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.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
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."
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."
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
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?
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?
Thursday, June 22, 2006
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...
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...
Monday, June 19, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
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.
. 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.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
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
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
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!”
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!”
Sunday, June 04, 2006
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!
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!
Saturday, June 03, 2006
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.
.
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.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
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.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
A Time of Transition
The last few weeks have definitely been a time of transition for me and mine. First, my father in law, and then my employer of the last seven years going out of business. Less important than a human life, but I have fewer reserves. I'll be just fine, and I'll post more regularly in the future, but I just haven't been up to it recently.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Bush, America screwing up the Solar System
First there was last September's news from NASA that Mars was undergoing climate change- weather becoming more erratic and more violent, polar ice caps melting. Now there's this story about Jupiter undergoing climate change- after centuries of stability, it's suddenly grown a second "Great Red Spot" super-hurricane. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)
This makes three planets showing the same phenomenon; surely they must have the same cause. Now, we know that increased Solar activity has nothing to do with it- how we know this, I don't know, but the very idea is laughed off by Global Warming experts as Republican propaganda; Global Warming is caused only by America's love of SUVs and Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, I can conclude that the Mars and Jupiter probes were based on Ford Excursion and Chevy Suburban designs, and are screwing up the Solar System! Erase the Red Spot- sign Kyoto!
This makes three planets showing the same phenomenon; surely they must have the same cause. Now, we know that increased Solar activity has nothing to do with it- how we know this, I don't know, but the very idea is laughed off by Global Warming experts as Republican propaganda; Global Warming is caused only by America's love of SUVs and Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, I can conclude that the Mars and Jupiter probes were based on Ford Excursion and Chevy Suburban designs, and are screwing up the Solar System! Erase the Red Spot- sign Kyoto!
Friday, April 28, 2006
In the Midst of Life...
My father in law died this morning. It was not unexpected; he was in home hospice care. And yet somehow it was still kind of a surprise; there's a big difference between knowing something will happen, and having it happen. For a number of reasons he meant as much to me as my own father had, and it affected me deeply.
Some of the effects one expects, and some you think you know how it will feel if you have lost a loved one before- but it's never quite the same. Some reactions you surprise yourself with...he had been dead for hours; why was the moment when the sheet was drawn over his head so powerful? Of all things, why would one start crying when trying to order bagels for the family? I guess I don't want answers badly enough to try to figure it out, even if answers exist... as the king of Siam said, "But... is... a puzzlement!"
Some of the effects one expects, and some you think you know how it will feel if you have lost a loved one before- but it's never quite the same. Some reactions you surprise yourself with...he had been dead for hours; why was the moment when the sheet was drawn over his head so powerful? Of all things, why would one start crying when trying to order bagels for the family? I guess I don't want answers badly enough to try to figure it out, even if answers exist... as the king of Siam said, "But... is... a puzzlement!"
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
movies you can watch over and over again
The Happy Feminist (http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/) has a delightful discussion going of movies you can watch over and over again, so I thought I’d post my own list. These are not necessarily the best movies I’ve ever seen, but the ones that are old friends I enjoy spending time with- for example, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest is a great movie, but would be unbearable to watch too often. The first on the list is one I have in common with HF:
1. Jesus Christ Superstar. In fact, I now have three versions- the vinyl double album, the original movie, and the new production filmed in London. If you have not seen the new re-cast, re-staged version, go out and rent it right now. Not all the voices are up to the original cast, but these people were hired for their acting ability, and it really shows.
2. 1776. Even more delightful when you read the production notes and realize that nearly every word actually came from John Adam’s letters or Congressional records… Lee really was- and ought to be- a cheerful extrovert who punned on his own name; congressional debates really did end up in brawls; Franklin and Dickinson really did employ risqué double entendre jokes in formal debate.
3. The Princess Bride. You’re not a fan? Inconceivable!
4. Caddy Shack. Ok, it’s low humor, but coke still comes out of my nose every time. But avoid Caddy Shack II at all costs- it’s stunningly unfunny.
5. Anything with Rosalind Russell. His Girl Friday, Mame, and The Trouble With Angels leap to mind.
6. Sweeney Todd. Angela Lansbury as a psychopathic cannibal killer- who wouldn’t love that?
7. Kelly’s Heroes. Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Donald SutherlandDonald, and Carroll O'Connor in one movie. Enough said.
8. How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying. Big Business sure has come a long way since then! Not.
9. S.O.B. and Victor/Victoria. Both staring Julie Andrews and Robert Preston, these are in my top five funniest movies ever made, but they also have poignant moments. The musical numbers are outrageously funny, but in addition they were staged back when Julie could shatter glass with her voice- a spectacular combination.
1. Jesus Christ Superstar. In fact, I now have three versions- the vinyl double album, the original movie, and the new production filmed in London. If you have not seen the new re-cast, re-staged version, go out and rent it right now. Not all the voices are up to the original cast, but these people were hired for their acting ability, and it really shows.
2. 1776. Even more delightful when you read the production notes and realize that nearly every word actually came from John Adam’s letters or Congressional records… Lee really was- and ought to be- a cheerful extrovert who punned on his own name; congressional debates really did end up in brawls; Franklin and Dickinson really did employ risqué double entendre jokes in formal debate.
3. The Princess Bride. You’re not a fan? Inconceivable!
4. Caddy Shack. Ok, it’s low humor, but coke still comes out of my nose every time. But avoid Caddy Shack II at all costs- it’s stunningly unfunny.
5. Anything with Rosalind Russell. His Girl Friday, Mame, and The Trouble With Angels leap to mind.
6. Sweeney Todd. Angela Lansbury as a psychopathic cannibal killer- who wouldn’t love that?
7. Kelly’s Heroes. Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Donald SutherlandDonald, and Carroll O'Connor in one movie. Enough said.
8. How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying. Big Business sure has come a long way since then! Not.
9. S.O.B. and Victor/Victoria. Both staring Julie Andrews and Robert Preston, these are in my top five funniest movies ever made, but they also have poignant moments. The musical numbers are outrageously funny, but in addition they were staged back when Julie could shatter glass with her voice- a spectacular combination.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
On the excessive/windfall profits tax on big oil
A lot of politicians are calling for an excess profits tax on oil in the wake of the current high prices, and a number of people I had previously considered intelligent are echoing the call, so let’s examine the issue.
Would an excess profits tax lower gas prices?
No. Many people confuse profits with profit margins; while the oil companies are making record profits, their profit margin per gallon is the same as it was before- they’re simply selling more gallons. If we have another recession, their “windfall” profits would disappear as quickly as they appeared. This margin is between 7 and 9 cents per gallon- if they made no profit at all it would have no significant effect on prices at the pump… the real windfall profits are being reaped by the government; combining Federal and State excise taxes with State and County sales taxes, government is making an average of 69 cents per gallon- declare a tax holiday, and gasoline prices would be, after correcting for inflation, the lowest it’s been since the Roaring Twenties!
Tangent- if the government is making more money on gasoline than Big Oil, what are we getting for our money? The Department of Energy was created specifically to deal with price shocks and to create alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil… and a third of a Trillion dollars and 30 years later, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, it’s an abysmal failure. Where’s the public outrage against that?
Who would pay this excess profits tax?
The stockholders. Everyone who has a pension, to start with- even if your Mutual doesn’t have any oil stock, (unlikely), it’s invested in other companies that do… companies like your bank, who needs those earnings to pay the interest on your savings account. Your life insurance company. The place where you got your mortgage. In short, every American. And what a great way to encourage the oil companies to invest in research and exploration- cap their earnings and weaken their stock…
Then who would benefit from an excess profits tax?
There is one and only one class of people who would benefit from it- unscrupulous political hacks who care more for their personal power than they care for their country.
Would an excess profits tax lower gas prices?
No. Many people confuse profits with profit margins; while the oil companies are making record profits, their profit margin per gallon is the same as it was before- they’re simply selling more gallons. If we have another recession, their “windfall” profits would disappear as quickly as they appeared. This margin is between 7 and 9 cents per gallon- if they made no profit at all it would have no significant effect on prices at the pump… the real windfall profits are being reaped by the government; combining Federal and State excise taxes with State and County sales taxes, government is making an average of 69 cents per gallon- declare a tax holiday, and gasoline prices would be, after correcting for inflation, the lowest it’s been since the Roaring Twenties!
Tangent- if the government is making more money on gasoline than Big Oil, what are we getting for our money? The Department of Energy was created specifically to deal with price shocks and to create alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil… and a third of a Trillion dollars and 30 years later, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, it’s an abysmal failure. Where’s the public outrage against that?
Who would pay this excess profits tax?
The stockholders. Everyone who has a pension, to start with- even if your Mutual doesn’t have any oil stock, (unlikely), it’s invested in other companies that do… companies like your bank, who needs those earnings to pay the interest on your savings account. Your life insurance company. The place where you got your mortgage. In short, every American. And what a great way to encourage the oil companies to invest in research and exploration- cap their earnings and weaken their stock…
Then who would benefit from an excess profits tax?
There is one and only one class of people who would benefit from it- unscrupulous political hacks who care more for their personal power than they care for their country.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
"Think as I think,"
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it, I said,
"I will, then, be a toad."
Stephen Crane
I was reminded of this poem reading Rev. Sinkford's statement on Immigration Reform. http://www.uua.org/president/060413_immigration.html Once again, we have the demonization of the other side: those who agree with him are "people of conscience", and are "called to acknowledge that racism has blinded most Americans." He likens it to slavery- in the same paragraph he mentions his ancestors being brought here in bondage, and says, ".America has, once again, created a permanent underclass."
I say that to people of conscience, this language is intolerable. He knows full well that the reason they “...are refused the dignity and civil protections that come with citizenship.” is that they here illegally; in the first paragraph, he acknowledges that it is illegal immigration that we are speaking of. He confirms that in the last paragraph when he sends his thoughts and prayers to the elected legislators who are struggling to revise immigration law. Call for the law to be changed, by all means- he might even find that “most Americans” want reforms made. But to call most Americans (oh, by the way, Rev Sinkford- Mexicans are also Americans; you should say U.S. Citizens) racists, oppressors, and liken them to slave traders is the kind of language that stops civil discussions from occurring- why would anyone listens to someone who sounds like he hates them?
I’d have hoped that if he were just boiling over with righteous anger, he might have reserved some for the Mexican government, might have called for them to end the corruption and oppression that has 46% of their own citizens saying they’d leave for the U.S. if they could. How about calling for some of the Mexican oil wealth to be spent on the Mexican people, rather than the ruling oligarchy? Oh, wait- that would mean being judgmental; I guess only a toad like myself would think of that.
"Or you are abominably wicked;You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it, I said,
"I will, then, be a toad."
Stephen Crane
I was reminded of this poem reading Rev. Sinkford's statement on Immigration Reform. http://www.uua.org/president/060413_immigration.html Once again, we have the demonization of the other side: those who agree with him are "people of conscience", and are "called to acknowledge that racism has blinded most Americans." He likens it to slavery- in the same paragraph he mentions his ancestors being brought here in bondage, and says, ".America has, once again, created a permanent underclass."
I say that to people of conscience, this language is intolerable. He knows full well that the reason they “...are refused the dignity and civil protections that come with citizenship.” is that they here illegally; in the first paragraph, he acknowledges that it is illegal immigration that we are speaking of. He confirms that in the last paragraph when he sends his thoughts and prayers to the elected legislators who are struggling to revise immigration law. Call for the law to be changed, by all means- he might even find that “most Americans” want reforms made. But to call most Americans (oh, by the way, Rev Sinkford- Mexicans are also Americans; you should say U.S. Citizens) racists, oppressors, and liken them to slave traders is the kind of language that stops civil discussions from occurring- why would anyone listens to someone who sounds like he hates them?
I’d have hoped that if he were just boiling over with righteous anger, he might have reserved some for the Mexican government, might have called for them to end the corruption and oppression that has 46% of their own citizens saying they’d leave for the U.S. if they could. How about calling for some of the Mexican oil wealth to be spent on the Mexican people, rather than the ruling oligarchy? Oh, wait- that would mean being judgmental; I guess only a toad like myself would think of that.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Resurrection
Peacebang (http://peacebang.blogspot.com/) has a wonderful post on the resurrection of Christ for Easter Sunday. I do not believe in bodily resurrection, but her post has inspired me to post my beliefs on the subject. What follows is from my personal journals, from a time when I was contemplating the death of loved ones. And yes, I speak to myself in second person- make of it what you well.
I have said that Life comes only from Life, but it is also true that Life can only be sustained by death. I do not refer to the death of our foodstuffs- and yes, even Vegans thrive on death in this manner; I refer to something more fundamental.
Have you heard the myth of the Phoenix? The Phoenix is a fabulous bird that, at the end of its life, bursts into flames and is totally consumed by fire. But when the fire finally burns itself out, among the ashes is a single egg that has been quickened by the fire- the egg from which the Phoenix will hatch anew.
As wonderful as this story is, reality is more wonderful still! The Phoenix is reborn, yes- exactly as before, static, unchanged throughout eternity. The traditional view of reincarnation is much the same, summed up perfectly in a song by Blood, Sweat, and Tears: "And when I die, when I’m gone, there’ll be one child born, in this world, to carry on, to carry on... ". But in reality, the energies released by the dying spark a multitude of new life, an entire flock of Phoenix. This is how a cupful of slime becomes a planet full of life, how a handful of people become six billion.
When a person dies, more dies than the envelope of flesh. Who knows what happens to the incredibly complex patterns of energy that was once the quick wit, the warm soul you had loved? Energy is conserved; it goes somewhere... I choose to believe that the energies of our lives are not dissipated upon our deaths; we release the energies we had gathered into ourselves back into the universe, and we cannot even dream what they will create. Look around you- it is not just the bodies of humanity that grow in numbers and health; new artists, even new art forms spring up every day. New sciences, new beliefs, new concepts, they grow fasters than our bodies. Just as the atoms of my body will someday become part of a flower, so will eddies of my energy inspire a painting of that flower.
When I was younger and a beloved musical group would break up, I would try to figure out who was at fault. I didn’t realize until decades later that frequently no one was at fault; the group as an entity had said all it had to say, and no further growth was possible as an entity. The only way they could say something new was to break up the group and let the members form new relationships that would reveal new truths. This happens to individuals as well as groups. There comes a time when we have said and done all that is new and creative that we can add to the world; there comes a time to release all the components back to the universe to regroup into new truths.
I believe this is how one steps off the wheel; that Nirvana is reached by becoming part of the joyous glow of creation. By dying, we become the ultimate negation of death: new creation. To die is to conquer death.
Most of what we are returns to the universe; personal immortality is a gift we can give to those who have passed before by remembering them. More, this is a gift we share with them, for we are enriched as well.
I have said that Life comes only from Life, but it is also true that Life can only be sustained by death. I do not refer to the death of our foodstuffs- and yes, even Vegans thrive on death in this manner; I refer to something more fundamental.
Have you heard the myth of the Phoenix? The Phoenix is a fabulous bird that, at the end of its life, bursts into flames and is totally consumed by fire. But when the fire finally burns itself out, among the ashes is a single egg that has been quickened by the fire- the egg from which the Phoenix will hatch anew.
As wonderful as this story is, reality is more wonderful still! The Phoenix is reborn, yes- exactly as before, static, unchanged throughout eternity. The traditional view of reincarnation is much the same, summed up perfectly in a song by Blood, Sweat, and Tears: "And when I die, when I’m gone, there’ll be one child born, in this world, to carry on, to carry on... ". But in reality, the energies released by the dying spark a multitude of new life, an entire flock of Phoenix. This is how a cupful of slime becomes a planet full of life, how a handful of people become six billion.
When a person dies, more dies than the envelope of flesh. Who knows what happens to the incredibly complex patterns of energy that was once the quick wit, the warm soul you had loved? Energy is conserved; it goes somewhere... I choose to believe that the energies of our lives are not dissipated upon our deaths; we release the energies we had gathered into ourselves back into the universe, and we cannot even dream what they will create. Look around you- it is not just the bodies of humanity that grow in numbers and health; new artists, even new art forms spring up every day. New sciences, new beliefs, new concepts, they grow fasters than our bodies. Just as the atoms of my body will someday become part of a flower, so will eddies of my energy inspire a painting of that flower.
When I was younger and a beloved musical group would break up, I would try to figure out who was at fault. I didn’t realize until decades later that frequently no one was at fault; the group as an entity had said all it had to say, and no further growth was possible as an entity. The only way they could say something new was to break up the group and let the members form new relationships that would reveal new truths. This happens to individuals as well as groups. There comes a time when we have said and done all that is new and creative that we can add to the world; there comes a time to release all the components back to the universe to regroup into new truths.
I believe this is how one steps off the wheel; that Nirvana is reached by becoming part of the joyous glow of creation. By dying, we become the ultimate negation of death: new creation. To die is to conquer death.
Most of what we are returns to the universe; personal immortality is a gift we can give to those who have passed before by remembering them. More, this is a gift we share with them, for we are enriched as well.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
A genuine act of faith
Our oldest cat, Laurie, is a feral rescue- or perhaps it may be more honest to say she saved herself. The first really cold, wet day of winter ten years ago she presented herself at our patio door and demanded entry. No doubt she had seen the rest of our cats through the glass door and assumed that this was where cats who are cold and wet go.
Fast forward to last night. A record-breaking thunderstorm was pounding the city, a super cell that had spun off tornados just before hitting Indianapolis, and was now dumping hail of near-biblical proportions, mostly the size of golf balls, punctuated with billiard ball sized ones- but worse than the size was that it was not a burst of hail, but went on and on and on, completely covering the yard in white. The noise was phenomenal, making it necessary to raise our voices to talk, and all of God’s creatures were taking the advice of the National Weather Service and staying in the middle of the house, away from windows and doors and glass.
Except for Laurie. I found her in the sunroom, oblivious to the terrifying drumbeat of hail on glass roof so loud your chest vibrated with it. She was calmly sitting in her sling chair, watching the devastation outside with fascination. In her world, weather is an outdoor thing, and warmth and comfort are indoor things, and never the twain shall meet... she was not even bothered when one of the sunroom window screens was torn from its frame and blown over the house to land in the front yard- it was, after all, outdoors. Her faith in The Way Things Are was complete.
This morning we have the start of a bright, warm Spring day. Our neighbors to the north had two windows broken, and our neighbors to the south lost telephone and cable TV lines- but our only casualty was that one screen. Windshields all over the city were shattered- but not ours. West of the city winds capable of blowing over Semis on I74 had driven hailstones horizontally like cannon shot- but not at our house. Do I believe that Laurie’s faith protected our house? Well... not really. Does Laurie? No- that’s just The Way Things Are!
Fast forward to last night. A record-breaking thunderstorm was pounding the city, a super cell that had spun off tornados just before hitting Indianapolis, and was now dumping hail of near-biblical proportions, mostly the size of golf balls, punctuated with billiard ball sized ones- but worse than the size was that it was not a burst of hail, but went on and on and on, completely covering the yard in white. The noise was phenomenal, making it necessary to raise our voices to talk, and all of God’s creatures were taking the advice of the National Weather Service and staying in the middle of the house, away from windows and doors and glass.
Except for Laurie. I found her in the sunroom, oblivious to the terrifying drumbeat of hail on glass roof so loud your chest vibrated with it. She was calmly sitting in her sling chair, watching the devastation outside with fascination. In her world, weather is an outdoor thing, and warmth and comfort are indoor things, and never the twain shall meet... she was not even bothered when one of the sunroom window screens was torn from its frame and blown over the house to land in the front yard- it was, after all, outdoors. Her faith in The Way Things Are was complete.
This morning we have the start of a bright, warm Spring day. Our neighbors to the north had two windows broken, and our neighbors to the south lost telephone and cable TV lines- but our only casualty was that one screen. Windshields all over the city were shattered- but not ours. West of the city winds capable of blowing over Semis on I74 had driven hailstones horizontally like cannon shot- but not at our house. Do I believe that Laurie’s faith protected our house? Well... not really. Does Laurie? No- that’s just The Way Things Are!
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Are our voices being heard? Part 2
I received this email today:
From :
Unitarian Universalist Association
Sent :
Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:13 PM
To :
Subject :
[UUA-L] A Joint Announcement from the Board of Trustees and theCommission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association
the Principles and Purposes
(http://www.uua.org/administration/bylaws.html#sectionC-15.1.) This
obligatory review is now overdue, and, at the request of the UUA's Board
of Trustees, the UUA's Commission on Appraisal has decided to undertake
the review. It must be stressed that the Commission on Appraisal is
independent of both the UUA's Board of Trustees and Administration. The
role of the Commission is described in section 5.8 of the UUA bylaws
(http://www.uua.org/administration/bylaws.html#section5.8.) In short,
the Commission on Appraisal shall "review any function or activity of
the Association which in its judgment will benefit from an independent
review and report its conclusions to a regular General Assembly."
The Commission has been doing serious thinking about the Principles and
their place in the life of our Association for several years and has
discussed their relationship to the theological diversity of our
movement in its last report, Engaging Our Theological Diversity
(http://www.uua.org/coa/TheoDiversity/EngagingOurTheoDiversity.pdf). The
members of the Commission are excited about undertaking the important
work of this review.
The early stages of the Commission's work will be focused on
establishing a process that will maximize the input of Unitarian
Universalists from across the continent. The Commission is profoundly
sensitive to the implications of this review for Unitarian Universalists
and is committed to carrying out this review in a way that will allow
the members of our congregations to feel confident that their opinions
are heard. While the timetable is not yet determined, recommendations
resulting from the Commission on Appraisal review will be brought
forward for consideration at a future General Assembly.
The Commission's first review hearing will be held at the Ohio-Meadville
District meeting in Columbus, OH, on April 22nd. The Commission's
workshop at the General Assembly in St. Louis will also be devoted to
this issue. In addition to these in-person events, the Commission will
be developing mechanisms by which all Unitarian Universalists can
provide input to the Commission during the course of its work.
Information on how to provide input will be distributed by the various
electronic and print resources of the UUA, including the Commission on
Appraisal's website at www.uua.org/coa/. For further information,
please email coa@uua.org .
-- Deborah J. Weiner
Director of Electronic Communication
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-948-6104
617-742-7025 (FAX)
_______________________________________________
UUA-L mailing list
UUA-L@lists.uua.org
http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/uua-l
From :
Unitarian Universalist Association
Sent :
Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:13 PM
To :
Subject :
[UUA-L] A Joint Announcement from the Board of Trustees and theCommission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association
the Principles and Purposes
(http://www.uua.org/administration/bylaws.html#sectionC-15.1.) This
obligatory review is now overdue, and, at the request of the UUA's Board
of Trustees, the UUA's Commission on Appraisal has decided to undertake
the review. It must be stressed that the Commission on Appraisal is
independent of both the UUA's Board of Trustees and Administration. The
role of the Commission is described in section 5.8 of the UUA bylaws
(http://www.uua.org/administration/bylaws.html#section5.8.) In short,
the Commission on Appraisal shall "review any function or activity of
the Association which in its judgment will benefit from an independent
review and report its conclusions to a regular General Assembly."
The Commission has been doing serious thinking about the Principles and
their place in the life of our Association for several years and has
discussed their relationship to the theological diversity of our
movement in its last report, Engaging Our Theological Diversity
(http://www.uua.org/coa/TheoDiversity/EngagingOurTheoDiversity.pdf). The
members of the Commission are excited about undertaking the important
work of this review.
The early stages of the Commission's work will be focused on
establishing a process that will maximize the input of Unitarian
Universalists from across the continent. The Commission is profoundly
sensitive to the implications of this review for Unitarian Universalists
and is committed to carrying out this review in a way that will allow
the members of our congregations to feel confident that their opinions
are heard. While the timetable is not yet determined, recommendations
resulting from the Commission on Appraisal review will be brought
forward for consideration at a future General Assembly.
The Commission's first review hearing will be held at the Ohio-Meadville
District meeting in Columbus, OH, on April 22nd. The Commission's
workshop at the General Assembly in St. Louis will also be devoted to
this issue. In addition to these in-person events, the Commission will
be developing mechanisms by which all Unitarian Universalists can
provide input to the Commission during the course of its work.
Information on how to provide input will be distributed by the various
electronic and print resources of the UUA, including the Commission on
Appraisal's website at www.uua.org/coa/. For further information,
please email coa@uua.org .
-- Deborah J. Weiner
Director of Electronic Communication
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-948-6104
617-742-7025 (FAX)
_______________________________________________
UUA-L mailing list
UUA-L@lists.uua.org
http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/uua-l
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Minimum wage/Living wage and unintended consequences
The illegal immigrant protests sparked another discussion among some of my friends of a raise in the minimum wage or the “Living wage” (making the minimum wage large enough to raise a family on). I promised my friends an in-depth explanation of why it’s bad for the poor on every level- and then it occurred to me to post that explanation here so I could take flak from a wider audience as well! :)
I’ll begin with the obvious- as a fellow printer said, “Sure, make the minimum wage $50,000 a year; I’ll just charge a dollar a copy instead of a dime, there’ll be a round of inflation, and it’ll sort itself out and they’ll be a little worse off than before.” It’s true, too; the current minimum wage is more than 20 times what my father earned on his first job- not corrected for inflation, but then that’s the point. Additionally, many manual labor jobs will be eliminated- even the making of french fries and drawing of drinks can be automated; the machines already exist, awaiting only the economic necessity. Unemployment among teenagers will increase.
But it gets worse- an already endangered species of job will near extinction: the entry level job. There was a time when people entered a career by starting as a teen at an entry level position; a “gofer”, a cleaner, a pair of hands. As they demonstrated good work habits and attitude and/or aptitude, they would be given a chance to try more challenging duties. If you had no aptitude, you could easily get an entry level job in another industry. In my own field, printing, nearly every press operator my age or older began in this way. But as these entry level jobs disappear, there will be fewer total jobs (more teen unemployment), and those jobs will require technical training somewhere.
So now the poor will have to pay for technical school to get the same job their fathers got on-the-job training for. And, of course, this means that the only way to discover whether you really have the aptitude or will like it as much as you think you will is to shell out the cash in advance. The schools start inflating the program to increase their revenue- a six week course becomes an associate’s degree; the associate’s becomes a bachelor’s. Now you have a huge student debt to go along with the job your grandfather was paid to learn when he took an entry level job as a press loader or cleaner. To make it more ironic, the modern computer controlled machines are far easier to learn and run than your grandfather’s machines. I’ve watched this happen over three decades in the printing industry; there are virtually no entry level jobs in any printing plant- there are certainly none in mine; we can’t afford them. I haven’t had a job applicant who worked his way up in the field in years; they all have degrees and debts. I’m sure you could get similar testimony from many different industries.
The last step is when those tradesmen with student debts they incurred to win low-paying jobs decide to form associations and lobby to outlaw the practice of their trade without that degree. This makes it impossible for the energetic, entrepreneurial poor to start a new business out of his garage. One example of the syndrome that will be familiar to everyone is the hair salon- in most states it’s actually illegal to cut hair without a license from the State. We have had cases, for example, of illicit corn-row braiders being formally served with cease and desist orders by uniformed police when complaints were filed by outraged licensed hairdressers. Once again, it’s the poor trying to pull themselves up who get hurt. And, of course, this drives prices up, hurting the poor from that angle as well. There are valid state interests in some forms of job regulation, OSHA being a sterling example. Any arbitrary interference in supply and demand as it concerns jobs, however, hurts the poor whether they be workers or consumers.
I’ll begin with the obvious- as a fellow printer said, “Sure, make the minimum wage $50,000 a year; I’ll just charge a dollar a copy instead of a dime, there’ll be a round of inflation, and it’ll sort itself out and they’ll be a little worse off than before.” It’s true, too; the current minimum wage is more than 20 times what my father earned on his first job- not corrected for inflation, but then that’s the point. Additionally, many manual labor jobs will be eliminated- even the making of french fries and drawing of drinks can be automated; the machines already exist, awaiting only the economic necessity. Unemployment among teenagers will increase.
But it gets worse- an already endangered species of job will near extinction: the entry level job. There was a time when people entered a career by starting as a teen at an entry level position; a “gofer”, a cleaner, a pair of hands. As they demonstrated good work habits and attitude and/or aptitude, they would be given a chance to try more challenging duties. If you had no aptitude, you could easily get an entry level job in another industry. In my own field, printing, nearly every press operator my age or older began in this way. But as these entry level jobs disappear, there will be fewer total jobs (more teen unemployment), and those jobs will require technical training somewhere.
So now the poor will have to pay for technical school to get the same job their fathers got on-the-job training for. And, of course, this means that the only way to discover whether you really have the aptitude or will like it as much as you think you will is to shell out the cash in advance. The schools start inflating the program to increase their revenue- a six week course becomes an associate’s degree; the associate’s becomes a bachelor’s. Now you have a huge student debt to go along with the job your grandfather was paid to learn when he took an entry level job as a press loader or cleaner. To make it more ironic, the modern computer controlled machines are far easier to learn and run than your grandfather’s machines. I’ve watched this happen over three decades in the printing industry; there are virtually no entry level jobs in any printing plant- there are certainly none in mine; we can’t afford them. I haven’t had a job applicant who worked his way up in the field in years; they all have degrees and debts. I’m sure you could get similar testimony from many different industries.
The last step is when those tradesmen with student debts they incurred to win low-paying jobs decide to form associations and lobby to outlaw the practice of their trade without that degree. This makes it impossible for the energetic, entrepreneurial poor to start a new business out of his garage. One example of the syndrome that will be familiar to everyone is the hair salon- in most states it’s actually illegal to cut hair without a license from the State. We have had cases, for example, of illicit corn-row braiders being formally served with cease and desist orders by uniformed police when complaints were filed by outraged licensed hairdressers. Once again, it’s the poor trying to pull themselves up who get hurt. And, of course, this drives prices up, hurting the poor from that angle as well. There are valid state interests in some forms of job regulation, OSHA being a sterling example. Any arbitrary interference in supply and demand as it concerns jobs, however, hurts the poor whether they be workers or consumers.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Update to BMI
Speaking about the BMI calculator to my wife and another female friend, I was given another tidbit about the government's reccomendations: an adult female, in the "normal" BMI range, consuming the number of calories reccomended to maintain that weight, and allocating those calories in the manner prescribed in the food pyramid, will not receive the full RDA of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Interesting.
Friday, April 07, 2006
BMI
If I have any readers (perhaps I should end the sentence right there) with medical training, perhaps they could explain something about the Body Mass Index to me.
My first love was engineering, before I betrayed the true faith and went into sales. As an engineering student, I was taught that because there are three dimensions, mass is a cubic function, written as (weight / length^3) = k. If you increase or reduce the size of an object while maintaining the same proportions, just blowing up the blueprint, its weight varies as the cube of the change- for example, if you double the length of an object, you also double its height and depth, so its weight is (2^3), or eight times as much. This applies to everything, even complicated devices, because each part follows the same law. It even applies to animals- the way scientists can estimate the weight of a dinosaur is to have a veterinarian examine the bones and tell a sculptor the kind of musculature it must have had, and between them they make a model of the dinosaur… knowing that flesh has about the density of water, they then dunk the model in a tank to get its water weight, and use the formula above to size it up correctly.
Now we come to the Body Mass Index. The formula for that, gotten off the CDC website, is (weight / height^2)(703) = BMI. Notice that this is a squared function, not a cubic! This formula would have the weight of two near-twins, identical in every possible way except height, vary by the square of their height, rather than the cube, as all other masses in the universe do. I can’t figure out what there is about the human body that would have it obey separate physical laws. I even tried charting the weights and BMI of famous people to try and understand.
Knowing that whichever function was correct, the cube or the square, inherent in the math is the fact that they will be closest to true in the smaller numbers, so I started charting at only five feet tall. Using the BMI formula, “normal” for 60” tall is from 94 ¾ lbs to 127 ½- that seemed reasonable to me, so I used that as the set point for the cubic formula as well. I then ran both formulae to 72” tall. The BMI formula gives the low end of normal for six feet tall as 136 ½ lbs… that’s what the late Don Knotts weighed at 5’6”- would Barney Fife have looked normal stretched out to six foot tall?? The "cube of the difference" formula makes the lighter side of normal at six foot tall to be 163 ¾ instead. I started looking for even taller famous people. Two-time MVP of the NFL, Indianapolis’ own Peyton Manning, at 6’5” and 230 lbs, has a BMI of 27.27- well into the “fat” category! But if you use the “cube of the difference” formula, “normal” for that height would be from 200 to 269 lbs. Shaquille O’Neal, at 7’2” and 325 lbs. has a BMI of 30.89- morbidly obese! But the cubic formula would have him right in the center of the normal range of 278 – 375 lbs… which is where most of the 7-footers in the NBA fall.
My conclusion: both theory and observed anecdotal evidence tell me that the BMI formula is fatally flawed, and that the taller you are above five foot, the greater the error will be. If there is a doctor reading this, would you please explain where the flaw in my thinking is?
My first love was engineering, before I betrayed the true faith and went into sales. As an engineering student, I was taught that because there are three dimensions, mass is a cubic function, written as (weight / length^3) = k. If you increase or reduce the size of an object while maintaining the same proportions, just blowing up the blueprint, its weight varies as the cube of the change- for example, if you double the length of an object, you also double its height and depth, so its weight is (2^3), or eight times as much. This applies to everything, even complicated devices, because each part follows the same law. It even applies to animals- the way scientists can estimate the weight of a dinosaur is to have a veterinarian examine the bones and tell a sculptor the kind of musculature it must have had, and between them they make a model of the dinosaur… knowing that flesh has about the density of water, they then dunk the model in a tank to get its water weight, and use the formula above to size it up correctly.
Now we come to the Body Mass Index. The formula for that, gotten off the CDC website, is (weight / height^2)(703) = BMI. Notice that this is a squared function, not a cubic! This formula would have the weight of two near-twins, identical in every possible way except height, vary by the square of their height, rather than the cube, as all other masses in the universe do. I can’t figure out what there is about the human body that would have it obey separate physical laws. I even tried charting the weights and BMI of famous people to try and understand.
Knowing that whichever function was correct, the cube or the square, inherent in the math is the fact that they will be closest to true in the smaller numbers, so I started charting at only five feet tall. Using the BMI formula, “normal” for 60” tall is from 94 ¾ lbs to 127 ½- that seemed reasonable to me, so I used that as the set point for the cubic formula as well. I then ran both formulae to 72” tall. The BMI formula gives the low end of normal for six feet tall as 136 ½ lbs… that’s what the late Don Knotts weighed at 5’6”- would Barney Fife have looked normal stretched out to six foot tall?? The "cube of the difference" formula makes the lighter side of normal at six foot tall to be 163 ¾ instead. I started looking for even taller famous people. Two-time MVP of the NFL, Indianapolis’ own Peyton Manning, at 6’5” and 230 lbs, has a BMI of 27.27- well into the “fat” category! But if you use the “cube of the difference” formula, “normal” for that height would be from 200 to 269 lbs. Shaquille O’Neal, at 7’2” and 325 lbs. has a BMI of 30.89- morbidly obese! But the cubic formula would have him right in the center of the normal range of 278 – 375 lbs… which is where most of the 7-footers in the NBA fall.
My conclusion: both theory and observed anecdotal evidence tell me that the BMI formula is fatally flawed, and that the taller you are above five foot, the greater the error will be. If there is a doctor reading this, would you please explain where the flaw in my thinking is?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Psychopath Test
This is the most interesting of the things forwarded to me in email recently- stumped a lot of co-workers with it.
Psychopath Test
Read this question, come up with an answer and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads. No one I know has got it right.
A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister. Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?
[Give this some thought before you answer, see answer below]
Answer: She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again. If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test by a famous American Psychologist used to test if one has the same mentality as a killer. Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly. If you didn't answer the question correctly, good for you. If you got the answer correct, please let me know so I can take you off my email list...
Psychopath Test
Read this question, come up with an answer and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads. No one I know has got it right.
A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister. Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?
[Give this some thought before you answer, see answer below]
Answer: She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again. If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test by a famous American Psychologist used to test if one has the same mentality as a killer. Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly. If you didn't answer the question correctly, good for you. If you got the answer correct, please let me know so I can take you off my email list...
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Sigh
I now need reading glasses. Not for everything, but for things like newspaper comics, the dictionary, etc. I know many will say what's the big deal- I've needed glasses all my life. And I would reply that it's not the glasses that bother me; I wouldn't mind them if I'd always needed them.
What weighs with me is that this is my body's first betrayal... the first scars not earned by injury or battle with nature's microscopic predators. The first confirmation that there are fewer days ahead than behind. In one's first half century, one is of course aware that death can lurk around any corner, but the dangers are usually the understandable and semi-predictable; a traffic accident, a flu epidemic, a mugger, or the foolish chances one takes when young. It is somehow a different thing to accept that you will eventually just spoil, like the carton of milk you forgot to put away.
What weighs with me is that this is my body's first betrayal... the first scars not earned by injury or battle with nature's microscopic predators. The first confirmation that there are fewer days ahead than behind. In one's first half century, one is of course aware that death can lurk around any corner, but the dangers are usually the understandable and semi-predictable; a traffic accident, a flu epidemic, a mugger, or the foolish chances one takes when young. It is somehow a different thing to accept that you will eventually just spoil, like the carton of milk you forgot to put away.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Pro life or anti woman?
Alas, a blog, has elicited responses from a number of other blogs with the essay on whether the anti-abortion crowd was really pro-life, or just wanted to punish women for having sex, and the charted positions that concluded it was actually the latter. I believe that conclusion came from having either misunderstood or misrepresented pro-life positions in that chart, and is erroneous.
The pro-life position that life begins at conception comes from a simple syllogism: A. The object of the discussion is a life form of some nature. B. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as to the nature of tissue presented in evidence; from conception, it is genetically human. C. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as proof of identity, and from conception it has a unique DNA signature, different from the Mother’s. It is, therefore, a new, individual human being from conception. Immature, yes; but the courts have granted status to immature beings before- an eagle’s egg is considered to be an eagle for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act; smashing the egg is legally killing an eagle.
This does not mean that abortion is never acceptable, however- there are times when it is legal and ethical to take human life. If the mother’s life is endangered, it’s self-defense, just as much as shooting someone attacking you in the street. This is also true in the case of the mother’s health; you may legally use lethal force to prevent an attack that will not kill you- for example, you don’t have to submit to being kneecapped by a terrorist. Many pro-lifers will also include as acceptable the abortion of the severely deformed, seeing it as a different discussion more akin to the Schaivo case than to abortion.
This groundwork was necessary to explain one of the errors in the “Alas” chart; not even the most strict pro-lifer is against contraception that actually prevents conception. (Many Catholics are, but not all pro-lifers are Catholic) The problem they have is with pills like “Plan B” that work by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb; they see this as just a very early abortion. Any birth control method that prevents conception from taking place is perfectly acceptable; there is no inconsistency.
Those pro-lifers who oppose public school sex education don’t see any inconsistency in their stance because their position is that such classes increase the teen pregnancy rate, not decrease it. They argue from empirical evidence: 50 years ago, when there was no sex education, no birth control, and no abortions the illegitimacy rate was in the single digits; today, even with abortion, it has increased ten-fold. There are now entire neighborhoods where the child conceived in wedlock is statistically nonexistent. You may argue that there is no causal relationship here, that “b” following “a” does not prove that “a” caused “b”- but you cannot prove it… so it’s not inconsistent for them to believe that there is such a relationship.
Lastly, it was argued that if they really believed lives were at stake, they’d all be out there throwing bombs. Pro-lifers are not that stupid; they know the battle is for hearts and minds- individual action would at best, even if you believed the ends justify the means, (which people of faith generally do not) be throwing bricks into the Grand Canyon. John Brown’s revolution didn’t free slaves, it only killed at lot of people; the lesson has been noted.
My conclussion: the statement that pro-lifers just want to punish women for being sexual is indeed an unworthy accusation; the evidence is that pro-lifers are trying to save lives.
But there is an inconsistency here- being pro-choice while claiming to believe in the inherent dignity and worth of mankind. Most UUs believe in acquired worth- some believe it’s acquired in the second trimester, some in the third; some believe worth is acquired along with “viability”, and some attach no development stage at all, believing dignity and worth are acquired only when the mother decides she wants the child. Some, judging by their harsh rhetoric, seem to believe dignity and worth are acquired when one registers as a Democrat. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only UU I personally know who believes in the inherent dignity and worth of the individual.
The pro-life position that life begins at conception comes from a simple syllogism: A. The object of the discussion is a life form of some nature. B. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as to the nature of tissue presented in evidence; from conception, it is genetically human. C. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as proof of identity, and from conception it has a unique DNA signature, different from the Mother’s. It is, therefore, a new, individual human being from conception. Immature, yes; but the courts have granted status to immature beings before- an eagle’s egg is considered to be an eagle for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act; smashing the egg is legally killing an eagle.
This does not mean that abortion is never acceptable, however- there are times when it is legal and ethical to take human life. If the mother’s life is endangered, it’s self-defense, just as much as shooting someone attacking you in the street. This is also true in the case of the mother’s health; you may legally use lethal force to prevent an attack that will not kill you- for example, you don’t have to submit to being kneecapped by a terrorist. Many pro-lifers will also include as acceptable the abortion of the severely deformed, seeing it as a different discussion more akin to the Schaivo case than to abortion.
This groundwork was necessary to explain one of the errors in the “Alas” chart; not even the most strict pro-lifer is against contraception that actually prevents conception. (Many Catholics are, but not all pro-lifers are Catholic) The problem they have is with pills like “Plan B” that work by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb; they see this as just a very early abortion. Any birth control method that prevents conception from taking place is perfectly acceptable; there is no inconsistency.
Those pro-lifers who oppose public school sex education don’t see any inconsistency in their stance because their position is that such classes increase the teen pregnancy rate, not decrease it. They argue from empirical evidence: 50 years ago, when there was no sex education, no birth control, and no abortions the illegitimacy rate was in the single digits; today, even with abortion, it has increased ten-fold. There are now entire neighborhoods where the child conceived in wedlock is statistically nonexistent. You may argue that there is no causal relationship here, that “b” following “a” does not prove that “a” caused “b”- but you cannot prove it… so it’s not inconsistent for them to believe that there is such a relationship.
Lastly, it was argued that if they really believed lives were at stake, they’d all be out there throwing bombs. Pro-lifers are not that stupid; they know the battle is for hearts and minds- individual action would at best, even if you believed the ends justify the means, (which people of faith generally do not) be throwing bricks into the Grand Canyon. John Brown’s revolution didn’t free slaves, it only killed at lot of people; the lesson has been noted.
My conclussion: the statement that pro-lifers just want to punish women for being sexual is indeed an unworthy accusation; the evidence is that pro-lifers are trying to save lives.
But there is an inconsistency here- being pro-choice while claiming to believe in the inherent dignity and worth of mankind. Most UUs believe in acquired worth- some believe it’s acquired in the second trimester, some in the third; some believe worth is acquired along with “viability”, and some attach no development stage at all, believing dignity and worth are acquired only when the mother decides she wants the child. Some, judging by their harsh rhetoric, seem to believe dignity and worth are acquired when one registers as a Democrat. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only UU I personally know who believes in the inherent dignity and worth of the individual.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
My neighborhood recognized
Living in a 126 year old house is sometimes a point of pride, sometimes of frustration, and always a moneypit- but it does produce a sense of history and community. Of course, Irvington has never been short on those qualities, as the White House has now recognized.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/ZONES05/603160333/1028
Though I bought my house in 1998, I’m no newcomer to Irvington- I was raised here. I thought it was just a whim that brought me back, but once here, I found half my childhood friends had also returned and bought homes. I guess you can’t take the boy out of Irvington after all.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/ZONES05/603160333/1028
Though I bought my house in 1998, I’m no newcomer to Irvington- I was raised here. I thought it was just a whim that brought me back, but once here, I found half my childhood friends had also returned and bought homes. I guess you can’t take the boy out of Irvington after all.
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Real cause for war in Iraq
The reasons for our going to war in Iraq are being rehashed in a number of blogs and forums- most notably ChaliceBlog and CFUU forums. It seems to me that all the arguments can be boiled down to three camps:
The reasons publicly given were in fact the real reasons. Maybe you didn’t think they were good enough reasons, and one or two of the list have been proven wrong since the invasion, but what he said was what he meant.
Oil. Funny, but the adherents to this theory have never actually made their case; they believe that merely uttering the syllable both makes and proves the case for them- so I’ll have to refute unspoken words. Presumably, they believe that going to war would somehow lower oil prices- which is nonsense. In the short term, war always increases prices. Long term? At the time the decision for war was being made, gasoline prices- corrected for inflation- were already the lowest since we started keeping records in 1917. Merely increasing the supply would not lower it further; all refineries were already running at capacity and the strategic reserve was full- the only way we could have used more was to pour crude oil over our cornflakes in the morning. This means that to lower pricing, we’d have to lower the price for what we were already buying, which could only have been done by becoming closer friends to the Arabs (which another war would not- did not- do) or by actually taking physical possession of the Iraqi oil fields and pumping at our own prices. The world would not have permitted that to happen- which leaves no way in which the war could have been for oil.
Conspiracy theories. Bush wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on his father. Bush owed a favor to the Saudis. Yadda yadda- I’ll lump them all as one because they all must prove the same point: as Bush is President, not King, he had to convince all the insiders to go along with him, including a lot of Democrats at least as intelligent as he. How did he manage to do that? How did he manage to fake evidence so well the CIA and Military Intelligence were fooled? How did he drag all those other countries- some of whom have very good intelligence bureaus- with him? How did he convince Tony Blair to stake his legacy- as one of the greats before the war- on this adventure? Is Bush so beloved worldwide that no one anywhere would blow the whistle on him? After you’ve proven all that, you could also prove the Moon landing was faked in the parking lot behind the grassy knoll.
The only explanation that covers all the facts is #1- that Bush and Blair meant exactly what they said, and were simply wrong about the WMDs. The sooner people accept that, the sooner we can start correcting the problems that led us there, like the poor intelligence. It’s an old military maxim that the most expensive weapons system of all is the one that’s not good enough; obviously, this applies triple to intelligence. If we made Middle East intelligence a priority in the 80’s and 90’s, this war would not have happened… so what are we missing today, and how will it affect tomorrow? I hope it doesn’t take another war to find out.
The reasons publicly given were in fact the real reasons. Maybe you didn’t think they were good enough reasons, and one or two of the list have been proven wrong since the invasion, but what he said was what he meant.
Oil. Funny, but the adherents to this theory have never actually made their case; they believe that merely uttering the syllable both makes and proves the case for them- so I’ll have to refute unspoken words. Presumably, they believe that going to war would somehow lower oil prices- which is nonsense. In the short term, war always increases prices. Long term? At the time the decision for war was being made, gasoline prices- corrected for inflation- were already the lowest since we started keeping records in 1917. Merely increasing the supply would not lower it further; all refineries were already running at capacity and the strategic reserve was full- the only way we could have used more was to pour crude oil over our cornflakes in the morning. This means that to lower pricing, we’d have to lower the price for what we were already buying, which could only have been done by becoming closer friends to the Arabs (which another war would not- did not- do) or by actually taking physical possession of the Iraqi oil fields and pumping at our own prices. The world would not have permitted that to happen- which leaves no way in which the war could have been for oil.
Conspiracy theories. Bush wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on his father. Bush owed a favor to the Saudis. Yadda yadda- I’ll lump them all as one because they all must prove the same point: as Bush is President, not King, he had to convince all the insiders to go along with him, including a lot of Democrats at least as intelligent as he. How did he manage to do that? How did he manage to fake evidence so well the CIA and Military Intelligence were fooled? How did he drag all those other countries- some of whom have very good intelligence bureaus- with him? How did he convince Tony Blair to stake his legacy- as one of the greats before the war- on this adventure? Is Bush so beloved worldwide that no one anywhere would blow the whistle on him? After you’ve proven all that, you could also prove the Moon landing was faked in the parking lot behind the grassy knoll.
The only explanation that covers all the facts is #1- that Bush and Blair meant exactly what they said, and were simply wrong about the WMDs. The sooner people accept that, the sooner we can start correcting the problems that led us there, like the poor intelligence. It’s an old military maxim that the most expensive weapons system of all is the one that’s not good enough; obviously, this applies triple to intelligence. If we made Middle East intelligence a priority in the 80’s and 90’s, this war would not have happened… so what are we missing today, and how will it affect tomorrow? I hope it doesn’t take another war to find out.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
An issue worth supporting
This is an issue that goes back quite a while, but keeps coming back to the front burner as we keep racking up casualties overseas: the Veterans Administration will not permit symbols of Pagan faiths on the tombstones of fallen veterans. Here is a Stars and Stripes article on it: "Wiccans wait for VA to allow symbol on headstones at national cemeteries ", http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=35639
Although the headlines specifically mentions Wiccans, the VA will not permit Thor's hammer or any other Pagan symbols, either. It's not like adding a few more symbols would be a hardship for the VA; they already have 38 different symbols, including our own chalice, and even symbols for Humanists and Atheists... but not for Pagans or Neopagans. Their reason for not accepting such symbols is such a thin veil as to provide no cover at all for open bigotry.
I've already spoken to my Congresswoman (well, her office anyway) and gotten a local conservative talk radio show to discuss it- and even here in the Bible Belt, all the callers said a fallen hero should have whatever the Hell he wants on his tombstone. But lone voices haven't done much good for the last 8 years, and no famous Hollywood names or church groups or social organizations are lending a hand.
It occurred to me this would be an excellent issue for UUs to see if they have any muscle to flex in the arena of public opinion- a clear fairness issue like this should be an easy sell for UU congregations to get interested in, and with the soft place America has in her heart for Veterans, it should be an easy issue to push with the public. This would let us know where we stand as a force for good- if we couldn't get this silly rule changed, we'd know what chance we have with the grandiose proposals the GAs keep putting forwards.
Although the headlines specifically mentions Wiccans, the VA will not permit Thor's hammer or any other Pagan symbols, either. It's not like adding a few more symbols would be a hardship for the VA; they already have 38 different symbols, including our own chalice, and even symbols for Humanists and Atheists... but not for Pagans or Neopagans. Their reason for not accepting such symbols is such a thin veil as to provide no cover at all for open bigotry.
I've already spoken to my Congresswoman (well, her office anyway) and gotten a local conservative talk radio show to discuss it- and even here in the Bible Belt, all the callers said a fallen hero should have whatever the Hell he wants on his tombstone. But lone voices haven't done much good for the last 8 years, and no famous Hollywood names or church groups or social organizations are lending a hand.
It occurred to me this would be an excellent issue for UUs to see if they have any muscle to flex in the arena of public opinion- a clear fairness issue like this should be an easy sell for UU congregations to get interested in, and with the soft place America has in her heart for Veterans, it should be an easy issue to push with the public. This would let us know where we stand as a force for good- if we couldn't get this silly rule changed, we'd know what chance we have with the grandiose proposals the GAs keep putting forwards.
Catch Up Potpourri
Last Wednesday was the third meeting of our small group at church. Wow- we should have done this years ago!
******
Last night the Channing Club here at All Souls, Indpls, went to see Urinetown, the Musical at Footlite Musicals. A strange little piece, well worth a look if it's playing near you, though probably not archival good. The performances were excellent, although once or twice the music (live!) drowned out the voices- I give it an A-.
******
Last night the Channing Club here at All Souls, Indpls, went to see Urinetown, the Musical at Footlite Musicals. A strange little piece, well worth a look if it's playing near you, though probably not archival good. The performances were excellent, although once or twice the music (live!) drowned out the voices- I give it an A-.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Life Lesson #2
A major crisis can usually be handled- we have role models and resources and support groups for that. It's the daily rain of minor outrages that are more likely to break one down in the end. An honest death certificate for many a man, marriage, movement, or administration would read : nibbled to death by ducks.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
What we always suspected
CC’s many permutations of the Mark of the Beast (ChaliceBlog, Sunday March 5th ) reminded me of a proof from High School Algebra class, one with many permutations of its own- here’s one appropriate to the venue:
Membership in the UUA requires an expenditure of time and money; expressed mathematically it would be:
Membership = (time)(money)
As we all know, time IS money, and therefore may be substituted into the equation:
Membership = (money)(money)
or
Membership = (money)^2
We also know that money is the root of all evil; substituting again we get:
Membership = (evil^ ½ )^2
Solving the powers, we get the final answer:
Membership in the UUA = Evil!
Membership in the UUA requires an expenditure of time and money; expressed mathematically it would be:
Membership = (time)(money)
As we all know, time IS money, and therefore may be substituted into the equation:
Membership = (money)(money)
or
Membership = (money)^2
We also know that money is the root of all evil; substituting again we get:
Membership = (evil^ ½ )^2
Solving the powers, we get the final answer:
Membership in the UUA = Evil!
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Life Lesson #1
I'm going to intersperse amongst topical posts some of the life lessons I've learned from spending a half a century on this planet. They're not very deep, but hey- I'm a shallow guy.
Life Lesson #1: Some people leave the TV on all day just to fill the silence, as ambience. Some people only turn on the TV when there's a show they actually wanted to see. The success of a marriage can sometimes hinge on knowing which type your spouse is.
Life Lesson #1: Some people leave the TV on all day just to fill the silence, as ambience. Some people only turn on the TV when there's a show they actually wanted to see. The success of a marriage can sometimes hinge on knowing which type your spouse is.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
In a March 1st New York Times article, Thomas Friedman wrote about the energy crisis, saying "The only real solution is raising our gasoline tax, which is a paltry 18.4 cents a gallon and has not been increased since 1993. Only by bringing the total price of gasoline into the $3.50-to-$4-per-gallon range- and keeping it there- will large numbers of Americans demand plug-in hybrid cars that run on biofuels like ethanol."
Here is the reply I sent:
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Having just read another of your articles championing the gas tax as the best method of reforming our energy policy, I feel compelled to write to you. Louis Armstrong, asked to define Jazz, said, “If you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand the answer.”, and I fear that the mere fact that you can seriously propose taxing gasoline to bring the price up to $4.00/gallon means that you are incapable of understanding the consequences- but I feel I must try.
The majority of your fellow Americans are wholly dependent on their automobiles. I realize a New Yorker may have trouble grasping this, but fully one half of America lives in communities where there is no public transportation whatsoever, and another large percentage lives in cities where public transportation is quite inadequate. Here in Indianapolis, for example, we have a large and expensive bus system- but this is a city of some 400 square miles; including the suburbs where many of us live and work, we’re talking a couple thousand square miles- no bus system could ever service that. The reality is that to live and work, you must drive.
A further reality is that half of your fellow Americans can be described as working poor. We’re raising our families and usually making ends meet- but only just. We’re not out here joyriding in SUVs just to smell the burning gas, we’re driving the most economical vehicles we can afford to buy- which doesn't currently include hybrids. Those of us driving pickup trucks generally need them for work; we cannot afford to have separate work and home vehicles. We are already economizing as much as possible by keeping those vehicles in good repair, and combining as many trips as possible- going to the store only on the way home from work, etc..
Your proposed gas tax would mean, depending upon exactly where one works and lives, a $25-$100 per week extra expense- and tens of millions of Americans don’t have that kind of money. Please try to understand what I’m saying: it would not be a hardship, it would be an impossibility; the money does not exist. Tens of millions of Americans- most of them young families- would be bankrupt the day that tax goes into effect. Tens of millions more could afford it, but only by cutting back their quality of life into genuine hardship. It’s all well and good to talk of this forcing car companies to produce cheaper hybrids- but you’re talking years; these people will be homeless as fast as the sheriff can evict them for non-payment of rent!
I know it’s easy to forget about us here in “flyover” country between the big cities where the policy makers you report on work and live; after all, “out of sight, out of mind”. But we do exist, we have lives and families- please don’t write us off as the eggs that must be broken to make your energy omelet.
Here is the reply I sent:
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Having just read another of your articles championing the gas tax as the best method of reforming our energy policy, I feel compelled to write to you. Louis Armstrong, asked to define Jazz, said, “If you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand the answer.”, and I fear that the mere fact that you can seriously propose taxing gasoline to bring the price up to $4.00/gallon means that you are incapable of understanding the consequences- but I feel I must try.
The majority of your fellow Americans are wholly dependent on their automobiles. I realize a New Yorker may have trouble grasping this, but fully one half of America lives in communities where there is no public transportation whatsoever, and another large percentage lives in cities where public transportation is quite inadequate. Here in Indianapolis, for example, we have a large and expensive bus system- but this is a city of some 400 square miles; including the suburbs where many of us live and work, we’re talking a couple thousand square miles- no bus system could ever service that. The reality is that to live and work, you must drive.
A further reality is that half of your fellow Americans can be described as working poor. We’re raising our families and usually making ends meet- but only just. We’re not out here joyriding in SUVs just to smell the burning gas, we’re driving the most economical vehicles we can afford to buy- which doesn't currently include hybrids. Those of us driving pickup trucks generally need them for work; we cannot afford to have separate work and home vehicles. We are already economizing as much as possible by keeping those vehicles in good repair, and combining as many trips as possible- going to the store only on the way home from work, etc..
Your proposed gas tax would mean, depending upon exactly where one works and lives, a $25-$100 per week extra expense- and tens of millions of Americans don’t have that kind of money. Please try to understand what I’m saying: it would not be a hardship, it would be an impossibility; the money does not exist. Tens of millions of Americans- most of them young families- would be bankrupt the day that tax goes into effect. Tens of millions more could afford it, but only by cutting back their quality of life into genuine hardship. It’s all well and good to talk of this forcing car companies to produce cheaper hybrids- but you’re talking years; these people will be homeless as fast as the sheriff can evict them for non-payment of rent!
I know it’s easy to forget about us here in “flyover” country between the big cities where the policy makers you report on work and live; after all, “out of sight, out of mind”. But we do exist, we have lives and families- please don’t write us off as the eggs that must be broken to make your energy omelet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)