For the most part, I don't give a hoot about my neighbor's religion, save a small number of things:
- What holidays does he/she celebrate, so that I can give them friendly greetings on those days?
- Does the practice of that neighbor's religion interfere with my life?
- Is my neighbor's practice of religion causing direct harm to others?
If a neighbor is Jewish, I might wish him/her a happy Chaunnakah. If a neighbor is Muslim, I might wish him a happy end to fasting after Ramadan. But sometimes people of my own Christian faith can be the most perplexing.
- - - - - -
Recently, there has been a lot of press discussing the alleged sexual abuse by one of the Duggar sons upon several girls - including his sisters. Normally, this would be a story confined to the back pages of most newspapers, save for one thing - the Duggar family has become extremely visible because of their "reality" TV show.
The Duggars are evangelical fundamentalists who have a very strict code of behavior - boys and girls must not touch each other (kissing, holding hands, etc.) until they are betrothed or married. This implies that there is a lot of sexual repression going on. In one report that I heard (I can't remember where), the children did not know that the son's sexual touching was inappropriate behavior. And when discussed in their local church, a goodly many people as well didn't realize that this behavior was inappropriate. In short, the way to prevent sin, ignorance, had failed to protect a family from evil....
If we take a step back, and recall the story of Adam and Eve, the one commandment given to the two people was to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge. In short, ignorance was bliss. Gain useful knowledge, and one can see that life was not heavenly, but hellish instead.
In the case of the Duggars, the only way to prevent disaster was to promote ignorance. Any break in the pattern of their lives, and people would find out something was seriously wrong. To distract others from seeing this family for what it is, the Matriarch slandered the transgender community - saying that transgenders are out to molest young girls. Do they not see the motes in their own family's eyes?
- - - - - -
If the Duggars were a small group of crackpots, like the people from the Westboro Baptist Church, this would not be a problem. But we're seeing this this kind of transphobia, hatred of gays, and hypocrisy runs deep in the bible belt. In a recent interview on Fox News, one pastor was ranting that it was no one's affair about what the Duggars did - even when molestation took place. Dr. Drew stated that anyone with children (especially 19 of them) should supervise their kids well - and the evangelical pastor went nuts! The pastor was defending a member of his tribe, no matter how much evil had to be covered up. Can you imagine what is going on in other evangelical households where ignorance is preached and sexuality is repressed instead of being dealt with in a healthy way?
- - - - - -
Right now, the GOP is beholden to a large number of crack pots like this family - who get the vote out, and keep the Red States glowing a bright red. But how long can this last? The mainstream party bosses know this is a problem, but don't know how to solve it. They are afraid of losing to a demographically superior Democratic party. So they won't risk anything that would lose the Red States, in order to flip more "middle of the road" states from Blue to Red.
This wouldn't be so bad if the damage these people cause were limited to their own states. But they have taken an "opposition for the sake of opposition" approach to politics - they refuse to make trade offs with people on the other side of the political aisle. (I'm not sure if I can say that the Democrats are much better. What I can say is that the GOP is inconsistent in their areas of hypocrisy, while the Democrats are consistent in their areas of hypocrisy.)
Although I am a registered Republican, I haven't voted their way in ages - there is a consistency in bills they'd enact if voted into power, and I don't want to see that happen. (I prefer the devil I know, to the one I don't.). Now that the public sees income and wealth distribution as a problem, the GOP is jumping on this cause - something the Democrats have talked about for ages. Both sides are BSing the public. But only one flip flops as quickly as the GOP.
- - - - - -
I fear what will happen if crackpots like the Duggars gain political power. We already have one member of the Supreme Court who has hinted that he believes in short term creation. What would this do to Science and Mathematics education in this country? We've already seen Texas consider the prophet Moses to be one of our "founding fathers". What's next? How ignorant can we become? How much further can we fall behind our global competition?
Although I don't like the idea of a Republican Party who openly supports a Plutocracy, I am even more against a party who combines that with religious litmus testing. There were valid economic points being made by many in the GOP in their political discussions, and they were being lost because of this unholy arrangement with religious fundamentalists. To me, the one thing that has helped make this country great is the separation of church and state - allowing everyone to be free to practice their faith as they please - even the Duggars. Take away that separation, and watch America relearn the lessons Europe learned hundreds of years ago. Do we want to go through that process ...again?
It never fails to surprise me about how little people retain from each day's news cycle. A few weeks ago, Obama's warming up towards Cuba was big news - and the "conservatives" were all chastising him for abandoning tactics which have been proven not to work. The same thing was done with Iran - and again, it was big news for a few days, and almost forgotten. We're seeing public opinion swayed by talking heads, in ways that George Orwell could only dream of....
Orwell, in "1984", presented a public speech where someone was ranting about one enemy, and in the middle of the speech the enemy changed. The former enemy was now a friend, and the former friend was now an enemy. Although this type of change isn't happening as fast as in Orwell's novel, we're already seeing this in our media. How many of us remember when our enemy was "godless" communism? And now our biggest trading partner is the People's Republic of China - governed by the Communist Party.
Although George Washington warned us against having any permanent entanglements, I don't think that he would believe how quickly the world changes in our lifetime. My father has seen Germany and Japan go from being friendly countries, to enemies, and back to being friends. And in my lifetime, I've seen the same happen with Vietnam, and am seeing it happen with Iran and Cuba.
- - - - - -
About 50 years ago, the city of Baltimore had its riots. And now, it had another round of riots. The problems are the same as they were 50 years ago - a general lack of economic opportunity. Americans will forget about this round of riots, as they have other important things in the news. But will we learn from them?
This time, we're seeing people around the world "armed" with cell phones (most of which contain the latest software) and active internet connections. Even in Iran's riots of a couple of years ago, the central government was unable to suppress all the news from getting out of the country. It couldn't suppress the news being passed along by its citizens. And the same thing happened here - the Baltimore Police could no longer cover up what triggered the riots - a "thug" whose rights were ignored by the police, and a death that couldn't be ignored.
Now, I've just used the word "thug" to describe this person. But is he as bad as the label I've attached to him? In an area as economically depressed as his section of Baltimore, over 56% of the adult male population is unemployed. Dr. Phil noted in an interview on Fox News that the people living in these poor sections of cities may have the same potential, but not the same opportunities, education, or inter-generational social pass-throughs. Was this person's rap sheet caused by a defect in this person's character, or was it caused by the environment he lived in?
- - - - - -
Two generations ago, we didn't need to worry about the problems of structural unemployment. Today, both people in the inner city and the suburbs are affected by these problems. The low end jobs which were stepping stones to greater opportunities no longer exist. Low value/High Labor cost manufacturing left the United States years ago. Computers have replaced humans in many tasks which would have provided work - the computer managed "help lines" we call are perfect examples of this. It is cheaper to have a human interface with a series of telephone menus than to reach a real, live, flesh and blood human. And society no longer provides the full and free education needed to fill the jobs of tomorrow.
Our college education system has been corrupted by government funding - instead of having our government expand access to college by building more colleges, we've seen our government increase the monies available to students in student loans. Simply adding more money to buy more education doesn't do much good - it only raised the nominal price of an education, making it much harder for both the poor and the middle class to afford college. And for those that got the student loans, they often now have onerous debt to repay, and are deferring having children. (I'm not even talking about those who took out predatory student loans issued by for-profit colleges that provided sub-standard educations - these students were screwed the day they entered school, and no one wants to fix this problem because the affected students come from the lower castes....) Since student debt can't be erased in bankruptcy, we now have a generation of Americans who will not be able to afford what will be needed from them in the future.
- - - - - -
It is very interesting is that the problems that once only afflicted the lower class are now affecting the middle class. Poverty used to be clustered in the inner city and in remote rural areas. Now, we're seeing newly poor people scattered through middle class neighborhoods. Houses are becoming derelict because of predatory lending combined with "Zombie Titles" that insulate banks from maintaining foreclosed properties - Banks are no longer foreclosing on many properties, making it impossible for borrowers to walk away from debt that they can no longer afford. Sadly, this may only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the banks will be doing next to preserve their power in society....
- - - - - -
Where will we end up? I don't know. I'm afraid for our future, as we're seeing the signs of America's upcoming collapse - and we, as a whole, have a lot of questions about our society's future that need to be asked and need to be answered. So far, all our leaders are doing is pandering to us and our fears - they do nothing to deal with the real problems. And this is a great danger that we all should fear....
The above is a collective image of the 6 Baltimore police officers who have been indicted for the homicide of Freddie Gray. Although they deserve a fair trial by an unbiased jury, it was interesting to see how political pressure can be used to redress some of the issues raised by some of the disenfranchised in society.
In the followup to the riots, we saw the Baltimore D.A. take an honest look at the evidence and had no choice but to call for an indictment. Gray was not belted into his seat for his own protection. The police van made 4 stops, not 1 before reaching its final destination. And, the knife once labeled as a switchblade was perfectly legal for Gray to possess. There was enough of a stench coming from the police involved, that even the D.A. couldn't avoid seeing an apparent abuse of police power.
Recently, Dr. Phil was on Fox News, and he slipped through a comment that the talking heads didn't notice. Although the kids in the poor neighborhoods may have the same potential as those in the better neighborhoods, environmental factors may be making it impossible for them to achieve this potential. Around 4:20 (or so) in the linked video, he noted that there are fewer opportunities available for these kids, that the school systems are very different for these kids than those in the affluent suburbs, that fewer resources are available for these kids, and that their parents do not have the "societal" skills to pass on to the next generation (as Dr. Phil puts it - "generational pass throughs").
- - - - - -
I have commented before about the warehousing of excess population in our nation's prisons. I have commented before on the economy of the drug trade, and how it is one of the last "industries" available to poor people with criminal records. I have commented about how people have been turned into 3rd class citizens, and denied the right to vote after serving time in prison. And I have commented before on unequal education in our country. But what happens when these factors are not properly addressed by society - Riots.
Why does this concern me? I don't live in the inner city; I live in the suburbs. The answer is simple. We are seeing the gradual breakdown of society from the bottom up. As the segment of society for whom enough opportunity does not exist grows, the more unrest there will be. When this segment swallows up much of what was once the middle class, I am not sure of how long our democratic republic will survive. I am very afraid of an authoritarian government taking the place of the flawed system we now have.
- - - - - -
When the above 6 police officers were indicted, I found it interesting that the people in the inner city were celebrating. Only time will tell if these officers are convicted. But is this a bone being thrown to the masses to keep them quiet? I am not sure. Years ago, we saw the O.J. Simpson trial on TV. It was captivating, if only because a black defendant had enough money and resources to put up a strong defense and win against a prosecution who had virtually unlimited resources. (It helped that there was a mixed race jury hearing the case, unlike the civil trial held in the L.A. Suburbs.) And at that time, one heard the same cheering among the Black segment of America's population as if "one of ours finally won!"
Law enforcement and criminal defense are two things that differ between the better off and the worse off in our society. In the more affluent communities, police treat residents (for the most part) with respect. If someone has to go to trial, that person generally can muster up enough resources to put up an adequate defense. This is not the case in poor communities, where the police are being used to control a disenfranchised population, by arbitrarily enforcing laws. Because the poor do not have adequate resources to defend themselves in court, there is extreme pressure to plead guilty for lesser prison time. And once out of prison, many poor people are now unemployable in the traditional economy. The drug trade becomes the only business open to these people, creating a vicious cycle of crime, poverty, and hopelessness.
- - - - - -
If one doesn't believe that there isn't an arbitrary standard of justice in this country, look at the latest video by Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard. In it, you'll see an action for which white people are rarely prosecuted, but for which black people are often prosecuted. Depending on the state this video was shot, the action would be legal, be a misdemeanor, or even be a felony.
As much as I love Willie Nelson's music, his use of cannabis illustrates the double standard of justice we have for black and white people in this country. The police have caught him and his entourage with cannabis - and he has never (from what I can tell) spent a day in jail. Can you say this about black people who have been arrested for possession/sale of the same substance?
To me, it's about time that we end the so-called "War on Drugs" and begin reinvesting in the inner city (and its residents). If we don't, are we willing to risk losing the freedoms we have left to a future authoritarian government, just to keep the disenfranchised under control?
This image makes it seem like the Baltimore police had the situation under control. However, given 4/27's news reporting on both Fox and MSNBC, this would be the furthest thing from the truth.
Normally, I lean left of center (based on today's politics) when interpreting affairs of the day.When it comes to riots, I have no problems with police being able to "shoot to kill". "Why?" you may ask... To me, the answer is simple - a riot is like a quick moving cancer. If it is not put down quickly, a community gets labeled as a bad place to make an investment. And, as a result, there is a loss of jobs which can force the community into an economic death.
Sadly, the fact that riots are taking place are indicative of a bigger social problem. We have an excess supply of people who are willing to work, but can not find gainful work. We have draconian laws (especially in regard to recreational substances) whose net effect is to disenfranchise large segments of the population, to warehouse them where they can't compete for jobs against a blissfully unaware but shrinking middle class, and to function as a tool to keep the lower economic classes in check.
If we look at the people in places like inner-city Baltimore, we see poor people who have poor educations, who will not be able to qualify for the jobs of tomorrow. They are frustrated, and do not have the ability to articulate their complaints against the larger society. Strangely enough, Fox had a reporter on the ground, interviewing one of the locals in front of the police, while MSNBC only had talking heads in the studio. But the message was clear, no matter which side of the political aisle you were on - the people in inner-city Baltimore are tired of living in conditions of little hope.
Watching the Fox interview of the unnamed Baltimore local, I noticed that the local mentioned that he just got out of prison on a trumped up drug charge, where the policeman planted the evidence that was used to convict him. In the past, I'd be inclined to think that this would be someone lying to save face. However, with these incidents (and others) on file, I'm not so certain we can put the word of the police above the average citizen any more:
Can we assume that the police are telling the truth? Not anymore. Yet, I believe that most of the police are getting a bad reputation from these "bad eggs", and from policies meant to detect crimes, even when no crimes have been committed.
Let's assume that this unnamed Baltimore local's statement is true. Then this is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. The people we've entrusted the duty to protect us have become part of the problem. In an article on where Baltimore's police went wrong, the author notes that dealing drugs is the only "industry" left in the inner city - and that our current drug laws are creating a police force that no longer polices neighborhoods to keep them safe, but instead, becomes a tool used to keep the poor and disenfranchised in line, and afraid to challenge the corrupt status quo.
Most policemen starting out are good people who are put under a lot of stress every day. However, our elected leaders set policies that often demand that the police meet quotas to show that crime is being reduced - and our police oblige them, out of fear that they will become victims of politics. Instead of being the trusted members of the community that one could count on to find out who is committing crimes, they become the distrusted outsiders responsible for keeping a sector of society out of public sight.
The big question is - how long will it be before the lower classes in American society rebel, as the French did in their 1784 revolution? I have no idea, but I hope that we can humanely fix the problem with the disenfranchised poor before they find a way to create a successful revolution of their own....
Gone are the days where we could trust our newscasters to provide us with a version of the news biased towards the middle of the road. We as a nation may not have been objective, but we trusted our newscasters to be so - even when the news didn't agree with our political views. Today, we have "Narrow-casted" news, where cable channels broadcast to narrow market segments, feeding them the pablum they want to hear, and interpreted through the lenses of people who agree with them - never challenging the viewer to look at the world through a different perspective.
Recently, Brian Williams has been in the news for not being truthful in his news reports. Supposedly, he will be out for 6 months - until things cool down - but I'm not sure if he'll be back for long. I don't think people like him are the real problem in news. Instead, the problem is the firms that encourage excessive bias in the news.
Years ago, I learned a simple fact. If a country had to use "Democratic" in its official name, the odds were that the country had an authoritarian regime. A good example of this is the DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't believe that anyone outside North Korea believes that the Kim family really cares for its subjects. But I digress. The same idea also applies for news outlets. If an outlet claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the odds are that it is Unfair and Biased. I am very wary of claims from both the left and the right - both tribes are led by opportunist conspirators, and will cloak themselves in the garb of caring for the little fellow.
Why is it that MSNBC ignores Al Sharpton's past? Even though he might be a reformed man now, he still strikes me as an opportunist who works on a more subtle level than when he was younger. And why has Fox News ignored the lies coming from its own editorial staff? If one of its big shows claims to be a "No Spin Zone", why did a high school have to take his show to task for violating journalistic ethics? It seems like both sets of talking heads get their marching orders, and ignore the indiscretions of their own teams in order to sell their agendas to the unthinking public.
One of my friends believes in every conspiracy theory that comes her way. Most have been proven false. However some might be true - but not in the way she understands the world. The way I look at it, 99.44% of us are effectively pawns in the games of the rich and powerful. There are many power blocs among the elite, and they conspire against each other for greater power. Some of them believe in over population (which results in lower wages and fear of job loss), as this is an easy way for this elite to maintain positions of power. Other groups within the elite believe that greater wealth and power can be gained by fulfilling the wishes and needs of the other 99.44%. And still others benefit from dividing the 99.44% against each other. It is plausible that blocs within the elites conspire against each other, and we are affected, being mere pawns in the game.
I attempt to see reality by skipping over the BS being spewed by the two major factions in our society, and by reading media from sources (often overseas) who have less skin in the games being played in America. I compare their reporting against what is being said in America to develop a better idea of what the truth might be, and test that idea against the objective facts as I know them. And so far, luckily, I have been on target more than I would have been otherwise. Is the media biased? Yes. Are the spinmeisters hypocritical? Of course. But that doesn't make it impossible to see the truth - if one is willing to let one's own prejudices drop by the wayside....
Although I am still a registered Republican, I don't remember the last time I could honestly say that I could vote for a candidate on the Republican Party line. The wingnuts have taken over the party, and the rhetoric coming out of some former standard bearers has been an embarrassment for any thinking person.
Recently, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he doubted that our president, Barack Obama loves America. It seems that he believes that if we love our country that we should blindly praise our country without question, and never criticize it. This is not love - this is blind, unthinking loyalty to a potentially corrupt leadership. Did the Abolitionists (pre Civil War) not love their country because they disagreed with the law of the land? What about people like Martin Luther King Jr. - could you say that he didn't love this country because he was critical of how it treated his race? What about the Japanese-Americans who were herded into prison camps? Almost every group who are present in this country has a legitimate gripe to complain about - do their complaints mean that they do not love this country?
Giuliani stated that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Later, on Fox News, he "doubled down" and restated the same claim. (And this, with Fox News trying to give him a chance to hedge things, so that he didn't look as much like an idiot as he did.) The former NYC mayor opened up a firestorm, as CNN noted that this puts the GOP 2016 contenders for the Presidency in a bind - Do they support Giuliani, and disrespect the office of the President? Or, do they criticize Giuliani, and say something good about Obama to show respect for his office? Of course, the left has had a field day, with one congressman using the constitution's "3/5ths Human" value of a slave for the head counts needed to determine the number of congressmen a state has.
To me, the most galling of Giuliani's statements show how racist he really is. Giuliani stated that he was OK to criticize Obama in his way because he (Obama) had a white mother. To me, that's like saying someone isn't racist because he/she has a black friend. Our society has a lot of racist elements in it, and they can not be eliminated overnight. But to say that the sitting president of our country doesn't love his country because he refuses to shout meaningless lines like "we're number one!" and makes valid criticisms of this country is insulting to those who want to continue making this country a better country for all.
Our country was founded as a result of a minority revolt against unjust authority. It caught the British by surprise, as the British acted as it being associated with Britain was reward enough for any injustice suffered by the colonists. History has proven the British wrong - growth always is dependent on a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude. If we're not moving forward as a nation, then we are backsliding. And this president does not seem to be a backslider - even if a critic disagrees with the direction in which the president wants to take this country.
I love my country. But I do not think it is the best country in the world. Instead, we may have the best ideal, the best goal for a society in this world. The opening of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind - "We hold these truths...." We are far from that ideal - but it is a direction we all should take. If we didn't criticize our society, we would have blind obedience to corrupt leaders - and never would have given Blacks the right to vote, nor would we have given Women the right to vote. We never would have fought to end Jim Crow, much less had our current president in office, if voices of criticism were silenced, and defiance of unjust policies never occurred.
No, our president does not love this country in the same way that Rudy Giuliani does, and I thank God for that. I'd rather have a man in charge who is comfortable with criticism than to have a leader who squashes all dissent.
