The Complete Cynic’s Guide to Politics

What has become of our basic humanity?

2011-09-13T12:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

How Many Oil Spills Does It Take?

2011-09-13T09:26:00.000-07:00

Aftermath of the Gulf Disaster

Backmann advocates polluting the Florida Everglades

Thomas Jefferson - Congress

2011-07-16T00:30:00.000-07:00

If the present Congress errs in too much talking,
how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people
send one hundred and fifty lawyers,
whose trade it is to question everything,
yield nothing, and talk by the hour?
- Thomas Jefferson

imbeciles

2011-04-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.
- Mark Twain

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.- H. L. Mencken

2009-12-13T18:37:00.001-08:00

A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. - H. L. Mencken

2009-12-13T18:15:00.001-08:00

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. - Oliver Wendell Holmes

2009-12-13T17:38:00.001-08:00

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. - Oscar Wilde

2009-12-13T17:21:00.001-08:00

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. - Oscar Wilde

2009-12-13T17:14:00.000-08:00

Origins of Conflict

2009-08-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

There once was a family where one of the sons behaved very badly - he beat up another son, took his toys, and left him for dead. The parents were very angry. They spanked the first son, but not too hard. Then they kissed the second son and gave him all the toys of a third son, who had done no harm himself. The third son complained that this was very unfair, but the parents said to just look at how hurt the second son was and that they thought it would be better to give the second son all the third son's toys rather than to give him some of the first son's toys.

Who is this family? The family is the human race. The first son is Germany - Nazi Germany at the time of the crime. The second son is the Jewish people who in 1948 were given the land of the Palestinians, rather than German land, as reparation for the Nazi crimes against them. The third son is the Palestinian people; and the "parents" are Great Britain, the United States, France, and the other "Allied" countries.

Get the Government Out of the Marriage Business

2009-04-27T17:40:00.000-07:00

I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. There is little overlap between religion's interests and Uncle Sam's interests, and there is no reason to try to force an alignment of those interests.

Marriage is one of the few institutions that today straddles the line between being a civil matter and a religious matter. The sacrament of marriage has long been a cornerstone of virtually every religion. In addition to the historical precedent, there is also widespread strong attachment to the religious nature of marriage. The image of a wedding couple - with bride wearing a flowing white dress and veil - saying their vows before a congregation of their family and friends is much more powerful than the image of the couple signing a computerized form at the local registrar.

The state has a proper interest in the welfare of all children, and some interest in the process of inheritance, but otherwise, I can see no reason for the state to have any involvement with the sacrament of marriage. Questions of inheritance are always best addressed through wills, and inheritance laws are only applied in the unfortunate absence of a will. Today's laws regarding inheritance are murky, with various states having quite different rules regarding how legitimate and illegitimate children are defined and the extent to which each is eligible for inheritance. Inheritance laws themselves need a great deal of clean up, but are certainly no reason to perpetuate the government's presence in the arena of marriage.

The government's proper interest in children's welfare extends, of course, to all children, regardless of the circumstances under which they were conceived, and regardless of the family or institutional setting in which they are nurtured. So the state's protection of children in no way creates a valid interest of the government in licensing or regulating marriage.

How about tax breaks for marriage? As one who favors simplified tax structures, with no favored treatment for any special interest groups, I have a hard time justifying any special deals on inheritance taxes or income taxes for anyone. Current income tax laws don't actually help most married couples much anyway, and sometimes even create a penalty. Inheritance laws are their own mess, and are unfair in many ways. Fix the inheritance laws, but don't use them as a justification for perpetuating the state's meddling in the institution of marriage.

Eliminating all marriage laws sounds incredibly radical. The government's regulation of marriage has come to be accepted as a law of nature - as real as the law of gravitation, but why? Why polarize our nation over the government's definition of marriage when the state has no business being concerned about marriage in the first place? Imagine a new unfettered society in which the tradition of marriage is returned to it's proper home, in the church, and in the hearts of those choosing to live as one.

The Wisdom of Dwight D. Eisenhower - The General Who Hated War

2009-04-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a five-star general in the United States Army - serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during the Second World War. He was elected as the thirty-fourth President of the United States in 1952, and remained in office until 1961.

Having seen the devastation of war first hand, Eisenhower came both to despise war and to see that "war settles nothing." On the other hand, Ike was certainly no peacenik. He understood that, in an emergency, violence must be met with violence - never hate with hate, but when truly necessary, action with reaction.

Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

'Worry' is a word that I don't allow myself to use.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Universal Health Care is the Only Right Action

2009-04-24T16:27:00.000-07:00

There are many reasons why adopting universal health care in the United States is the right thing to do. First, it would save money. Yes, you read that right - SAVE money. At first glance it would appear that providing better health care to more citizens would add substantial cost. There are more than 40 million Americans without health insurance. If no other changes were made in our health care system, providing basic health care to those 40 million Americans would increase the $1.9 trillion per year cost of the American health care system by an estimated $77 billion - about a 4% increase. But that 4% increase would only be present if we added yet another level of complexity to our bloated private payer system, and that would be foolish.

How can providing health care for the 16% of Americans who don't have insurance add only 4% to our nation's health care bill? The only health care now available to those without insurance is emergency rooms - the most expensive and least efficient mechanism for handling medical care. Routine care, preventative treatment and medication are far lower cost as well as being more humane than waiting until crisis drives sick people to the emergency room. In addition, today, many people enter our medicare system at 65 with conditions that could and should have been addressed years earlier under a more reasonable system. It costs our nation fully as much to perform a hip transplant at age 65 as it would have cost to save the individual years of suffering by performing the procedure earlier.

The statistics, but not the conclusion, that I present here are based on the 94 page document Accounting for the cost of health care in the United States by the prestigious McKinsey Global Institute. It's available free, and if you have the time, I highly recommend reading the whole report. It's packed with facts, and stops short of making recommendations.

Around the world, the per capita cost of health care is generally proportional to national income levels. The United States is the only developed country whose health care costs are dramatically higher than would be expected from our income levels. Our costs are $480 billion per year (33%) higher than would be expected from our income levels. Do we receive better health care for those dollars? Objectively, no. $480 billion is a huge amount of money. It's $1600 per year for every man, woman, and child. It's more than six times the additional cost of providing ongoing health care to those now without medical insurance. So where does that $480 billion go?

Are Americans sicker than others? The bottom line is, no. We get a few conditions more often, many others less often, and we are on average younger than the citizens of other highly developed countries, which would be expected to lower our health care cost substantially. How about the costs of medical malpractice insurance and litigation? Our country's excess in damage awards costs us $20 billion per year. While this is certainly an area for correction, it only represents 4% of the overspending.

$66 billion of the overage is due to the cost of drugs, even though we use 20% less prescription drugs than other developed nations. Our cost for a prescription is 70% higher than the same drug in other countries. Another $18 billion of overage is attributable to non-drug supplies. Devices such as pacemakers and knee implants are over 50% more expensive than the same devices sold in other countries. There is a remarkable correlation between the highest profit procedures and those which are performed much more frequently in the United States than in other countries. Unnecessary testing, in part driven by fear of malpractice lawsuits, adds billions more to our costs. Inefficient administration, such as assigning menial tasks to skilled nurses, adds additional billions.

The $412 annual per capita that the United States spends on the administration of it's health care system is six times more than it is projected to be under a public system - that's a savings of almost $100 billion per year. A full $75 billion per year of that currently goes directly to the corporate profits and additional costs imposed by the private payer system. That alone is equivalent to the incremental cost of providing health care to our 40 million uninsured Americans. Moreover, a universal system would provide a platform for reducing the costs of drugs, devices, and other costs that have become run-away under our current system.

Should the expected cost savings be the primary reason for adopting universal health care? How about improving the nation's productivity because we'll be healthier? Should our primary argument be that a universal health care system is even more crucial to our nation's future than a universal education system? For me, the primary argument for universal health care in the United States is that it is the only morally acceptable response to the suffering caused by illness. For me, it's a bonus that universal health care will reduce costs, but I would vote to provide medical care to all our citizens, regardless of the cost.

Serious illness is always a personal catastrophy. Over 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical costs, and untold lives and families are destroyed by our nation's callous disregard of its citizens. Our current system serves the rich, the very poor, those over 65, and those healthy enough and fortunate enough to work for employers who provide private health insurance. Everyone else is out of luck.

Once one is thrown out of the current system, it is impossible to get back in. Once you get sick, you are labeled as having a "preexisting condition," and cannot get private health insurance at any price. Further, even if you are healthy enough to work, you are unlikely to find an employer who will hire you, as it drives up the company's insurance rates to employ those with a "preexisting condition." But of course it will never say that in the rejection letter.

I have several friends whose lives have been devastated by this merciless cycle - catastrophic illness, compounded by huge medical expenses, and then topped by a lifelong ineligibility for health insurance. Even as I give what I can to help close friends through their cycle of devastation, I visualize the faces of those who are even less fortunate.

The lack of universal health care in the United States is nothing less than a blot on the morality of our great nation that must be addressed NOW.

There's More Than One Town on the River

2009-04-20T14:06:00.000-07:00

For many years, it was common to have mill towns along the banks of America's rivers. In the early days, a river would power the machinery of the mill through waterwheels. Even after steam power became available, the river was the focus of the town's entire existence. Clean water from upstream provided drinking water, as well as water for the industrial processes. The flow of the river carried human and industrial waste downstream, away from the town, with no cost or effort on the part of the mill owners or townsfolk.

If there was only one town on the river, the system worked well, but as soon as there were two towns on the same river, the downstream town found itself drinking the sewage and industrial waste of the upstream town. Clearly, it was better to be the upstream town.

In a system of uncontrolled capitalism, with everyone looking out for their own good, those who are upstream have no incentive to have concern for those who are downstream. Charity perhaps? Acting as Good Samaritans perhaps? It certainly didn't work out that way for the mill towns.

The analogy of the mill towns fits big banks and many other big businesses today. Those who find themselves on the upstream part of the river are not going to volunteer to clean up after themselves, so those downstream end up drinking their sewage until government steps in to require that everyone stop polluting. After centuries of environmental pollution, our government finally told the upstream companies to Stop. It's time for our government to tell the upstream polluters of our financial system to Stop.

When told to stop polluting the rivers, the mill owners response was that they couldn't afford to do so. Their profits depended upon dumping their waste into the river rather than working a little harder to dispose of their waste in a way that didn't pollute the downstream drinking water. The cry was that environmental laws would force them out of business, throwing workers out of jobs. What else could they be expected to say? Certainly not, "Great, let's protect our rivers, we'll just become more efficient, keep hiring workers, and making profits." But after environmental laws were passed and enforced, over the screams of the factory owners, somehow ingenuity quickly found ways to keep the rivers clean and to make big profits.

We can't expect big banks and other giant corporations to volunteer to cede their upstream positions on the financial river. But after the financial equivalent of environmental protection laws are passed and enforced, somehow American ingenuity will again find a way to operate successful businesses and to create generous profits.

Controversy over the Release of the Bush-Era Torture Memos

2009-04-18T20:28:00.000-07:00

On April 16, the Obama administration released four secret memos detailing detainee treatment under the Bush administration. Simultaneously, the president pledged not to prosecute the US intelligence officials who were involved in those activities.

This is clearly a compromise that truly pleases no one, but it demonstrates President Obama's deft skill in the art of political negotiation. Republicans didn't want the memos released at all, but are relieved that the President agreed to take prosecution off the table by stating, "At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

On the other side of the political spectrum, the ACLU is dissatisfied by the compromise, stating, ""Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision."

I cheer the release of the memos. For me, this half of the announcement is the easy one. There was never any valid excuse to make the memos secret, as there was never any justification for the acts the memos describe. The other half of the announcement, the decision not to prosecute for the acts of torture, is the difficult part.

So who's right and who's wrong regarding the decision not to prosecute? Ooops, wrong question. By my own sense of moral behavior, the ACLU is right on target. Immoral acts and crimes against the laws of the United States were committed. But that's not a workable and practical answer. If President Obama had held to that position, he would have created a pitched partisan battle that would have destroyed his ability to get Republican acceptance of any of his appointees or his agenda.

So was the compromise worthwhile? In my opinion, yes. While my sense of justice demands punishment for the guilty, my desire for at least a modicum of bipartisan agreement on the future of our country trumps the value of prosecutions. So, very reluctantly, I endorse President Obama's decision to compromise and forgo prosecution of those who carried out the torture.

Unfortunately, the President's decision is going to weaken his support among his most ardent and idealistic supporters. They expect and demand that he hold fire to the feet of all those of the previous administration who broke the law. Will that hue and cry quiet soon? Probably not. How soon unappreciative Liberals forget the vast improvements we have already seen under President Obama, including the January 22 Executive order that reversed the Bush era torture policy a mere two days after President Obama's inauguration.

I Was A Bastard for 22 Years

2009-04-17T09:10:00.000-07:00

From my birth in 1945 until the Loving decision of 1967, as a mixed-blood Chinese-American, I was, legally speaking, a bastard in a number of American states. My father's father emigrated to the United States from China in 1868, so both his marriage in 1889 and my parents marriage in 1927 were not recognized by those states that still had legal injunctions against intermarriage (miscegenation).

It was only in 1967 that the United States Supreme Court finally struck down laws prohibiting marriage between "whites" and those of "other races." The "Loving v. Virginia Decision" of 1967 declared Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" unconstitutional, thus voiding the miscegenation laws in all sixteen states that still prohibited intermarriage.

Does my story even begin to compare to the prejudice Blacks, women, and other oppressed minorities have been subjected to throughout America's history? No way, I wasn't even called "squinty eyes" in grammar school. Nonetheless, my background has fueled a fire within me to crusade for the legal rights and social acceptance of all Americans - Blacks, women, gays, and those who are currently most under attack, Arab-Americans, and Muslim-Americans.

While the fight against prejudice is a constant struggle, great progress has been made on behalf of Blacks and women. Even Gay rights appears to be gaining a stronger foothold in middle America, although, in a throwback to the days of miscegenation laws, we are embroiled in yet another battle-of-the-bedroom - the right of every American to choose who they marry.

Currently, the groups most under attack by prejudice are America's 3.5 million Arab-Americans, and one million Americans who are Muslim. Prejudice against these groups - which largely but not completely overlap - has recently taken a step backward to the crisis levels we experienced immediately after 9-11. These groups are victims of a renewed attack that is associated with the right wing backlash against the Barack Obama Presidency.

As far more than a casual bystander to this foolishness, I feel frustrated and unsure how to make a meaningful difference. Probably nothing will soften the hearts of those who have become so hardened to acceptance of their fellow humans. I can't even, in good conscience, advocate restricting the publication of hostile intolerance, as long as there is no incitement to physical harm.

Fortunately, history is on the side of progress. We no longer burn "witches" as we did 300 years ago. Women and Blacks at least have the vote. You can marry whoever you want (as long as they are of the right gender, and age, and you only marry one person at a time). We have come a long way - and we have a long way to go. I will attempt to balance patience and action.

The First Amendment is Under Siege

2009-04-14T08:24:00.000-07:00

A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs. Some posts go so far as to advocate denying First Amendment protection to the Muslim faith. Others go further and assert, "In America we must start by banning Islam and outlawing Muslim schools and the Quran. Then we must deport or imprison those who teach and/or practice Islam." These attitudes are intolerable.

No one has the right to decide whether another American's belief system is a religion. The words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn't "qualify" as a religion at all.

We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read. For example, when the United States decided to outlaw polygamy, Mormons were simply forbidden to follow the (then current) dictates of their book. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly wasn't disqualified as an American religion. When the United States decided that the government's responsibility toward the health of it's children trumped the religious beliefs of their parents, and instituted court-ordered blood transfusions, Jehovah's Witnesses weren't disqualified to be a religion.

Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn't anyone's place to judge their neighbor's religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American - including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America's imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II - among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called "relocation centers." Haven't we grown up since then?

Good books don't always inspire good behavior either. Judging from its messages of compassion, Buddhism should be the world's most peaceful major religion. The world's 350 million Buddhists are generally among the least aggressive, but not always. The recent violent rioting in Bangkok shows that religious messages of peace do not always override human nature. Thailand is 95% Buddhist.

What's the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.

This opinion piece isn't only a comment about Islam. If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I'm saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone's right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.

Personally, I am inspired by Jesus' message of love and by the Buddha's call for universal compassion - Hate is never conquered by hate, Hate is only conquered by love. I am saddened by how many have chosen words of wrath and vengeance as the basis of their religions. Nonetheless, I stand committed to judge individuals by their actions rather than by the books they read.

On the Unworkability of Vengeance

2009-04-13T20:34:00.000-07:00

I find three major reasons to purge all thoughts and feelings of vengeance from my life:

1. It is abhorrent to the value systems I honor.

2. Lusting after vengeance raises my blood pressure, makes me physically and emotionally unhealthy, and causes my life to be dominated by suffering rather than joy.

3. It doesn't work. Whether personal or international, vengeance begets more vengeance in an unending cycle.

The Buddha says, "Hate is never conquered by hate, Hate is only conquered by love."

Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-39,43-44)

Ever heard of the Hatfield-McCoy feud? In the post-Civil War period, these families indulged in reciprocal murder in the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky. In several ways, the feud was typical of feuds throughout history. It began in a small way and escalated. Belief systems were involved (the families had been on opposite sides of the Civil War). Honor, land, and tangible property were at stake. Some say it began as an argument over a pig. One way in which it was not typical is that it was over in thirty years. Some of the world's great feuds have been fought continuously for over a thousand years.

The Hatfield-McCoy feud is a useful example because few if any people alive today have a vested interest in it. It is relatively easy to see that killing each other over a pig, small amounts of money, accusations of lying, a clandestine affair, and the like, is sheer foolishness. But what about the feuds in which we are personally involved - both interpersonal and international.

My first instinct whenever I have been injured is to seek revenge. I believe it's a human reaction that is as old as humanity itself. A business partner didn't repay a large loan to me. I wanted revenge. I was sued over something that wasn't my fault. I wanted revenge. Clearly the act of wanting revenge is counterproductive. Anger and hate are unpleasant emotions. In my quest to live a joyful life, anger and hate have no place.

But suppose I could succeed in my vengeance? Wouldn't I feel really good? Maybe briefly, but the elation would be short-lived. Achieving victory at the expense of someone else's suffering isn't my cup of tea. Moreover, the vengeance would escalate, because no one wants to feel a perceived dishonor. Since I have made the choice to stop my anger, hate, and vengeance, my life has been far happier and healthier.

Vengeance on an international scale is just a larger version of the Hatfield-McCoy feud. Anger, hatred, murder, revenge killing. Generation after generation murdering in an attempt to extract vengeance for the deeds of their ancestors. Where does it stop? Sometimes one side prevails militarily for a time. Then what? Perhaps the defeated party gains renewed strength and resumes the battle. If the weaker side remains subjugated, they develop the attitude and skills of a cornered ferret. They will fight to the death - house to house - as in Palestine today.

Do feuds ever end? Only when both sides shake hands, and agree that there is no winner, no loser, only people who have wearied of fighting and desire to live in peace. For many years, Northern Ireland was locked in a murderous and seemingly unending feud. The key to ending the feud was a shared commitment that peace was more important than vengeance. That is always the choice to be made. The organizers of an April 10, 2009 joint Protestant-Catholic commemoration of the Northern Ireland dead, comprised of members of the once-outlawed Sinn Fein as well as their once-avowed enemies, referred to, "the terrible, random nature of death in war and civil conflict." Some lessons have been learned, many more remain.

Republican Short Selling in Congress

2009-04-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

On Wall Street, short selling is making a bet that a particular stock, or the market in general, will decline. If the stock does lose value, the individual short seller reaps a profit. The Republicans in Congress today are short selling America by betting against the success of President Obama's programs to revitalize our country's economy.

Financial short selling is legal and, within reason, provides a function beyond personal gain. Short sellers are often astute individuals who see that a stock is overvalued and their short selling creates a check on the stock's hyperbolic rise in paper value. The problem, and when short selling a stock crosses the line into illegality, is when short sellers take actions that cause the stock to decline in value - creating profit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. One such form of action is attempting to convince others that the stock is worthless and should be sold.

How does this analogy apply to Congress? It is the proper function of the opposition party to provide a check and balance to the party currently in power. This is like the useful aspect of financial short selling. But the line into unacceptable behavior is crossed when the opposition attempts to CAUSE the administration to fail. This is like selling an orange juice stock short and then running ads screaming "Orange juice is dangerous to your health," or yelling "Fire" in a crowded building that is not burning.

I find it unacceptable for any American, and especially for members of Congress, to publicly express a wish for the duly elected administration to fail, or to create conditions that increase the likelihood of failure. Did we Democrats do everything we could to draw attention to President Bush's failures? Absolutely. Did we spotlight his impeachable actions? Of course. But did Democrats risk America by attempting to create failure? Never. I can hear the right wing jumping in to interject that Democrats have also had failures. All too true, but not by sabotaging the political process, and I would argue that any such failures pale in comparison to travesties such as the war in Iraq. As one example, the widespread use of the filibuster to distort the political process is a recent Republican phenomenon. While having any public figures cheering for our government to fail is a blot on our nation's character, please understand that this article is in no way a condemnation of all conservatives. Some prominent Republicans have certainly expressed support for at least some of President Obama's policies.

Once every four years is often enough to hold a Presidential election. In between, let's support our President, and our country.

I Support President Obama's Peaceful Outreach in the Middle East

2009-04-07T16:30:00.000-07:00

President Obama's peaceful outreach in the Middle East has been received poorly by a few hate-filled Americans who selectively quote passages from the Quran in an attempt to demonstrate that violence is demanded by the tenets of Islam. Is some of the Quran less than peaceful? Of course, this is a book written more than a millennium ago. For comparison, let's look at another ancient book.

While the Bible certainly contains passages, especially in the New Testament, that promote compassion and love toward fellow humans, there are a number of quotations from the Old Testament that are fully as dangerous-sounding as anything in the Quran.

Here's a little from Exodus 21, including the "eye for an eye" passage:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Here are a few of the many unfortunate passages that show up in just a quick search for the word "vengeance."

Isaiah 34:8
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.

Jeremiah 46:10
But that day belongs to the LORD, the Lord Almighty— a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes. The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood. For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the River Euphrates.

Jeremiah 51:11
"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple."

Ezekiel 25:17
I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them.

Nahum 1:2
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

What does this all mean? Certainly not that all Christians and Jews are dangerous and to be shunned. The point is that all ancient books are filled with conflicting messages.

Obviously there are Islamists who commit despicable acts. But tarring everyone of the Islamic faith by association is unreasonable and prejudiced. There are criminals within all religious groups and all societies. Unfortunately, we will always require police action internationally, as well as within countries to control crime. That said, generalized intolerance helps nothing.

Let us seek peace with all.

I Pray for Peace in the Middle East

2009-04-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

Have all Republican Christians Forgotten about the Good Samaritan

2009-04-03T19:50:00.000-07:00

One of the most famous passages from the New Testament is the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. The parable tells of a man lying injured by the side of the road being ignored by men who professed religion, but being aided by a Samaritan - an individual from a group not generally known for charity. Jesus praises the act, and ends the parable by saying,"Go and do likewise."

A recent Gallup poll reports that 79% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. An even higher percentage of Republicans consider themselves Christians. So where is the charity toward those who have lost jobs in the Republican-led recession and whom President Obama is now attempting to rescue? Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, the blogosphere has been filled with hateful rhetoric decrying charity toward the jobless. One of the more unfortunate quotes on the blogs is Adrian Rogers saying, "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity." Adrian Rogers was the three-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention who also said, "I believe slavery is a much maligned institution; if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess." Where is the Christian spirit in such a sentiment?

Beyond being the Christian thing to do, government creation of jobs is good for the economy and for future generations of Americans. Without federal government support for job creation, our great country would continue its downward spiral. Private companies laying off yet more workers in response to lower sales, causing yet more unemployed workers to cease being consumers, further reducing the demand for goods and services, and triggering more layoffs in a tragic cycle that only federal government intervention can reverse. State and local governments, without the power to balance income and expenses across budget periods, also lay off, reducing or eliminating education and other services vital to ourselves and our children. These local government layoffs also begin the same downward spiral of layoffs, reduced spending power, and more layoffs that we see in the private sector.

America's jobless need help, now. America's economy needs a shot-in-the-arm, now. I'm all for free enterprise. For all its flaws, it is far superior to any alternative. Free enterprise has and will continue to make America the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but ...

One of the biggest flaws of free enterprise is its tendency to create boom-and-bust cycles. When times are good, optimism reigns supreme. Everyone is sure that things can only get better. Consumers consume, investors invest, businesses hire additional workers and increase production. This is what happened in the late 1990's. In Silicon Valley, as an extreme example, companies speculated on an exponential growth in demand for computers, internet bandwidth, and electronic gadgets of all kinds. No one was without a job, and the salaries of even entry-level engineers were bid up to astronomical levels.

Then bust hits. Goods have been over produced, and begin to pile up in warehouses. Companies stop hiring, then they start laying off. Investors stop investing, and then attempt to convert their investments into cash. Laid-off workers stop consuming. The news media screams "Depression." Pessimism - fear actually - takes hold of the nation's emotions. That's America's situation today - fear rules, and few see good times returning quickly.

The solution to the boom-and-bust nature of the free enterprise system is for government to cool the economy when economic enthusiasm surpasses reality - such as in the late 1990's, and to stimulate the economy when pessimism strikes and American's become afraid to produce, hire workers, invest, and consume. Now is a time for our government to stimulate America's economy.

Critics raise the cry of creating inflation, "counterfeiting" money, and socialism. These arguments are badly timed. 1998 would have been a great time to argue for increased taxes to dampen an over-stimulated economy and build a war chest for hard times - such as today's recession. There will again be times when unrealistic optimism reigns in America, and an unsustainable boom needs to be moderated. That will again be a time to raise taxes to dampen the boom and rebuild the reserves.

It is always difficult to imagine times being different than they are today. Even though the cycles of boom and bust are fully predictable - if with irregular timing, people's emotions get caught up in the feeling that times will always remain good - or will always remain bad, whichever they are today.

America's government needs to spend more than it receives in bad times, and tax more than it spends in good times.

I commend to you the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spoken in his second inaugural address in 1937, "In our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people."

The Most Despised Minority in America

2009-03-19T09:30:00.000-07:00

This is America, and we aren't supposed to hate anyone because they are a minority, are we? Actually, we have been getting better lately with regard to many minorities - but not all. Electing Barack Obama President of our United States is evidence that being black has become a respectable distinction for a significant majority of Americans. 8% of the Members of Congress are Black compared with 13% of the population - getting closer. Having one woman as a vice-presidential candidate and another as a serious presidential contender affirms that being a woman is also considered acceptable, even though only 16% of Congress is female.

Being Hispanic is fairly well accepted with 5% of Congress representing 15% of the population. Being Jewish has actually become distinguished, as 7% of Congress represents the 1% of the population who are Jewish. A Gallup Poll reports that only 4% of Americans have a negative view of Jews compared with 23% who have a negative view of Evangelical Christians.

Are Gays the most despised minority? Their situation is still grim, but it isn't the worst. Because many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals fear divulging their status, various studies indicate that anywhere from 4% to 15% of Americans are LGBT. Three members of Congress are openly gay. That is a vast under-representation, even though more Representatives may not yet have declared themselves.

So who is most despised? One strong candidate for the title "Most Despised Minority in America" is Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and the others who comprise the group unfortunately termed "non-believers." While "non-believer," in this case, refers to a "non-belief" in a super-human deity, it, like other negative terms, automatically carries a stigma, as would "non-white," "non-male," or "non-Christian."

How many "non-believers" are there in America? This question is even harder to answer than how many Gays, because it appears to be socially unacceptable to state that one is an Atheist or Agnostic. Though the estimates vary widely, 10-12% of all Americans and 20-25% of those aged 18-30 identify themselves as "non-believers," depending very heavily on how the question is phrased. When the poll offers three choices, belief in "God," belief in "universal spirit," or belief in neither, the number who don't believe in "God" jumps to over 20%. 20% of Americans is a huge number to be despised. For comparison, the US Census reports that only 13% of Americans are Black, and only 15% Hispanic.

As evidence of the prejudice against freethinkers ("non-believers"), a poll indicates that only 14% believe that America would accept an Atheist President, while 84% believe we would not. There is only one member of Congress, Representative Pete Stark of California, who openly acknowledges not believing in "God." This is not a lot of representation for 10-20% of our population. How many members of Congress are "closet non-believers?" Who knows. Pete Stark has represented a district near San Francisco since 1973, but only in 2007 announced his non-belief. Would others make similar announcements if doing so were not political suicide? One group suggests that 21 members of congress are closet non-theists.

Freethinkers tend to keep a low profile and not join with others who share similar beliefs partly because they are independent-minded people, and partly out of fear of reprisal for openly acknowledging their belief system. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) in the United States, is one of very few that actively work to protect the rights of freethinkers. One of the projects of FFRF is documenting a few of the widespread hateful deeds and words against freethinkers, such as comparing non-belief in a super-human deity to Nazi war crimes or the activities of the Ku Klux Klan or Al-Qaeda.

As more evidence of prejudice, the response when the group tries to display a billboard with the simple message, "Imagine No Religion," is outrage. Billboard companies refuse to rent space, and religious extremists respond with vicious baseless propaganda such as, "Why Do Atheists Hate America?"

Where do we go from here? How long will it be before every American has access to their full rights of citizenship, including free speech, separation of church and state, and proportionate representation?

Gratitude - I am so blessed to be an American living in 2009

2009-03-14T07:05:00.000-07:00

I live in a country with an long established tradition of free speech and freedom of and from religion. I have the right to say anything I choose - as long as my speech does not incite hatred or such. I have the right to choose my relationship with Spirit - which rituals I will observe and which I will not. I give thanks that America has no state agency to ensure that I bow to the east at scheduled times or that I show up to listen to someone's particular version of the hereafter. I am equally thankful that my personal communion with Spirit is not forbidden - even if my beliefs and practices are not those of the majority.

Why would I bother expressing my gratitude? Because these freedoms are not inherent to the nature of life. Freedom of speech and religion are not common in the world even today, and they were less common in earlier times. Far more important, these freedoms are under attack in America today. There are more than a few Americans who would choose to suppress these rights. Perhaps you remember the comics published in Denmark that parodied Allah? The reaction from some was to call for the murder of the comics' authors. But is that so alien to America. Are we strong enough in our support of our American freedoms to support and encourage those who parody religious beliefs and practices that are common in America? Are we strong enough to encourage all sincere religious beliefs and practices however different they may be from the majority? Are we individually confident enough in our personal beliefs that we do not feel that they require government sanction to retain validity? Do Americans in 2009 still have the strength and generosity, as our American forefathers did, to allow others the right to hold beliefs that differ from our personal beliefs?

America is a magnificent country. Amazing things happen here. Electing a president from a racial minority is a magnificent accomplishment. Having a woman in serious contention for the presidency was also a great indicator of acceptancy. We have come so far. And yet, in the area of religious freedom, we appear to be in danger of stepping backward. I fear that America is not yet ready to elect a Buddhist or Atheist President, but I hold that one day America will accept religious differences as easily as racial and gender differences.

Meddling - 5 Questions To Ask Yourself Before Offering Helpful Advice

2009-02-08T06:08:00.000-08:00

Meddling - 5 Questions To Ask Yourself Before Offering Helpful Advice
- Jonathan Lockwood Huie

Again, I found myself meddling in the affairs of others. All too often my intention to be supportive and generous runs amok. In the aftermath, I tell myself that I will never do that again, but I do. Actually, I wouldn't want it any other way. The line between "helpful" and meddling is so easy to cross. The only way that I could ensure that I never meddled would be to completely disavow being helpful.

Byron Katie speaks of "my business, your business, and God's business." Everything that happens in the world, or doesn't happen, is NOT my responsibility. There are more than enough things that are my responsibility. I am responsible for my thoughts, my beliefs, and my actions - and that is enough. It does not serve me to mind anyone else's business. I can only make myself unhappy by trying to second guess what anyone else thinks or does.

That's all easy enough to say in the abstract, but when the other person is our friend, spouse, parent, adult son or daughter, or co-worker, it doesn't come at all naturally to remain detached. For many of us, staying in our own business requires a lifetime of self-reminders.

Often we meddle out of a sincere desire to help another, so how can we know when we have gone too far? We have overstepped our bounds whenever we cross the line from assisting others in getting what they want to believing that we know better than they what they SHOULD want.

Through painful experience, I have found five questions to ask myself to help determine whether I am providing assistance or meddling.

1. Did the other person ask for help, advice, or opinion? If the answer is No, then I am meddling. The first and greatest rule is,

Unsolicited Advice Is Always Meddling

2. Even if the person has broadcast a request for help or advice, did they ask for MY advice? When someone is drowning, they will accept a life-ring thrown by a stranger, but advice is only appreciated if the asker fully trusts and respects the advisor.

3. Do I fully respect the other person? While I can responsibly make decisions for a child or a senile person, it is pure meddling for me to believe that I know better than another competent adult how they should live their life. As an example, trying to find friends for someone who has clearly expressed a preference for solitude is meddling.

4. Is the issue a question of belief? Proselytizing is always meddling. My beliefs about religion, politics, the best natural supplements, or whatever, are just my personal beliefs, nothing more. If someone ASKS, I am happy to share about what gives my own life joy and meaning, but whenever I attempt to convert someone else's beliefs, I must be very clear that I am doing it for my own gains, and not as a service to the other.

5. Have I previously attempted to assist this person with this same issue in the past? If I have been asked again, and if I find a different way to be helpful, it's not meddling, but if I continually offer the same advice for the same problem, it crosses the line into meddling.

Compassion and generosity may well be the greatest human virtues, but it is also important to avoid letting these noble instincts cause inadvertent harm to those we want to help.