"Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools" – Albert Einstein
What's up with GOP politicians this week? First, Maine's GOP candidate for governor, Paul LePage tells a reporter that President Obama can "go to hell". Then, New York's GOP candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, threatens a reporter saying, "You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy." Is this a new GOP strategy? Call out somebody for a brawl in the street? Perhaps pay-per-view might want to consider adding a new feature for its fight-thirsty audience.
For quite some time, Republicans have been boasting of their success in tapping into voter anger, and look to make huge gains in this fall's elections as a result of that anger. Undoubtedly, GOP politicians like LePage and Paladino feel that exhibiting the 'angry tough guy' image will buoy their chances for success at the polls in November. They may be right, but all that anger they're stoking won't create a single job, balance the budget, pay off the national debt or make our country any safer from our angry enemies than it is today. In fact, that anger makes us more susceptible to attack from our angry domestic terrorists, many of whom are being fomented by the angry GOP rhetoric. I ought to add Tea Party to that sentence, but that would be redundant because, as Newt Gingrich previously noted, "The Tea Party is the militant wing of the GOP."
Einstein was a keen observer of life's fundamental forces of nature, as well as the relationship those forces had with one another. He recognized which forces built up and which forces tore down. He understood that which was positive and that which was negative, and so he knew what he was talking about when equating the notion of anger to fools.
If anger is all the GOP has to offer, the only question left to answer is this: Who's the bigger fool, the angry GOP politician or the angry voter who votes for him?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
PREJUDICE AND IGNORANCE
"Prejudice is the child of ignorance." ~William Hazlitt
It's not surprising that religious prejudice abounds in America today, and our collective ignorance on the subject of religion helps explain why. According to a survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Americans as a group fared poorly on a survey of questions testing general knowledge of all the world's major religions, including their own.
The Pew survey, a series of 32 questions covering tenets and facts about various religions, revealed that many Americans cannot identify the central teachings of the major world religions, their observances and their founders. Given that prejudice comes from the seeds of ignorance, it's easy to understand why religious prejudice flourishes in America.
We fear the unknown. We are hostile toward that which we do not understand and we all too frequently seek to stamp out anything that is not familiar to us. That is the very core of prejudice.
Ironically, the most knowledgeable on the subject of religion were the atheists and agnostics. Those individuals are also the most tolerant of people with beliefs other than their own. Now we know why.
It's not surprising that religious prejudice abounds in America today, and our collective ignorance on the subject of religion helps explain why. According to a survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Americans as a group fared poorly on a survey of questions testing general knowledge of all the world's major religions, including their own.
The Pew survey, a series of 32 questions covering tenets and facts about various religions, revealed that many Americans cannot identify the central teachings of the major world religions, their observances and their founders. Given that prejudice comes from the seeds of ignorance, it's easy to understand why religious prejudice flourishes in America.
We fear the unknown. We are hostile toward that which we do not understand and we all too frequently seek to stamp out anything that is not familiar to us. That is the very core of prejudice.
Ironically, the most knowledgeable on the subject of religion were the atheists and agnostics. Those individuals are also the most tolerant of people with beliefs other than their own. Now we know why.
Monday, September 27, 2010
IS THERE A PREDATOR IN THE PULPIT?
I have no idea whether Bishop Eddie Long of Atlanta, Georgia is guilty or innocent of allegations that he groomed young boys in his Longfellow Youth Academy program and eventually manipulated them into having sex with him. The boys had reportedly reached the age of consent when the sexual conduct supposedly occurred, so no criminal investigation will be held. Nevertheless, after hearing descriptions of Bishop Long's alleged methods of operation, if they are true, then members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church should know that they've got a predator in their pulpit.
It's understandable that members of the New Birth congregation would be stunned by the allegations made against their Pastor. Equally understandable is the decision by many of those congregants to reject the allegations outright and stand wholeheartedly behind Bishop Long. After all, Bishop Long is a widely loved preacher, and nobody wants to believe that a man of the cloth, a person in whom they've placed their deepest trust, would betray that trust and commit predatory acts against young members of their congregation.
It does happen though, and members of the New Birth congregation would be well-advised to take a long, hard look at both the substance of the allegations and Bishop Long's responses to those allegations before rendering a final judgment on the matter. Many a preacher has used the pulpit as a cloak to hide their personal transgressions, and a congregation invites a far greater crisis of faith by automatically dismissing charges of improper behavior leveled against a pastor, even a beloved pastor, simply because the pastor is supposed to be a man of God.
Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggert and Tony Alamo are the first who come to mind when I think of sexual misdeeds of so-called men of the cloth, but any Catholic in this country can probably whip off the name of some priest in their diocese who was charged with sexual misconduct, and many in other denominations can do the same. All of those men had several things in common, besides their sexual transgressions. They all railed in the pulpit against the very type of conduct they were committing in private. They all used their position of authority to accomplish and conceal their acts. They were all loved by their congregations. They all initially denied the allegations of their misconduct and their denials were believed by many of their followers.
Whether Bishop Eddie Long finds himself walking in the footsteps of the formerly disgraced men of the cloth, or reveling in the comfort of the vindicated, remains to be seen. What is certain is that the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church faces a difficult challenge in days and months ahead, and I wish them well on their journey. They have my prayers.
It's understandable that members of the New Birth congregation would be stunned by the allegations made against their Pastor. Equally understandable is the decision by many of those congregants to reject the allegations outright and stand wholeheartedly behind Bishop Long. After all, Bishop Long is a widely loved preacher, and nobody wants to believe that a man of the cloth, a person in whom they've placed their deepest trust, would betray that trust and commit predatory acts against young members of their congregation.
It does happen though, and members of the New Birth congregation would be well-advised to take a long, hard look at both the substance of the allegations and Bishop Long's responses to those allegations before rendering a final judgment on the matter. Many a preacher has used the pulpit as a cloak to hide their personal transgressions, and a congregation invites a far greater crisis of faith by automatically dismissing charges of improper behavior leveled against a pastor, even a beloved pastor, simply because the pastor is supposed to be a man of God.
Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggert and Tony Alamo are the first who come to mind when I think of sexual misdeeds of so-called men of the cloth, but any Catholic in this country can probably whip off the name of some priest in their diocese who was charged with sexual misconduct, and many in other denominations can do the same. All of those men had several things in common, besides their sexual transgressions. They all railed in the pulpit against the very type of conduct they were committing in private. They all used their position of authority to accomplish and conceal their acts. They were all loved by their congregations. They all initially denied the allegations of their misconduct and their denials were believed by many of their followers.
Whether Bishop Eddie Long finds himself walking in the footsteps of the formerly disgraced men of the cloth, or reveling in the comfort of the vindicated, remains to be seen. What is certain is that the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church faces a difficult challenge in days and months ahead, and I wish them well on their journey. They have my prayers.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
THE SERMON I NEVER GAVE
In Victor Hugo's classic novel, "Les Miserables", the main character is a convict just released from prison, a man imprisoned for thievery, a man named Jean Valjean. By law, he must wear a patch that identifies him as a former prisoner and upon entering any town or village; he must first announce his presence to the local chief of police. Wherever he goes, news of his presence precedes him and the local taverns and innkeepers refuse him food and lodging. Destitute, he finds himself at the door of the local Bishop, a kind man of the cloth, who takes pity on Valjean and offers him food and a place to sleep for the night. In the middle of the night, Valjean awakens, sneaks through the Bishop's house and steals several valuable items of silver, including two silver candlesticks – the Bishop's prized possessions…candlesticks that everyone in the village knows belong to the Bishop. When local police stop Valjean on the road the next day, they find him in possession of the candlesticks and realize that he has stolen the items from the Bishop. Valjean claims that the candlesticks were a gift, but the police know he's lying and drag him back to the Bishop's house. When the Bishop answers the door, the police relate to him the lies Valjean has given them, but to everyone's surprise – including Jean Valjean, the Bishop scolds the police and tells them that Valjean's story is true. The Bishop then scolds Valjean for forgetting another bag of silver, and sends the ex-convict on his way with not only the bag of silver previously stolen, but a second bag of silver as well. You can imagine how Valjean felt. One minute, he was on the way back to prison. The next, he was free with money in his pocket. In the story, the Bishop's act of kindness had such a profound effect on Valjean that he made a dramatic change and dedicated his life to the service of God.
Many of you may be tempted to say, "That's a good plot for a novel, but stuff like that never happens in real life." But I take exception to that notion, because with God, that happens to each and every one of us, each and every day.
We're not deserving of God's love – but He loves us anyway. We're not deserving of God's grace, but He showers us with it in spite of ourselves. We don't deserve the rich and abundant life we enjoy in this Country, but God has blessed us with it nevertheless…and He wants us to take those gifts and use those gifts as instruments of His good will. The important question is – will we?
As I look back on my life, and how I arrived at the place I find myself today, much of the credit goes to people I never thanked. It's not that I didn't have good manners; I just didn't always appreciate the gifts they were giving me, or recognize at the time how powerfully their actions would affect my life. And the times when actions of others affected me the most, were the times when I was the least deserving.
I've done and said things to people that were mean and cruel, and a few people forgave me anyway. I lived my life in a selfish pursuit of my own pleasures, oftentimes at the expense of others, and when it all came crashing down around me, there were a few people who didn't stand around and jeer, "Boy, you had that coming", but instead, offered me a hand and pulled me up. I not proud to admit I once ruined a marriage. I broke the trust of friends and relatives. I trashed a decent career and got about as low as one can be in life without giving up and committing suicide, but there were a few spectators to the tragedy that was my life, like God and a few others, who recognized that I didn't deserve their mercy or kindness, but they gave it anyway. And they changed my life because they did.
I have to admit that I struggled for a time with guilt over not having said "thank you"…or not having let those people know that their generosity and kindness to me (when I was least deserving) had a huge impact on my life, but over the years I've come to appreciate the fact that in their own way, each and every one of them made a choice to act as Jesus would act, to show kindness, mercy and compassion, when none of it was deserved…to be forgiving, even though I wasn't really being remorseful. They were people who saw value in me, even when I didn't recognize it in myself, and they went out of their way to help me, even though they never got a "thanks" in return or saw that their actions made a difference in my life.
At first blush, you might think, "That's a shame", but I don't think so. People weren't kind and generous and forgiving to me because they wanted a pat on the back or a medal or public recognition of their good deeds. They did what they did because they made a choice to be like Christ. They decided to be an instrument of change in the life of another human being without the immediate reward of seeing the fruits of their deeds.
My Grandma use to say, "God's work is hard work and slow work". I understood why it was hard. It took me a lot longer to figure out why it was slow.
In Victor Hugo's novel, when Jean Valjean left the Bishop's home for the second time, that's the last the Bishop is mentioned in the novel. The Bishop didn't get to see the fruits of his charity. He didn't get to appreciate the fact that his single act of mercy ultimately changed the lives of hundreds of people for the better. All he had was the knowledge that he had done God's will.
That's one of the difficulties with being a follower of Christ. We're asked to do things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever - to love our enemies, to be kind and generous to those who don't deserve it, to forgive when forgiveness isn't warranted…and not seek anything in return except the knowledge that we have done God's will. That's because God's work is slow work and things don't always turn out as fast as we hope they would.
These days, people are falling all over themselves in this country to be called Christian, but with what it takes to be a true follower of Christ, you have to wonder whether they're nuts or delusional, or just ignorant about what Christ really asks his followers to do.
For me, being a follower of Christ boils down to this one question: How will I respond when Christ asks me to be a life-changing instrument in the life of another person? I ask that question because I don't know when that time will be. I don't know who that person will be and I have no clue as to where I'll be or what circumstances I'll be facing. All I know is that God is going to ask…maybe once, maybe twice…maybe a thousand times. And if I'm to be a true follower of Christ, I have to be ready, able and willing to respond each and every time.
The best and most practical piece of advice I can give is to get in the habit of doing God's will, because it certainly doesn't come naturally. You have to work to make it part of your life and part of your nature. Once it is part of your nature, it will change you, and it will change the lives of many people you meet along the way. But like the Bishop, you may never see it, because God's work is slow work and all you'll have is the knowledge that you've done God's will.
In the end, that's all we really need. Amen.
Many of you may be tempted to say, "That's a good plot for a novel, but stuff like that never happens in real life." But I take exception to that notion, because with God, that happens to each and every one of us, each and every day.
We're not deserving of God's love – but He loves us anyway. We're not deserving of God's grace, but He showers us with it in spite of ourselves. We don't deserve the rich and abundant life we enjoy in this Country, but God has blessed us with it nevertheless…and He wants us to take those gifts and use those gifts as instruments of His good will. The important question is – will we?
As I look back on my life, and how I arrived at the place I find myself today, much of the credit goes to people I never thanked. It's not that I didn't have good manners; I just didn't always appreciate the gifts they were giving me, or recognize at the time how powerfully their actions would affect my life. And the times when actions of others affected me the most, were the times when I was the least deserving.
I've done and said things to people that were mean and cruel, and a few people forgave me anyway. I lived my life in a selfish pursuit of my own pleasures, oftentimes at the expense of others, and when it all came crashing down around me, there were a few people who didn't stand around and jeer, "Boy, you had that coming", but instead, offered me a hand and pulled me up. I not proud to admit I once ruined a marriage. I broke the trust of friends and relatives. I trashed a decent career and got about as low as one can be in life without giving up and committing suicide, but there were a few spectators to the tragedy that was my life, like God and a few others, who recognized that I didn't deserve their mercy or kindness, but they gave it anyway. And they changed my life because they did.
I have to admit that I struggled for a time with guilt over not having said "thank you"…or not having let those people know that their generosity and kindness to me (when I was least deserving) had a huge impact on my life, but over the years I've come to appreciate the fact that in their own way, each and every one of them made a choice to act as Jesus would act, to show kindness, mercy and compassion, when none of it was deserved…to be forgiving, even though I wasn't really being remorseful. They were people who saw value in me, even when I didn't recognize it in myself, and they went out of their way to help me, even though they never got a "thanks" in return or saw that their actions made a difference in my life.
At first blush, you might think, "That's a shame", but I don't think so. People weren't kind and generous and forgiving to me because they wanted a pat on the back or a medal or public recognition of their good deeds. They did what they did because they made a choice to be like Christ. They decided to be an instrument of change in the life of another human being without the immediate reward of seeing the fruits of their deeds.
My Grandma use to say, "God's work is hard work and slow work". I understood why it was hard. It took me a lot longer to figure out why it was slow.
In Victor Hugo's novel, when Jean Valjean left the Bishop's home for the second time, that's the last the Bishop is mentioned in the novel. The Bishop didn't get to see the fruits of his charity. He didn't get to appreciate the fact that his single act of mercy ultimately changed the lives of hundreds of people for the better. All he had was the knowledge that he had done God's will.
That's one of the difficulties with being a follower of Christ. We're asked to do things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever - to love our enemies, to be kind and generous to those who don't deserve it, to forgive when forgiveness isn't warranted…and not seek anything in return except the knowledge that we have done God's will. That's because God's work is slow work and things don't always turn out as fast as we hope they would.
These days, people are falling all over themselves in this country to be called Christian, but with what it takes to be a true follower of Christ, you have to wonder whether they're nuts or delusional, or just ignorant about what Christ really asks his followers to do.
For me, being a follower of Christ boils down to this one question: How will I respond when Christ asks me to be a life-changing instrument in the life of another person? I ask that question because I don't know when that time will be. I don't know who that person will be and I have no clue as to where I'll be or what circumstances I'll be facing. All I know is that God is going to ask…maybe once, maybe twice…maybe a thousand times. And if I'm to be a true follower of Christ, I have to be ready, able and willing to respond each and every time.
The best and most practical piece of advice I can give is to get in the habit of doing God's will, because it certainly doesn't come naturally. You have to work to make it part of your life and part of your nature. Once it is part of your nature, it will change you, and it will change the lives of many people you meet along the way. But like the Bishop, you may never see it, because God's work is slow work and all you'll have is the knowledge that you've done God's will.
In the end, that's all we really need. Amen.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
THE STRENGTH OF FORGIVENESS
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong". ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Recently, I was fortunate to overhear a conversation among several acquaintances about the response of the Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania to the family of the deranged man, Charles Roberts IV, who stormed the Amish schoolhouse in that community in 2006 and killed five young Amish children before committing suicide. One acquaintance expressed admiration for the Amish community's immediate outpouring of support and forgiveness to the Roberts' family, but the remainder of the group voiced strong dissent to the Amish response to the shooting.
At first, I found the emotional intensity that accompanied the dissenters' remarks to be a surprising phenomenon, but after giving that discussion more thought over the past few weeks, I've come to believe that the emotional responses were a mask of sort to hide an underlying fear of weakness.
Gandhi was right. The Amish are strong, and not just in physical strength. The Amish are strong of heart! They are strong of character! They are strong in their belief in God and strong in their dedication to carrying out God's message of non-violence and forgiveness.
The lessons of the Amish are particularly apt given the Commonwealth of Virginia's recent execution of Theresa Lewis, a woman convicted of hiring killers to murder her husband and her stepson for insurance proceeds. Despite Ms. Lewis' religious conversion and her documented efforts to help fellow prisoners lead a more productive life, Virginia's governor rejected pleas for clemency and a commutation of Ms. Lewis' sentence from death to life in prison.
No doubt, Virginia's governor found little need to forgive, as such an attribute is frequently viewed in today's political world as a sign of weakness, but in refusing to grant a commutation of Ms. Lewis' death sentence, all the governor did was confirm his own weakness of character.
Recently, I was fortunate to overhear a conversation among several acquaintances about the response of the Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania to the family of the deranged man, Charles Roberts IV, who stormed the Amish schoolhouse in that community in 2006 and killed five young Amish children before committing suicide. One acquaintance expressed admiration for the Amish community's immediate outpouring of support and forgiveness to the Roberts' family, but the remainder of the group voiced strong dissent to the Amish response to the shooting.
At first, I found the emotional intensity that accompanied the dissenters' remarks to be a surprising phenomenon, but after giving that discussion more thought over the past few weeks, I've come to believe that the emotional responses were a mask of sort to hide an underlying fear of weakness.
Gandhi was right. The Amish are strong, and not just in physical strength. The Amish are strong of heart! They are strong of character! They are strong in their belief in God and strong in their dedication to carrying out God's message of non-violence and forgiveness.
The lessons of the Amish are particularly apt given the Commonwealth of Virginia's recent execution of Theresa Lewis, a woman convicted of hiring killers to murder her husband and her stepson for insurance proceeds. Despite Ms. Lewis' religious conversion and her documented efforts to help fellow prisoners lead a more productive life, Virginia's governor rejected pleas for clemency and a commutation of Ms. Lewis' sentence from death to life in prison.
No doubt, Virginia's governor found little need to forgive, as such an attribute is frequently viewed in today's political world as a sign of weakness, but in refusing to grant a commutation of Ms. Lewis' death sentence, all the governor did was confirm his own weakness of character.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
THE LATEST BRAND OF SNAKE OIL
The Preamble to the soon to be released GOP "Pledge To America" is a farce of the highest magnitude and anybody who's fooled by the cow manure that passes for this Republican manifesto deserves the just desserts of the "old government" that appears likely to take control after the upcoming elections.
Only a nation of buffoons would reward a party (that would be the GOP) who took this nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses, who never asked taxpayers to pay for that war, who year after year fought for deregulation of the financial sector until it was on the verge of total collapse, who then sat back and scoffed at Democrats for cleaning up their mess, and then have the unmitigated gall to blame the sorry state of our union on our President and his political party.
People who want to know who's responsible for our nation's mess should look in the mirror! They're the people who voted for the people (the GOP) who created the current economic crisis. They're the people who voted for the folks who, when the crisis occurred, wanted to sit back and do nothing - like Herbert Hoover, the same game plan that caused the Great Depression of the thirties. They're the ones who hemmed and hawed about liberty and freedom, but when push came to shove, were the loudest screamers demanding the trading of freedoms for public safety. And now, they fill the airwaves and media with rage and anger, demanding the end of deficits, like somehow, the money to pay off those public debts will magically appear out of thin air. Well, it won't.
The "Pledge to America" is the snake oil of a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards who don't have the stomach to take responsibility for the mess they created. Buy it at your own peril.
Only a nation of buffoons would reward a party (that would be the GOP) who took this nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses, who never asked taxpayers to pay for that war, who year after year fought for deregulation of the financial sector until it was on the verge of total collapse, who then sat back and scoffed at Democrats for cleaning up their mess, and then have the unmitigated gall to blame the sorry state of our union on our President and his political party.
People who want to know who's responsible for our nation's mess should look in the mirror! They're the people who voted for the people (the GOP) who created the current economic crisis. They're the people who voted for the folks who, when the crisis occurred, wanted to sit back and do nothing - like Herbert Hoover, the same game plan that caused the Great Depression of the thirties. They're the ones who hemmed and hawed about liberty and freedom, but when push came to shove, were the loudest screamers demanding the trading of freedoms for public safety. And now, they fill the airwaves and media with rage and anger, demanding the end of deficits, like somehow, the money to pay off those public debts will magically appear out of thin air. Well, it won't.
The "Pledge to America" is the snake oil of a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards who don't have the stomach to take responsibility for the mess they created. Buy it at your own peril.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
GOP: GAYS STRONGER THAN U.S. MILITARY
Republicans in the United States Senate today essentially called our military ranks a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards for being unable to carry out their assigned duties in the presence of openly homosexual individuals. That's why GOP senators defeated an attempt to discard the current "don't ask – don't tell" policy against homosexuals serving in the military.
I thought no enemy was too strong to defeat the forces of the United States military, but I guess I was wrong. According to the GOP, a small band of homosexuals is all that's needed.
I thought no enemy was too strong to defeat the forces of the United States military, but I guess I was wrong. According to the GOP, a small band of homosexuals is all that's needed.
Monday, September 20, 2010
PERSONAL CONSTITUTIONS
Much of what is wrong with American politics today is summarized in one lamentable fact: the constitution of a majority of Americans is not the American Constitution.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution states as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Are Americans today interested in forming a more perfect union? It's hard to see how that could be. Conservatives decry liberals and liberals decry conservatives with such ferocity that it is not hard to imagine one group wishing the other to be completely obliterated from the face of this Nation, or at the very least, with no measurable voice in our government. Extremists on both sides of the political aisle vilify the beliefs of their opponents and demonize the leaders of opposing parties to such an extent that one could not possibly tell the difference between those leaders and pure evil. Given the vitriol in the current political climate, it's a wonder the U.S. isn't overflowing with one political assassination after another.
Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part:
"…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
How many times do you hear on the radio or read in the newspaper the opinion that American was founded on Judeo-Christian values and only Christians or Jews are qualified for public office?
Despite today's widespread belief to the contrary, America was intended by our founding fathers to function as a secular, non-religious Nation, based upon the premise that all individuals were free to practice the religion of their choice, or no religion for that matter, without having an individual's religious beliefs being a matter of public concern so far as the functioning of government was concerned.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution states as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Are Americans today interested in forming a more perfect union? It's hard to see how that could be. Conservatives decry liberals and liberals decry conservatives with such ferocity that it is not hard to imagine one group wishing the other to be completely obliterated from the face of this Nation, or at the very least, with no measurable voice in our government. Extremists on both sides of the political aisle vilify the beliefs of their opponents and demonize the leaders of opposing parties to such an extent that one could not possibly tell the difference between those leaders and pure evil. Given the vitriol in the current political climate, it's a wonder the U.S. isn't overflowing with one political assassination after another.
Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part:
"…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
How many times do you hear on the radio or read in the newspaper the opinion that American was founded on Judeo-Christian values and only Christians or Jews are qualified for public office?
Despite today's widespread belief to the contrary, America was intended by our founding fathers to function as a secular, non-religious Nation, based upon the premise that all individuals were free to practice the religion of their choice, or no religion for that matter, without having an individual's religious beliefs being a matter of public concern so far as the functioning of government was concerned.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
THE BRAVERY OF AFGHAN VOTERS
You've got to applaud the people in Afghanistan who showed up at the polls yesterday and voted. They did so at great personal risk, because the Taliban, ruthless as they are, had warned of bomb attacks on polling stations. In fact, several polling stations did come under rocket attack. Nevertheless, Afghans were undaunted and they showed their desire to make their voices heard by voting in the election to determine the future direction of their government.
The exact percentage of eligible voters who showed up at the Afghan polls yesterday has not yet been released, but that percentage is expected to be greater than the percentage of eligible American voters who showed up at this past season's primary elections.
Consider the words of our American National Anthem – "and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there…"
In Afghanistan, you could replace the word "flag" with "voter" and still have a true statement.
The exact percentage of eligible voters who showed up at the Afghan polls yesterday has not yet been released, but that percentage is expected to be greater than the percentage of eligible American voters who showed up at this past season's primary elections.
Consider the words of our American National Anthem – "and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there…"
In Afghanistan, you could replace the word "flag" with "voter" and still have a true statement.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
ECONOMICS - 101
Economics 101 – a King summoned all his most trusted economic advisers and asked them to come up with the briefest statement possible that would summarize all a person needs to know about economic theory. After much deliberation, the advisers sent the king the following note:
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Any imaginable economic decision, no matter how large or small, follows that premise without exception, and it matters not whether the decision is one with national ramifications or one that concerns only one household. For example, how a nation decides to pay for a war is essentially no different than a couple's decision on how to pay for a more expensive house. A nation can decide to pay for the costs of war in any one of three ways: (1) by raising taxes, (2) by lowering spending in other areas to offset the war costs, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. A couple can pay for their more expensive house by (1) getting a second job, (2) lowering household spending in other areas of their life, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. In both examples, the available options are virtually identical, and all of those options require a corresponding sacrifice, whether it means more taxes paid, more hours worked, sacrificing things we care about in our lives, or paying interest on our debts if we choose the borrowing option. There is no escaping the economic axiom that every benefit requires a corresponding sacrifice.
That notion, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, acts as a kind of economic balance. When sacrifice equals benefit, economic harmony prevails. It is only where a nation or an individual attempts to reap greater benefits than the sacrifice they are willing to bear, that economic chaos occurs, and once that happens, the only way to return economic chaos to a state of equilibrium is to pay the corresponding sacrifice.
Following the events of September 11th, 2001, our nation commenced two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. To date, the price tag attached to those war efforts comes to almost two trillion dollars. How much have American taxpayers sacrificed to pay for those wars? Not one red cent! Every single dollar spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been appropriated through supplemental appropriation bills, which simply add the costs directly to the national debt, including the interest on those debts. Taxes were never raised to cover that debt. Spending was not decreased to cover that debt. The government simply borrowed the money. Eventually, the economy sank into recession.
During the same time as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were occupying the focus of the federal government, moving into a new or more expensive home was occupying the focus of tens of millions of Americans. As folks have sadly come to realize, millions of those home buyers were purchasing more expensive homes than they could actually afford, and with little or no down payment to give them equity in their property, millions of home owners quickly fell under when the economy went south and unemployment skyrocketed. As a result, the housing market collapsed.
America as a Nation, and Americans as individuals are now faced with the painful reality that only national and individual sacrifice can bring our national economy and our household economies back into economic equilibrium. We can choose between sacrifices, but we cannot avoid making them forever.
There is no such thing as a free lunch…never has been; never will be!
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Any imaginable economic decision, no matter how large or small, follows that premise without exception, and it matters not whether the decision is one with national ramifications or one that concerns only one household. For example, how a nation decides to pay for a war is essentially no different than a couple's decision on how to pay for a more expensive house. A nation can decide to pay for the costs of war in any one of three ways: (1) by raising taxes, (2) by lowering spending in other areas to offset the war costs, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. A couple can pay for their more expensive house by (1) getting a second job, (2) lowering household spending in other areas of their life, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. In both examples, the available options are virtually identical, and all of those options require a corresponding sacrifice, whether it means more taxes paid, more hours worked, sacrificing things we care about in our lives, or paying interest on our debts if we choose the borrowing option. There is no escaping the economic axiom that every benefit requires a corresponding sacrifice.
That notion, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, acts as a kind of economic balance. When sacrifice equals benefit, economic harmony prevails. It is only where a nation or an individual attempts to reap greater benefits than the sacrifice they are willing to bear, that economic chaos occurs, and once that happens, the only way to return economic chaos to a state of equilibrium is to pay the corresponding sacrifice.
Following the events of September 11th, 2001, our nation commenced two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. To date, the price tag attached to those war efforts comes to almost two trillion dollars. How much have American taxpayers sacrificed to pay for those wars? Not one red cent! Every single dollar spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been appropriated through supplemental appropriation bills, which simply add the costs directly to the national debt, including the interest on those debts. Taxes were never raised to cover that debt. Spending was not decreased to cover that debt. The government simply borrowed the money. Eventually, the economy sank into recession.
During the same time as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were occupying the focus of the federal government, moving into a new or more expensive home was occupying the focus of tens of millions of Americans. As folks have sadly come to realize, millions of those home buyers were purchasing more expensive homes than they could actually afford, and with little or no down payment to give them equity in their property, millions of home owners quickly fell under when the economy went south and unemployment skyrocketed. As a result, the housing market collapsed.
America as a Nation, and Americans as individuals are now faced with the painful reality that only national and individual sacrifice can bring our national economy and our household economies back into economic equilibrium. We can choose between sacrifices, but we cannot avoid making them forever.
There is no such thing as a free lunch…never has been; never will be!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
NORMALIZING RELATIONS WITH CUBA
It's time for the Obama Administration to lift the decades-long embargo of our island neighbor, Cuba. The embargo, dating back to the early sixties when Fidel Castro imposed Communist rule upon the tiny island, has outlived its purpose. In fact, a good argument can be made that the continuation of the embargo in today's world is actually counter-productive.
Over the past year and a half, Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, who now rules Cuba, has been attempting to initiate a series of free-market reforms to transform the Cuban economy from a strictly controlled government system to one that functions under free-market principles, albeit with government oversight. That's because, as Fidel Castro recently confided to a writer from "The Atlantic", Cuba's current government-controlled system is simply not working and cannot keep pace with the demands of the 21st century global economy.
The most recent example of the Castro government's free-market reform was the decision to lay off almost half a million workers from government financed jobs. To deal with that expected tidal wave of unemployed workers, the Cuban government recently enacted a series of laws that made private ownership of many businesses legal, so that unemployed workers could choose to go into business for themselves or seek employment in newly created businesses. The opening of Cuban markets to foreign investors also creates employment opportunities that heretofore did not exist. There is no reason why American investors should not be allowed to share in the development of Cuban markets too.
Both Raul and Fidel Castro recognize that for the vitality of their political revolution to remain strong, the Cuban economy must provide a sufficient standard of living for the island's residents; otherwise, their movement will be viewed from within as a complete failure. If that occurs, a certain-to-be-bloody insurrection would follow.
There are many in American neo-conservative circles who advocate maintaining the embargo in the hope that such an insurrection will occur and the Castro regime will be overthrown, but 48 years of waiting for that occurrence has not yielded any dividends, and there's something troubling about our praying for bloodshed so we can feel vindicated about our failed foreign policy.
The sensible thing for us to do is normalize relations with Cuba and allow free market forces to affect the kind of changes in the Cuban economy, and maybe even the Cuban government, that our foreign policy has never been able to do. It is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective; it's also the right thing to do from a political and economic view.
America regularly trades with authoritarian and Communist regimes that are far more repressive than the Cuban regime, so to single out an island neighbor to continue with an embargo on the basis of government repression of citizens makes our foreign policy appear arbitrary. When that occurs, foreign countries lose respect for America. It doesn't have to be that way.
Many Americans have relatives in Cuba, and the re-establishment of family ties would greatly help in healing the political rift between our countries. We'll never agree on everything, but at least we'd be talking to each other, and that would be a step in the right direction.
Over the past year and a half, Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, who now rules Cuba, has been attempting to initiate a series of free-market reforms to transform the Cuban economy from a strictly controlled government system to one that functions under free-market principles, albeit with government oversight. That's because, as Fidel Castro recently confided to a writer from "The Atlantic", Cuba's current government-controlled system is simply not working and cannot keep pace with the demands of the 21st century global economy.
The most recent example of the Castro government's free-market reform was the decision to lay off almost half a million workers from government financed jobs. To deal with that expected tidal wave of unemployed workers, the Cuban government recently enacted a series of laws that made private ownership of many businesses legal, so that unemployed workers could choose to go into business for themselves or seek employment in newly created businesses. The opening of Cuban markets to foreign investors also creates employment opportunities that heretofore did not exist. There is no reason why American investors should not be allowed to share in the development of Cuban markets too.
Both Raul and Fidel Castro recognize that for the vitality of their political revolution to remain strong, the Cuban economy must provide a sufficient standard of living for the island's residents; otherwise, their movement will be viewed from within as a complete failure. If that occurs, a certain-to-be-bloody insurrection would follow.
There are many in American neo-conservative circles who advocate maintaining the embargo in the hope that such an insurrection will occur and the Castro regime will be overthrown, but 48 years of waiting for that occurrence has not yielded any dividends, and there's something troubling about our praying for bloodshed so we can feel vindicated about our failed foreign policy.
The sensible thing for us to do is normalize relations with Cuba and allow free market forces to affect the kind of changes in the Cuban economy, and maybe even the Cuban government, that our foreign policy has never been able to do. It is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective; it's also the right thing to do from a political and economic view.
America regularly trades with authoritarian and Communist regimes that are far more repressive than the Cuban regime, so to single out an island neighbor to continue with an embargo on the basis of government repression of citizens makes our foreign policy appear arbitrary. When that occurs, foreign countries lose respect for America. It doesn't have to be that way.
Many Americans have relatives in Cuba, and the re-establishment of family ties would greatly help in healing the political rift between our countries. We'll never agree on everything, but at least we'd be talking to each other, and that would be a step in the right direction.
Monday, September 13, 2010
MIDDLE EAST PEACE...AT LEAST THEY'RE TALKING
You have to salute the current Administration's effort to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but nobody should expect any miracles because extremists behind those on both sides of the negotiating table have no intention of seeing a workable peace deal come to fruition. Right-wing settlers and the hard-line religious party in Israel that represents them will never agree to a dismantling of illegal Jewish settlement in the West Bank, a necessary Israeli concession for peace to ever occur, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, the two radical militant Palestinian groups, will never agree to Israel's right to exist, a necessary Palestinian concession for a lasting peace to take hold.
Although there is much common ground upon which the parties could use to establish a pathway to peace, that route will probably never be traveled because hard-line interests on both sides of the aisle refuse to compromise. Still, making an attempt to find a peaceful solution is a laudable endeavor, and it surely beats the alternative, which is to do nothing.
Although there is much common ground upon which the parties could use to establish a pathway to peace, that route will probably never be traveled because hard-line interests on both sides of the aisle refuse to compromise. Still, making an attempt to find a peaceful solution is a laudable endeavor, and it surely beats the alternative, which is to do nothing.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
GUNS DON'T KILL - ANGRY AND IMPULSIVE PEOPLE WITH GUNS DO
The NRA bumper sticker that reads, "Guns Don't Kill – People Do" is a popular gun owner's message, but I think there are a few words missing from that sticker that might put the issue in better prospective. I'd rather the sticker say, "Guns Don't Kill – Angry and Impulsive People with Guns Do".
You'll get no argument from me that the Constitution affords an individual the right to own firearms, and now that the Supreme Court has clearly upheld that right, any argument to the contrary is pretty much a moot point. What I will argue, however, is that society, and by that I mean each and every one of us, should take a moment to ask who are the angry and impulsive people in our lives, and do they own a gun.
I don't feel threatened by the millions of gun owners in America who possess and use their firearms for lawful purposes. Having once hunted, I appreciate the attraction many have for that sport. Given the level of crime and violence in America today, I also understand why an individual would make the choice to arm themselves for personal protection. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and their gun ownership isn't something that keeps me awake at night.
The gun owners who do worry me are the angry and impulsive ones; the teenage gang member with no hope of a future; a controlling spouse who suddenly finds themselves estranged; a disgruntled employee with an axe to grind; and an angry and paranoid loner. Those are the people you read about in the paper: a 15 year old who kills for a cell phone, a fired warehouse driver in Connecticut that kills 8, a biology professor denied tenure in Alabama who kills 3, a disgruntled factory worker in Philadelphia who kills 2, and an angry Kentucky spouse who kills 5 because his wife served him cold eggs.
Coping with those stories are part of the price we pay for having a right to gun ownership in America, and that price must be borne by all, but many of the people who lose their lives in those stories are not the gun owners, and what many non-gun owners like myself would appreciate from our armed brethren, is a sense of gratitude for the price that many unarmed innocent people pay so that law abiding gun owners can exercise their rights.
You'll get no argument from me that the Constitution affords an individual the right to own firearms, and now that the Supreme Court has clearly upheld that right, any argument to the contrary is pretty much a moot point. What I will argue, however, is that society, and by that I mean each and every one of us, should take a moment to ask who are the angry and impulsive people in our lives, and do they own a gun.
I don't feel threatened by the millions of gun owners in America who possess and use their firearms for lawful purposes. Having once hunted, I appreciate the attraction many have for that sport. Given the level of crime and violence in America today, I also understand why an individual would make the choice to arm themselves for personal protection. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and their gun ownership isn't something that keeps me awake at night.
The gun owners who do worry me are the angry and impulsive ones; the teenage gang member with no hope of a future; a controlling spouse who suddenly finds themselves estranged; a disgruntled employee with an axe to grind; and an angry and paranoid loner. Those are the people you read about in the paper: a 15 year old who kills for a cell phone, a fired warehouse driver in Connecticut that kills 8, a biology professor denied tenure in Alabama who kills 3, a disgruntled factory worker in Philadelphia who kills 2, and an angry Kentucky spouse who kills 5 because his wife served him cold eggs.
Coping with those stories are part of the price we pay for having a right to gun ownership in America, and that price must be borne by all, but many of the people who lose their lives in those stories are not the gun owners, and what many non-gun owners like myself would appreciate from our armed brethren, is a sense of gratitude for the price that many unarmed innocent people pay so that law abiding gun owners can exercise their rights.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A THOUGHT FOR SEPTEMBER 11th
It's not how a person died that ought to bring them glory, but rather, how they lived!
Friday, September 10, 2010
EXILED AMERICAN ESTABLISHES NEW COUNTRY BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN AND CALLS IT “TOMATOSTAN”!
Saladabod, Tomatostan – September 9, 2010.
Asians awoke this morning with a new country on the continent thanks to the single-handed effort of exiled liberal American, Steve Zorbaugh. As moonlight bathed the sub-continent, Steve and his basket of tomatoes washed ashore on the dividing line between India and Pakistan after having been adrift on the Indian Ocean for 36 long, treacherous hours. Not wanting to cause ill feelings in either country, the hardy American claimed several acres on both sides of the border and officially declared “The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan” a sovereign nation.
Promising an interview tomorrow with reporters on his plans for the new Republic, the weary sailor and founding father of Tomatostan retired with his basket of tomatoes to a clump of four trees that provide the only shade on the newly-created nation.
Saladabod, Tomatostan – September 9, 2010.
Asians awoke this morning with a new country on the continent thanks to the single-handed effort of exiled liberal American, Steve Zorbaugh. As moonlight bathed the sub-continent, Steve and his basket of tomatoes washed ashore on the dividing line between India and Pakistan after having been adrift on the Indian Ocean for 36 long, treacherous hours. Not wanting to cause ill feelings in either country, the hardy American claimed several acres on both sides of the border and officially declared “The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan” a sovereign nation.
Promising an interview tomorrow with reporters on his plans for the new Republic, the weary sailor and founding father of Tomatostan retired with his basket of tomatoes to a clump of four trees that provide the only shade on the newly-created nation.
EXILED LIBERAL AMERICAN HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE
Saladabod, Tomatostan – September 10, 2010.
…excerpts from the press conference:
Steve: “Thank you for coming on such short notice. I want you all to know how much I appreciate your braving those shark-infested waters just to participate in this historic event. I haven’t any prepared text, so let’s just get to the questions and answers. Oh, and would you please identify yourself and who you represent before asking your question!”
Reporter: “I’m Abdul Washandhem from the Somali Times. What is the official name of your new country?
Steve: “The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan”.
Abdul Washandhem: “Can I ask a follow-up question?”
Steve: “Sure!
Abdul Washandhem: “Why did you pick that name?”
Steve: “Well, as you can see, this place is pretty green. Since I already have a basket of tomatoes and it looks like tomatoes will be our biggest crop, it seemed like a good commercial gimmick to name the place after our largest industry. I’m open to change though…if a company want’s to name their own country for a fee…I’m all ears”
Reporter: “My name is Linguini Alfredo from the Sicilian Pasta Platter. Aren’t you afraid of your warring neighbors.”
Steve: “Not in the least. As soon as I get a diplomatic mission established, I plan to reach out to both countries to normalize relations.”
Linguini: “Aren’t you concerned about being caught in the middle of a nuclear confrontation?”
Steve: “Actually, quite the opposite is true. My scientists tell me that irradiated tomatoes grow larger, faster and juicier than those “hothouse gassers” they pass off as tomatoes in the supermarkets in the winter. I’m counting on Armageddon to jumpstart this economy.”
Linguini: “You have scientists?”
Steve: “Uh…Er…Um…actually, no! But I did watch “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” once and that’s how they super-sized their tomatoes. I figured the same concept would work here to. Okay, let’s move on to another reporter. You there, the guy in the back with the mangled leg and the shark’s tooth in your butt…”
Reporter: “Do you have a doctor around here?”
Steve: “You didn’t identify yourself.”
Reporter: “Awwwwwl. I’m sorry, it’s just that my legs hurts really bad.”
Steve: “I can see that. What’s your name buddy?”
Reporter: “Sven…from the Norwegian Nomad.”
Steve: “Well, do you have a question or are you just going to lay there and bleed all over my pristine beach?”
Sven: “Is there a doctor around…”
Steve: “Excuse me. What did you say?”
Linguini: “I think he just died.”
Steve: “Oh darn! The Republic’s barely 24 hours old and already we’re experiencing high mortality rates.”
Abdul Washandhem: “What do you planning to do about it?”
Steve: “Well, the first thing we gotta do is clean up the beach. You can’t attract tourists if the beach isn’t clear. Why don’t you guys drag him out into the ocean? [pointing to sharks] We’ve got a disposal system already in place.”
Linguini: “What about health care?”
Steve: “As soon as we export our first crate of tomatoes, will be building a health clinic and there will be free health care for everybody.”
Linguini: “How many citizens does Tomatostan have?
Steve: “Well, just one at the moment, but we’re accepting female immigrants- preferably good looking ones.
Reporter: “I’m Obee-One, from Niroabi.”
Steve: “Glad to meet you Obee-One. How’s Yoda? [chuckle] Sorry, I’ll bet you hear that all the time. What’s your question?
Obee-One: “Do you miss the United States?”
Steve: “Well, yeah. I miss my wife—[waving to camera] Hi Honey! Just kidding about the female immigrants. [returns gaze to reporter] I miss my kids. I miss McDonald’s cheeseburgers.
Obee-One: “You don’t have a McDonald’s?”
Steve: “Well…er…no! I didn’t want to upset my Hindu neighbors by importing beef.”
Obee-One: “Have you tried to make contact with the United States Government?”
Steve: “Hey, I’m glad you asked that. I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am hereby appointing my good buddy, Hank, as The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan’s very first Ambassador to the United States of America.”
Linguini: [interrupting] “Isn’t he the guy who sold you out to the ‘feds’ in the first place?”
Steve: [chuckling] “Actually, we planned it to fool the F.B.I. I’m better at growing tomatoes than Hank and so we arranged to switch places.”
Linguini: “So you’re saying it was all a charade?”
Steve: “Hey buddy, I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret. 99% of all politics is dirty. The other 1% is dumb luck…kinda like when that shark bit Sven’s leg and not yours.”
Abdul Washandhem: “What exactly do you expect Hank to do as this nation’s first Ambassador?”
Steve: “Well, I would hope he’d throw a nice little fundraiser and invite me. Plus, I’ll expect that he’s arranging some foreign aid from the U.S. I’m sure Uncle Sam has some strategic interest over here worth protecting.”
Abdul Washandhem: “Like what?”
Steve: “Irradiated tomatoes. I don’t know. That’s why I appointed an ambassador. Ah…look at the time. We’ve got time for just one more question.”
Linguini: “Do you have other pressing business?”
Steve: “I sure do. It’s time to water the tomatoes.”
[whereupon the press conference ended as Steve hummed “Hail to the Chief” and retired to Saladabod.]
…excerpts from the press conference:
Steve: “Thank you for coming on such short notice. I want you all to know how much I appreciate your braving those shark-infested waters just to participate in this historic event. I haven’t any prepared text, so let’s just get to the questions and answers. Oh, and would you please identify yourself and who you represent before asking your question!”
Reporter: “I’m Abdul Washandhem from the Somali Times. What is the official name of your new country?
Steve: “The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan”.
Abdul Washandhem: “Can I ask a follow-up question?”
Steve: “Sure!
Abdul Washandhem: “Why did you pick that name?”
Steve: “Well, as you can see, this place is pretty green. Since I already have a basket of tomatoes and it looks like tomatoes will be our biggest crop, it seemed like a good commercial gimmick to name the place after our largest industry. I’m open to change though…if a company want’s to name their own country for a fee…I’m all ears”
Reporter: “My name is Linguini Alfredo from the Sicilian Pasta Platter. Aren’t you afraid of your warring neighbors.”
Steve: “Not in the least. As soon as I get a diplomatic mission established, I plan to reach out to both countries to normalize relations.”
Linguini: “Aren’t you concerned about being caught in the middle of a nuclear confrontation?”
Steve: “Actually, quite the opposite is true. My scientists tell me that irradiated tomatoes grow larger, faster and juicier than those “hothouse gassers” they pass off as tomatoes in the supermarkets in the winter. I’m counting on Armageddon to jumpstart this economy.”
Linguini: “You have scientists?”
Steve: “Uh…Er…Um…actually, no! But I did watch “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” once and that’s how they super-sized their tomatoes. I figured the same concept would work here to. Okay, let’s move on to another reporter. You there, the guy in the back with the mangled leg and the shark’s tooth in your butt…”
Reporter: “Do you have a doctor around here?”
Steve: “You didn’t identify yourself.”
Reporter: “Awwwwwl. I’m sorry, it’s just that my legs hurts really bad.”
Steve: “I can see that. What’s your name buddy?”
Reporter: “Sven…from the Norwegian Nomad.”
Steve: “Well, do you have a question or are you just going to lay there and bleed all over my pristine beach?”
Sven: “Is there a doctor around…”
Steve: “Excuse me. What did you say?”
Linguini: “I think he just died.”
Steve: “Oh darn! The Republic’s barely 24 hours old and already we’re experiencing high mortality rates.”
Abdul Washandhem: “What do you planning to do about it?”
Steve: “Well, the first thing we gotta do is clean up the beach. You can’t attract tourists if the beach isn’t clear. Why don’t you guys drag him out into the ocean? [pointing to sharks] We’ve got a disposal system already in place.”
Linguini: “What about health care?”
Steve: “As soon as we export our first crate of tomatoes, will be building a health clinic and there will be free health care for everybody.”
Linguini: “How many citizens does Tomatostan have?
Steve: “Well, just one at the moment, but we’re accepting female immigrants- preferably good looking ones.
Reporter: “I’m Obee-One, from Niroabi.”
Steve: “Glad to meet you Obee-One. How’s Yoda? [chuckle] Sorry, I’ll bet you hear that all the time. What’s your question?
Obee-One: “Do you miss the United States?”
Steve: “Well, yeah. I miss my wife—[waving to camera] Hi Honey! Just kidding about the female immigrants. [returns gaze to reporter] I miss my kids. I miss McDonald’s cheeseburgers.
Obee-One: “You don’t have a McDonald’s?”
Steve: “Well…er…no! I didn’t want to upset my Hindu neighbors by importing beef.”
Obee-One: “Have you tried to make contact with the United States Government?”
Steve: “Hey, I’m glad you asked that. I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am hereby appointing my good buddy, Hank, as The Very Green Independent Republic of Tomatostan’s very first Ambassador to the United States of America.”
Linguini: [interrupting] “Isn’t he the guy who sold you out to the ‘feds’ in the first place?”
Steve: [chuckling] “Actually, we planned it to fool the F.B.I. I’m better at growing tomatoes than Hank and so we arranged to switch places.”
Linguini: “So you’re saying it was all a charade?”
Steve: “Hey buddy, I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret. 99% of all politics is dirty. The other 1% is dumb luck…kinda like when that shark bit Sven’s leg and not yours.”
Abdul Washandhem: “What exactly do you expect Hank to do as this nation’s first Ambassador?”
Steve: “Well, I would hope he’d throw a nice little fundraiser and invite me. Plus, I’ll expect that he’s arranging some foreign aid from the U.S. I’m sure Uncle Sam has some strategic interest over here worth protecting.”
Abdul Washandhem: “Like what?”
Steve: “Irradiated tomatoes. I don’t know. That’s why I appointed an ambassador. Ah…look at the time. We’ve got time for just one more question.”
Linguini: “Do you have other pressing business?”
Steve: “I sure do. It’s time to water the tomatoes.”
[whereupon the press conference ended as Steve hummed “Hail to the Chief” and retired to Saladabod.]
Thursday, September 9, 2010
YOUR BOOK OR YOUR GOD
I wouldn't have guessed that Reverend (and I use that term loosely) Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida could have stooped any lower than announcing to the world that he and fellow Dove Outreach Center members were planning to burn copies of the Quran at their church on September 11th, but he did, and I have to admit I'm dumbstruck by the seeming lack of outrage over Act II of Jones' performance. In fact, I half believe there are actually millions of Americans out there applauding his latest gesture.
On the off-chance you don't know what I'm talking about, earlier this week, Pastor Jones leaped onto the national stage when he announced to the world that he and his 50-member church were going to burn copies of the Muslim Quran on 9/11 as an act of defiance against the Islam religion who Jones says was responsible for the terrorist attacks nine years ago.
Jones' announcement set off an understandable firestorm of anger and outrage in the Muslim world, and the President, the Pope and many other religious and government leaders joined an ever-growing chorus in urging Pastor Jones to cancel the planned event. At first, Pastor Jones stood defiant against the wave of condemnation.
Then, American General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, publicly denounced Jones' plan and warned that following through with the Quran burning would endanger U.S. troops, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in other areas of the world too.
Slowly, and in my opinion half begrudgingly, many conservative politicians in this country joined the bandwagon and started denouncing Jones' plan as well. I surmise that slow response was due, in large part, to the fact that they as politicians recognized that most of their followers were secretly hoping Pastor Jones would follow through with the Quran burning. I base that assertion on the fact that I have received no 'anti-Quran burning' emails this week from the folks who flood my mailbox with "Obama is a Muslim" diatribes. I admit my opinion isn't based on scientific polling, but I still think I'm not far off base.
Yesterday, minority house leader Jim Boehner of Ohio, who hopes to take over the Speaker position after this fall's elections, was quoted as saying that burning the Quran was akin to placing a mosque near ground zero, and that's when I knew that Pastor Jones was going to sink to a new low. I only wish I had predicted it in print the moment I read Mr. Boehner's words.
Sure enough, this morning, Pastor Jones announced that he would cancel plans for the Quran burning on Saturday if, and this is a big if, the leaders of the proposed mosque in New York City would agree to relocate their planned facility far away from ground zero. That's the Faustian choice, the perfect blackmail: Your Book or Your God!
Leave it to a politician and a so-called minister to frame the issue in such a way as to leave a Muslim people with a no-win choice, and to allow themselves to emerge in the eyes of many Americans as a champion of all that is good about this Nation.
I must confess I'm shaking my head. I'm looking for the outrage, and all I hear is applause.
On the off-chance you don't know what I'm talking about, earlier this week, Pastor Jones leaped onto the national stage when he announced to the world that he and his 50-member church were going to burn copies of the Muslim Quran on 9/11 as an act of defiance against the Islam religion who Jones says was responsible for the terrorist attacks nine years ago.
Jones' announcement set off an understandable firestorm of anger and outrage in the Muslim world, and the President, the Pope and many other religious and government leaders joined an ever-growing chorus in urging Pastor Jones to cancel the planned event. At first, Pastor Jones stood defiant against the wave of condemnation.
Then, American General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, publicly denounced Jones' plan and warned that following through with the Quran burning would endanger U.S. troops, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in other areas of the world too.
Slowly, and in my opinion half begrudgingly, many conservative politicians in this country joined the bandwagon and started denouncing Jones' plan as well. I surmise that slow response was due, in large part, to the fact that they as politicians recognized that most of their followers were secretly hoping Pastor Jones would follow through with the Quran burning. I base that assertion on the fact that I have received no 'anti-Quran burning' emails this week from the folks who flood my mailbox with "Obama is a Muslim" diatribes. I admit my opinion isn't based on scientific polling, but I still think I'm not far off base.
Yesterday, minority house leader Jim Boehner of Ohio, who hopes to take over the Speaker position after this fall's elections, was quoted as saying that burning the Quran was akin to placing a mosque near ground zero, and that's when I knew that Pastor Jones was going to sink to a new low. I only wish I had predicted it in print the moment I read Mr. Boehner's words.
Sure enough, this morning, Pastor Jones announced that he would cancel plans for the Quran burning on Saturday if, and this is a big if, the leaders of the proposed mosque in New York City would agree to relocate their planned facility far away from ground zero. That's the Faustian choice, the perfect blackmail: Your Book or Your God!
Leave it to a politician and a so-called minister to frame the issue in such a way as to leave a Muslim people with a no-win choice, and to allow themselves to emerge in the eyes of many Americans as a champion of all that is good about this Nation.
I must confess I'm shaking my head. I'm looking for the outrage, and all I hear is applause.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME
As we approach another 9/11 anniversary, public discourse is once again returning to an all-too-familiar theme: Supporting Our Troops. It's a noble pursuit, but one I feel is frequently treated with little more than lip service. Here's why: The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already exceeded 2.5 trillion dollars and American taxpayers have not paid a single dollar on this war debt.
How can that be, you ask? Well, every appropriation for war expenses since 2001 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been approved as a supplemental appropriation, which means that the appropriation was not part of the government’s regular budget or paid for by budgeted tax revenues. Instead, the government has continuously sold treasury bills (government IOU’s) to foreign countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia to secure funds to finance the wars. The interest on those treasury bills compounds daily, and will continue to do so until the debt, with interest, is repaid.
This begs the question: When do troop supporters plan to pay for the troops?
Millions of American eagerly display “We Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and flags on their vehicles, but if that display represents the total extent of support folks are willing to provide to our troops, one has to question the sincerity of their gesture.
It seems to me that it’s time for every troop supporter to open their wallets and checkbooks, to take out second or third mortgages, if necessary, and to dip into savings to pay off this war debt, which is really what it means to support the troops. And, if folks are not willing to pony-up for the troops and the war they wanted, well then, its time to shut up on the claim of supporting our troops, pack up the military and bring them home.
When a country goes to war it requests its soldiers and military personnel to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the citizenry isn’t willing to make a corresponding sacrifice and pay for the war, it should never be fought in the first place.
The Bush Administration was wrong in refusing to ask the American people to make the financial sacrifice necessary to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was wrong to refuse to increase taxes to pay for a war or to continue conducting such an endeavor if the citizenry refused financial support. The same goes for the current administration. It’s put up or shut up time – and bumper stickers don’t count!
How can that be, you ask? Well, every appropriation for war expenses since 2001 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been approved as a supplemental appropriation, which means that the appropriation was not part of the government’s regular budget or paid for by budgeted tax revenues. Instead, the government has continuously sold treasury bills (government IOU’s) to foreign countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia to secure funds to finance the wars. The interest on those treasury bills compounds daily, and will continue to do so until the debt, with interest, is repaid.
This begs the question: When do troop supporters plan to pay for the troops?
Millions of American eagerly display “We Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and flags on their vehicles, but if that display represents the total extent of support folks are willing to provide to our troops, one has to question the sincerity of their gesture.
It seems to me that it’s time for every troop supporter to open their wallets and checkbooks, to take out second or third mortgages, if necessary, and to dip into savings to pay off this war debt, which is really what it means to support the troops. And, if folks are not willing to pony-up for the troops and the war they wanted, well then, its time to shut up on the claim of supporting our troops, pack up the military and bring them home.
When a country goes to war it requests its soldiers and military personnel to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the citizenry isn’t willing to make a corresponding sacrifice and pay for the war, it should never be fought in the first place.
The Bush Administration was wrong in refusing to ask the American people to make the financial sacrifice necessary to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was wrong to refuse to increase taxes to pay for a war or to continue conducting such an endeavor if the citizenry refused financial support. The same goes for the current administration. It’s put up or shut up time – and bumper stickers don’t count!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
NO ROOM FOR CHRIST IN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM
The deepest flaw in the so-called conservative movement in America today is the fact that it claims to have a foundation in Christian values yet fails to adhere to the core teaching of Christ: Love thy neighbor and thy enemy. For all its pro-religion rhetoric, the basic tenants of American conservatism are far from religious and anything but Christ-like.
While the conservative movement champions the elimination of abortion claiming that all human life is precious, it has vigorously defended this Country's pursuit of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocent lives in the process. At the same time it extols the sanctity of human life, the conservative movement advances the death penalty seeking to broaden its use. Both inconsistencies are justified with the assertion that terrorists and criminals are enemies of the state, and indeed they are, but warring and executing are not Christ-like behaviors and those who claim to be carrying out God’s will in the process are not fooling anyone, least of all the Almighty.
Nowhere in Christ’s teachings does one find a call for inequality and ill treatment of others. In fact, compassion and understanding for outcasts is a central theme of the Gospels, but the conservative movement sees inequality in a different light, justifying it as a legitimate means to an end. The conservative drive against homosexuals is characterized as a ‘war against sin’, and discrimination against that group is justified as a necessary tool designed to prevent homosexuality from taking root. Unequal treatment of homosexuals is not only condoned, it is championed. Imagine if the victim in Christ's “Good Samaritan” parable was a homosexual instead of a robbery victim. Today's American conservative movement would have passed him by too and felt totally justified. The lesson here: just because inequity is popular among Christian conservatives doesn’t make it Christian.
Another core value of conservatism is self-reliance. Those who carry their own weight are adjudged righteous and those who don’t lazy and worthless. The conservative movement champions individualism and shuns social dependence on one another. Never mind that Christ advocated caring for the poor and less fortunate. Forget that Christ encouraged community building and shunned individual-promotion over the advancement of all. In the conservative movement self-advancement is number one!
In the same vein conservatism generally advocates a reduction in government efforts to feed, shelter and provide medical care to the poor and elderly. And while it is rightfully claimed that churches and individuals are more effective than government in providing said services, the simple fact is that churches and individuals have come nowhere close to meeting all the needs of the poor either. Without government intervention millions would suffer, a fact the conservative movement conveniently ignores.
While the conservative movement champions the elimination of abortion claiming that all human life is precious, it has vigorously defended this Country's pursuit of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocent lives in the process. At the same time it extols the sanctity of human life, the conservative movement advances the death penalty seeking to broaden its use. Both inconsistencies are justified with the assertion that terrorists and criminals are enemies of the state, and indeed they are, but warring and executing are not Christ-like behaviors and those who claim to be carrying out God’s will in the process are not fooling anyone, least of all the Almighty.
Nowhere in Christ’s teachings does one find a call for inequality and ill treatment of others. In fact, compassion and understanding for outcasts is a central theme of the Gospels, but the conservative movement sees inequality in a different light, justifying it as a legitimate means to an end. The conservative drive against homosexuals is characterized as a ‘war against sin’, and discrimination against that group is justified as a necessary tool designed to prevent homosexuality from taking root. Unequal treatment of homosexuals is not only condoned, it is championed. Imagine if the victim in Christ's “Good Samaritan” parable was a homosexual instead of a robbery victim. Today's American conservative movement would have passed him by too and felt totally justified. The lesson here: just because inequity is popular among Christian conservatives doesn’t make it Christian.
Another core value of conservatism is self-reliance. Those who carry their own weight are adjudged righteous and those who don’t lazy and worthless. The conservative movement champions individualism and shuns social dependence on one another. Never mind that Christ advocated caring for the poor and less fortunate. Forget that Christ encouraged community building and shunned individual-promotion over the advancement of all. In the conservative movement self-advancement is number one!
In the same vein conservatism generally advocates a reduction in government efforts to feed, shelter and provide medical care to the poor and elderly. And while it is rightfully claimed that churches and individuals are more effective than government in providing said services, the simple fact is that churches and individuals have come nowhere close to meeting all the needs of the poor either. Without government intervention millions would suffer, a fact the conservative movement conveniently ignores.
Monday, September 6, 2010
THE UNEMPLOYED HAVE LITTLE REASON TO CELEBRATE LABOR DAY
Today is a national holiday celebrating labor, but a lot of former laborers are not celebrating. Sadly, on this Labor Day, almost 10% of working-age people in America are looking for work, but can't find it. The "Help Wanted" section of the newspaper is 1/10th the size it was 5 years ago, and for many folks looking for employment, the prospect of finding a job anytime soon is slim-to-none.
The Obama administration made addressing our broken health care system the first priority of its tenure in office, a decision that was understandable considering the substantial drag that health care costs places upon our economy, but while the health care industry employs large numbers of our work force, it has never been an industry that jump-starts hiring in a bad economic climate. Construction and manufacturing have been the traditional leaders in job creation, though often not simultaneously.
When World War II commenced, America was in the throes of a decade-long depression, but virtually overnight, the need to manufacture war armaments created tens of thousands of jobs and the road to economic recovery was greatly shortened. Manufacturing was the catalyst. In the early 90's, following the end of the first Iraq war, this country experienced a difficult recession and the new President, Bill Clinton, recognized that American manufacturing was not poised to lead an economic recovery. Clinton decided, and wisely so, that addressing America's deteriorating infra-structure (roads, bridges, schools, public buildings and parks) was the shortest way to economic recovery because it killed two birds with one stone – created jobs & repaired public infra-structure with the same dollar. Construction was the catalyst, and it ushered in the longest period of economic growth this country has ever experienced.
In today's economy, American manufacturing is not poised to lead an economic recovery because of its decade long-practice of exporting American jobs to foreign countries in the name of increasing bottom-line profits.
Republicans argue that lower business taxes will spur job creation in the manufacturing sector, but that claim lacks credibility when you consider that during the entire Bush Administration from 2001 to 2009, business taxes were decreasing and businesses responded by sending more and more jobs overseas. Even common sense weighs against the "lower business tax" argument. Businesses create jobs when there is an increased demand for their product. Without demand for products, businesses shrink their work force, not expand it. When demand for products increase, more workers can be hired. A reduction in business taxation does not create a demand for more products. Only an increase in the number of people working will fuel a demand for more products, and hence, an increase in hiring.
What about construction? Can it lead the way to economic recovery? It did in 1993. Can it do it again? While that's possible, there are different forces at work in today's economy that were not problems in 1993. Chiefly among them is the housing crisis. In 1993, new housing construction was down, but not on life-support, and the housing market in general was not in a state of collapse. Once infra-structure job creation took hold, advances in new home construction picked up and helped fuel the recovery. With today's housing market condition being what it is, little can be expected from it in terms of starting or fueling economic recovery. Simply treading water would be a plus.
Personally, I think government construction is still our best bet. It worked in 1993 and it still gives the taxpayer the best bang for their buck – job creation & infra-structure improvement with the same tax dollar.
Unfortunately, having spent whatever political capital he had on health care reform, the President currently finds himself fighting an uphill battle to convince the public to do what is necessary to create more jobs; that is, to increase federal spending to create jobs. To the public, that kind of spending is a pill too bitter to swallow. That's a shame, but that's politics.
What would I do? Well, I'd distribute fifty billion dollars in the form of direct emergency grants. Twenty-five million of those dollars would be immediately available to Habitat for Humanity programs to hire unemployed workers who were collecting unemployment compensation or had their benefits exhausted. I would require those workers be paid $15/hour and demand a 40-hour work week in return. That money would create millions jobs, help reduce dependency on public-financed housing and enhance the public image of a worthwhile program (Habitat for Humanity) that excels at promoting community involvement, a strong work ethic and the efficient and judicious use of funding.
The remaining twenty-five billion I would make available to state, county, schools and local governments to finance construction and/or improvements to highways, bridges and buildings. It worked in 1993. There's no reason why it can't work again.
There are millions of people in American anxious to be productive again. They deserve that chance. Otherwise, why are the rest of us celebrating?
The Obama administration made addressing our broken health care system the first priority of its tenure in office, a decision that was understandable considering the substantial drag that health care costs places upon our economy, but while the health care industry employs large numbers of our work force, it has never been an industry that jump-starts hiring in a bad economic climate. Construction and manufacturing have been the traditional leaders in job creation, though often not simultaneously.
When World War II commenced, America was in the throes of a decade-long depression, but virtually overnight, the need to manufacture war armaments created tens of thousands of jobs and the road to economic recovery was greatly shortened. Manufacturing was the catalyst. In the early 90's, following the end of the first Iraq war, this country experienced a difficult recession and the new President, Bill Clinton, recognized that American manufacturing was not poised to lead an economic recovery. Clinton decided, and wisely so, that addressing America's deteriorating infra-structure (roads, bridges, schools, public buildings and parks) was the shortest way to economic recovery because it killed two birds with one stone – created jobs & repaired public infra-structure with the same dollar. Construction was the catalyst, and it ushered in the longest period of economic growth this country has ever experienced.
In today's economy, American manufacturing is not poised to lead an economic recovery because of its decade long-practice of exporting American jobs to foreign countries in the name of increasing bottom-line profits.
Republicans argue that lower business taxes will spur job creation in the manufacturing sector, but that claim lacks credibility when you consider that during the entire Bush Administration from 2001 to 2009, business taxes were decreasing and businesses responded by sending more and more jobs overseas. Even common sense weighs against the "lower business tax" argument. Businesses create jobs when there is an increased demand for their product. Without demand for products, businesses shrink their work force, not expand it. When demand for products increase, more workers can be hired. A reduction in business taxation does not create a demand for more products. Only an increase in the number of people working will fuel a demand for more products, and hence, an increase in hiring.
What about construction? Can it lead the way to economic recovery? It did in 1993. Can it do it again? While that's possible, there are different forces at work in today's economy that were not problems in 1993. Chiefly among them is the housing crisis. In 1993, new housing construction was down, but not on life-support, and the housing market in general was not in a state of collapse. Once infra-structure job creation took hold, advances in new home construction picked up and helped fuel the recovery. With today's housing market condition being what it is, little can be expected from it in terms of starting or fueling economic recovery. Simply treading water would be a plus.
Personally, I think government construction is still our best bet. It worked in 1993 and it still gives the taxpayer the best bang for their buck – job creation & infra-structure improvement with the same tax dollar.
Unfortunately, having spent whatever political capital he had on health care reform, the President currently finds himself fighting an uphill battle to convince the public to do what is necessary to create more jobs; that is, to increase federal spending to create jobs. To the public, that kind of spending is a pill too bitter to swallow. That's a shame, but that's politics.
What would I do? Well, I'd distribute fifty billion dollars in the form of direct emergency grants. Twenty-five million of those dollars would be immediately available to Habitat for Humanity programs to hire unemployed workers who were collecting unemployment compensation or had their benefits exhausted. I would require those workers be paid $15/hour and demand a 40-hour work week in return. That money would create millions jobs, help reduce dependency on public-financed housing and enhance the public image of a worthwhile program (Habitat for Humanity) that excels at promoting community involvement, a strong work ethic and the efficient and judicious use of funding.
The remaining twenty-five billion I would make available to state, county, schools and local governments to finance construction and/or improvements to highways, bridges and buildings. It worked in 1993. There's no reason why it can't work again.
There are millions of people in American anxious to be productive again. They deserve that chance. Otherwise, why are the rest of us celebrating?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
QUESTIONING GOD'S EXISTENCE
Over the years, I've come to appreciate the fact that you can greatly admire a person without having to agree with everything that person says or does or believes. And that's a good virtue to have, because the moment you start demonizing everyone who holds an opinion you don't, is the moment you become incredibly stupid or incredibly lonely, or both.
Noted British physicist, Stephen Hawking, is releasing a book this week entitled "The Grand Design" in which he reportedly argues that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. It's not clear from all the pre-release media accounts of the book whether Hawking continues to believe in the existence of God, but even if he does; his premise that God was not the instrument setting off the creation of the universe we know is bound to set off a demonizing wave of public opinion against him. Given the public's habit of overreacting, physicists in general will take a hit too. Both are unfortunate.
Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known, has contributed more to the world's understanding of cosmology and quantum physics than anyone, except perhaps Albert Einstein, and yet, I'm afraid that his personal questioning of the existence of God or God's role in creation are likely to overshadow his life's work and achievements in the minds of many. That's sad too.
I admire Stephen Hawking, not only as a brilliant physicist, but as a determined human being who has spent his entire adult life battling a neuro muscular dystrophy, a condition that confines him to a wheelchair and only allows him to speak through a voice synthesizer. Much of the work ordinary physicists do on computers and in laboratories, Hawking does in his head, because his physical ailment has rendered him paralyzed. And yet, in spite of all his physical limitations, Hawking continues unabated in his drive to contribute to the knowledge of mankind. Effort of that caliber is nothing short of remarkable.
I believe in a God that Hawking may or may believe in, but I also support Hawking's right to question the existence of God and to reach a conclusion that might not conform to mine. Whatever his conclusion on that particular question turns out to be, that conclusion does not affect how I chose to view Hawking or his work, because I think belief in God is a matter of faith, and what is faith if there is no questioning?
Noted British physicist, Stephen Hawking, is releasing a book this week entitled "The Grand Design" in which he reportedly argues that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. It's not clear from all the pre-release media accounts of the book whether Hawking continues to believe in the existence of God, but even if he does; his premise that God was not the instrument setting off the creation of the universe we know is bound to set off a demonizing wave of public opinion against him. Given the public's habit of overreacting, physicists in general will take a hit too. Both are unfortunate.
Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known, has contributed more to the world's understanding of cosmology and quantum physics than anyone, except perhaps Albert Einstein, and yet, I'm afraid that his personal questioning of the existence of God or God's role in creation are likely to overshadow his life's work and achievements in the minds of many. That's sad too.
I admire Stephen Hawking, not only as a brilliant physicist, but as a determined human being who has spent his entire adult life battling a neuro muscular dystrophy, a condition that confines him to a wheelchair and only allows him to speak through a voice synthesizer. Much of the work ordinary physicists do on computers and in laboratories, Hawking does in his head, because his physical ailment has rendered him paralyzed. And yet, in spite of all his physical limitations, Hawking continues unabated in his drive to contribute to the knowledge of mankind. Effort of that caliber is nothing short of remarkable.
I believe in a God that Hawking may or may believe in, but I also support Hawking's right to question the existence of God and to reach a conclusion that might not conform to mine. Whatever his conclusion on that particular question turns out to be, that conclusion does not affect how I chose to view Hawking or his work, because I think belief in God is a matter of faith, and what is faith if there is no questioning?
Saturday, September 4, 2010
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (Part II)
The greatest myth bandied about these days is the myth that the founding fathers of our republic intended to create a republic based on Judeo-Christian principles. This myth may give comfort to millions who yearn for a society based solely on the religious doctrine of our nation's two most predominant religions – Judaism and Christianity, but that yearning was not shared by the founding fathers of this republic and claims to the contrary are nothing more than wishful thinking. They are surely not historical fact.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is recognized as the primary drafter of the United States Constitution. These were his stated views on government and religion:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, had these words to say on the subject:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. " --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
Benjamin Franklin noted:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
George Washington had this to say on the subject:
"[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of . . . every species of religious persecution. . . ."
John Adams wrote:
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
"[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . ." (From "The Treaty with Tripoli," approved by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.)
Andrew Jackson noted:
"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (In a statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)
Alexander Hamilton proclaimed:
"The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . ."
Thomas Paine wrote:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."
Even French political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the Founder's view that religion had no place in government or political affairs. He wrote:
"I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that."
For those who are quick to point out that current-day legislative bodies employ the practice of opening sessions with prayer, perhaps they would be surprised that the founding fathers were decidedly against the practice. Franklin Steiner, a noted constitutional historian observed:
"[W]hen it was proposed to open the Constitutional Convention, over which he [George Washington] presided, with prayer, the motion was lost. Only three or four of the delegates favored it, and it is not recorded that Washington was one of them."
Finally, the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) states:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The simple truth of the matter is that America's founding fathers would be aghast at hearing modern day political rhetoric suggesting they formulated a government based on religious principles and intended that government to reflect the religious precepts of Christianity and Judaism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is recognized as the primary drafter of the United States Constitution. These were his stated views on government and religion:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, had these words to say on the subject:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. " --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
Benjamin Franklin noted:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
George Washington had this to say on the subject:
"[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of . . . every species of religious persecution. . . ."
John Adams wrote:
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
"[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . ." (From "The Treaty with Tripoli," approved by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.)
Andrew Jackson noted:
"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (In a statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)
Alexander Hamilton proclaimed:
"The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . ."
Thomas Paine wrote:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."
Even French political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the Founder's view that religion had no place in government or political affairs. He wrote:
"I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that."
For those who are quick to point out that current-day legislative bodies employ the practice of opening sessions with prayer, perhaps they would be surprised that the founding fathers were decidedly against the practice. Franklin Steiner, a noted constitutional historian observed:
"[W]hen it was proposed to open the Constitutional Convention, over which he [George Washington] presided, with prayer, the motion was lost. Only three or four of the delegates favored it, and it is not recorded that Washington was one of them."
Finally, the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) states:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The simple truth of the matter is that America's founding fathers would be aghast at hearing modern day political rhetoric suggesting they formulated a government based on religious principles and intended that government to reflect the religious precepts of Christianity and Judaism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Friday, September 3, 2010
MUTED RESPONSE TO RAPE IN AMERICAN PRISONS
I know quite a few people who think if prisoners get raped behind bars it’s really nothing society should get concerned about. Their attitude stems from the belief that human degradation is part and parcel of life in prison and whatever happens to an inmate is justifiable as expected punishment for whatever landed the prisoner in jail in the first place.
Given the widespread prevalence of that type attitude in America, it comes as no surprise to me that a report on prison rape recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics would not garner much media attention or generate a groundswell of support in the population to push for much-needed reform.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that last year, at least 88,500 federal, state and local prison inmates were raped or were the victim of a sexual-related assault while in prison. That 88,500 figure included only reported incidents and the (BJS) report acknowledged that the actual figure was, in all probably, significantly higher.
With those kinds of figures floating around, people ought to be upset, but by and large, they're not, and that says something bad about our society!
I think one reason for the massive amount of apathy on this issue in our society is that we've become so adept at the art of depersonalization and demonizing. Whenever we're confronted by somebody who does not share our thoughts, values or code of acceptable conduct, we immediately categorize them in our mind as worthless and something less than human. Once another individual takes on the veneer of a sub-human demon, justifying sub-human treatment of that individual is no longer a big leap. In fact, for many, is becomes the next logical step.
Whether we realize it or not, our attitudes on this kind of matter reflect how we confront many other ethical issues that arise in our life, and I think it behooves us all to take a second look at this subject. If we really want to promote ourselves as being pro-life (in favor of life for all), it seems to me that concept should be applied to everybody, even prisoners.
Given the widespread prevalence of that type attitude in America, it comes as no surprise to me that a report on prison rape recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics would not garner much media attention or generate a groundswell of support in the population to push for much-needed reform.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that last year, at least 88,500 federal, state and local prison inmates were raped or were the victim of a sexual-related assault while in prison. That 88,500 figure included only reported incidents and the (BJS) report acknowledged that the actual figure was, in all probably, significantly higher.
With those kinds of figures floating around, people ought to be upset, but by and large, they're not, and that says something bad about our society!
I think one reason for the massive amount of apathy on this issue in our society is that we've become so adept at the art of depersonalization and demonizing. Whenever we're confronted by somebody who does not share our thoughts, values or code of acceptable conduct, we immediately categorize them in our mind as worthless and something less than human. Once another individual takes on the veneer of a sub-human demon, justifying sub-human treatment of that individual is no longer a big leap. In fact, for many, is becomes the next logical step.
Whether we realize it or not, our attitudes on this kind of matter reflect how we confront many other ethical issues that arise in our life, and I think it behooves us all to take a second look at this subject. If we really want to promote ourselves as being pro-life (in favor of life for all), it seems to me that concept should be applied to everybody, even prisoners.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
ENGLISH IS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotal and by scientifically conducted studies, that 96% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn enough English to get by, but not much more. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are fluent in their parents’ native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but that’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, a similar percentage indicated that they found that social barriers hindered their efforts to learn English and so they used their native language because it felt comfortable to them.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a similar gripe and ended with the view that anybody who does not speak English should be denied entry into the United States. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly is a popular viewpoint.
I shouldn't have to mention that from a legal position, English already IS our official language. So-called efforts to “establish” English as our official language are anything but that, because English as our official language is what already exists. What "English-Only" proponents want to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea – but again, it’s a pretty popular one.
Proponents of the issue seem to think that this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who write me to bitch about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, that latter part of the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but that’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, a similar percentage indicated that they found that social barriers hindered their efforts to learn English and so they used their native language because it felt comfortable to them.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a similar gripe and ended with the view that anybody who does not speak English should be denied entry into the United States. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly is a popular viewpoint.
I shouldn't have to mention that from a legal position, English already IS our official language. So-called efforts to “establish” English as our official language are anything but that, because English as our official language is what already exists. What "English-Only" proponents want to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea – but again, it’s a pretty popular one.
Proponents of the issue seem to think that this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who write me to bitch about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, that latter part of the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
POLITICAL SAUSAGE
WARNING: This column should not be read in conjunction with any meal. Do not consider the information that follows within one hour of any repast where sausage is or was being served. Individuals with acid reflux, weak stomachs, peptic ulcers and other gastro-intestinal problems should see their physician before reading.
Former President Bush's White House chief of staff, Andrew Card noted in a press conference years ago, “There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. We gave the sausage machine all of the right ingredients; they have to churn. And I’m confident that when they turn that sausage out it’ll be the right kind of sausage for America.”
Never, in my own humble opinion, has such a high-ranking politician spoken more truthful words! There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. And you can bet they’re making congressional sausage.
Andrew Card's words prompted me to search the Internet to learn all I could about sausage production with the hope that it would provide a clue as to what kind of sausage Congress could produce. I visited the “Google” search engine, typed in the word “Sausage” and voila, 918,000 sausage websites appeared on the screen. One might consider it the “Mother of All Electronic Smorgasbords”.
My sausage search proved to be quite fascinating and I picked up some pretty interesting tidbits. For example, did you know that sausage is known to have peculiar effects upon the digestive system? You can find out what they are at The Real Man’s Cookbook, located at the website: www.conservativebookstore.com! I’ve followed my share of conservative congressmen over the years and long suspected they had problems with their digestive tracts. At least now I know why.
Here are a few other interesting items. There’s actually a National Hot Dog and Sausage Council! You can visit their website at www.hot-dog.org. I didn’t check to see what they do, but if their work involves visiting fairs and taste-testing sausage sandwiches, I’d like to volunteer my services. Another website (www.vikingrange.com) boasted that sausage and bow ties is actually an old Viking recipe. Who knew?
Finally, I ran across an article about a guy who purportedly ate cat sausage, which he said, “was hot and spicy and tasted great”, in a Mexican nightclub. The thought of cat sausage sounded gross and I would have bypassed the article immediately except for its web address. www.texasonline.net/langley/columns/sausage.htm. Wasn’t President Bush from Texas? Isn’t the C.I.A. located in Langley? A good conspiracy buff might assume a connection!
I’m sorry. In all the excitement about the world of sausage, I seem to have lost track of my intended topic: congressional sausage.
Many of you may recall seeing at one time or another on television the Scholastic Rock animated version of how a “Bill” becomes a “Law”. The cartoon is a cute, informative and simplistic educational tool for teaching the basics of our legislative process.
If, however, you want to see how Congress and the sausage-making machine really work, go to the website: http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Pig/Prepare%20Pig/PreparePig.htm. It will prove just how accurate Andrew Card's observation really was.
For those busy to search that site, let me pass on a few quotes it contained. “Making sausage is a messy business.” (Often said of passing legislation) “It also smells.” (Need I say more?) “Sausage makers blow a lot.” (Name a member of Congress that doesn’t) “The guts are taken out and fed to the dogs.” (Meaningful proposals seldom escape Congress with their gut intact) “Eventually, the sausage is boiled in pork broth”. (What spending bill isn’t?)
I also learned in my Internet search that “the fermentation step in sausage production involves the action of a lactic acid bacterium on the sugar added to ground meat”. What that means is that Congress is going to take a problem, sugarcoat it, let it ferment and then serve it to us in an intestinal jacket!
A safety bulletin at www.safetyalerts.com/articles/new.02/flabeef.htm addressed a Florida company’s sausage recall when testing revealed the presence of a bacterium in their product. The article didn’t say how the “bacterium” made its way into the sausage, but I just assumed that somewhere in the process sanitation was a bit lacking or the contamination wouldn’t have occurred.
Given that “politics is a dirty business” and the legislative process is so rampant with less than spotless hands, one should expect congressional sausage to be more contaminated than anything you’d see on the supermarket shelf.
Can I interest anyone in some sausage for dinner?
Former President Bush's White House chief of staff, Andrew Card noted in a press conference years ago, “There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. We gave the sausage machine all of the right ingredients; they have to churn. And I’m confident that when they turn that sausage out it’ll be the right kind of sausage for America.”
Never, in my own humble opinion, has such a high-ranking politician spoken more truthful words! There’s a sausage machine on Capitol Hill. And you can bet they’re making congressional sausage.
Andrew Card's words prompted me to search the Internet to learn all I could about sausage production with the hope that it would provide a clue as to what kind of sausage Congress could produce. I visited the “Google” search engine, typed in the word “Sausage” and voila, 918,000 sausage websites appeared on the screen. One might consider it the “Mother of All Electronic Smorgasbords”.
My sausage search proved to be quite fascinating and I picked up some pretty interesting tidbits. For example, did you know that sausage is known to have peculiar effects upon the digestive system? You can find out what they are at The Real Man’s Cookbook, located at the website: www.conservativebookstore.com! I’ve followed my share of conservative congressmen over the years and long suspected they had problems with their digestive tracts. At least now I know why.
Here are a few other interesting items. There’s actually a National Hot Dog and Sausage Council! You can visit their website at www.hot-dog.org. I didn’t check to see what they do, but if their work involves visiting fairs and taste-testing sausage sandwiches, I’d like to volunteer my services. Another website (www.vikingrange.com) boasted that sausage and bow ties is actually an old Viking recipe. Who knew?
Finally, I ran across an article about a guy who purportedly ate cat sausage, which he said, “was hot and spicy and tasted great”, in a Mexican nightclub. The thought of cat sausage sounded gross and I would have bypassed the article immediately except for its web address. www.texasonline.net/langley/columns/sausage.htm. Wasn’t President Bush from Texas? Isn’t the C.I.A. located in Langley? A good conspiracy buff might assume a connection!
I’m sorry. In all the excitement about the world of sausage, I seem to have lost track of my intended topic: congressional sausage.
Many of you may recall seeing at one time or another on television the Scholastic Rock animated version of how a “Bill” becomes a “Law”. The cartoon is a cute, informative and simplistic educational tool for teaching the basics of our legislative process.
If, however, you want to see how Congress and the sausage-making machine really work, go to the website: http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Pig/Prepare%20Pig/PreparePig.htm. It will prove just how accurate Andrew Card's observation really was.
For those busy to search that site, let me pass on a few quotes it contained. “Making sausage is a messy business.” (Often said of passing legislation) “It also smells.” (Need I say more?) “Sausage makers blow a lot.” (Name a member of Congress that doesn’t) “The guts are taken out and fed to the dogs.” (Meaningful proposals seldom escape Congress with their gut intact) “Eventually, the sausage is boiled in pork broth”. (What spending bill isn’t?)
I also learned in my Internet search that “the fermentation step in sausage production involves the action of a lactic acid bacterium on the sugar added to ground meat”. What that means is that Congress is going to take a problem, sugarcoat it, let it ferment and then serve it to us in an intestinal jacket!
A safety bulletin at www.safetyalerts.com/articles/new.02/flabeef.htm addressed a Florida company’s sausage recall when testing revealed the presence of a bacterium in their product. The article didn’t say how the “bacterium” made its way into the sausage, but I just assumed that somewhere in the process sanitation was a bit lacking or the contamination wouldn’t have occurred.
Given that “politics is a dirty business” and the legislative process is so rampant with less than spotless hands, one should expect congressional sausage to be more contaminated than anything you’d see on the supermarket shelf.
Can I interest anyone in some sausage for dinner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)