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.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
A suggestion for the UUA's next social action campaign
It seems to me that a church should be the most vocal on issues that touch the spiritual as well as the issue of justice, and it seems to me that Eminent Domain is one such issue. There are politicians who want to reform the use of eminent domain, especially since the incomprehensible Kelo decision- the one in which the Supreme Court accepted the state of Connecticutt's definition of public good as "That guy can pay more property taxes than this guy- so take the property and give it to the deeper pockets!" The problem is that politicians are only investigating getting the beleagured property owners a bigger settlement.
But some people don't want to sell at any price- they planned to die in the home they spent their life in, raised their family in. Is the state willing to wait for an 84 year old with lung cancer to die first? No- throw the bum out, build the luxury condos posthaste! See http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060130/COLUMNISTS15/601300358/-1/register01 and also http://www.njeminentdomain.com/
It seems to me these would be great cases for the UUA to champion- it's a purely spiritual issue, valueing the last years of life over any amount of money- it's helping the little guy against the big dollar developers and the politicians who want to make their reputations on the backs of the people they're supposed to be serving. It even addresses one of our PPs- is this Democratic process? If we don't have the right to say no, doesn't that make us mere subjects, rather than citizens?
So WILL the UUA take this issue on? I make my prediction: No, never.
But some people don't want to sell at any price- they planned to die in the home they spent their life in, raised their family in. Is the state willing to wait for an 84 year old with lung cancer to die first? No- throw the bum out, build the luxury condos posthaste! See http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060130/COLUMNISTS15/601300358/-1/register01 and also http://www.njeminentdomain.com/
It seems to me these would be great cases for the UUA to champion- it's a purely spiritual issue, valueing the last years of life over any amount of money- it's helping the little guy against the big dollar developers and the politicians who want to make their reputations on the backs of the people they're supposed to be serving. It even addresses one of our PPs- is this Democratic process? If we don't have the right to say no, doesn't that make us mere subjects, rather than citizens?
So WILL the UUA take this issue on? I make my prediction: No, never.
A lesson in hate
The February issue of Smithsonian has an article entitled "A Lesson In Hate", about the writings of Sayyid Qutb- an article that should be required reading for anyone attempting to understand Middle East politics. See http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/february/presence.php
I quote the first two paragraphs as a teaser:
Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States, where he attended a small teachers college on the Great Plains. Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950 was the last place one might think to look for signs of American decadence. Its wide streets were dotted with churches, and there wasn’t a bar in the whole temperate town. But the courtly Qutb (COO-tub) saw things that others did not. He seethed at the brutishness of the people around him: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.”
Such grumbling by an unhappy crank would be almost comical but for one fact: a direct line of influence runs from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, and to bin Laden’s Egyptian partner in terror, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From them, the line continues to another quietly seething Egyptian sojourning in the United States—the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Qutb’s gripes about America require serious attention because they cast light on a question that has been nagging since the fall of the World Trade Center: Why do they hate us?
I quote the first two paragraphs as a teaser:
Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States, where he attended a small teachers college on the Great Plains. Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950 was the last place one might think to look for signs of American decadence. Its wide streets were dotted with churches, and there wasn’t a bar in the whole temperate town. But the courtly Qutb (COO-tub) saw things that others did not. He seethed at the brutishness of the people around him: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.”
Such grumbling by an unhappy crank would be almost comical but for one fact: a direct line of influence runs from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, and to bin Laden’s Egyptian partner in terror, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From them, the line continues to another quietly seething Egyptian sojourning in the United States—the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Qutb’s gripes about America require serious attention because they cast light on a question that has been nagging since the fall of the World Trade Center: Why do they hate us?
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Lost community
Reminiscing with family over the weekend, we suddenly realized that a childhood ritual has passed, killed by technology. Back in the days when watching a movie at home meant network television (how many here remember having only three channels?), there were a number of annual movie events everyone watched- the Wizard of Oz, for example. How many millions of children were simultaneously sitting still across the country? How many disposable skillets of Jiffy-Pop were popped at the same moment? And you knew everyone else was doing the same thing, too- the sense of community was inescapable. Not that it was always joyous community- I, and all my brothers, and all my male friends from childhood remember the agonies of Gone With the Wind- 37 straight hours (or so it seemed) of truly wretched boredom inflicted by parents, relieved only by memorizing snide comments to share with fellow prisoners the next day. None the less, it was still palpable community- now replaced by DVDs.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
To do, or not to do
At my small group meeting last night, we discussed the possibility of holding spirituality classes as a service to the church at some future date. After all, who better knows what's lacking than the people who felt that lack so strongly they formed a small group around it? Most of the obligations I've assumed over the years have had that motivation- I'm the one who complained; it's only just I be the one to fix it. But now in middle age, finding myself stretched ever thinner, I'm beginning to question that ethic. I want a better cheeseburger than the one served across the street from work at lunch, too- does that obligate me to open a diner? Where is the balance?
At what point should I in fact step forward and fix it myself, and at what point am I justified in just demanding people do their jobs better? On one hand, I've been disgusted all my life by people who are always demanding more and better services, but have never worked an election or done a minute of volunteer work in their lives- I don't want to even be in the same port city as they, let alone the same boat. On the other hand, I have a recurring nightmare I call "Salems Lot", because in it I'm the only human in a world on vampires, and they know it, and won't let me die. I must find the balance between seeing myself as a whiner and draining myself into Salems Lot.
At what point should I in fact step forward and fix it myself, and at what point am I justified in just demanding people do their jobs better? On one hand, I've been disgusted all my life by people who are always demanding more and better services, but have never worked an election or done a minute of volunteer work in their lives- I don't want to even be in the same port city as they, let alone the same boat. On the other hand, I have a recurring nightmare I call "Salems Lot", because in it I'm the only human in a world on vampires, and they know it, and won't let me die. I must find the balance between seeing myself as a whiner and draining myself into Salems Lot.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Why I love UU
Those who remember my many forum posts and debates may well have gotten the impression that I have problems with UU. Well, it’s way past time to correct that impression. Fact is I do have problems with the UUA- but I love UU. To explain why, I must discuss what a religion is.
A religion is not what is stated in the dictionary: a set of beliefs. That is a creed; indeed, in some dictionaries the first definition of both words is identical... which would render one of them superfluous. A religion is also a way of life, a culture, a set of standards to live up to. Religion is the counselor of first choice, the arbiter between your mind and soul, your ego and id. A religion is what you live by. “The show must go on”- that is a religious statement. There was a beer commercial in which an instrument maker is lavishing attention on the inside of a guitar he’s building. His friend asks why he’s bothering- no one would ever know. The craftsman takes a swig of his beer and answers, “I will know.” That’s a religious statement. If you can’t prove it, but you know in your heart that it’s true, and are willing to change the way you live your life because of that knowledge, it is your religion.
Most religions come as a complete kit. There may be some work involved reading the texts, coming to understand your chosen religion, but it’s all there, in a neat package, ready to use. And in fact if your choice is one of the half dozen main stream religions, you don’t even have to do that much- merely growing up in the Western Hemisphere gives you a functional understanding purely by osmosis. If you need help, a near infinite amount is available instantly; if you can afford to wait, just sit there and help will literally knock on your door. But what happens if you can’t accept the whole set? What happens if you know, with an internal conviction that transcends rational argument, that parts of that kit are missing, or wrong?
Some leave the church. Some stay in their church for the camaraderie, while denying the basic precepts their comrades believe. Others will strike out on their own, trying to figure out what their religion, their creed, their code truly is- that was my path. I spent 20 years conducting my search alone, until I was invited to services at All Souls, Indianapolis. Just being inside a church again reminded me of what I had given up to be true to my internal vision- the fellowship that I had tried to fill my need for with social organizations. I braced myself for the parts of the creed and practices I couldn’t swallow, the ones that would drive me out of yet another church.
And I didn’t find them. I found a church with a covenant right there on the wall in foot-high letters that promised to assist me in my personal search for truth. I found a minister and DRE who lived up to the promise, with fascinating sermons (selling printed copies is a standard fundraiser) and intriguing extracurricular programs. I found printed materials and a long history of reference works as well. Yes, I also found old-line humanists with spittle-flying fulminations against “God-talk”... but I also found other members who would bring things in to church that they thought might interest me. I have since been to enough other congregations to know how lucky I was to find just what I needed at my first visit... but I also know that although many UU congregations would not have suited me, there is no possibility that any other denomination could have. And in the end, that is what I love about UU: whether it be despite or because of the abysmal leadership, it has enough looseness around the edges to allow a bunch of contrarian Hoosiers to create exactly the congregation I needed, the congregation no other denomination would tolerate. That alone is enough for me to love UU.
A religion is not what is stated in the dictionary: a set of beliefs. That is a creed; indeed, in some dictionaries the first definition of both words is identical... which would render one of them superfluous. A religion is also a way of life, a culture, a set of standards to live up to. Religion is the counselor of first choice, the arbiter between your mind and soul, your ego and id. A religion is what you live by. “The show must go on”- that is a religious statement. There was a beer commercial in which an instrument maker is lavishing attention on the inside of a guitar he’s building. His friend asks why he’s bothering- no one would ever know. The craftsman takes a swig of his beer and answers, “I will know.” That’s a religious statement. If you can’t prove it, but you know in your heart that it’s true, and are willing to change the way you live your life because of that knowledge, it is your religion.
Most religions come as a complete kit. There may be some work involved reading the texts, coming to understand your chosen religion, but it’s all there, in a neat package, ready to use. And in fact if your choice is one of the half dozen main stream religions, you don’t even have to do that much- merely growing up in the Western Hemisphere gives you a functional understanding purely by osmosis. If you need help, a near infinite amount is available instantly; if you can afford to wait, just sit there and help will literally knock on your door. But what happens if you can’t accept the whole set? What happens if you know, with an internal conviction that transcends rational argument, that parts of that kit are missing, or wrong?
Some leave the church. Some stay in their church for the camaraderie, while denying the basic precepts their comrades believe. Others will strike out on their own, trying to figure out what their religion, their creed, their code truly is- that was my path. I spent 20 years conducting my search alone, until I was invited to services at All Souls, Indianapolis. Just being inside a church again reminded me of what I had given up to be true to my internal vision- the fellowship that I had tried to fill my need for with social organizations. I braced myself for the parts of the creed and practices I couldn’t swallow, the ones that would drive me out of yet another church.
And I didn’t find them. I found a church with a covenant right there on the wall in foot-high letters that promised to assist me in my personal search for truth. I found a minister and DRE who lived up to the promise, with fascinating sermons (selling printed copies is a standard fundraiser) and intriguing extracurricular programs. I found printed materials and a long history of reference works as well. Yes, I also found old-line humanists with spittle-flying fulminations against “God-talk”... but I also found other members who would bring things in to church that they thought might interest me. I have since been to enough other congregations to know how lucky I was to find just what I needed at my first visit... but I also know that although many UU congregations would not have suited me, there is no possibility that any other denomination could have. And in the end, that is what I love about UU: whether it be despite or because of the abysmal leadership, it has enough looseness around the edges to allow a bunch of contrarian Hoosiers to create exactly the congregation I needed, the congregation no other denomination would tolerate. That alone is enough for me to love UU.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Catch up potpourri
The first meeting of our new small groups ministry went far beyond my most sanguine hopes. As I did not recognize most of the names on the list, I had feared that they were just the very people I had been avoiding at church, the ones I had heard making so many hateful or annoying comments over the years. As it turned out, there was another reason why I didn't recognize the names- they never came to service on Sunday! These were "newsletter members", people who had grown disenchanted and stopped coming, but were still on the newsletter mailing list. All of them had been attracted to this group because the description had included, at the end, " general interest, spirituality." It seems they had first come to our church on the reputation that UU was where you went to explore spirituality- and then found everything but the spirituality they had come for. Two of them even had stories similar to mine, about raising spiritual questions within earshot of older humanist members who sneered at the "God talk". Naturally, when one of the groups mentioned spirituality, they signed up. Just like I did. I think this is going to be fun!
**********
On Feb 1st those of us on the UUA emailing list got the official reaction to the confirmation of Justice Alito. It seems we UUs are responsible for the closeness of the vote. No, really, they said so! How did we manage that? "Through the hearings and other public means, the UUA and our coalition partners helped elevate the importance of serious legal issues surrounding this nomination. The national dialogue that resulted asked very timely questions regarding the scope of presidential authority and individual civil liberties." Isn't that wonderful? Nobody asked any questions until we stepped forward and showed the way! That reminds me of the story of the man who stood around snapping his fingers. "Why are you doing that?" he was asked. "Chasing away tigers". "Don't be ridiculous," he was told. "Don't see any tigers, do ya?" he replied.
Of course, the sheer vileness of Alito forced our hand: "A Zogby poll released on Sunday, January 29, found that 100% of African Americans surveyed opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito." In my innocence, I might have thought the proper response to that claim would have been "100%?!?! Are you kidding? Who'd you survey, the guys in the cubicles on either side of you? Why, you can't even get 100% African American agreement on the use of the term 'African American'!" But no, wiser heads than I in Boston took it at face value, and were inspired to try for the Bram Stoker award for clumsiest sentence structure in the newsletter category: "Striving for accountability and demonstrating, by our action and our word, our belief that all people are equal is one concrete way Unitarian Universalists can make a belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person not only a religious principle but a religious practice."
**********
My vote for best Super Bowl commercials: The colt thinking he's pulling the Budweiser wagon while the adults are behind pushing, and Leonard Nimoy taking an arthritis pill so he can make the "Spock" hand sign for a convention.
**********
Yassir Arafat embezzling money meant for Palestinian refugees. Royal families of several countries being billionaires while their countrymen literally starve in the streets. Chattel slavery, debt slavery, and sexual slavery- not to mention sexual mutilation. Saddam building 80 palaces with "oil for food" money while his people die for lack of fresh water or medicine. None of these things were worth protesting, but a newspaper cartoon printed in another country is worth killing for. Hmmm. Less rational than the Unabomber, perhaps, but more logical than Michael Moore. I think it rates a solid "Howard Dean".
**********
On Feb 1st those of us on the UUA emailing list got the official reaction to the confirmation of Justice Alito. It seems we UUs are responsible for the closeness of the vote. No, really, they said so! How did we manage that? "Through the hearings and other public means, the UUA and our coalition partners helped elevate the importance of serious legal issues surrounding this nomination. The national dialogue that resulted asked very timely questions regarding the scope of presidential authority and individual civil liberties." Isn't that wonderful? Nobody asked any questions until we stepped forward and showed the way! That reminds me of the story of the man who stood around snapping his fingers. "Why are you doing that?" he was asked. "Chasing away tigers". "Don't be ridiculous," he was told. "Don't see any tigers, do ya?" he replied.
Of course, the sheer vileness of Alito forced our hand: "A Zogby poll released on Sunday, January 29, found that 100% of African Americans surveyed opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito." In my innocence, I might have thought the proper response to that claim would have been "100%?!?! Are you kidding? Who'd you survey, the guys in the cubicles on either side of you? Why, you can't even get 100% African American agreement on the use of the term 'African American'!" But no, wiser heads than I in Boston took it at face value, and were inspired to try for the Bram Stoker award for clumsiest sentence structure in the newsletter category: "Striving for accountability and demonstrating, by our action and our word, our belief that all people are equal is one concrete way Unitarian Universalists can make a belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person not only a religious principle but a religious practice."
**********
My vote for best Super Bowl commercials: The colt thinking he's pulling the Budweiser wagon while the adults are behind pushing, and Leonard Nimoy taking an arthritis pill so he can make the "Spock" hand sign for a convention.
**********
Yassir Arafat embezzling money meant for Palestinian refugees. Royal families of several countries being billionaires while their countrymen literally starve in the streets. Chattel slavery, debt slavery, and sexual slavery- not to mention sexual mutilation. Saddam building 80 palaces with "oil for food" money while his people die for lack of fresh water or medicine. None of these things were worth protesting, but a newspaper cartoon printed in another country is worth killing for. Hmmm. Less rational than the Unabomber, perhaps, but more logical than Michael Moore. I think it rates a solid "Howard Dean".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)