty-fold in the last 100 years; if the third world were to build tractors and combines instead of tanks, and processing plants instead of nuclear weapons programs, world output could easily be increased three-fold in the next ten years. As there is already enough food, that means we could reduce the number of acres under cultivation by two thirds, allowing tens of millions of acres to return to nature! That means enough vegetable protein to replace most fish production, giving the beleaguered oceans a break! And if we used modern mass hydroponics technology, even those acres needed for farming could be moved to the deserts and badlands, where there’d be plenty of solar power to run them!

How do we get there from here? Not by unencumbered foreign aid- only the oligarchies in the countries involved will ever see any benefit of that. If there’s any lesson to be taken from the last half-century, it’s that one. Even though McGovern does call for some money in the article I referenced, he stumbles into the real necessity: “Education and democracy may be the most powerful combatants in the war on hunger and poverty.” That’s George McGovern talking, not the much-hated neo-cons. Democracy is the answer. During the 1930s, there was real hunger in both the US and the USSR... Stalin solved it liquidating the kulaks; FDR started government food programs and the WPA. If the North Korean people were allowed a vote, I’m guessing they’d prefer food to nuclear weapons.

Blaming the world’s problems on overpopulation is, it seems to me, a cop-out. Since population cannot be reduced in the short term, blaming overpopulation allows you to think that passing a resolution about zero population growth is actually doing something about hunger. If you blame overpopulation, then you don’t have to do anything about the evil regimes that starve their populations into submission. It allows you to be non-judgmental about other cultures, while assuaging those faint nagging doubts by denouncing excessive consumption in the West instead.

What gets me through the night

Rev. Sean will be hosting the Third UU Blog Carnival, and he’s chosen as his topic “ “What gets you through the hard night?” More specifically, what is it in our faith tradition, that brings you the strength and/or comfort you need to face difficult times?” UU Blog Carnival #3

I do have some favorite prayers from childhood, and some favorite hymns- Morning Has Broken never fails to raise my spirits, make me feel as fresh as that first morning. But what really gets me through that long dark night are my Pagan beliefs, truths I instinctively knew even as a child before the term “Neopagan” had ever been coined.

Neopagan faiths are called “Earth based religions”; most people think that means we worship the Earth itself. Some in fact do- there is that old joke that Wiccans make the best lovers, because they really do worship the ground you walk on! But it also means that we are oriented on this world, not the next. The Abrahamic faiths teach that the next world is the real one, that this life is merely an entrance exam. Most Neopagans believe in a form of reincarnation- either as an entity, or that the energies we have gathered are recycled, like a rock band breaking up to form new groups with new sounds. Even those that do believe in an afterlife- primarily those that call themselves heathens- believe that any judgment they face is based on their performance in this world, not on the mental gyrations they went through to prepare for the next. The essence of all these possibilities is one reality at a time... if you make yourself truly worthy of this world, you have nothing to fear from any other.

But there is yet another depth to the term “Earth centered”- that we must live in the present tense. Here is what I have written in my personal Book of Shadows:

The Divine has given you this day; do not waste it by attempting to live in the past. Reliving glory days is not harmful per se, but misty eyes are blind to the joy of the moment. If overindulged, it can sap your will to drive for new accomplishments. Obsessing over past pains or guilt is worse still. You are required to learn from your sorrows, to incorporate whatever lessons can be gleaned from them; but having done so, it is your duty to The Divine to move on. Do not squander the gift of the day.

Living in the future is equally futile. It is your duty of the day to make plans for the future; but having done so, lay them aside and enjoy the moment. Anticipation of future joy is foolish. The expected event may or may not happen; if it happens, it may or may not live up to your expectations- in which case the joys it did possess have been spoiled.

Fear of the future is equally foolish. Again, the event dreaded may or may not happen; if it does, it may be better or worse than you imagine. Either way, there will be plenty of time to suffer when the time comes- are you so eager for pain that you must borrow it from the future to spoil the day? To live in fear is to suffer the pains of injuries you have not received. Make what preparations you can do today- and then let tomorrow deal with tomorrow.

And the pains of today? All pains are growing pains, all experiences are learning experiences. Sometimes we are lucky enough to learn from the pain of others; sometimes we must be the lesson. I know that this too shall pass, and that I will be a different person tomorrow. I may not understand the lesson today; perhaps not even in this lifetime- perhaps this must be entered into that enormous volume of things I do not understand. My duty is to try to learn; I have not failed if I die still trying.

Lastly, I know that my responsibility is mine alone; no one can take it from me even if I wished they could. Nor can I take responsibility for another, even if I wish to make the sacrifice. If I have done all that can be expected of me today, I can sleep soundly... if the world goes to Hell as I sleep, it will be my sorrow in the morning, but it is not my responsibility tonight. I trust that whether or not it is clear to me, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should.

Ranting Rev nails it

As a Goldwater/Reagan conservative- think of a Libertarian who doesn’t want to legalize crystal meth- I’ve been dismayed by big-spending, homophobic Republican congressmen. Being more devoted to a cause than a party, I’ve been hoping that Republicans would loose seats, so that we old-timers can reclaim a party that’s more interested in foreign policy and sound currency than who marries whom. The problem has been that the Democratic party is not cooperating!

For four years I’ve been begging the Democrats to come up with a party line and campaign on it- but for six solid years their candidates have run on a single issue: Bush is a doody-head. Some of the more sophisticated have added that he wasn’t elected, he was appointed... but when the chips were down, they still joined hands and chanted “Bush is a doody-head”. When I correctly predicted the last two election cycles in Beliefnet and CFUU and AUC forums, saying that you can’t win votes by spewing hatred and venom, that incumbents can only be unseated by earnest-sounding candidates with real ideas, I was ridiculed. When I said that you can’t win by saying, “Your man is a Nazi and you’re a fool- oh, by the way, can I have your vote?”, I got more than one response of “He just wants us to stop telling the truth so that the conservatives can call us names themselves.” Well, a liberal is now echoing my sentiments: The Ranting Rev: Can These Bones Live? - A Sermon for the Democratic Party

How did the Republicans win control of Congress in the first place? Yes, yes, I hear you- by lying. But that glib answer is simply wrong. They won because of Newt’s “Contract with America”. And don’t bother telling me they broke the contract- that’ll simply prove you still haven’t gotten the point. They had a unified message, they talked about issues, not their opponents- in short, they sounded like statesmen, whether they were or not. That wins votes. That wins elections. And that’s a lesson the Democratic party has still not learned. Back on December 10, ‘05, I predicted the following in comments on the ChaliceBlog: “I now predict that if there's not a big shake-up the Democratic party leadership within the next three months, Republicans will retain majority in both houses in the upcoming election. I further predict that if Republicans retain control of Congress, a Republican will be elected president in 2008.” I stand by it, absent a major disaster like a second Katrina occurring. Not because the Republicans have earned it; they haven’t- but because the Democratic party has been throwing it away. The triumvirate of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Moveon.org have so crippled the Democratic party that a conspiracy minded person might wonder if they were undercover Republican operatives. Had someone like “The Happy Warrior” Humphrey or Pat Moynihan had been the party chairman, they’d control both houses of Congress by now.

Why am I, a conservative, so concerned with saving the Democratic party? Because I want to separate the religious right from the traditional right, and that will never happen as long as Republicans keep winning under the current coalition. Because I’m worried that the Democrats will decide that they have to cater to the religious right, too- I’ve seen some evidence of it. This country is ready to elect a Libertarian, but neither party will nominate one- and the Libertarian Party can never elect one while the two major parties control “election reform”.

More thought on Peacebang’s “Vague Buddhism”

I’ve been neglecting the blog (don’t you hate when the “real world” interferes with what you really want to do?), but I have been pondering- primarily Peacebang’s Humanists or vague Buddhists? , by way of Oversoul’s Response to Peacebang‘s blog and Lizard Eater’s No More Elevator Speech . I realized that much of what I written in response to Christian questions about my Pagan beliefs is applicable to the discussion within UU.

The question I was asked as a Pagan was “If your tradition contradicts the tradition of another Wiccan, can they both be objectively true? If you cater/construct your religion according to your desires, then isn't it nothing more than your own invention?” Here was my answer: Yes, they are both objectively true- and no, they are not merely our inventions. The freedom to choose is not license for catering to whims, it’s an obligation, a duty- you are required to find through study, soul-searching, and prayer the way to the Divine. Both the Wiccan and the Christian can say “The Earth is real; I can touch it. God is real; I can touch him.” To them both, each experience was equally factual. We are each of us prisoners within our own skulls; I cannot know exactly what a Pentecostal is experiencing when the spirit takes them anymore than they can experience what I feel in circle- we each come to the Divine one at a time. In a very real sense, there are six billion religions! My body will reject an organ transplant even from a close relative (absent drugs); objectively, only my kidney will work for me, and yours for you... each is different, and each is the only true way for each other. My need for that specific kidney- or that specific faith- is not my invention.

I would modify that answer only slightly for a UU, by substituting “Truth” for “The Divine”, as there are many atheist UUs... but so altered, I believe it to be true: by becoming UU, you have assumed an obligation to find your truth. We have rejected the other denominations’ set answers, but the human psyche is not built to live with a vacuum; therefore we must be seekers. This is where I disagree with Peacebang’s reply to Lizard Eater, when she said “I absolutely agree with you that personal witness is more powerful than trying to stammer out a definition of Unitarian Universalist. However, while the Christian witness is testifying to the saving grace of God/Christ in their life, we're witnessing to the saving grace of a congregation in our life. When I try to answer the question "what are we worshiping?" your post validates my sad conclusion that we are, in fact, worshiping ourselves.” If a graduate of Harvard’s Divinity school sings its saving virtues, it is understood that he is not worshipping it; he is praising its part in bringing him to that which he does worship. When I praise All Souls Indianapolis, I’m expressing gratitude for its help in my own spiritual growth; I am not worshipping All Souls.

Our duty to seek truth is also why I disagree with Oversoul’s statement:
"Someday, UUism will have to squarely confront three fundamental questions:
1. Is there a Higher Power?
2. If yes, what is its nature and how do we relate to it as a religious community?
3. How do the answers to questions 1 and 2 inform the way we live our lives?"
UUs have this obligation- but the UUA does not. Those questions are my responsibility, and as I wrote in my creed, “I believe that responsibility, for good or ill, is my one irrevocable possession.” In their hearts, all people know this to be true- is there a single faith more than fifty years old that has not schismed into multiple denominations? Even within those denominations, is there one with 100% agreement between congregates?

Worshipping together does not have to mean worshipping the same thing.

9/11 Conspiracies

This month’s Popular Mechanics magazine has an editorial letter from Senator John McCain about the various wingnut 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hardly surprising that they are still news, I guess, with 36% of the American people believing it’s possible, Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy , but it’s still disheartening that it’s necessary to even print it. On the off-chance one of your friends believes this crap, here’s a few resources to show them: 9/11: Debunking The Myths , Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation , and Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect that address most of the conspiracy theories in layman’s terms.

What amazes me is the mentality of the conspiracy nuts. They doubt the word of the mainstream media- which is fine, any intelligent person does- but then accept as gospel the word of home-grown “experts” on the internet without demanding their credentials and without peer review of their competing claims. It never occurs to them that if there was anything at all to their claims, if they were as “obvious” to trained engineers as they claim, foreign governments would leap at the chance to damage Bush and/or the U.S. by publicizing it- but of course, not even Cuba or North Korea or Iran is willing to put their national prestige behind claims that can be debunked that easily. Nor does it bother them that of all the people who would have to have been involved- the CIA, most of the upper Pentagon brass, the airlines involved, civilian air traffic control, the building demolition experts (and there aren’t that many capable of guaranteeing the results desired, they could be tracked down easily), no one has come forward.

They are great at examining the official timeline, but never consider the timeline of a conspiracy. Bush had only been in office less than 8 months, and hadn’t had his own people confirmed in place for more than weeks; many of the necessary people mentioned above were still Clinton personnel. (unless this was actually a Clinton plot to ruin Bush’s first term...) Bush would have had only weeks to conceive of the plot, recruit hundreds if not thousands of top government and military staff so loyal to him personally that they were willing to commit treason and mass murder for their beloved leader, run feasibility studies, arrange secret financing, pull it off, then cover up so perfectly that not only was the Congressional inquiry fooled, but also the intelligence services of the world- even the nations that hate us. To believe those theories is to believe Bush to be the most brilliantly competent conspirator in history.

Yes, disheartening. Disheartening to think that there are so many citizens who vote and serve on juries who can believe in such things, and even one Congresswoman- Cynthia McKinnon. I know P.T. Barnum said there was one born every minute, but I had always hoped that was mere hyperbole.

Vague Buddhism?

Peacebang has started a fascinating discussion with her two latest posts, Humanists, or "Vague Buddhists?" , Humanism or Vague Buddhism, Part II ,and ChaliceChick continues with The ChaliceBlog: Response to PB's "Vague Buddhists" post . The timing is, for me, amusing, as our last small groups meeting was about Buddhism!

I think Peacebang has something in concept- I believe we are headed for “Buddhism Lite” as a denomination. First consider Buddhism stripped of the cultural trappings such as vegetarianism or reincarnation, and look only at the 4 Noble Truths, and the 8fold path, and the Middle Way. The Middle Way is merely avoiding extremism- don’t we hear that every single week in a UU congregation? If you reworded the 8 fold path such as to make its Buddhist origins less obvious, any humanist would be happy to claim it, and if you’re careful with the translations of the 4 Truths, (I’m told the word “suffering” is not exact), the same is true of them as well. Buddhism and Humanism both put the emphasis on behavior rather than belief. Where Buddhism differs from Humanism is that Buddhism does not require a deity, but has no trouble with your worshipping of one, whereas the wording of the Humanist Manifestos denies the possibility of the existence of a deity. One could say that a Buddhist is a Humanist who has no beef with god-Talk.

This difference is where UU comes in. It seems as if it were a near thing, but the UUA could never quite bring itself to become formally atheistic- in fact, the pendulum now seems to be swinging in the other direction, with the recent “Language of Reverence” debates. Oh, we’re still embarrassed by words such as “God” or “Prayer”, but openly expressed hostility is no longer common. It seems, just from my limited experience, that what growth we are enjoying is because of that, that we’re getting religious humanists, often young families who believe in God, but not religion, and are looking for a generically religious tradition for their children.

It seems inevitable to me that the UUA head in that direction. There are very few of the old-school “anti-theist” type of humanists left; vocal as they are, they’re starting to get drowned out in debate. More and more New-Age types are joining, largely people who have been unchurched for 20 years, and are starting to want fellowship again. There are the UU Pagans and the UU Christians who are getting more vocal. All of these trends, it seems to me, are bound to result in a denomination that will more openly embrace Divine inspiration, but retain the behavior-oriented posture of our humanist tradition. If you were to take Buddhism and intentionally rewrite it for western ears and cultural references, is that not exactly what you would get? Is there a better word for that than Peacebang’s, “Vague Buddhism”?

Peacebang asks “What I was wondering was whether or not we were mostly putting Buddhist teachings and readings and quasi-spiritual practices (like 30- second 'meditation') where Christian instruction and ritual used to be.” Well, of course! Inertia is the most powerful force in the universe- the forms and trappings will change last, if ever; the content is much less important than the format. After all, in any religion not one congregate in a thousand truly understands their own creed and liturgy- ask the man on the street the theological differences separating the Methodists from the Episcopalians. in fact, the way our own members treat the PPs like a creed should demonstrate that point. So if the content must change to permit more open acceptance of theists and spiritual issues without the minister being accused of sounding too Christian, the only way to do it is to insert Buddhist teachings into an otherwise normal Protestant church format.

War news

11 dead, seven injured in 72 hours... no, not Beirut, not Haifa, not Baghdad- Indianapolis. So many arrests that 30 criminals a day are released on their own recognizance; not because of their record, but because the jail is so overcrowded that a judge ruled that adding any more would be inhumane. although still more comfortable than the conditions the men and women stationed in Iraq are enduring.

One of the major reasons for this crime spree is Indianapolis’ position as crossroads of the nation; not just for commercial freight operations, but for illegal drugs as well- drug distributors from Mexico are fighting gangs from Chicago for control of the vital hub. Of course, anyone calling for control of our borders is a racist- crying crime is just an excuse. The UUA has the real answer- first legalize the drugs, Of course, drug dealers who will kill other drug dealers to control their market share would never dream of killing a corporate drug representative to control that same market, and impose tighter gun control. One of the gun battles involved automatic weapons- weapons that that have already been illegal for 70 years. But I’m sure that if we went from really illegal to really, really, illegal, they’d stop.

Only an old reactionary could even think of putting any of the blame on the modern “gangsta” urban culture, despite 3 deaths in 3 days at clubs, a number held artificially low by one of the clubs “voluntarily” closing Saturday and Sunday after a Friday killing, obviously the real cause is poverty; we need jobs programs. Of course the gangbangers who wiped out an entire family a couple weeks ago in a home invasion robbery looking for a big stash would gladly lay down their arms for $9.00 an hour jobs. And again, legalizing drugs would drop their prices, naturally, a corporation who obeys OSHA and EPA and FDA and labor laws and union contracts is going to be cheaper than criminals who can ignore all those laws so people wouldn’t have to break the law to afford them. And the young woman convicted recently of pimping her 8 year old daughter to buy crack would have no trouble finding an employer willing to allow her to stay stoned all day long.

*sigh*
UPDATE: Two more murders overnight... 13 in 5 days. With domestic totals like this, who needs foreign terrorists?

Who killed the electric car?

This is the title and subject of a new documentary out this week. I haven’t seen it, nor do I plan to- it’s the kind of movie that makes me heave a mighty sigh. Why do we have to assign conspiracy to everything we disagree with or disapprove of?

Don’t get me wrong; from what I’ve read, this is no Michael Moore propaganda piece- the facts are accurate, and not artificially sensationalized. But facts are not truths. Nobody “killed” the electric car, there is no conspiracy to keep electric cars off the market- they simply are not yet a viable option for enough car buyers to sell them profitably. Nor does the nation have the infrastructure to support them if we bought them. Nor would they reduce pollution- they would merely shift it to different venues.

The key log in the electric car traffic jam is the question of infrastructure. We simply do not have the electric generating capacity to recharge millions of electric cars. Depending on size and performance, electric cars need between 12 and 25 kilowatt-hours to fully charge- let’s use 15 kwh for a low average. 15 kwh times 75 million cars (there are actually 400 million cars registered in the US, but only 75 million in use on any given work day) equals one and an eighth billion kwh... on top of what we’re already using! The electric grid doesn’t have even a fraction of that available- the only reason we’re not having rolling blackouts during the current heat wave is that people have learned from past blackouts and are turning their thermostats up and their large appliances off. I think an automobile qualifies as a “large appliance”. Nor are any more power plants being built or even planned- ironically, the same environmentalists who want us to drive electric cars are preventing us from building new generators.

Infrastructure means more than generating power- you also have to deliver it, and we can’t. Every “destination” facility- hotels and motels, convention centers, sports arenas, ball parks, amusement centers, museums, state and national parks, resorts- would need a recharge socket for every parking slot. After all, the entire point of these places is to draw crowds from hundreds of miles away- go to any Cincinnati Reds game and you’ll find the parking lot full of Indianapolis license plates; without a recharge socket, not one of those cars would be there. No tourist attraction could survive depending on only those within round-trip (25-35 miles) range. Each facility would require the electrical service of a major factory, which means tens of thousands of miles of high-tension lines strung through virgin countryside, something else the environmentalists are not crazy about.

The infrastructure question alone means that the electric car can never be the only car in a family; it would have to be a second car, used only for work and shopping trips. Especially in the suburban and rural communities- you’ll notice that all the rave revues electric cars get are from people who live in big cities, where everything is close together. This would keep sales so low that the price per unit becomes unbearable- according to Wikipedia, the cost of the EV1 (the car the movie was about) was $40,000 without subsidies, the Honda EV Plus $53,000, Ford Ranger EV $50,000 without subsidies. In addition, those prices do not include the taxpayer subsidized research that went into the cars mentioned above- I saw one estimate that the true cost of the EV1, including everything that was needed to take concept to street, divided by the number of vehicles actually produced, would have been $900,000 each.

This is why serious environmentalists are concentrating on hybrid and hydrogen technologies instead of battery powered cars. A hydrogen fueled internal combustion vehicle has all the advantages of a gasoline car, the zero emissions an electric car promises but doesn‘t truly deliver, (the power plant that recharges it, at least here in Indiana, belches coal smoke) and no toxic batteries to dispose of in hazardous waste facilities. And, as all the technology except the fuel tank is off-the-shelf, it would be priced competitively with the gasoline vehicle. Is it any wonder car companies are turning their attention there, rather than the EV1? No conspiracy, only reality.

My favorite word of reverence

CC asks for essays on the subject of “Religion words that move us, religion words that don't.” The ChaliceBlog: No, seriously, the UU Blog Carnival is getting close For me, it’s no contest- the most profoundly moving word is “Thanks”. Thanksgiving is my favorite prayer and my favorite holiday.

The church I was raised in stressed the petitionary prayer- heal the sick, feed the hungry, and pay the rent. The Bible specifically instructs you to use this type of prayer. When I first started questioning what I was taught, it came to me that this was a very negative process. It comes from the common Christian view of the world as a broken place that needs fixing, the view that holds “worldly” as a pejorative. Petitionary prayers reinforce this by forcing you to concentrate on misery, keeping your mind on what’s wrong with the world, your mate, yourself. They require you to focus on unhappiness. They require you to believe that you’re powerless to change things on your own... simultaneously telling you that you can’t make a difference, and setting you up for failure if you try. Even if unconsciously, they set performance standards for God, making your love conditional. In some cultures it’s not unconscious- they will neglect or even vandalize their God’s shrine if he doesn’t come through!

Prayers of gratitude are altogether different. They force you to concentrate on all the innocent delights she offers us. They leave your soul refreshed by the memory of joy, not anxious about a future that could go wrong. Gratitude for gifts bestowed is pure and unconditional- as unconditional as the love of the Divine that keeps pouring those gifts out. And there is so much to be grateful for! I right about it in detail here: CUUMBAYA: How do we know God loves us?

A grateful soul is a happy soul; one cannot be depressed while remembering joys. A happy soul wants everyone else to be happy, too, and is in his/her most charitable and giving mood. A grateful soul knows that they are truly loved, and will- at least at that moment- share that love with the world... may we all be more grateful!

Rich getting richer?

Thanks to Will Shetterly It‘s All One Thing for pointing out this list of The wealthy 100: a ranking of the richest Americans past and present This list is very interesting, as it ranks them by their percentage of the Gross National Product, a surer comparison even than trying to correct for inflation, and a clearer vision of their impact on society. Bill Gates, for example, only ranks at no. 31 on this list; no. 1 is John D. Rockeller, which most historians would agree is a fair comparison of their respective social and political power.

The other interesting thing I noticed is that this listing belies the conventional wisdom that the rich are getting richer. While the list doesn’t say exactly when their fortunes were earned, it does list their birth and death, and I think we can safely say their money was made before their death- possibly not counting Elvis and Tupak who kept recording and releasing new albums long after they died. I have broken down how many of these vast fortunes were earned by historical eras:
Before 1800: 4
1800-1850: 8
1850-1900: 24
1900-1950: 48
1950-2000: 7
Still alive: 9

84% of all American mega fortunes were made before most of us were born- and clearly nowadays, one must do something that truly changes the course of society to make it, as Bill Gates or Sam Walton did. (leaving aside the issue of whether those changes were positive or negative) And even so, they won’t have the power that the rich did in the past- J.D. Rockefeller was 1/65 of the entire nation’s economy; Bill gates, despite all his billions, is only 1/425 of today’s GDP. The rich are getting less influential with each passing day. This is a good thing.

Warning: low humor

I had lunch with a dear friend and fellow gourmand today, and afterwards we went to a "world cuisine" supermarket she had been telling me about for a long time. It is a fabulous place, big as a Walmart, with food from places I've never even heard of, and I did well in geography.

Naturally in such a place you'll see many poor translations and misspellings on labels, and normally they're an innocent source of amusement, but I'll admit my mind went straight to the gutter when I saw a packet of seasoning labeled "Cock Flavor". Of course, I immediately thought of friends I could send it to- and was so intent on the mental list that it took me a moment to understand why my friend started laughing when I said it would be a great gag gift.

The problem with saying “God is love”

You hear this phrase all the time. Whether the speaker means that God is all loving, or that love itself is God, it’s a comforting sentiment. The kind of person who would say that is not the kind who would worship a vengeful God, a God who could condemn frail mankind to everlasting damnation- that’s why we hear it said at UU churches so often.

The problem is that the kind of person who would say that frequently cannot understand the type of person who worships the vengeful God. They cannot believe that anyone really, down deep, believes it. They all too often tend to think that a person espousing hatred in the name of God is only using religion for their own ends, that a true religion could not advocate violence. They are wrong. It’s gratifying that so many people cannot believe that sincere, profound religious faith could possibly lead to violence, mass murder, genocide, but they are wrong. This misunderstanding leads to mishandling any situation that involves it.

This misunderstanding caused the tragedy in Waco. The “experts” in the Justice Dept. advised Janet Reno that nobody could really believe that stuff- the gullible Branch Davidian followers, perhaps, but their leader couldn’t possibly actually believe it. They believed that David Koresh was just another religious scam artist, and if they hit them hard he would fold. Big mistake- one that resulted in a holocaust that cost a lot of innocent lives.

I hear the same misunderstanding frequently in any discussion of the troubles in the Middle East. When one points outs that the charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of Israel, otherwise sensible people say “They don’t really mean that- they’re practical people; give them the right deal and they’ll accept it.” No, they won’t. Or rather, they will accept concessions, then go on killing anyway... because they really do believe it. They really do believe the existence of a Jewish state is an insult to Islam. The reason for the attacks is not the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the exact borders of Israel; the problem is the existence of Israel. They do not want a restoration of the 1967 borders, they want the 1947 borders.

There are other Muslims who believe in the World Caliphate. They call the United States “The Great Satan” not because the US supports Israel, or because of economic injustice, or because of environmental concerns; the oppose the U.S. because it is committed to secular government. To someone like Osama Bin Laden, the greatest tragedy in human history was when Turkey stripped the Caliphate of secular power and became a secular state. This is why Al Queida started targeting Iraqis instead of US soldiers after the elections; the concept of a secualar Iraq is anathema to them. They really do believe that there are only three things a Muslim can do when meeting an unbeliever: convert him, subjugate him, or kill him.

Yes, I hear you screaming at me, “Islam is a religion of peace! You’re misinterpreting those passages, it’s a bad translation!”. Fine, I believe you- but I’m not the one you have to convince. I’m not the one slowly sawing a man’s head off, drowning out his screams with shouts of “God is great!”. It’s not gentiles you must convince that Islam is a religion of peace- it’s Muslims who need to be convinced of that. And yes, it’s a minority of Muslims who believe in violence- but it’s a much larger minority than the “God is love” crowd believes it is. To field a soldier- any soldier, be it American, Israeli, or Hezbollah- a huge support staff is required. That soldier must be trained, equipped, fed, clothed, housed, and paid. His weapons must be paid for, maintenanced, stored in good condition. Heavy weapons, such as the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is firing off at such a prodigious rate, require large crews, equally well trained. And when you have 13,000 such rockets, you also need a huge building and maintenance staff just to store them.

My point? If there are 100,000 terrorists worldwide, (remember that attacks aren’t limited to the ME; it occurs in Africa, India, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, other places), then there are millions of Muslims directly supporting them, and there are tens of millions more who know exactly what’s going on but will never tell the authorities. Still a minority of Islam, to be sure- but big enough to ensure that there will never be peace. And no solution can be found until everyone- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Atheist understands what the problem is. Until you understand that millions of people really do believe that God calls for innocent (in western eyes) men, women, and children to be killed on a daily basis, you are part of the problem.

U.S. energy use

This is an update of an essay I had posted on CFUU four years ago, and brought to mind by the new troubles in the Middle East. Naturally, our dependence on foreign energy supplies has been a big part of the debate, and once again I am hearing a factoid that’s been a part of that discussion for years, and is published in UUA documents concerning energy: the U.S., with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of the world's energy resources. This is an interesting statement; it's accurate without being true, and it's deeper meaning is the exact opposite of it's surface implication.

While it's true that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's coal, natural gas, and petroleum products, those are not the only fuels burned in the world today. In fact the fuels of choice in the homes and small businesses of the Third World are wood, dried dung, and industrial waste such as old tires, construction site debris, and solvents. When I heat my home with my 94% efficient gas furnace, every liter of gas is metered and recorded in the U.S. totals; when a Mexican pottery company fires it's kiln with old truck tires, that isn't counted against the Mexican total because tires are not an official energy source being tracked. Nor is it counted against their Kyoto carbon allowance, for the same reason. Another confusing point is that the U.S. is also a huge energy producer- and that energy is counted as part of the world total. Thus when an Indiana power company burns Kentucky coal, it's using "the world's energy resources". While technically true, the phrase is very- deliberately, in my opinion- misleading.

Even if the 25% figure were accurate, it still would reflect well on the U.S.- we are, after all, more than one third of the world's economy. By their own figures, American industry is more energy efficient than the rest of the world. Those industries aren't just making luxuries for rich Americans, either; we are the world's leading food producer- and agriculture is one of the most energy intensive industries there is. Nor does the American consumer waste more energy than the rest of the world does; he does, however, have large energy expenditures that the Third World does not. The first of these, and the biggest energy bill for the average American, is home heating. Look at a map of where the world population is densest- Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia- and you'll find they're all in the tropics. Two-thirds of the human race has never experienced what we would call winter; a resident of buffalo, NY, burns more energy just living through the night in January than many Third-Worlders will use in a year. Home cooling is another vast energy consumption, and before you say that Americans are effete, let me assure you that air-conditioning is not mere luxury- in the 2003 heat wave, 15,000 Parisians died while in all of America combined the death toll was under a hundred.

Water is another of the large energy expenditures. Most of mankind has no reliable source of clean fresh water; this was highlighted in a recent U.N. initiative. It takes a fantastic amount of power to pump billions of gallons of water to 300 million people daily- in a second hand way, you're using electricity when you turn on a faucet or flush a toilet. Treating that water after it’s been flushed takes a lot of energy, too, and that’s something the Third World does very little of. Heating that water is another large energy use, and hot water is not just luxury, either; it’s a public health measure. Remember also that it takes power to keep utilities on standby, 24/7, ready for your use. Many places in the world that have power, water, and telephones have them for only a few carefully rationed hours a day.

When you really study that "5%/25%" statement, the inescapable conclusion is not that the U.S. uses too much energy, but that the rest of the world uses too little- not even enough to maintain civilization in many cases. When all the peoples of the world have a roof over their heads, access to schools and hospitals, clean plentiful water, and sewers that lead to treatment plants rather than ditches or streams, they will be using as much energy as the people of the U.S. That is why we must be pushing as hard as we can right now to develop new technologies and new energy sources, so that the whole world can have a decent way of life without causing ecological or economic disaster.

Guess who said this

Who is it “...that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Shariah, should rule...”? Who is it that refers to “...Neanderthal Muslim imams who have never read a book in their dim, miserable lives.”, or “...little men with head wraps and disheveled beards can run amok in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq...”? Think it was George Bush? The silent majority in the red states, perhaps? No- it was “... we, the silent Arab majority,...”! Read what Youseff Ibrahim says in the NY Sun Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent

A request for my fellow bloggers

The biggest problem I have with some blogs is not their positions or the quality of their writing- it's their legibility. I can no longer read small type, or type in low-contrast colors without reading glasses, which give me headaches to use with the computer. Have pity on those of us who are not getting any younger, please.

Salary or graft?

A local “scandal” in the news demonstrates how emotional responses overpower logic to produce a system designed for failure. The “scandal” is that the Marion County Sheriff here in Indiana received a $50,000 bonus during a period in which the City of Indianapolis and State of Indiana are tightening their belts for lack of funds. The news stories telling how the sheriff makes as much money as the President of the United States have generated political fallout so bad the sheriff just announced he’s giving the bonus back. I think he should have told them what Babe Ruth said when asked why a baseball player should make more than the President: “I had a better year.” The reason the sheriff makes so much is that both he and the Dept. get a percentage of the delinquent taxes they collect- his $50,000 bonus came from tracking down $9,000,000 in back taxes. The people complaining seem to think it’s pure coincidence that Marion County has the lowest uncollected delinquency rate of any major metropolitan district.

America is schizophrenic in this regard- no other people on Earth are more entrepreneurial, and yet nowhere else on Earth are the words “profit” and “rich” more despised. Performance bonuses and commissions work. No other method of maximizing results in the history of mankind has ever worked better than a simple piece of the action- not even commissars and bullets. It even tends to guarantee honesty; it’s hard to bribe someone who has an easier way of getting rich, just by doing his job- the sheriff’s dept. mentioned above also has the lowest rate of lawsuits filed against it of any major metropolitan police dept. (who would risk losing that kind of money by tolerating brutality or incompetence in his deputies?)

The foundation of the floodwall that failed in New Orleans was only half as deep as specified- had it been built to code, there would have been no disaster. Had the politicians supervising it been given a piece of the action legally, instead of depending on the graft and bribes, would they have missed this little detail? Would the Big Dig have been billions over budget and decades behind schedule and built so shoddily that the first parts built are already failing before the last bits are finished if there had been any incentive to see that it was done right? How many projects have been as bad or worse but not made the news because they were quietly fixed before a life was lost- at tremendous public cost?

I believe that both lives and money- both in large numbers- could be saved by offering our elected officials performance based pay wherever applicable. They’re going to get the money anyway- virtually everyone who spends their entire career in public service at the state or federal levels retires a millionaire. I’ll bet that if the President and Congress were paid a multiple of the national average wage rather than a fixed sum, we’d be a whole lot better off, and Congressmen wouldn’t keep money in their freezers... and the war would probably be over a lot faster, too.

ADDITIONAL:

It now seems that the Marion County Republican Party is shosked- shocked!- to learn the sheriff makes that much money, (evidently, they hadn't asked the previous Republican sheriff what he made), and are making hay over it- proposing new laws to prevent the sheriff from making more than the prosecutor, etc. And they wonder why I (and many others) left the party to become Libertarians the last two election cycles.

Things we can do about Global Warming

I believe the real issues in the Global Warming debate is not the science of the debate itself, but the proposed solution- the Kyoto Accords. Kyoto would have little or no effect on Global Warming while crippling the American economy- this is not a conservative or Republican position; when presented to the Senate during the Clinton years it was voted down 99-0. But there are things we could do that would actually lower greenhouse gasses while simultaneously bringing us closer to energy independence- a win-win!

Passive Solar:

Everyone knows that black things absorb heat more readily than white or reflective surfaces; what is possibly less well known is that black also radiates heat away more efficiently- that’s why the radiator in your car is painted black. What’s my point? Look at every house you pass- three quarters of them have black roofs! Not only are these houses absorbing heat in the summer sun, they radiate the heat away in the winter nights! Tests were conducted back in the Carter years, during the first energy crisis- identical row houses were given brand new roofs; one white, one black. The White roof had lower heating and cooling bills- up to 25% lower. Business after business has confirmed this experience in the 30 years since then. This is why you’re now seeing white roofs on school buses; this is why sports domes have white roofs, no matter what the team colors are. Why not give a huge tax incentive to homeowners to replace their black roofs with white ones? There may be a few holdouts who think a white roof is weird- but if the incentive is large enough, almost everyone will comply. That alone would save enough air conditioning demands on the electric grid to stop those summer rolling blackouts and brownouts. That alone would save enough heating oil and natural gas in the winter to stop those annual price spikes. The average American’s greatest energy expenditure is home heating and cooling; this is also true for most small businesses- the savings will be huge.

Removing the carbon from the air:

REFORESTATION
Many people don’t realize it, but the trees get their mass from the air, not the ground; the ground provides only an anchor and trace minerals- the plant equivalent of vitamins. Every tree planted removes hundreds or even thousands of pounds of carbon from the air, every ten square yards of leaf provide enough oxygen for one person. There are literally hundreds of thousands of square miles of grassland and prairie in America that could become planted forests. Areas that cannot support trees can still be used in this program-
PARKING LOTS
Look at all the empty buildings where businesses have gone under; every one has a huge parking lot. Some of them sit idle for years... and all that expanse of empty unused paving, thousands of acres worth, is nothing but a massive heat sink in the hot sun, raising the temperature of the entire city. You can actually see the heat roiling off them in the summer.

Why not roll turf over the parking lot until the place is rented again? Converting those parking lots into temporary lawns will dramatically reduce the surface temperature of all the surrounding properties, beautify an eyesore, and give children a safe place to play. When handed lemons- a business going under- make lemonade; turn the parking lot into a public park! Park? The eastside of Indianapolis has so many businesses closed we could turn it into a prairie!

Turning it back into a place of business when the time comes will not be difficult- the blacktop is still there, just under a couple inches of turf; a front loader or bobcat will turn it back into a parking lot in no time. If you think no one would be willing to pay for the turf, try having a donation box to check on the state tax forms, like the presidential matching funds box on the federal forms. I’d donate, and I bet a lot of other people would, too.

These and many similar proposals have been around for decades; why has there been no action? Because they aren’t big exciting vote-getters? Because activists are motivated more by hatred of multinational corporations than love of the Earth? I don’t know.

How do we know God loves us?

Peacebang actually asks this question- I urge you to check it out: How Do You Know God Loves You? I have a very personal answer for her, but it is far to long to post as a comment on her blog, so I’m posting it on my own- hope you like it, PB!

This is from my personal Book of Shadows, which I’m thinking of editing and publishing; please respect my copywrite.

The flowering of Spring is when we come to realize that the Divine is a hedonist, a sybarite, a sensualist; she pours out joys and pleasure in inexhaustible abundance. These sensual pleasures are true Religious Magic; they are unexplainable by biology or evolution.

A sense of taste need only identify nutrients and toxins to satisfy the demands of evolution- and a random sampling of dog food will tell you how little subtlety is required to accomplish that. How can the materialist explain the fact that many chemical compounds are both non-toxic and indigestible- a biological null value- and yet are some of our favorite foods? Many highly nutritious foods taste so bad that children must be coerced into eating them- and then there is the very long list of things that taste good, but are quite toxic; that’s why they make “Mr. Yuck” labels. Clearly evolution cannot have produced the exquisitely sensitive human palate: there is no rational explanation for the infinite complexity of our sense of taste other than The Divine’s desire to give us daily pleasure.

When we look at a sunset, we can see the approximate hour, and possibly predict the morning’s weather- “Red sky at morning, sailor take warning; red sky at night, sailor’s delight.”. Valuable information, to be sure- but what biological value is there in noting the beauty of it?

A sense of smell can separate friend from foe, or a dainty morsel from a rotten egg. But why should we enjoy the smell of a rose any more than that of any other edible plant? Why should the smell of flowers be erotic, when a flower is not a sex object for anyone but a bee?
How does evolution explain music? A sense of timing and rhythm would be useful in tracking prey; combining that with our communication instincts easily explains poetry, and perhaps songs… but what about instrumental music? Why should we be moved to tears by a piano or violin, when these sounds never occurred in nature? What possible evolutionary explanation is there for the frisson we feel at the opening chords of the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor?

Taste, touch, sight, sound, and scent- each is a source of endless joy rather than the mundane gathering of information they might have been. What better proof do you need that The Divine loves you, and wants you to be happy?

And what of the joy that combines all five senses- sex? Pleasure isn’t necessary for reproduction; instinct alone would have sufficed for that- it does for trillions of other animals. Nor is sexual pleasure necessary for emotional bonding; there are platonic unions as strong as any between lovers. In fact, the divorce rate argues that mere sex cannot cement a bond. There is no material explanation for sex being the transcendental experience that it is.

All these things She gives us for no reason other than to bring us joy. And here is the depth of Her love for us- these gifts are unconditional. The wicked and the saintly are given the same sunset and sunrise; the rich and the poor can smell the same flowers- every second of your life She is trying to fill you with joy in a hundred ways. Each of these joys is a sacrament. Do not demean them by taking them for granted or rushing through the experience.

Seek the sensual in all that you do. As I write these words, I savor the feel of the pen in my hand; the faint scratching of the nib delights my ears and tingles my fingertips. I watch in fascination as the wet ink glitters in the lights, then fades to black as it dries.

You should make time as often as possible to savor at least one sensual pleasure in detail as a ritual. Pick someone or something you truly love, or something new you wish to experience. If you choose food, it needn’t be Chateaubriand- a combo pizza will do as well, if that’s the way your tastes run. If you choose a scent, it doesn’t matter if it’s rose or well-oiled leather.

The preparation for this ritual need not be time consuming, but it does need to be genuine. Gather what you need. Prepare the meal, or place the comfy chair in front of the stereo, or whatever is necessary for the sacrament you chose.

Light a candle to remind you of who you are honoring. Say a prayer to clear your mind of any distractions that might come between you and the gift of The Divine.
Do not be rushed. If it’s a meal, inhale the aroma before you start. Chew slowly; feel the textures, taste each herb and spice before they harmonize together. If it was a recording, savor each instrument before the melody demands attention.

There will come a moment- it may be when that perfectly aged piece of cheese melts on your tongue; it may be when you find a deeper meaning in a poem you thought you knew; it may be when a flute soars freely above the strings- there will come a moment when your senses peak, a moment when nothing else exists in the universe but that one perfect note. At that moment you have touched The Divine.

When you are finished, give thanks. Thank not only The Divine, but all who collaborated in your joy. Thank the cook- and also the being, person, plant or animal, that gave you pleasure. Thank the artist, the performer, the author. It doesn’t matter that they cannot hear your thanks; it matters that you offer them. Those thanks are a reminder that all we do touches lives we will never see.
Corollaries:
*To deny yourself joy is a sin; you are wasting the gifts of The Divine. Conduct your life in such a way as to maximize the gifts The Divine so freely pours into your life. The Divine wants you to live, not merely exist.

*To deny others joy is a blasphemy; you are attempting to thwart the will of The Divine. This is the most negative of sins. If you steal a man’s money, you are enriched (even though your soul is impoverished); but if you steal his happiness, nothing is gained, and the whole world loses.

*To give joy is a virtue; you are assisting The Divine. When you are feeling sad, summon the will to produce a smile and a kind word for those around you; the effort will be rewarded. Don’t imagine that you’re being hypocritical because you don’t feel the cheerfulness you’re projecting- as a gift to another, it has a purity in its own right.

A closer look at Global Warming

The major problem with “The” Global Warming debate is that it is actually six debates- and each side seems to assume that “proving” any one issues settles all six. This is the sort of argument that the UFO crowd uses- if I cannot prove that the strange light was a balloon or Venus, then “obviously” it is the mother ship of Grays, sending Reptoids to phase through the walls to collect our precious bodily fluids. The six debates I refer to are:
1. Are current global temperatures and weather patterns outside of the expected normal variance in the weather?
2. Assuming they are, is this a permanent upwards trend, or a change in normal cycles of ups and downs?
3. Assuming a permanent warming trend, is it caused by the actions of Man?
4. Assuming that it is, is the result a net negative?
5. Assuming that it is caused by Man, is it reversible by Man?
6. Assuming that it is, is the Kyoto accord the best method of doing so?

The usual Global Warming debate consists of “proving” or “disproving” point one, then assuming the other five- this is what Al Gore does in his movie. My own opinions are:
1. Probably, but not proven.
2. Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
3. Unlikely, but not proven.
4. Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
5. Yes.
6. No.
I’m quite willing to debate any of these points- but one at a time. In a future post I will list some things we can and should do, because they are worthwhile for energy independence, but would help the hypothetical Global Warming as well.

The Great Divide?

ChaliceChick has brought to our general attention a thread on Beliefnet concerning the rift between the old-guard Humanists and the Theists in the UUA: The ChaliceBlog: And now it is the Humanists who aren't feeling the love. I think this issue is more serious than CC appears to believe. I don't think this is just a “who’s the biggest victim” contest; I think this is part of the ever-growing identity crisis the UUA will be forced at some point to deal with.

This is not a question of tolerating different belief systems- the lead poster in the discussion in question doesn't believe that his beliefs ARE "beliefs". He says it is a question of reality and mental illness- he divides the world into the mentally stable, and the irrational who cannot cope with reality. He is not alone- we heard this in large numbers during the “language of reverence” debate, and at other discussion in the past. I don't really see how there can be amicable coexistence with hard-atheist (anti-theist) Humanists of his stripe... where he is in the majority, "irrational supernaturalists" like me and Rev. Sinkford have to live in an atmosphere of sneering, lip curling contempt, listening to sermons about how we are the problem, holding back mankind. If he is in the minority, he will feel himself surrounded by the mentally ill. (I've heard it expressed in those exact words) This may be a gulf that no covenant and no principals can bridge. To paraphrase Lincoln, this church cannot long survive half sane and half irrational.

If this were the only such rift, I’d say the solution is obvious; the lead poster himself suggested it- the anti-theists could switch allegiances and affiliations to the Ethical Culture (AEU). We’re scarcely in any position to loose any members, but better that than bitter infighting. The problem is that the Humanist/Theist problem is not the only such problem! There are political divides just as great, congregations where certain political positions have taken on the power of creed, including the most basic political question of all: should a church be taking political positions in the first place?

I have heard Pagans speak enviously of the advantage mainstream religions have, of a church in every town. When one is on the road, it is a comfort to be able to step inside a church and be amongst your own, to have a home away from home. Pagans have only their home coven or circle or grove... and more and more, this is becoming true of UUs. I cannot count on having my spirits lifted or even feeling welcome at a strange UU congregation. I have stopped my early practice of looking up the local UU church wherever I go... it’s no fun being sneered at and attacked when you’re a thousand miles from home.

We have debated ad nauseum whether UU is a religion- more and more I see that we should have been debating whether we are a denomination. Baptists have congregational polity just as we do, and come in all political stripes- both Jerry Fallwell and Bill Clinton are Baptist... but underlying all of that, they have John 3:16. Catholics range from the Bush supporters to Revolutionary Theology... but a Catholic can walk into any Catholic church on Earth and receive communion. I envy them- I have no such assurances from my denomination.

Addendum- the thought occurs that one solution might be to disolve the UUA, and have the individual member congregations buy Starbuck's franchises! We'd still be creedless, still have the coffee and the non-stop discussions- plus high speed internet access! They probably have a more effective Washington lobbying office, too.

Random thoughts on a random weekend

Just returned late last night from a road trip, taking my father in law's ashes to his family plot. We said Kaddish as requested- in English; none of us were willing to attempt Hebrew or Yiddish. It wasn't the same. I found myself wondering if the difference was merely that I understood the words in English, or if there was actually something about the sound combinations in Hebrew that evoke emotions the words alone do not? Is there a prayer equivalent to scat singing?

I thought of the public memorial a month ago. Following his wishes, we did not have a Navy honor guard, nor list the many, many honors and honorifics he earned over the years, military, academic, and professional. I thought of that again on the way back to the highway, seeing gang sign spraypainted on a wall we drove past, and thought of how strange the ways of man can be. Phil, who did so much for so many for so long, enforced his modesty in his last wishes; while others, whose highest sacrifice for their fellow man to date has been to breath, and possibly trap some pollutants that were fouling the air, need recognition so badly.

We attended another memorial this weekend- for a horse. If you think that's silly, I feel sorry for you. There were more than fifty people there; Bask Elect touched many lives very deeply.

Enough for thoughtful and introspective- I'll be back to obnoxious by tomorrow.

A demonstrative anecdote

I was challenged by a friend to show an example of theists actually suffering a hostile atmosphere in a UU setting, as opposed to just the odd comment from a rabid atheist speaking only for himself. An incident sprang immediately to mind, as it had shocked not only me, but the minister as well.

I don't remember the exact date, but it was perhaps five years ago. Rev. Clear ran a program on Wednesday nights called "something for everyone", which involved a pitch in dinner and philosophical discussion. One of those evenings we were split into two work groups with separate and secret instructions. The group I was put into was tasked with listing adjectives to describe the arts. The other group was tasked with listing adjectives to describe religion. The point of the exercise was to show that when we got together, there would be considerable if not total overlap of the lists, demonstrating how both speak to the human spirit.

Except it didn't work the way the way the little book of exercises Rev. Clear took this from had said it would go- there was no overlap whatsoever! There was not one single positive adjective from the group discussing religion; the list was full of things like "intolerant", "judgmental", hateful", "inquisition", "smug", "patriarchal", and on and on and on, for a full page.

I nearly quit that night. Here was a group, not just of Easter and Christmas I-feel-like-some-company churchgoers, but a group active enough to be there on a Wednesday night; well fed, given a half hour in which to work with soft music playing in the background... And they literally could not come up with a single positive word to say about people of faith. For me, the atmosphere felt very hostile indeed that night. For me, their acceptance of me personally felt worse than rejection would have- I understood emotionally how it must feel to hear "You're not like other Blacks."

Peacebang nails it again

Twice, in fact: Overheard at GA and most especially: Including "God" . I once heard an expert defined as one who has mastered his subject from B to Z, and forgotten A... and those few of us who attend a UU church for religious reasons often feel like the forgotten A.

Why would one choose UU in the first place- what is it that one can get at a UU church that cannot be gotten elsewhere? The Washington Office of Advocacy? Puh-leeze... There’s not one issue they address that isn’t covered by another organization with far, far more influence. For all the discussion, debate, and effort put behind our Statements of Conscience, I fail to see any evidence our lobbying has ever changed the mind of a UU congregate, let alone a congressman. If one really cared about issues, a single dollar sent to GLAD or NARAL or NAACP or whatever would be more effective than all we do. Many of those organizations can even provide a rich social life as well.

The one thing the UUA does that no other mainstream organization in America does is welcome those who do not worship the God of Abraham. For many of us- yes, a minority, but a large minority- we joined a UU congregation to pursue spiritual growth. And I proudly proclaim my congregation has been invaluable in my own personal search for meaning- but that doesn’t mean my experiences have been totally positive. Being a believer in any sort of Divinity can be something of a trial for a UU- if you use the Riddle scale of tolerance , substituting “theist” for “gay”, where 8 is good and 1 is bad, I would rate the UUA as a whole between 3 (tolerance), and 4 (acceptance)- with a minority at the 1 (repulsion) or 2 (pity) level. At least I hope it’s a minority; there were plenty of truly hostile comments during the debate Rev Sinkford called for on the language of reverence- I noted four separate instances of being told that the proper term for “transcendental experience” was actually “psychotic break”. And you’d think any UU would understand that just because I’m Pagan does not mean I welcome anti-Catholic or anti-Baptist comments; an attack on anyone’s genuine beliefs is an attack on mine.

Ask yourselves this: if you applied the standards used to become a “welcoming congregation” to believers rather than gays, would your congregation be welcoming?

UUA paints itself into a corner

One of the very first acts of the GA was to pass without debate the peacemaking resolution : Peacemaking study/action issue adopted If the supporters have their way- and there’s no reason to think the won’t- within two years there will be a Statement of Conscience making the UUA a pacifist church. BUT... the UUA has also called for us to go into Darfur. Which produces an interesting dilemma: if we don’t go in with overwhelming force, it will be just another Somalia, and the only ones to benefit will be the movie studio that films “Blackhawk Down II, the Sequel”. But if we do ask them to go in and actually stop the civil war in progress, that will violate the peacemaking Statement of Conscience. Clash of principals?

Wait! Maybe that’s what the two-year discussion period is for; perhaps they hope we can go into Darfur, rebuild the country, establish a new government, and get back out before the SoC becomes official- one last invasion under the deadline. *sigh* Oh, well... I guess if it made sense, it wouldn't require faith...

Dark laughter

This post was inspired by the comments to this blog entry of CC‘s: The ChaliceBlog: Another argument I had with theCSO yesterday

There are many kinds of laughter. There is the spontaneous laughter of joy, when you’re just so happy it bubbles naturally from within, no excuse needed. There is the easy laughter of people having fun, where the slightest lame joke or weak witticism has coffee shooting out of one’s nose. Laughter of this sort is the sound of souls bonding, of spirits lifting.

There is the laughter produced by jokes, a deliberate attempt to rally spirits when they have been deadened by the rat race, the kind of laughter you might hear at a comedy club. Closely related is stress humor, designed to deflect spirit killers... is the Mercury Capsule claustrophobically cramped? Mount a plaque inside that says “No Handball Allowed” This sort of laughter strengthens the spirit, clearing the mind and the heart at the same time.

Laughter is so important to the survival of the species that a sense of humor is seen by both sexes as one of the most attractive features a potential mate can have. The lack of a sense of humor is very nearly, in this modern world of situational ethics and moral relativism, the only thing of which a person is truly ashamed.

Some people learn at a early age that laughter can be more than a survival mechanism, or a bonding moment... it is the armor that deflects all criticism, that turns their nasty personality flaws into an asset. If a dull fellow always lets people pay for him, he’s a cheapskate; if he can make it a joke about how they got scored on, he’s a wit. Truly awful acts of cowardice, vanity, or betrayal- if they can be told with good timing and lots of mugging- make one more popular, not less. Those hearing the stories know they shouldn’t laugh, and indeed may not even want to at first- but they quickly realize that to fail to laugh marks them as “uncool”, “judgmental”, “puritanical”, or (heaven forefend) “intolerant”. It deadens the spirit; it’s operational conditioning against sensitivity.

But then there are those who realize that laughter can be wielded as a weapon. Just as cheapness or infidelity can be forgiven in the example above, they quickly learn that astonishingly vicious acts of hatred can be excused as “practical jokes”, or “parody”. It quickly becomes their favorite, as they learn that it is the easiest sort of thing to do of all. One must actually be clever to make a joke; but anyone can talk as if virtue, or decency, or a particular class of people were funny. If their feelings get hurt, you just say “F&*K em if they can’t take a joke” and suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and the victim “intolerant”. This kind of laughter deadens the intellect, blinds the eyes to the pain of their fellow man. Even when it results in the shootings at Columbine, the mocker never gets it- it wasn’t his daily assaults on the inherent worth and dignity of his fellow man that caused the tragedy; it was his victim’s lack of a sense of humor.

How much has the hate filled, empty headed belittler cost mankind over the years? How many tears, how much violence? How many decent people have failed to speak up over social injustice not for fear of the guns of government, but for fear of public ridicule? I don’t know... but personally, I rank the mean-spirited mocker with the mosquito; irritating vermin who may not “intend” harm, but cause thousands of deaths just by existing.

An interesting theory on illegal immigration

I heard an interesting theory yesterday as to why neither political party shows any real interest in doing anything about stopping illegal immigration, or legalizing those already here. Yes, there's lots of talk- when public events force them to talk- but no viable plans from either leadership. This theory says the heart of the matter is Social Security.

SSI was and is a Ponzi scheme; a simple pyramid... Any private citizen trying to implement SSI as written would be serving time in a federal penitentiary. Like all pyramid schemes, it requires an ever-increasing pool of fresh victims to stay afloat- the WW II generation took care of that at first by breeding like rabbits after the war; the Baby-Boomers pumped trillions of dollars of cash into the pyramid.

But the WW II generation then sabotaged the system by living ten, even twenty years longer than the authors of SSI had counted on. Nor did Baby-Boomers keep up their end of the peonage they were born into; they reproduced at barely replacement rate. By the 80s it was obvious the system was headed for collapse. But something else started in the 80s also- illegal immigration surged far in advance of the historical numbers, driven by the failures of a corrupt Mexican government, and even more corrupt governments farther south. Public sentiment forced the first crack-downs, and Reagan's amnesty act, which introduced sanctions for the employers.

But look at what was required of the employers, I was told- they had to get SSI numbers from all employees. The easiest of all ID's to fake, and the one with the least consequences- the government accepts all money sent in, even for fake accounts, and never, ever calls INS to stop that flow of illegal money coming in. Today, some ten percent of all the money SSI collects is from illegal workers... and it's pure profit for the government, as this money carries no future obligations with it- you can't collect from an account that didn't exist! If the flood of illegals is large enough, it will even pay for the new drug benefit.

It becomes a huge boon to both domestic and diplomatic politics- Mexico needn't reform, nor do anything about its poor and oppressed; just give them maps and instruction books on how to get to, live in, and prosper in the USA. (the Mexican government is in fact doing this). Our politicians can put off dealing with SSI for at least a generation; those currently in power will be long dead before 100 million immigrants start suing for the SSI they've been paying into illegally for all those years.
We don't have to pressure Mexico about human rights- they are doing something about the poor, shipping them here, and the money sent back home will help the rest of the poor. And since we never pressure Mexico about corruption, we get a staunch ally who happens to be an OPEC member.

Do I believe this theory? I don't know- but I do predict that absent some cataclysmic event, the borders will not be closed in our lifetimes, nor will any guest worker plan that involves paying them their share of SSI be passed.

My musings on Moral Authority

Peacebang has had a number of magnificent posts recently, most noticeably Clarification and Musings on Moral Authority
. This is a subject I’ve given a lot of thought to- decades of thought, ever since I left the church of my childhood. I have kept journals of my religious journey since those days in the early 70’s, and a few paragraphs from that journal may serve as introduction to my conclusions on Moral Authority. Note: I use the feminine pronouns and the title “the Divine” for God- not because I believe the Divine has a gender, but to avoid the emotional baggage of “God the Father”, and because I cannot bring myself to call the Divine “it”.

My Creed:

I believe in a living Divinity, indescribable, knowable only through personal experience.

I believe that human beings have a soul that is our true self; our conscious personality and rational mind are only tools our true self employs to manipulate its environment. The soul lives in a world of magic; it is to this true self that the Divine speaks.

I believe that the Divine works only through living agencies, by influencing souls. She does not punish by causing natural disasters, nor does she reward by salvation from natural disaster.

I believe that the Divine only persuades, she does not compel. We have the right and the freedom to act against her wishes and our best interests.

I believe that responsibility, for good or ill, is my one irrevocable possession. No one else may pay for my sins, nor I theirs; it is non-transferable. Nor can anyone else claim my triumphs, nor I theirs. I owe my teachers gratitude, but they did not perform my feats any more than I have performed those of my students.

My Covenant:

The Divine does not command. She does not make her love conditional on what you believe or do; her joys are poured forth unconditionally. Although she demands nothing from me, I choose to offer something to her, just as unconditionally, a gift born of my gratitude. I offer her my covenant, my promise of things I will do in her honor.

I will walk the path of least harm; none whenever possible. Nor will I permit by my inaction harm to come to others when it is within my power to prevent it, for it has been said that we will only have justice when those who were not injured are as outraged as those who were. How is it that people can see the defiling of the cross or the Koran- graven images of the Divine- as blasphemy, and yet not understand that defiling their fellow man- the living image of the Divine- is equally blasphemy?

I will return measure for measure; an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, dealing honestly and ethically even if I am the only one who knows it was done.

I will be charitable to the poor and gentle with the weak. I will seek to understand the hopes, fears, and aspirations of those around me. I will leave this world better than I found it.

I will do these things not for fear of death but for joy of life. This is my covenant.

Moral Authority does not derive from God’s word, because the Divine speaks to us (if she does) individually; it could be said that there are six billion religions. Moral Authority does not derive from what we believe, because even the wisest of us believe, in some corner of our lives, some damn silly things. Moral Authority derives from what we promise to do, and whether we keep that promise. Maybe my credo isn’t very profound, and maybe my covenant isn’t very long and doesn’t promise much- but it’s mine, and I keep it.

The Death of Al-Zarqawi

One should never rejoice over the death of a human being; one should hope and pray for the redemption of evil instead. The world, however, is a better place because Al-Zarqawi is no longer in it

Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position

One way to separate the Goldwater/Reagan conservatives from the Christian right is the issue of gay marriage; a conservative would be in favor, a religious right type against. I can list 3 reasons an old-line conservative would support gay marriage:

1. Individual liberty. The quintessential conservative position is that all rights reside in the individual, and the state must come to the individual hat in hand begging to be granted some power. This is why it sets the teeth of a conservative on edge to hear someone speaking about government giving us the right to do this or that- a citizen’s rights are inherent, and limited only by covenant with fellow citizens. It is clear in every document of our founding fathers that a citizen’s rights may only be curtailed by the most immediate and pressing of social needs- and the burden of proof is on those wishing to curtail those rights, not on the citizen wishing to retain them. The proposed federal marriage amendment is an especially grievous violation of these inherent rights, as previous federal law already gives the states the right to refuse recognition of a marriage conducted in another state if it violates their own laws.

P.S. That law is, in my opinion, a violation of the “full faith and credence” clause in the Constitution. Suppose your state does not have “common law” marriage- would you then revoke marriage rights from couples now residing in your state because they haven’t a piece of paper from their state of origin?

2. Economics. A couple- of whatever sort- save a lot more money than do two singles; one of this country’s greatest economic weaknesses is the low rate of savings. Couples tend to have less personal debt than two singles, and high credit card debt is another of our problems. Couples are more likely to buy, as opposed to renting, than two singles (not counting property purchased as investment), and are more likely to spend money improving the property.

3. Social factors. Having a second person around the house to nurse you when you’re sick, help cover when someone must be home for repairs or installations, and listen to your rap when you’ve had it up to there will make you miss fewer days at work and be more productive while you’re there. It reduces medical costs if insurance needn’t pay for home visits, not to mention postponing (possibly eliminating) the day when you must enter a nursing home- I have seen couples where both had mild Alzheimer’s, but between them they made one functioning adult.

This is not to say that the debate is one sided- balanced against the conservative principals of individual liberty, economic gain, and greater social stability is the irrefutable fact that it makes millions of people feel icky. But for a Goldwater conservative, the issue of individual liberty alone would be enough to say “So go get married already, it’s no skin off my nose!”

Michael Moore parody

As a number of people have written about the lawsuit a disabled soldier has filed against Michael Moore- The ChaliceBlog: In *gulp* defense of Michael Moore
and Michael Moore Sued leap to mind, I'd thought I'd post a piece I wrote on Mr. Moore for another venue here.


An excerpt from Michael Moore’s next movie
(Note: These are not Michael Moore’s words, the incident described never occurred, and no version of this appears in Michael Moore’s next movie- which qualifies this as a documentary by the standards of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences)

Michael Moore: I’m here with Senator Rightwing. We have both just been witness to a curious incident involving the President; isn’t that right, Senator?

Senator Rightwing: Yes, indeed, Michael! What an amaz...

MM: Just a moment, Senator- let me describe it for the people. We just saw a woman run past as fast as her legs could carry her. I was astonished to see Mr. Bush in hot pursuit! She almost got away, but Bush leaped and caught an ankle, tripping her. As she went down, he was on her in a flash- he jumped on her, pinning her to the ground, ignoring her pitiful screams of terror and agony as he struck her again and again!

SR: But Michael, he...

MM: No ‘buts’-that’s true, isn’t it? Didn’t he just tackle her and savagely beat her?

SR: Well, yes, but...

MM: There you have it, folks- even Senator Rightwing agrees that Bush is a vicious criminal who should be impeached and thrown in jail!

SR: But she was on fire at the time- he saved her life! He risked his own life saving her!

MM: Sorry, Senator, I already turned your microphone off. Have a nice day!

Thoughts on threads from CC and The Happy Feminist

In the weeks I’ve been neglecting this blog, putting my life back together, there have been many intriguing entries on my favorites. I’ve posted the odd comment, but now finally have time to ponder a little more deeply, and two of them are linked in my mind: the first is CC’s post about the over-the-top definitions of racism used by the Seattle Public Schools The ChaliceBlog: New definitions of racism , and the second is The Happy Feminist’s surprise that the word “feminist” has negative connotations MORE STRAY THOUGHTS ON THE F-WORD
.

I think there two phenomena at work here. The first is the natural law that any organization takes on a life of its own, independent of its founders and purposes, and fights for life like a living thing. Conservatives will immediately think of government programs, and they’d be right, but it’s also true for private organizations. For example, the March of Dimes was created for the sole purpose of eliminating Polio; and then one day (much to their surprise) it was in fact cured- so did they disband? No, they just changed their mission statement and moved on. The second phenomenon is that activists must be unreasonable extremists- so that when people meet them halfway, they’ll have gotten what they really wanted.

When these two principals are combined in a political organization, amazing things happen. Organizations created to win women the vote, or title nine programs, etc., actually succeeded, but refused to disband... simultaneously, as society became closer to reasonable on women’s issues, the activists had to go farther and farther out on their extreme limb to maintain their distance. So when a modern young woman avoids the word “feminist” because the word means to her a man-hating communist lesbian, she has some reason to think so- that’s what some modern feminist writing sounds like to young ears. This is also how irrational writing such as the Seattle Public Schools definitions of racism came about; having won so much for race equality and relations, they have to reach farther and farther out into the ozone to try and put white hoods on people who are not in fact racist. This phenomenon is extremely damaging to all of society, but the greatest damage is being done to young African Americans.

For example, defining one form is English as standard is NOT racism. Standard English is not defined by racist white Americans, it is defined by WORLD standards. English is the lingua franca of the entire world; when Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and the USSR formed their pact to conquer the world, the conferences were held in English. When a Bolivian airliner requests permission to land in Cambodia, the request is made in English. When a Lithuanian merchant sells his line of products to stores in Argentina, the negotiations were most likely conducted in English. When a German tourist wanted information from a Parisian tour guide, the questions and answers were in English- I was there, I heard. The English that was spoken in every example above was “standard” English- there is no place on Earth outside of the hood where a person speaking only Ebonics can get a decent job, and telling the kids otherwise is only crippling their chances. Telling them that for an English teacher to correct their English is racist only fills their hearts with hatred no reason.

Telling the children that what whites have is a result of white privilege is even more damaging. More so both because it makes them resent the hard work all kids have to do to get past entry level, and therefore hate all whites whom they believe didn’t have to work for it, and because most whites simply stop listening once you start spouting that nonsense. Talking about white privilege might make sense to legacy brats, but for those of us who grew up in poverty it just sounds like bitter whining and an unwillingness to work. 100 million white Americans are working their rear ends off and living one paycheck away from homelessness... if you tell them that white privilege exists, but is invisible to whites, I’m sure they’d agree- at least about the “invisible” part.

You cannot “end” racism, not while human beings remain frail mortals. But you can makes sure the law is colorblind, and this has largely been done. Certainly, we can work harder at enforcement, but the EEOC does exist. We can make racism socially unacceptable- and this has largely been done; nothing will ruin a person in the public eye faster than a charge of racism.
Fact: while racism and sexism have not been, and will never be eliminated, neither one is the determining factor in success any more. Nothing matters more than individual effort and character. It is no longer 1964- for God’s sake, the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer is black, and the leading candidate for President is a woman Senator. Two of the last three Secretaries of State have been female, and two of them black.

Update (sort of)

I'm still alive and well, but haven't had time to catch my breath. New job working out well so far. More later.