Archive for the ‘Idiocracy’ Category

Kill Your Television

April 13, 2015

That is a radical cure for the nation’s ills proposed by Ace of Spades.

I feel so hopeless about the political situation I’ve begun looking for Hail Mary solutions.

When a problem seems impossible so solve, Donald Rumsfeld said,expand it.

We all know what the expanded version of the problem is: The problem is that we live in, as Andrew Breitbart called it, a “Matrix” of leftist assumptions and propaganda, all being delivered to us 24/7 by a wireless intravenous drip system called television.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this. I’ve been thinking it’s time to actually do something.

Just an idea, but I would like to start thinking seriously about delivering a truly grievous wound to the Political-Entertainment Complex.

I’m thinking about, firstly, stopping watching almost TV entirely and shedding cable stations. (Some cut the cable entirely.)

I guess that I have already taken the first step since I do not currently have cable and haven’t for some years. It has never seemed to be worth the expense since we never watched most of the channels that the cable companies bundled together. Cable or satellite television might have been more tempting if we had been able to choose and pay for just the channels we a truly wanted to watch, but somehow that was never an option.

I watched a lot of television when I was growing up. I must have spent three or four hours watching whatever came on in the afternoon after I got home from school. There was also Saturday morning cartoons, (do they still have that?), and  the prime time evening shows. I would also watch movies late into the night. When we got our first VCR, (I actually lived in the primitive times before television shows could be recorded.), I would watch movies and record favorite episodes of shows. All through high school and college, I was a TV addict. I did do other things. I have always liked to read. A lot of time television was the background noise while I was engaging in other activities.

I do not watch much television anymore. I do not like watching television and I detest even the use of TV as background noise. There are one or two shows I like to watch and I don’t mind watching something on DVD, but even then I tend to begrudge the time I could be spending doing something else, like reading. What is the cause of this change in lifestyle? Ace of Spades has the answer

One problem — for me; maybe your own mileage varies — is that TV makes it very easy to waste your life. It’s a kind of death-before-death. We dream seven hours a night; do we have to also sit before a dreaming box and watch other people’s dreams another three hours a day?

The other problem, of course, is that the Media is, as Andrew Breitbart always says, the Matrix, poisoning our minds with stupid, lazy, obese thinking, and they do so via the most effective means of transmitting stupidity, venality, and moral emptiness: The television.

And we will live in the Matrix until we destroy the Matrix.

So my idea is to start, as a movement, boycotting tv almost entirely, picking up, get this, new skills and hobbies and interests to fill the time we would otherwise be spending in front of the Radioactive Drug of the television screen.

It is not just that so much of what is on television is pernicious. There are a lot of shows that are just plain awful. I do not object to the excess of sex and violence so much as how mindless and stupid so many of them far, not to mention that the vast majority of writers, producers, and actor see life through a left wing lens and so the shows they make cannot help but reflect their biases. It is relatively easy to detect factual and logical errors and bias in written words. It is far more difficult to do so with a brain anesthetized by flicking images on a screen and a vapid story. But, the real problem that I have with television is that it is a passive activity. You do not have to contribute anything. You just have to sit and take it all in.

What made me decide to curtail my watching of television was that one evening I realized that I had spent the last three hours watching television and could not remember the details of a single program I had watched. I had a vision of myself sitting slack jawed and immobile for hours on end and decided that I was wasting my life. I did not simply stop watching television. In fact, I came to no such conscious decision. I just gradually began to develop a distaste for the experience of watching television. The fact that the programs have been steadily declining in quality has helped to increase this distaste. It is rather sad to watch older shows from the golden age of TV and realize how far this form of entertainment has declined.

Actually killing your television is extreme and it might seem to go to far to cut out television altogether, yet I am sure that everyone of us, except the Amish, could do with cutting back an hour or two. Just watch the shows you really, really want to watch and turn it off all the rest of the time. At the very least, don’t pay for it. You wouldn’t pay someone for the privilege of pumping toxic waste directly into your living room, why pay for cable or satellite TV?

A Third Term for Obama?

March 12, 2015

That is what they are expecting at the Tea Party News Network.

With Hillary Clinton constantly on the ropes from scandal after scandal, and no other real democratic leader stepping up to the plate, the democrats are going to have to find someone who can take on a strong conservative candidate.

But will he do it?

Obama has continually demonstrated his disregard for the rule of law.  It wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to believe he has the audacity to pursue a third term.

Don’t believe me?  Take a look at the transcript of a speech he gave last summer comparing his administration to FDR’s:

“I would put my administration up against any prior administration since FDR.  We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.  And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over the decades.  It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

A few weeks ago, Vice President Joe Biden spoke in Iowa hinting at the possibility of an Obama third term.  He said

“Those seeking to lead the nation should protect and defend and run, yes run, on what we’ve done; own what we have done. Stand for what we have done, acknowledge what we have done, and be judged on what we have done. … Some say that would amount to a third term of the president. I call it sticking with what works and what we ought to do.”

It’s not a direct statement announcing the President’s bid for an unprecedented third term, but with Hillary’s chances looking dimmer and dimmer, you can bet they are considering it.

There is one small obstacle to Barack Obama’s seeking a third term as president, the twenty-second amendment to the constitution forbids it. There have been a lot of conservatives complaining about President Obama’s attempts to expand the powers of the presidency and bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, with some justice, but it is one thing to push the limits with executive orders, which are, after all, simply an interpretation of existing legislation, and blatantly violating the constitution by seeking a third term. I do not think that the President would even have the support of his own party in seeking an unconstitutional third term. The Democratic National Committee would have a very good idea how controversial and unpopular such a move would be and they would want no part of it. It is not very likely that Obama could get his name on the ballot. A presidential election is not really a national election but fifty separate state elections for the state’s electoral votes. Each state’s Secretary of State enforces the states election laws and any Republican Secretary of State would certainly refuse to add Obama to the ballot. Even most Democrats would be reluctant. Unless Barack Obama manages to repeal the twenty-second amendment or cancel the 2016 election, he is not going to serve a third term.

I don’t think he even wants to. I have never gotten the impression that Barack Obama really enjoys being president all that much. He likes the perks, the tax-payer funded vacations, Air Force One, having a forum for his speeches, but I don’t think he likes the day-to-day work of administration and politicking that takes up most of a president’s time. He has always seemed disengaged and impatient with the process of creating legislation for Congress to pass and lobbying Congressmen to enact his agenda, even when he was a Senator. He is no Lyndon B. Johnson, with intimate knowledge of the legislative process and personal relations with every important Representative and Senator. He does not seem to enjoy politics the way Bill Clinton does. I think that if all he had to do was make speeches, Barack Obama would be happy. There is a job with that description, former president. Obama is probably counting the days until he can leave the White House.

And, while I am on the subject of the 2016 election, I predict that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for president. She’s not really a very good politician and she is old hat anyway. The Democrats would be better off with a fresh face.

Eunuchs for the Kingdom

March 9, 2015

An Indian guru is alleged to have somehow persuaded some 400 men to have themselves castrated in order to be closer to God. I am not sure exactly how that was supposed to work out, perhaps some variation of Jesus’s admonition in Matthew 18:8-9.

If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Anyway, I read about this sacrifice in this article in the Independent.

A man has been accused of encouraging hundreds of followers to be castrated in a promise for them to become closer to God.

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, an Indian pop-star and telepreacher with a reported wealth of more than $50 million, is being investigated after he allegedly manipulated around 400 men to get their testicles removed – according to India Today.

One of his former followers who underwent castration seven years ago – named Hans Raj Chauhan – is one of the few to break the silence to speak out against him and the group.

“[The victims] were told that only those who get castrated will be able to meet God,” said Chauhan’s lawyer, Navkiran Singh, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Chauhan, 35, filed a petition against the guru in 2012 and the Central Bureau of Investigation has started looking into claims dating back as far back as 2000 in preparation of charges of grievous bodily harm. However many followers are believed to be in fear of speaking out.

I wonder if he underwent the procedure.

I wonder if he underwent the procedure.

The practice of castrating oneself of religious purposes seems rather extreme, yet this sort of thing has been around for long time. One of the earliest of these castration cults of which we have records are the Galli, priests of the Phrygian goddess Cybele and her consort Attis. Cybele was a mother goddess associated with fertility who was worshiped throughout Asia Minor. Cybele’s cult spread into Greece and Rome, where shewas identified with the goddesses Demeter, Gaea, and, strangely, Artemis. The worshipers of Artemis (or Diana) of the Ephesians who gave Paul such trouble in Acts chapter 19 were actually worshipers of Cybele. Cybele’s consort Attis, was a god of vegetation. Like many such gods, Attis’s mythological story was that of a god who died and then was reborn, symbolizing the death of winter and the rebirth of spring. In Attis’s case, he was also castrated before being killed. His priests, the Galli, would castrate themselves in emulation of their god. On a certain day in spring, initiates would work themselves into a frenzy with dancing and celebrations, and probably alcohol and mutilate themselves. Afterwards, they would dress in women’s clothes and lived as women, begging and telling fortunes for a living, much like the Hijras in India.

cybeleattis

Although Christians preferred a celibate priesthood and many early Church Fathers had an ambiguous view of sexuality, Christianity has never endorsed religious castration. There were some Byzantine clergymen who were eunuchs, and even at least one Patriarch of Constantinople. This was because, under the Byzantine system of Caesaropapism the higher clergy were as much government officials as religious leaders and the Byzantine Emperors believed that eunuchs were safer to employ since they were not able to overthrow the Emperor and establish a dynasty. The Church Father Origen was reputed to have had himself castrated and this was held against him. In the Western Roman Catholic Church, eunuchs were generally not allowed to join the clergy. Perhaps it was felt that castration was cheating.

There were some Christian sects that did encourage or require castration for membership, citing Matthew 18:8-9 above and Matthew 19:12.

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

One of these sects was the Valesians, founded by an Arab named Valens in the second century. They believed not only in self-castration, but attacked and castrated travelers. More recently there were the Skoptsy of Czarist Russia. This sect was founded in the eighteenth century by two Russian peasants Andrei Ivanov and Kondratti Selivanov. These two taught sexual desire was the root of all evil and resorted to mutilation to end any temptation to commit sin. Male adherents were completely castrated while females had their breasts removed as well as undergoing female circumcision. Despite fierce persecution by the Czarist authorities, the numbers of the Skoptsy grew to around 100,000 followers by the twentieth century. The Soviets were more systematic in their attempts to eradicate the cult and it is believed that the Skoptsy have been eliminated.

Boston Corbett was another man who took the two verses in Matthew more literally than Jesus intended. Corbett lived in the United States in the nineteenth century and was most famous as the man who killed John Wilkes Booth. He had worked as a hatter in his early years and it is likely that the mercury compounds used by the hatters of the time affected his mental health. He became very religious to the point of fanaticism after the death of his wife and child and prayed and proselytized while working as a hatter. He served in the Union army during the Civil War and frequently was disciplined for his eccentric and disruptive behavior. In 1858, Corbett castrated himself with a pair of shears and then went to dinner and a prayer meeting before seeking medical attention.

Boston Corbett

Boston Corbett

There was also the Heaven’s Gate Cult. These were not Christians but a UFO cult. They believed an alien spaceship was hiding in the tail of Comet Hale Bopp in 1997 and committed mass suicide in order to be beamed up. According to some reports, several male members of the cult, including the founder Marshall Applewhite, had had themselves castrated.

Marshall Applewhite

Marshall Applewhite

I don’t suppose it is much consolation to the men whom Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh persuaded to be castrated, that their sacrifice is part of a long tradition of becoming eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but perhaps they should feel somewhat lucky that the operation that they underwent was at least done in a modern hospital with the aid of anesthesia and antiseptics. Most of the men throughout history who were castrated suffered extreme pain and a good chance of death or permanent disability as a result of infection. It passes comprehension that any great number of men would be willing to suffer and risk so much, no matter how devout, but maybe they felt whatever reward in this life or the next that they would receive from their god was worth it.

Just the Facts About Vaccination

February 17, 2015

I read this open letter on the rejection of the proven, life saving technologies vaccination and genetically modified organisms.

Dear Every American Who Doesn’t Believe in Science:

I know you are smart.  I know you care about your kids, your family, your pets.  I know you are a basically decent human being who wants to do right and contribute to society.  And because I know these things, I’m going to try very hard to understand why you refuse to believe in scientific fact, rather than berate you and call you names.

The funny thing is, I actually think I’m reasonably good at seeing the other side of any issue.   There are a few issues where I struggle, but even then, if I’m honest with myself, I can intellectually understand the other side of the issue and why my friend or colleague has positioned himself on that side.

Regarding immunizations and genetically modified organisms, I can’t.

Yes, I view these two issues – though they are definitely in different industries – as intertwined.  Why?  Because the people who are anti either of them have a blatant disregard for science and I just don’t understand that.

Scientific consensus on both of these issues is that both are safe.  Immunizations are safe for the vast majority of people.  GMOs are safe for everyone.

Do you understand what scientific consensus is, my friend?  That means that most of the scientists (maybe even those who don’t usually agree) believe the safety of GMOs and immunizations to be fact.  It’s beyond dispute.  The data has proven safety beyond a shadow of a doubt so that scientists no longer squabble over this issue.

I appreciate what this writer is trying to do and agree with her positions, yet I cannot help but consider that her arguments are somewhat flawed, or perhaps insufficient is a better way to put it. Basically, her argument is that Science has decreed that vaccines and GMO’s are safe because there is a consensus and all the scientists say they are safe. In my view, this is a misunderstanding of what science really is and how it should work.

Science is not a body of lore handed down on stone tablets at Mount Sinai by God or some famous scientist. Science is a method of inquiry used to learn facts about the natural world. It does matter what Einstein or Newton or some other famous scientist says, no matter how great their contributions to science. They can be wrong. It does not matter what the consensus is. The consensus could be mistaken. Not so very long ago, the scientific consensus was that disease was caused by imbalances of bodily humors and bleeding was the most effective treatment. The only thing that matters, or should matter in science is the observations that are made and the logical inductions that are made from those observations Ideally, scientist should be interested in “just the facts”. I think the best arguments on any subject are those based on just the facts.

So, what are the facts about vaccination. Before the widespread introduction of vaccination, people fell sick and even died from a variety of infectious, contagious diseases’ smallpox, measles, whooping cough diphtheria, to name just the ones that spring immediately to mind. These diseases have been virtually wiped out since vaccines for them have been developed. Smallpox, the deadly disease that people feared, is now extinct. Only in backward regions, filled with ignorant and superstitious people, such as the darkest regions of California do these diseases continue to plague humanity.

There have been no credible studies linking vaccination with autism or any other chronic illness. The one study that did propose such a link has been discredited and retracted. This does not mean that there isn’t such a link.There could well be one that has not yet been discovered. But, consider the fact that millions of children have been vaccinated with no ill effects. There may be some danger in being vaccinated, nothing in this world is completely safe, but the dangers associated with not being vaccinated are far greater and more certain. Any rational consideration of the risks and benefits of vaccination must come to the conclusion that the benefits outweigh the risks. If you do not get your children immunized, you are putting them at risk of catching  preventable diseases that could cause permanent damage to their health, or even death. Those are just the facts.

 

 

The Earl of Clarendon

February 15, 2015

I have noticed that US history textbooks tend not to spend a lot of time on the Colonial Period. Generally, there is a chapter on Columbus and the Spanish Conquistadores, followed by a chapter on Jamestown and the Pilgrims. By the third or fourth chapter, they are at the Boston Tea Party and the Revolution, effectively skipping over the hundred and seventy or so years of the English colonies in North America. At least that was the situation when I was in school. Today, I suppose the textbooks teach about the evil whites who oppressed and exterminated the innocent Native Americans who lived in harmony with the Earth and each other.

This habit of skipping over so much of the Colonial Period is unfortunate, I think, since quite a lot happened during that time. The almost two centuries before Independence was the time in which the English colonists became Americans and learned the arts of self-government that served them so well during and after the Revolution. The colonists were forced to learn to govern themselves because England mostly neglected its North America colonies until the French and Indian War. Unlike the Spanish and the French, the English government did not exert much control over the internal affairs of its colonies and didn’t limit colonisation to approved populations. The English thought of their colonies as a source of resources, a place for adventurers to get rich and a dumping ground for undesirables. The royal governors who were appointed tended not to be the best and brightest of the English aristocracy.

The colony of New York seemed to have the worst luck with its governors. Probably the worst of the lot was Edward Hyde, the Third Earl of Clarendon. Hyde was reputed to be corrupt, incompetent, dissolute and a cross dresser. Hyde was appointed to be the Royal Governor of the colonies of New York and New Jersey by Queen Anne from 1701 to 1708. He was not a popular governor. According to some accounts, Hyde took bribes and stole from the public treasury, and he dressed in women’s clothes.

There are several stories about Hyde’s cross dressing. According to one, a constable noticed a woman loitering in one of the seediest parts of New York and arrested her on suspicion of being a prostitute only to discover he had arrested the governor. Another story, has Hyde addressing the New York Assembly in 1702 in a gown reminiscent of the style Queen Anne preferred. When questioned about his choice of attire, he replied that in his capacity as Royal Governor he represented the Queen, a woman, and so he ought to represent her as faithfully as possible. When his wife died in 1707, Hyde is said to have attended her funeral dressed as a woman. There is even a portrait purported to be of the the governor in drag.

Lord_Cornbury

There is, of course, some question over whether this is really a portrait of Hyde. One might think that since any politician wouldn’t allow himself in our more liberated times to be photographed in drag, surely no one in the more restrictive eighteenth century would sit in front of a painter to have his portrait done while wearing a dress.

Then again-

New York mayor Rudy Guiliani

New York mayor Rudy Guiliani

Actually, the idea that our times are more sexually liberated while all past eras were prudish and puritanical is not really true. The truth is that  periods of relatively liberal sexual mores alternate with more restrained times. The eighteenth century happened to be one of the more libertine centuries, at least among the aristocracy. The more prudish Victorian nineteenth century was a reaction against the looser morals of the previous century, just as much of the twentieth century has been a reaction against the Victorians. In fact, there was even a lively gay subculture in London and perhaps other large cities of Britain, complete with gay bars, which they called “molly houses” In eighteenth century slang, a “molly” was an effeminate, perhaps homosexual, man and a molly house was where they could congregate for companionship and sex with their more masculine lovers. They would dress as women and take on feminine identities. They even held mock marriages just as homosexuals today have mock marriages. These marriages were, of course, not recognized by the state as such mock marriage often are today. In that respect, the people of the eighteenth century were saner and had a better grip on reality. You must not think that homosexuality, or cross-dressing, was in any sense tolerated, though. Sodomy was a crime punishable by death. Most of what historians know about the molly houses is from court documents of trials persons captured in raids and the testimony of undercover police.

So, was Edward Hyde a molly? Did he frequent the colonial equivalent of a molly house, if any existed? Probably not. There is no reason to believe that he was a homosexual, and really no reason to believe the stories of his cross dressing. Upon closer investigation, the stories seem to have originated from his political enemies, of which he had made many, and to have dated some time after his tenure as governor. They always seem to have been something someone else had seen or heard about the governor. Even the supposed portrait of the governor is more likely to have one a painting of a woman with masculine features. The label on the frame of the portrait may only date to 1867. Even if Hyde did wear women’s clothing, he was probably heterosexual. Contrary to what is still often believed, most cross dressers are straight, and Hyde seems to have been genuinely fond of his wife. The stories of his corruption may also have been exaggerated by his enemies.

Edward Hyde was recalled to England in 1708 and promptly put into debtor’s prison, until his father died the following year and he inherited the title and properties of the Earl of Clarendon. He died in obscurity in 1723 and since his son had already died, the title passed to a cousin, Henry Hyde, Fourth Earl of Clarendon. The title died with his son, Henry Hyde, who died childless in 1753, but it was revived in 1776 with a son of a daughter of the Fourth Earl. Edward Hyde’s descendants include the present Earl of Clarendon, Sarah, Duchess of York, and the actor Cary Elwes. Edward Hyde himself is only remembered for his alleged cross dressing, perhaps not the legacy he might have wanted, but how many colonial Royal Governors are remembered at all?

Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees

February 3, 2015

Growing up, you might have heard your mother or father saying something like that when you wanted some expensive toy. Maybe you listened to them and learned something about where money does come from. The progressives who are pushing for minimum wage increases do not seem to have listened to their parents. At least it doesn’t seem to occur to them that if the government creates an increase in the cost of business, such as raising taxes or requiring higher wages, the money to pay for the increased costs has to come from somewhere. Either a business must pass on the increased cost to its customers by increasing prices, adjust its practices to reduce impact of the higher costs, perhaps by employing fewer workers, or accept a reduction in profits. For many of the unthinking, the last option is the most desirable, since it is all too commonly believed that profits are somehow selfish and evil. They do not realize that a business’s profit is what the owners of that business get to meet their own expenses and is the repayment for the expenses and risks of starting and running the business. This is especially true for the small business person who is the sole owner of his business, but it is also true for the stock holders of a major corporation. It a business cannot make a profit it must eventually cease to operate and close its doors. It really doesn’t require a PhD in economics or business administration to understand all of this, only the ability to think things through, an ability sadly lacking in all too many. Consider this example, brought by ABC News, of a bookstore in San Francisco, closing due to an increase in the city’s minimum wage.

Independent bookstores have faced tough times for quite a while. In San Francisco, neighborhood businesses have been passionately protected, so it’s hard to believe that an initiative passed by voters to raise the minimum wage is driving a Mission District bookstore out of business.

San Francisco’s minimum wage is currently $11.05 an hour. By July of 2018, the minimum wage in San Francisco will be $15 an hour. That increase is forcing Borderlands Bookstore to write its last chapter now.

When actor Scott Cox took a job at Borderlands Books he didn’t do it for the money.

“I’ve been a longtime customer of the store,” he said. “I love the people, I love the books.”

The work let him squeak by while nourishing his passion for sci-fi and fantasy.

“Everyone who works here does this because they love books, they love stories, and they love being booksellers,” said book store owner Alan Beatts.

That’s why store owner Beatts found it so tough to post a sign in the front window that the store is closing. “We’re going to be closing by the end of March,” he said.

Borderlands was turning a small profit, about $3,000 last year. Then voters approved a hike in the minimum wage, a gradual rise from $10.75 up to $15 an hour.

“And by 2018 we’ll be losing about $25,000 a year,” he said.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Alan Beatts cannot simply go to his money tree and shake off a few extra bills. He must come up with the money to pay the higher wages somehow. He cannot increase his prices. Small, independent book stores have long been squeezed by large chains such as Barnes & Nobles who are now being squeezed by Amazon, so any increase in prices will simply drive customers away. I doubt it his bookstore is so overstaffed that he can afford to let many employees go. He cannot continue to run his bookstore if it loses money, so the bookstore must close.

This doesn't really exist.

This doesn’t really exist.

The next part of this article is priceless.

It’s an unexpected plot twist for loyal customers.

“You know, I voted for the measure as well, the minimum wage measure,” customer Edward Vallecillo said. “It’s not something that I thought would affect certain specific small businesses. I feel sad.”

I would say that Mr. Vallecillo wasn’t thinking at all, but then neither were the people in San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors when they decided to let people vote on increasing the minimum wage.

Though it’s caught a lot of people off guard, one group that wasn’t completely surprised was the Board of Supervisors. In fact, they say they debated this very topic before sending the minimum wage to the voters.

“I know that bookstores are in a tough position, and this did come up in the discussions on minimum wage,” San Francisco supervisor Scott Wiener said.

Wiener knows a lot of merchants will pass the wage increases on to their customers, but not bookstores.

“I can’t increase the prices of my products because books, unlike many other things, have a price printed on them,”

Wiener says it’s the will of the voters. Seventy-seven percent of them voted for this latest wage hike.

“Borderlands Books is an phenomenal bookstore, I was just in it yesterday,” Wiener said. “I hope they don’t close. It’s an amazing resource.”

But Alan Beatts said he can’t see a way to avoid it.

Mr. Wiener should have thought of that before, unless they repeal the increase in the minimum wage, Borderlands Books will have to close. The voters voted for the increase. Now, they will have to deal with the consequences.

Business owners don't really have money bins.

Business owners don’t really have money bins.

 

Blue on Blue

February 1, 2015

MoveOn.org is not too fond of Rahm Emmanuel.

Dear MoveOn member,

This month in Chicago, there’s a battle going on over the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel perfectly embodies the pro-Wall Street corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. In the 1990s, he fought against labor and environmental groups while pushing NAFTA through Congress.1 In the 2000s at the DCCC, he was known for recruiting conservative Democrats and building the conservative “Blue Dog” caucus.2

And in 2009, when MoveOn members held those same conservative Democrats accountable for blocking a public option in health care reform, Emanuel called us “f***ing retarded.”3

When he was elected mayor of Chicago in 2011, his first actions were to cut vital public services across the city, closing dozens of mental health clinics and provoking the first teachers’ strike in decades. He then proceeded to close 50 public schools in low-income communities, while championing private schools in wealthy neighborhoods and diverting tax dollars and public resources to favored corporations.4

In just four weeks, Mayor Emanuel will need to answer to Chicago voters for his right-wing policies. Polling has consistently shown him to be in serious trouble, and MoveOn members in Chicago have just voted overwhelmingly to endorse his progressive opponent, Cook County Commissioner Jesús “Chuy” García.

Defeating Mayor Emanuel will not only improve the lives of millions of people in our nation’s third largest city, it will also send shockwaves through the national political establishment.

Can you chip in $3 today to MoveOn’s first endorsement of 2015—Jesús “Chuy” García?

Yes, I’ll chip in.

The key to defeating Mayor Emanuel will be to unite and mobilize all of Chicago’s diverse communities in a massive get-out-the-vote effort. That’s why MoveOn has hired a full-time local organizer to mobilize the 75,000 MoveOn members in Chicago and help send Mayor Emanuel packing.

It’s also why we’re asking MoveOn members across the country to chip in today. Every dollar we raise will help the García campaign pay for signs, literature, hand warmers, and everything else the thousands of grassroots volunteers will need to get out the vote in their neighborhoods.

With just a few weeks to go until the February 24 election, we have a huge opportunity to hand “Mayor 1%” an embarrassing defeat. 

Because so few other major progressive races are happening right now, progressives can focus our resources and make a massive impact on the critical first major election of 2015.

Will you chip in $3 to Jesús “Chuy” García’s grassroots campaign today?

Yes, I’ll chip in to defeat Mayor Rahm Emanuel and elect a progressive champion.

Thanks for all you do.

–Matt, Milan, Joan, Ilya, and the rest of the team

There has been a lot of talk in the mainstream media about the fight between Tea Party extremists and the Republican establishment, but I wonder if the divide between the more pragmatic Democrats and people like MoveOn.org isn’t much greater. I do not know much about Chicago politics and the Wikipedia article on Rahm Emanuel is not particularly enlightening about his performance as Mayor of Chicago. He was President Obama’s Chief of Staff from 2009 to 2010, so he could hardly be described as a conservative. He does seem to have a knack for making enemies, especially with people who hold that defending progressive principles is more important than real accomplishments in enacting policies. There is this gem in the article.

He has a reputation for his no-holds-barred negotiation style that involves “his share of shouting and cursing”. Ezekiel Emanuel has written, “The impatient, pushy Emanuel style is so well known that during a recent job interview I was asked, point-blank, whether I had the level-headed temperament the position required….. [A]s obvious to our flaws are to others, it’s difficult to recognize them in ourselves.”[5] At a closed-door meeting in the White House with liberal activists, Emanuel called them “fucking retarded” for planning to run TV ads attacking conservative Democrats who didn’t support Obama’s health-care overhaul. In February 2010, Emanuel apologized to organizations for the mentally handicapped for using the word “retarded.” He expressed his regret toTim Shriver, the chief executive of the Special Olympics after the remark was reported in an article by The Wall Street Journal about growing liberal angst at Emanuel. The apology came as former Alaska Governor and conservative activist Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, called on President Obama to fire Emanuel.

In other words, he is kind of a jerk. Still, his description of the activists were were planning to oppose Obama’s healthcare policies on the grounds that weren’t liberal enough is essentially correct. I wouldn’t use quite the same terminology as Emanuel did, but those people, and moveon.org do not seem to be able to deal with political realities. Emanuel seems to have governed Chicago pragmatically with some idea of controlling municipal spending. Moveon.org would prefer a solid progressive who won’t win and would run the city into the ground. And they think that Tea Partiers are unrealistic extremists.

Crossing the Line

January 23, 2015

DeWayne Wickham believes that the French magazine Charlie Hebdo has gone too far. They have crossed the line between free speech and toxic talk and thus is responsible for much of the violence committed by Muslims in France and around the world. He writes in USA Today;

Charlie Hebdo has gone too far.

In its first publication following the Jan. 7 attack on its Paris office, in which two Muslim gunmen massacred 12 people, the once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.

Charlie Hebdo‘s latest depiction of the prophet Mohammed — a repeat of the very action that is thought to have sparked the murderous attack on its office — predictably has given rise to widespread violence in nations with large Muslim populations. Its irreverence of Mohammed once moved the French tabloid to portray him naked in a pornographic pose. In another caricature, it showed Mohammed being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.

While free speech is one of democracy’s most important pillars, it has its limits. H.L. Mencken, the fabled columnist who described himself as “an extreme libertarian,” said that he believed in free speech“up to the last limits of the endurable.”

French President Francois Hollande, apparently, disagrees. He defendsCharlie Hebdo‘s latest depiction of Mohammed by saying that protesters in other countries don’t understand France’s embrace of free speech.

But even as Hollande defends Charlie Hebdo‘s right to publish images of Mohammed that many Muslims consider sacrilegious and hateful, his government has imprisoned dozens of people who have condemned the magazine with talk the French won’t tolerate. Those arrested are accused of speaking in support of the attack on the magazine, and a separate assault on a kosher store in Paris by a lone Muslim gunman with links to the men who attacked Charlie Hebdo.

While the Obama administration condemned these deadly attacks, it probably wasn’t surprised. Two years ago, then-press secretary Jay Carney questioned the judgment ofCharlie Hebdo‘s editors when they published an offensive depiction of Mohammed. That came a year after the newspaper’s office was firebombed when it tauntingly named Mohammed its guest editor. That portrayal came with a caption that read: “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing.”

 

In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.

If Charlie Hebdo‘s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo‘s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

The principle that Mr. Wickham seems to be enunciating seems to be that freedom of speech is all very well unless someone is upset by what is being spoken or written, in which case, that speech should be suppressed. I wonder if he has really thought through the implications of this principle. If the idea that only speech that offends no one should be permitted is applied even-handedly, than only the blandest sort of platitudes can be allowed, given that there are so many people offended by seemingly innocent expressions. Of course, this principle of forbidding “toxic talk” cannot be even-handedly applied even with the best efforts. In practice, it will be those quick to use force, either violent or otherwise whose feelings will be spared. A pornographic portrayal of Jesus or Buddha is permitted. Christians and Buddhists do not usually respond to insults with bombs or guns. A pornographic portrayal of Mohammed is forbidden. Muslims often respond to insults with murderous rage.

Mr. Wickham justifies this sort of distinction by invoking the example of a man crying fire in a crowded theater. The editors of Charlie Hebdo knew that their cartoons would provoke violence that would create a clear and present danger to the peace. Therefore, their fighting words should be prohibited. He further accuses the French authorities of hypocrisy in defended Charlie Hebdo’s free speech rights while denying the rights of those who have called for violence against the magazine. I do not think that DeWayne Wickham really understands the meaning of the phrase inciting to violence nor does he appear to make a distinction between speech that someone may find offensive and speech that calls for violence against a person perceived to be causing offense. The former must be permitted or there is no freedom of speech. The latter must be forbidden or the violent will deny freedom of speech.

I will try to explain what I mean. If I am addressing a rally of the Ku Klux Klan and I state that everyone in the audience should go out and kill an African-American ( I know what word they would really use, but nevermind.) that would clearly be an incitement to violence. If someone actually did kill someone afterwards, I might be considered legally responsible. I would certainly be morally responsible. Clearly, such speech ought not to be allowed. If, on the other hand, I made the statement that African-Americans were all stupid, that would not be an incitement to violence, even if such a statement would certainly be offensive to an African-American reporter covering the rally. If that reporter jumped up onto the podium and punched me in the face, he would be arrested and charged with assault. The fact that he found my speech offensive would not be considered justification for his action, although a jury might not convict him. The Black reporter would be responsible for his action, not me. The statement that African-Americans are all stupid is protected speech, even if the statement is offensive and even hateful.

In like fashion, Charlie Hebdo is not responsible for the actions of Muslims who find its cartoons offensive. They do not have to read the magazine. They can publish their own magazine mocking the sort of people the cartoonists and editors are likely to be. To blame Charlie Hebdo for their actions is really rather insulting since it implies that those people are savages who cannot really be responsible for their actions. To argue that this magazine should be in any way suppressed because of the threat of violence is giving the violent a veto over our speech and thus ending the concept of free speech. One might think that the dean of a school of journalism would understand that.

 

In the Family

January 19, 2015

I am not sure if this story is true or not. It does not seem to be an obvious falsehood or satire, but I have my doubts as its veracity. The story is from Opposing views, but I caught it on Joe the Plumber’s blog.

An 18-year-old woman told New York Magazine that she has been in a two-year sexual relationship with her father after being estranged from him for 12 years.

The father and his ex-girlfriend conceived their daughter when they were both 18, and he left her before the birth. When their daughter was 5 years old, the man was back in the picture for a short time before leaving again.

Twelve years later, the father and his then 17-year-old daughter reconnected online, realizing they had a lot in common. “We shared the same favorite TV shows — “The Simpson” and “The Big Bang Theory” — and we both love to draw,” the daughter told New York’s “Science of Us” blog.

The pair arranged to meet in person and upon seeing her father for the first time in years, the teen said she was immediately attracted to him.

“It was so weird and confusing. I was seeing my dad for the first time in forever but it was also like, He’s so good-looking! And then I was like, What the hell are you thinking? What is wrong with you?” she said. “I saw him as my dad but then also part of me was like, I’m meeting this guy who I have been talking to over the internet and really connecting with and I find him attractive.”

The young woman said that the attraction began to intensify when she stayed with him for five days. One day, they went on a shopping trip and the father complimented her daughter’s figure. When they returned home, they began “play-wrestling.”

“That night we were play-wrestling in the room I was going to sleep in and I bit him. He was wearing a pair of basketball shorts and a tank top and after I bit him I could see goose bumps pop up from his toes to his shoulders. Then he pinched my inner thigh and I got goose bumps,” the teen said. “We stopped and said that we didn’t know what was going on but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other. We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.”

The daughter said she and her father “fell deeply in love” and are now engaged and planning a wedding.

Assuming that this story is true, is there a single logical reason why these two lovers should not be married? Traditionally, the institution of marriage was maintained for the creation and preservation of families. Since human beings reproduce sexually and two distinct genders each playing a role in the process, it has been understood that a marriage must consist of at least one of each sex. Close family members have generally not been allowed to marry each other because of the danger that their offspring will have an increased risk of developing genetic disorders. Such was the understanding in the dark days or institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and heteronormativity.

In our more enlightened times, we understand that marriage has nothing at all to do with families or children. One need not be married to have children and one need not have children with the person one is married to. Marriage is now properly understood as a generic relationship that any two (or more) people can enter into regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or even species.

So, if two men or two women can get married, why cannot two brothers or two sisters? There is no question of children in such a relationship so any consideration of birth defects or diseases caused by incest is moot. Why shouldn’t a mother and daughter or father and son be permitted to marry one another?

Now, in the case of two family members of the opposite sex marrying, there is the question of the health of any offspring of the relationship, but that is easily resolved. One or both of the partners can simply arranged to have themselves sterilized. There is then no possibility of deformed children and no bar to a happy matrimony.

If marriage can be radically redefined to include same sex couples, there is no logical reason why it cannot be further redefined to include incestuous couples, polygamy, or bestiality. You cannot appeal to tradition or religion. If same sex marriage is a sacred civil right that overrides long tradition or religious sentiment, than so are incestuous marriages. You cannot appeal to personal distaste. Personal distaste is no reason to oppose any such change in policy. I do not oppose same sex marriage because of any personal distaste for homosexuals but because I do not believe that such a radical redefinition of a fundamental institution of society is likely to be beneficial to society.

To put the matter succinctly, if you support the idea of same sex marriage, than logic and consistency dictates that you also support the idea of incestuous marriages. There is no logical reason to support the one and oppose the other. I hope you will be happy in the brave new world you are helping to create.

Snowmen are Anti-Islamic

January 12, 2015

That is what a recent fatwa from a cleric from Saudi Arabia states. I read about it in this story from Yahoo News.

A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.

Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country’s north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: “It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun.”

Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

“God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on,” he wrote in his ruling.

That provoked swift responses from Twitter users writing in Arabic and identifying themselves with Arab names.

“They are afraid for their faith of everything … sick minds,” one Twitter user wrote.

Another posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a “snow bride” wearing a bra and lipstick. “The reason for the ban is fear of sedition,” he wrote.

A third said the country was plagued by two types of people:

“A people looking for a fatwa (religious ruling) for everything in their lives, and a cleric who wants to interfere in everything in the lives of others through a fatwa,” the user wrote.

Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. “It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” one wrote.

“May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognize matters that even Satan does not think about.”

Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia’s border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East.

I wouldn’t have thought this would be a problem in Saudi Arabia, but evidently it does snow there. In any case, this ruling is not as crazy as it might appear. Islam is a religion which strongly forbids even the suggestion of idol worship and for this reason  Islamic law and culture has discouraged the visual representation of any human or animal which might be taken as an object of worship. This is why the arts in Islamic cultures have never produced any equivalent to the works of renaissance artists like MichelAngelo with their precise, almost photographic portraits and detailed studies of human anatomy and perspective. Persons with an artistic bent in Islamic countries have generally concentrated on beautiful calligraphy, generally of Koranic verses and abstract geometric designs. According to the strictest interpretations of Islamic law, as is found in Saudi Arabia, any representation of the human form for any reason is forbidden. Forbidding the creation of snowmen is simply taking the iconoclasm of Islam to a logical extreme.

This does say something about the nature of Islam. Islam does not seem to be a very joyful religion and its adherents certainly do not seem to have much of a sense of humor. The Ayatollah Khomeini is reported to have said,

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. …”

Mohammed didn’t care for music, believing it to inspire sin, so Islamic cultures have tended to discourage music. There is no Bach or Mozart in Islam. There seems to be no joy in Islam.

It also says something, that every detail of life, no matter how trivial, seems to be subject to endless rules concerning what is allowed and what is forbidden. Can you imagine a person of any other religion even wondering if building a snowman is acceptable? There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on thinking or reasoning for yourself in Islam. Every decision seems to be based on what Mohammed would do or what the religious authorities centuries ago wrote.

In contrast, Christians are told to:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding,will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:4-7)

We are set free from rules and are made sons of God.

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Gal 3:23-4:7)

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.(Romans 7:4-6)

This does not mean that we are free to commit sins, of course, but if we do commit sins we follow a God more interested in forgiving and saving us than one eager to condemn us. It may be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and to a certain extent it is true, but we have very different ideas about who God is and what He wants from us. Our God wants us to be His sons and sent His own son to die for us. Their God wants us to be slaves of a harsh master. I think I prefer Jesus over Allah. At least Jesus doesn’t have any issues with snowmen.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 479 other followers

%d bloggers like this: