GOP And Taxes

Just to get people to think about just how damn difficult this tax and budget business is going to get, I'd like to propose this:
Getting the GOP to agree to tax increases on the rich and not gutting social security and medicaid/medicare is like trying to get a Fundamentalist Christian to acknowledge Evolution or one of you to become an entirely different religion.

You are not dealing with facts and numbers here, you're dealing with a religion.  You can't go so far as to call it an ideology because of the faith backed nature of it.  Listen up, the Earth was not created six thousand years ago and supply side economics does not work.  Neither of them works because they ignore reality and facts in favor of faith.  Now why in the hell supply side has become a religion is way beyond me, but then Creationism is also.  Now I suppose that since there have been a couple books around for thousands of years that talked about the Garden there is some damned excuse for Creationism still being around, but for Cripes Sake this supply side nonsense only has St Ronnie, not God on its side.

None of that matters because it still is a religion and pushing the GOPers out of it is going to take a hell of a lot more than being nice to them.  What it is going to take is a choice between damnation and survival - most of them are way too big of cowards to chose martyrdom.  Now, you figure out what that is going to take.  Mr President and fellow Dems?

Too Bad God Forgot Intelligence

It seems some folks are mad at Dr Pepper. The Doctor made the egregious error of using the word Evolution in a rather silly Internet ad. It really is a shame that a corporate behemoth (encouraged no doubt by Obama) has kicked the snot right out of religious freedom violating all sorts of... I don't know, somethings.

I suppose that you can deny the clear trail of evolutionary evidence in fossils and existing species by making some sort of deal about the word Theory - but you know the Theory of Gravity doesn't mean we'll all float off the earth if we quit praying.  There is always the issue that Jesus stuck to the Earth (well there is the water thing) ((oh damn, I can feel my feet getting light)) and dinosaurs... well opinions differ between people riding them and Satan planting fossils.  A whole chain of oddity crops up once Evolution becomes the Satan's Tool.  If science finds something that doesn't match the exact words of a Holy Book it is Satan interfering with belief.

Some of this derives from the inability of even educated people to understand that words frequently have more meaning than the simplest interpretation or definition and that gets even more complicated once they're strung together into, you know, phrases or sentences.  There is a rule about those red octagonal signs that say STOP and if you don't follow it you can get into some trouble - maybe real bad trouble.  Now, it says STOP but there is something else involved - an understanding that it isn't all you're supposed to do, otherwise every one of those would be a trap where people starved because they never moved; yeah, "then GO" is missing from the sign.  The point being that absolute literal interpretation of words is... STUPID.

Language is a complicated thing for a couple reasons and the first is pretty simple to grasp - there is an absolute upper limit of the number of words we can function with so they will cover more ground than is absolutely simple.  Then there is the little matter of language also being a thing of beauty and art - a piece of marble on the side of a mountain is a simple plain thing but in the hands of a sculptor it can become a thing of beauty and art and language is just that.  I have to acknowledge that in my hands language is a pretty plain thing, but in the hands of some it becomes beautiful and magnificently expressive - it is art.

The idea of the literal interpretation of Holy Books is that the words are extremely limited in function, that those "divinely inspired" authors trying to communicate a basis of spirituality were that limited in their capacity.  Plainly said, it means that God has no artistry with words. God, creator of a Universe, is that limited.  I don't ascribe to any of those Books, but... WTF?

"God created man in his image," means... um, what exactly?  I sure the hell don't look much like my neighbor so literally one of us can't be that image or, hmmm - any of us?  Speaking of literal, we've already strayed way off the limits, so something more is meant.  Since the can of worms is opened then where we're at is self-imposed limits on the artistry involved and that starts to get to the issue of intelligence... or lack there of.

OK, I really don't care - but these people are so insistent on imposing their stupidity on the rest of us that even a goddam Presidential election starts to revolve around their complete and utter inability to understand their own damn Book and artistry.  Folks, we may be seriously screwed here...

Romney And God And Lies?

For someone who doesn't claim any religion and is pretty darn sure no religion would claim him; I know a bit about the various Gods.  One of the things that is pretty clear about all of them is that they don't like lies or the lying liars that tell them - there is some debate about whether non-adherents deserve equal treatment under their God.  Mr r-Money and his campaign and the GOPers make a really big deal about being all Godly.  I'm perfectly willing to let them claim their variants on Gods and leave it go... assuming they let me do so.

I'm pretty sure that all these claimants to Christianity are aware that their God doesn't make exceptions for exigencies like campaign polling deficits.  Now the fact that I don't like liars a bit has nothing to do with a God, it has a lot to do with their inclusion in a list of liars, cheats, and thieves and that liars are generally engaging in the rest of the lists actions.  I don't claim to know why Gods don't like lying but they don't.  r-Money doesn't seem to much care about those Gods opinions regarding lying and today is another example when the Egyptian Embassy did NOT apologize to its attackers.

Hey God, the President did not apologize to attackers, he did not loosen welfare work requirements, he did not raise your taxes, he does not want to take you off our coins, or several other things Your Candidate has said.  How about you do some of that smiting?  No shit, if you're all concerned about what's going on in this nation maybe you ought to get with the program like the GOPers insist you will.  I'm not suggesting lightning bolts are necessary, how about a bad rash or maybe an uncontrollable gag reflex upon lying?

OK, how about I just quit snarking and get to the point?  You r-Money supporting theocracy fluffers are total and complete hypocritical pieces of... stuff.   There's not much I can say to most of the rest of the r-Money bunch since they don't claim all that Godly stuff other than they're idiots or mean natured bigoted sons a bitches... oh hell, why am I being so nice?

Pantie Sniffers

Mormonism isn't supposed to be an issue and neither is Catholicism or any other Christian-ism. (careful about the other -isms) It might not be minus all the pantie sniffing the GOP has gotten up to. Now I'm not under-emphasizing the "Evangelic" distaste for the Mormons but that is only a slice of the electorate. The problem the candidates for President have is that the GOP has ignored the economy other than to plump for the 0.1% I know the current theme is the one percenters but the GOP is really about that one tenth. What the GOP in States and in the Congress have concentrated on is cultural warfare which in the end boils down to GOD.

Santorum is, of course, way out ahead of the rest of his pack on the god thing and strident religiosity, ie Catholicism. Our favorite salamander, Newt, isn't far behind. But you have to leave it to Multiple Mitt to decide that Rush Limbaugh used the wrong words to slime most women in the US over sex. He stands on stage with his wife and his multiple Mitt clones glorying in his wealthy ability to provide all those kids with millions of dollars while ordinary folks sweat car insurance for one kid. He can afford to ignore birth control (I have no idea if his wife has enjoyed all that birthing) and stick to some cult like bullshit and decide Rush used the "wrong words."

Mitt may not be real comfortable in the cultural warrior armor but that sure isn't because he's some closeted liberal. Oh, he is those guys - he just doesn't enjoy trying to force it on the folks who've given Mormonism a miss (well, deceased baptisms to the side). Don't misunderstand, Mittens is all for the junk Rick and the rest are gleeful about, it is just beneath him to grin while shoving it down the rube's throats but he'd sign such bills in a heartbeat.

If you're thinking the President is in a walk away or that the down-ticket is assured, there was a character known as Pollyanna. You may already be real tired of this crap, I know I am - but it is just warming up. The GOP is not going away and they're not heading toward increased sanity. There is a difference between being disappointed by Democrats and being horrified by GOPers. Lesser of two evils doesn't exactly do that justice.

Slut Solidarity

I guess it's time for me to out myself as a slut. I admit it, I've had sex for something other than procreation. There. I said it. I'm willing to cast myself into the pool of co-eds and all the others who've had sex for some reason other than procreation.

Now, never mind that what Ms Fluke was testifying to was medical remediation use of contraceptives as opposed to sex at the drop of a hat use. You see, I don't give a damn - women's health issues are women's health issues, whether it involves medical prevention of disorders or simply prevention of pregnancy. It is not the employers' business exactly why a woman proposes to use contraceptives, not in the least. It is not for a couple of reasons. It is not their body. The insurance is a part of compensation for work. The employer is in business, regardless of their ideas of sex, not in the business of religion. If Catholics and others want to have a say about what their people do, they have a pulpit and the alternative of getting the hell out of business. A hospital may have the adjective Catholic appended to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the business of being a hospital.

As for the MORAL STANDING of Catholic Bishops - let's just talk a bit about cover-ups of child sex abuse in just about the same breath as other employees.

Law, Morality, and Relgion

It is frequently asserted that laws are moral and that religion has a hand in that. Sometimes this gets mixed up in the concept that without religion there is no morality. This idea is understandable, no religion will last that creates social conditions that end in disorder and chaos, which means that any lasting religion will set out codes of behavior that result in some sort of social comity.

Governments that aren't a religion have a similar goal, social comity and lack of disorder and chaos. Having common goals often results in similar restrictions and requirements. A religion that teaches that murder is against the teachings and rules of the deity is certainly increasing social comity and decreasing disorder and chaos and it calls that stricture morality (god-given morality). A government concerned with social comity and lack of disorder and chaos will also place restrictions on murder, it requires no deity to do so, nor even morality - it is simple self-interest and survival for it to do so.

Governments have a couple tools at hand to achieve the ends of order and comity, punishment and reward, generally monetary or physical. Because a government deals with the temporal and worldly it really can't count on a deity to take immediate care of those rewards and punishments. It will deal with malefactors in a temporal manner, taking their money, their freedom, or their lives and do so with force. The tools the government has are abjectly amoral, it will force you rather than appeal to your "better nature." Once a law is established you are not asked about it, you are told and that telling is backed up by force. Compelling is not about morality, it is not an appeal to morality, it is not backed by morality, it is plainly unconcerned with the entire concept.

You can certainly build a government around damn near any document the populace will bear, holy books or other concepts of order and comity but once that is done the whole affair becomes at best amoral. It is popular to call Nazi Germany evil and immoral and the behavior of individuals involved does offend most of us at a moral level. That government wasn't destroyed because it was amoral or immoral, it was destroyed because it failed the basic goals of order and comity. It failed them internally and more importantly, internationally. The wholesale slaughter of a citizenry is not order, it is force at ferocious levels and it has nothing to do with comity.

There certainly is a moral component to the idea of slavery, it offends a basic empathy. As a feature of government it fails on another level, it certainly has nothing to do with comity for the subjected group and fails as order in the face of the resistance of that group to subjugation and the need for extreme force to maintain it. It is easy to forget that order requires very broad agreement or extreme force and extreme force is in itself disorder if applied at all broadly. It is certainly extreme force when a police officer shoots an armed robber, but that level of force is applied individually and rarely.

Drug laws are frequently put forward as a moral issue dealt with by law. It is pretty easy to track the success of those laws. Drugs certainly do have effects on comity and order, getting run over by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver is real in terms of order as are deaths from overdoses or psychological consequences. These outcomes are entirely separate from the morality of drug usage and because drugs are treated differently than the issue demands for comity and order the laws fail. Tremendous amounts of enforcement result in huge incarceration figures and huge profits for avoiding the laws leading to disorder and enmity afflicting entire communities.

It is entirely reasonable to have a moral code that aligns with laws and to wish to conduct a life in accordance with or in excess of law, it another thing to think that those laws are moral or religious. Through out history there have been governments that operated under cover of morality or religion, enforcing dogma as law. In the shorter term when their populations are homogenous they tend to be pretty efficient at keeping themselves in power. Over time they become increasingly forceful with their populations which fails the goals of comity and order and finally results in failure. The time scales of failure have accelerated through out history progressing through millenia to centuries to decades. Minus the intervention of outside interests, Iran should prove an interesting test case.

Hell, the US may prove interesting in that regard.

Satanic Influences

You'd need a pretty large ruler to measure my incredulity that as a part of political dialogue in this country I'd be addressing this as any more than a remote historical reference. There are a couple things in religious mythos that I find real offensive and at the risk of offending sensitive sensibilities I'm going to name them.
Santa God - the granter of wishes with a list
The Exclusive Club God - gotta say the right words right omnipotent creator of universes
Satan

The King of Lies, Deceiver of Kings, the ultimate evil, that guy - Satan is my target... because that's the title.(I learned with "Harley Porn" not to kid with titles) It would seem that the US of A is being targeted by this character, really, somebody semi-important said so.(in front of god and everybody) This Satan personage is the flip cover of Santa God. He is an active malevolent actor in the world with a list. He has his favorites and those he'd destroy and he can be brought to play by wishes. If certain people are to be believed he's pretty good at his job.

Sorry, I just don't buy into this blame game, this personification of a concept like evil. If God is good he must have an opposite, like light and dark because... well because. Some of this follows from the "Exclusive Club God" concept because you cannot be good without the right God and the right Words, it just doesn't matter what you do or try - you're wrong if you do it otherwise. This puts an onus on God, he can't be the source of evil since he's the good so somebody else has to bear the burden. Never mind that means that either God created or tolerates (because of an oops) EVIL in person of Satan. I know there are all kinds of stories about how this came to be - that's the short version.

I get along with the idea of a Creator because it works for me, nothing fancy to be found there, just that. I don't mind metaphors about evil, about the impulses of us to be small, to be greedy, to be murderous, to be... Folks, if I talk about my "bad side" I assure you that I am nowhere schizophrenic to think that there's other little rat bastard residing in my consciousness. I'm talking about a desire to not do things the hard way, to not have to put myself out not some cartoon horned guy standing on my left shoulder whispering in my ear. Whatever I do requires some time, energy, and some kind of thought and I don't just want to increase that. After all, I started out as the ultimately selfish and self-concerned being there is - a baby. From that start I began to learn and that's the part, right there, that counts.

I learned that I wasn't the only one that was hungry and I already knew I didn't like being hungry - I had discovered that those other shapes were not there simply for my benefit, that they existed as separate humans - and they might not like being hungry either. That learning process applied across the board creates a moral set which is based most firmly on the recognition that I am not the center, that I share reality with others who are similarly constructed. That learning can get broken or shorted or a lot of things that result in behaviors that reflect something entirely different. What I'm doing is using a lot of words for one, empathy.

A society cannot allow a mental defect that results in bad outcomes to remain unchecked. A society won't work if indiscriminate killing is allowed, it simply won't hang together. That is an entirely different question than the one of a moral set that proposes killing is wrong and prohibited by that empathy thing. We teach soldiers to suspend that empathy in warfare where its degree interferes with the mission. There are consequences to this suspension, we seem to agree it is worth it.

Jesus (and others) put it pretty clearly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." More words meaning empathy. God and rituals are not required for empathy, it is a natural understanding of humans existing, but it does require work to keep it in effect and in actions. Because effort is tightly bound to survival we do not lightly increase it any more than a mountain lion goes looking for a fight to get dinner. Because we're not mountain lions we're capable of placing an abstract above some considerations and that varies wildly. It doesn't require a Satan to place empathy behind other considerations, all it takes is a lack of willingness or a mental defect.

Sometimes people are broken in ways we really don't understand and even when we understand something like a brain injury, we don't quite know how they get there. We know that brains can have their wiring scrambled or chemicals missing resulting in undesirable behaviors. Before we knew some of those things about outwardly human people it was assumed some spiritual, some invisible influence must be at work.

Religions would cease to exist without followers, Greek mythology is practically speaking extinct. The connection between the followers and hierarchy was broken, for a lot of reasons, but it was broken. Religions are hierarchical, there are the deities, then there are the books/words, then there are the interpreters, and then there are the faithful. The structure collapses if that hierarchy isn't maintained and there are methods for ensuring that it does. Fear is the most common because it is easiest. One of the first things we learned was that pain was to be avoided and the assertion that disobedience will lead to pain is real effective. Most of us learned that absences of pain didn't mean happiness, but not being happy beat the heck out of pain so the absence of "glory" won't quite do to keep the troops in line. The something more involves stuff like lakes of fire presided over by the natural deity of disobedience - evil personified, our guy Satan. It was a stroke of genius or maybe necessity to make the disciplinarian and source of disobedience or lack the same guy. Keep in mind that maintaining that hierarchy requires exclusivity, if something outside that club works, all those pieces are unnecessary. A whip hand is required and Satan wields it. My choices are join the right club or be whipped.

So it is that a nation's government that concerns itself with the worldly and temporal order of its citizens without religious strictures is in violation. It is under the sway of the guy with the whip.

...No Religious Test...

According to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a qualification for office that depends on religion. Now, to be quite accurate, that is a matter of law rather than whatever stupidity appeals to voters. Today we seem to think that the fact that a Mormon actually thinks he has a shot at the Presidency means something.

Ahem.

So what? Let's fire up that Way Back Machine for just a damn second. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. These Christian voters wouldn't recognize that "faith" as anything in the least similar to what they ingest as Christianity.

The GOP and enough others have ginned up a new religion out of whole cloth. They call it Secular Humanism. I don't know what the hell that is as far as doctrines and something to kneel to or pray to. I do know what secular means and I can even get to a definition:
1

a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal
A relationship to a god is completely missing in this definition and seems to abrogate the idea of a religion. Now maybe "humanism" is some sort of qualifier that makes it work. The American Humanist Association has this to say:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity
I don't get it. No god and no rituals and nothing having to do with worship and this is a religion? For pete's sake, Communism at least bothered to replace god with something, the State. Atheists have a belief or faith that there is "no god." I'd guess that what these "Secular Humanist" brayers are going on about is that somebody doesn't think their books and rituals are the be all and end all.

No, that really isn't what it's about. What it is about is that when their religion doesn't define legislation it must have been replaced by another. Somehow the idea that the Government's concerns really are "worldly or temporal" seems to have escaped them. Government is supposed to be somehow "right" with god which means that if the government concerns itself exclusively with "worldly and temporal" matters it must be using another religion in place of theirs. Humans being fallible and all, something must inform them.

That is the place where it all falls apart. I don't really have any idea how many religions there are or how many fractured pieces any one of them has; but it really ought to be pretty clear that there are a whole lot of opinions on that matter and that must mean that some pretty damned fallible humans are involved. That means that the fact that a government depending on fallible humans is an irretrievable proposition even if we go with their theocracy.

I really don't give a rat's patoot about your religion or lack of one, I do very much give a damn about being left alone in that regard. I don't want your religion. I also do not want my government doing the power seeking of getting "right" with god, nor do I want it messing about with you getting there.

Red Beanies Double Down, Not Boys... This Time

The President's announced policy regarding contraceptive coverage went considerably less far than I'd have cared for. My stance is that if Catholics don't like having rules applied to them that apply to all other employers the choice is simple - get the hell out of business - business ain't religion. That, or if it is that holy a damn deal then surely they can do it with volunteers from their godly flock. Now, let's be real frank with each other - not a snow ball's chance in hell volunteers are gonna do it.

Well now, the Bishop boys have news for you folks who thought this was about stepping on some Church toes.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

What is included in this mess is buried in the middle " secular for-profit employers" which is the real kicker. What they want your to understand is that no Catholic who doesn't want to should have to offer this coverage. That would surely mean that no Catholic should be paying any taxes that are paying for capital punishment or wars or... hell, if the Jesus words got used seriously as quoted... I think you can figure it out. They are to be exempt from rules because... well, because they're special. You know how special they are? They're so goddam special that they ran a cover-up of pedophilia because the laws requiring disclosure of such knowledge didn't count. Because ... well because, well hardly any Catholics engage in such behavior, but not so infrequently once you get to the elites. It is almost the same deal with contraceptives - the elites are engaging in something pretty foreign to their parishoners. That's it, the parishoners don't bugger alter boys and they do use contraceptives and the Bishops...? You do have to be a Priest before you can get to be a Bishop.

The Church of Chuck wants the same deal, I get to tell any rule I don't agree with to step off. Not a cent for wars, for executions, for drug wars, for any damn thing other than infrastructure and social programs. I'll run my business any way I damned well please and if they don't like it - I'll just appeal to the Final Authority ... Prophet Chuck. To be clear, there are a whole lot of religions around and I think that's just fine - I just don't happen to buy into any of them... well except for the afore mentioned one, the REAL DEAL. Don't worry too much, the REAL DEAL is fine with you getting into heaven or whatever despite your heathenish beliefs.

(sometimes I'm just kidding around, sometimes I'm really not)

BTW Bishops, you have about as much moral authority as some things I've found stuck on the bottom of my boot.

The Catholic Cross To Bear - Sex Again

The American Catholic Church is in an uproar because the Government has told them that they along with the other businesses covered by ACA have to get health insurance that covers contraception. They want a religious exemption because their version of god doesn't like ... well women having sex without babies. You know, bumping the dirty parts together without the consequences of child birth.

Well here's the deal, the Catholic Church wants to engage in commerce and yet remain outside the rules of commerce. Now they call it conscience, but what is it that stops me from putting together The Church of Libertarianism and making one of the tenets of my profit Paul that I don't have to serve ni***rs or maybe that building codes are a matter of conscience or... You see, I don't get to because I'm engaged in an act of commerce and it is damn bad policy to let that... just go hang.

Well, the Catholic Church has been around for a real long time and it isn't just some made up... thing. Prove it isn't. Show me how their infallible word of god exempts this behavior and they don't still get to run the Inquisition. Go ahead and show me how it is that my working for one business rather than an other makes me a second class citizen. There isn't a damn thing in the ruling that says that any one of those employees is required to use any one of those products.

Well, you could work for another hospital... You sure could, if you didn't live here, you could unless you need to drive 45 miles through the mountains to get to the nearest non-Catholic hospital. Hey, well qualified RN, you don't get insurance access to contraception here, but that RN that does the same job over in La Grande sure does - and try to like this, that person pulling boards on the mill line gets it. By law.

If you reeeaaaalllly don't like that doing business has rules, then get the hell out of business or do it all with volunteers. If you're really that favored by god you shouldn't have a bit of trouble finding them. They can ... stuff their conscience.

BTW, before this shakes out the Catholics won't be the only ones squealing. Do you suppose they'll include treatment for pedophilia in their policies?

The March Forward Into the Eighteenth Century

I've made it pretty clear that I don't believe in some formalized religious understanding of God. I've also made it pretty clear that I have seen benefits to people from religion and I've seen some pretty obvious deficits.

There are a lot of things that are called Theories in scientific terminology. This doesn't occur because there is any real doubt that the things referred to as Theories actually exist. There is a Theory of Gravity - oddly enough even though it is a Theory we remain stuck to the earth and fall when we're not. A whole lot of things happen that are explained by and continue to happen because that Theory works.

Calling something a Theory as a condemnatory term ought to fall on its face when made in favor of a faith based concept. It ought to because the Theory clearly works as a matter of science. That it works as a condemnation should concern anyone that doesn't want to go back to wearing sabre tooth tiger skins as a fashion statement or riding dinosaurs rather than driving an automobile.

Virtually every modern technological device finds its basis and development in one Theory or another, or several. Even this idea of a six thousand year old world is not something stated directly in the Bible it is taken from, it is a theory of some sorts derived from generational reckonings. Taken together with denial of evolution this stuff alone virtually completely undermines the scientific basis for the modern technological world.

That is the crux. People drive their cars to the church that denies they can work and like driving that car there. What they don't like is the social construct of this century which has grown up around the science and technology that created this century. Denying that science means that this century is misguided, that the eighteenth or whatever was correct. (or whatever may actually refer to some idealized 3rd century BC) It is plainly an attempt to theocratize science and government and a successful outcome is another Dark Ages. No Thanks.

Responsible Politics - Oh Sure... Scare 'Em Works

You'd think a nation with a basic document nearly universally nationally revered could manage to act in something like a reasonable manner regarding it. The basic law of this nation is the Constitution and its Amendments, the Declaration of Independence may pertain to its foundation but no other document pertains. First in order of the Amendments is the one that says that there will be freedom of religion in this nation. First.

There are a lot of quibbles about how much influence religion should have in governing, but there is not a bit of wiggle room regarding people's freedom to practice religion. Zoning laws cover matters like parking and traffic for any and all religions - there are not exceptions for a brand name.

I understand that the GOP loves it some wedge issues and frequently Democrats manage to not deal that. This one that the GOP has latched onto is irresponsible at the very least, and potentially quite dangerous. The fact that the dumbasses involved cannot separate religion from actions is quite telling and that they want to do something about a religion rather than actions is even more telling. Political advantage is small reason to muck around in the basic law of the nation and that they will play at it means that something is fundamentally wrong with such a group.

It seems that the Christians involved can't manage to wrap their heads around the idea that a religion that preaches peace can have followers who preach and practice violence. That's just a bit of a queer view point for them to hold. Distant and recent history are littered with examples of Christians (of some sort) doing serious violence. Not doing that in some minor manner, nasty murderous stuff done under the banner of their supposedly peaceful religion to those perceived to deserve it. Reason would get someone to a different result, but then reason isn't supposed to have anything to do with pumping such an issue. Fear is what is appealed to and that worked just fine for GWB; didn't it?

Basing a political party's future on fear rather than policies makes for real nasty politics. If you're willing to wear the brand of such people there isn't much I can say to you in a polite manner. This crap is the behavior of assholes and if you support such people that really does make you an asshole. If you don't like being insulted in such a manner then separate yourself from that kind of activity - don't bother complaining to me because I don't give a damn about your feelings in this. Confederate Party of Republicanism; well I guess so...*

* Their enablers in the other Party don't get any respect from me, either.

Mismanaging Catholicism

Posts like this one are difficult for me to write, I belong to no religion for my own good reasons and yet I recognize the force for good that religion can be - or stand in opposition to. Sometimes things can really go south and the crap will hit the fan and when it is religion it really sprays.

Every organization will have some people acting badly. The bad behaviour will probably reflect a focus or theme of that organization. If it were police, probably violence or money, politics would be influence or money - and on and on. The Catholic Church very much revolves around sex and youth and it is no real surprise that sex and youth are featuring in misbehaviour. That these bad actors are going to exist in any organization is sad and damn inevitable. All organizations have to face that and deal with it. Somebody is going to screw up real bad.

The fact of violence does not make all police violent assholes, it diminishes the standing of the majority who work at a rotten job for poor pay for the benefit of the citizenry and particularly reflects on organizations who try to bury it. The Catholic Church did not face the fact that there would be bad actors in its organization and that they needed to be dealt with - they just wanted it to go away. In the process they turned their backs on most of what they guy they venerate stood for and what they pray for. They also managed to become a part of crimes.

Many organizations are both hierarchical and paternalistic, top down driven with a "the bosses know best" philosophy. This can work well or badly depending on a lot of factors, but one thing is very sure to happen - if the management screws the pooch the first instinct is to protect the management. For an organization centered around moral behavior that can be a fatal failing.

Management in the case of Catholicism tossed aside the interests of its main focus in service of management and in the process has become criminal. An organization in this position has two options - break out a chainsaw and cut dead wood or double down. At this point, Catholicism is apparently doubling down. The really nasty aspect of this is that it turns it into an ongoing criminal conspiracy. I do not give a damn, one way or the other, about Catholicism but I do care about the people of good will and intent who practice it being put in this position by Management. I care that a criminally unsafe environment for children is created.

It begins to look to me as though it is time for The State to take this in hand with criminal investigation and prosecution.

Religion Trumps Health

Boy, don't get yourself into a Terri Schiavo position in a Catholic Hospital. You may think you've covered the ground with an Advanced Directive but...

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
58. In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the “persistent vegetative state”) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care.40

If you're bothered by this and particularly if your only hospital is a Catholic one then you might want to check Compassion and Choice. Those of you in urban areas might be surprised by being told that sometimes the only hospital is Catholic, well guess what.

Religion And Me

Since I've made a couple posts slamming theocratic impulses lately; I thought I ought to give some kind of back story so the color of my views is clear. I do not practice any religion, though I was raised in a fairly liberal version of Christianity. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times, Old and New Testament. I have read some of the history and teaching of several other religions. I don't practice them because I find their exclusivity and narrow rules contradictory to the idea of a Creator Of Universes. Real frankly, I don't find the faith of atheism that there is no god any more appealing than the faith that god writes the rules these religions adhere to.

I understand the difference between faith and reason and I have no problem with the practice of either or their melding. What I do have a problem with is the application of faith to others not concerned with it. I will not pretend to tell you anything about your faith or lack of it. I am quite willing to state that the words that are written down may contradict your version if you make it an issue with me. Since some sort of Christianity is the most common religion in this country its practice gets the lion's share of my criticism - that and it is the one I'm most familiar with.

Despite the radicalism and theocratic impulses of some people, religion has benefited a whole lot of people; they live better lives for it. One can take the excesses of any religion and the warfare and destruction waged under its cloak as definitive of that religion. That's scarcely honest. The fact that Catholicism participated in the Inquisition doesn't speak to Catholicism, it speaks to the misuse of religious power as it does with Islam or any other. The very fact of faith makes religion an extremely potent force and any time there is power available someone will go for it. That is about some people not the thing itself.

I don't find myself the least constrained in criticizing the spreaders of hate and the advocates of theocracy - whatever their religion or lack there of. If you do that I will cut you wide and deep. Brit Hume would be an asshole and jerk if he were an agnostic but when he tries to cover his jerk-itude with something as respectable as religion he's given me a huge green light to mock him unmercifully - right along with his employers.

My respect for you doesn't depend on your religious views, it depends on your behavior.

Proud To Be Right-Wing Extremist Today?

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot… So then, because you are lukewarm, I will vomit you out of My mouth." Revelation 3:15-16.

You might be a rightwing extremist if…You think killing unborn babies is wrong…You believe that the right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution…You think that people should not be rewarded for coming to America illegally…You dare to prepare for the global famine and other calamities predicted in the Bible…You believe that local and state solutions are superior to enlarging the federal bureaucracy or…You are a veteran who served your country.

So (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) that is my synopsis of a recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s recent report. Americans can appreciate a good joke, but this is no laughing matter. Our own government is calling biblical and conservative beliefs dangerously extreme and radical!

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report warning law enforcement officials nationwide about the dangers of ''right-wing extremism.'' The most jaw-dropping aspect of this report is that its definition of “right-wing extremist” applies to any conservative or value-centered person!

Actually, no that's not what it says. It does say that people like Dr Tiller's murderer and guard Johns' murderer exist and come from a lunatic fringe of right-wing extremism. You are certainly free to be whatever form of winger you choose right up until you advocate or use violence to further your ends. There are some Constitutional bars to things like Establishing A Religion. If you'd like to wear the mantle of those who advocate violence or commit it in the name of your view - so be it.

These folks love to point at Islam and particularly Islamic Extremists as modern day devils and don't seem to see their own claims as equivalent. The institution of Religious Law and extreme means to accomplish it are the goals of the group they demonize and it is different, how, from their own? It isn't even a matter of rhetorical lunacy, it only depends on which of the current versions you read or listen to. Oh to be sure, the deities are different and that piece is exactly as meaningless to this question as is the weather.

I'm a member of the left and while I could build imaginary scenarios requiring violent action in regards to the government but that includes the extinguishing of our form of government. I can't work up to extremism in rhetoric or even in philosophy. The right offers up entirely too many opportunities for criticism and mockery for me to need to go to extremism. They are easy.

It seems sad to have to point out to anyone that there is such a thing as dangerous extremism and mocking it will lead to juxtapositions like this one, Holocaust Museum murder and a Right-Wing Extremist membership card. Are you surprised that in the spirit of the preceding post I'll call you idiots? Shoot, that doesn't sound mean enough - assholes is better.

Bringing On The Hate

We've seen an upswing of hate crimes, whatever your thoughts about the legal term, crimes against people out of hate for their position in life. An abortion doctor, Tiller, wasn't killed because of domestic discord or a drinking bout gone bad, he was killed for his position in life. The guard at the Holocaust Museum was killed because of his position in life, as was the soldier at the Arkansas recruiting center. This isn't personal, it is random in the sense of their being no personal interaction between the parties.

It is probably an exercise in the obvious to question the sanity of these actors, not sanity in the legal defense sense, but in the ability to maintain reasoned behavior. It is not reasonable to kill or injure people because they hold a particular position in life. That position can be sexual orientation, race, occupation, or other impersonal relationship with the actors. There is a tie between the three killings I've referenced, and that tie is religion. It is in fact right wing religion that is in action.

Dr. Tiller was murdered by a hard core Christianist, Pvt. Long was killed by an Islamist loon, guard Steven Johns was killed by Jew hater. This is not to suggest that religion in itself is responsible for such behavior, but it is plain that extreme views of religion do have something to do with it. Another feature of the killings is their connection to the right, something they'll do their damnedest to lay a the feet of the left. They're stuck with Tiller's murder and while they'd like to lay tolerance for Islam as blame for the left they're stuck with the congruence between their theocratic base and the Islamic fundamentalists. Now we get to the neo-Nazis and the connection idiots like Goldberg make regarding the word socialist in National Socialist Party as they ignore that Hitler and associates essentially staged a coup to gain control of an existing organization and waged decimating warfare on those associated with socialism and communism to institute the type of torturing, imprisoning, law-and-order police state the rightwing loons now defend in this nation. Some right wing loons wear the Republican label and are actually elected officials but this isn't intended to label most Republicans with a Nazi uniform. (to be entirely fair the rightwing loons are also mimicking the Chinese Communists on torture)

Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are driving the Republicans and particularly the wingers to distraction. The elected members of the Party are going to rhetorical lengths of very debatable veracity, taste, and sense but the wingers are going well beyond that - to hate. The presence of the two segments in the same sentence is not an accident, they play off each other. The more egregiously hateful the rightwing nutcases get the farther the elected Rupublicns drift into their orbit and with that acceptance the farther the loons go. The entire mess that is today's Republican Party bears some responsiblity for this violence. Sane humans will not go on murder rampages because of intemperate rhetoric but a constant drumbeat of it will set off the crazies who are already aimed that direction.

Loons like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh may have audiences and may make good money as shock entertainers; but their comedy routines are just that - not politics. The Republican Party needs to learn that lesson and the lesson that by kowtowing to them they encourage them to go farther by legitimizing them. The American Taliban did not found this nation and they have no right to institute their religion and the Republican Party needs to be clear on this. The hate needs to be ramped down, it is entirely reasonable to oppose a political agenda on the part of elected officials, it is entirely another to engage in hate over it.

I know, tilting at windmills...

Confluence Of Circumstances

The other day while riding my old scooter home from the west side of the state I reflected while going through a curve that a set of events coming together at the proper time would be the end of me, despite my best efforts. It is a bit easier to see this when you are essentially naked at 65 miles per hour and flesh mangling objects are hurtling past at not much more than arm's length. This fact applies to much more than motorcycling.

All through our lives circumstances come together and create a reality that is counter to our plans, for good or ill. We have plans and we have ideas and yet a confluence of circumstances will drive our lives. Many of the cultural wars erupt from denial of this piece of life reality. Whatever ideas you may have about your children, abortion, gayness, ad infinitum are not it, and yet abortion and gayness and all the rest arrive into people's lives daily. Almost everyone knows intellectually that things happen, unforeseen and unplanned. But that happens to other people, not me.

Horseshit. Certainly men don't get pregnant, but someone in their life may and then the crapshoot starts. However that pregnancy occurred in planning, its happening alone is took quite a few factors coming together in rare confluence. Fortunately for the earth and humankind, conception isn't a foregone conclusion and from there it stays an iffy proposition, both physically and within the life situation of the mother and father. Pretending that one-size-fits-all is ludicrous and yet that is the debate.

People wind up gay. It happens and we all know it does because they exist. It isn't a part of anyone's plans to become a member of a despised minority. The fact that a majority of Americans don't despise them is small consolation in the face of the ones who do. Plans and ideas have nothing to do with it, a confluence of circumstances happened to someone and that's their life. We who were missed by it can't really understand but we don't have to in order to avoid actively making their lives miserable. It doesn't take an advanced degree in psychology to figure out that there are ways to avoid harming others, whether we understand them or not.

Pure stupid chance gave you a miss on having to deal with some issues and having to deal with others. It flatly doesn't matter if you were hit or missed by some confluence of circumstances, giving respect to those who were isn't a matter of having to experience their life. You don't get to be me and you don't have to live in my skin to be able to give me space to exist in relative happiness. It isn't about gods or books, or your personal experience in these areas, it is a matter of recognizing that life isn't predictable and has to be dealt with on its terms.

John Cole over at Balloon Juice pretty much nailed it with this line:

What this country really needs right now is a serious case of mind your own damned business. We’ve turned into a nation of busybodies and scolds, and people just need to back off.

MYOB isn't all that hard and takes a heck of a lot less energy than making it your business to make someones life more difficult. If these kinds of things aren't for you, don't do them. The fact that John Doe is gay or Jane Smith needs an abortion is about them, not you. Gay marriage and the termination of pregnancy and a whole lot of things involve no one but those participating in or dealing with it. Rather than screw with people's lives who have no effect on yours, sit down and shut the hell up while you reflect on the narrow miss a confluence of circumstances gave you.

Psychiatry And Scientology

Watch this and tell me who it is needs psychiatry? Or, better yet, if there isn't a good reason for this bunch to be afraid of it?




I don't care if you want to paint yourself blue and dance under oak trees or figure the apple and snake is a 6000 year old fact, not my deal, but don't expect me to take you seriously - either.

The Queers Are Damned

I find myself returning to this Warren at Inauguration issue with reluctance. I'm returning to it because so many people who I expect to be able to do political calculus seem unable to do so. I'm going to engage in a certain amount of "mind reading" here, but political analysis amounts to that anyhow.

Let's start out with something that ought to be clear to anyone who pays attention. You do not win arguments over religion. You do not get anywhere telling people that their religious beliefs are shit. A whole bunch of people hold a religious view that homosexuality is a sin and certainly would not be covered by their definition of marriage. That is a religious view. You might debate whether it is an accurate reflection of the Word or whether it is moral, or you could debate that endlessly and lose. Obama having Warren do the Invocation is an expression of respect for their religion.

Respect for a religion is not the same thing as endorsing its tenents as policy. In point of fact it can be quite useful in drawing a line of separation between church and state. It can be used to clearly state that "I don't want to undermine your religion, but the State has other concerns." If I were to wish to do something in the face of religious opposition I would want to first make it as clear as possible that it has nothing to do with religion.

Homosexuality is condemned in quite a few Holy Books as a sin and its practitioners are damned for doing so. If you want to take that as bigotry, then most Holy Books practice it. Just for starters Christians see any non-Christian as damned, queer or not. In Nazi Germany in the face of the government and their own religious teachings that Jews are damned Catholic priests rescued Jews, at real personal risk. Is that bigotry? They didn't change their religious teachings.

Whether I think Warren and Co are wrong about god is immaterial, I know they're wrong about the State's issues in marriage and concerning women and some others. I want that issue fought on my ground, the State's interests, not their ground of Religion. I seriously believe that Obama is doing exactly what is needed to take that fight forward. This is not an issue of validating Warren on State marriage, it is the first step in undercutting his influence in the State issue. It tells him that the State doesn't care if they damn the queers, but it has nothing to do with the State marrying them. It says I'm not going to try to do anything to your religion, but the State has its own interests, I'm willing to leave you alone and even respect you, but this is how it goes.

Many generals and many politicians have lost battles badly by fighting them on ground not of their choice. Lee got handed his head at Gettysburg by this alone. Obama is laying his ground game out. He's told people specifically that he is an advocate of gay rights, he's not going to tell the Religious Right and every other religion that they're being set up for a Gettysburg. I can easily do it here on this two-bit blog, who is going to pay any attention anyhow?

I've watched the short term black Senator beat the best political machines and now I'm watching people decide he's a political idiot. I'm pretty much astonished by it. I'm no enabler of bigotry, but I also am a left Democratic activist in a very red area and I like to win; so I have to pay attention. I know what ground I don't want to have fights on so I try to stay off of it. I have great respect for that ability in people who don't have it stuffed in their face repeatedly.

If you care that a religion damns you, I'd suggest changing religions. If you care that they talk about it, you're going to care for a long time. If you want the State to do something it would be a good idea to let the State be nice to religion while it ignores it. Or you could throw temper tantrums at Obama...