Even though I'm pretty much a heathen these days, I do appreciate
Christmas stories and am moved to tell one that took place back in
December, 1988, our first Christmas in California.
My mom used to make these great
cookies. They were peanut butter with a Hershey Kiss in the center of
each cookie. They rocked. They were like their own food group. Row loved
them as well. That year my mom told us she had sent a box of them to us
in Mountain View and we were jazzed
when the box arrived. My dad had packed the box. He was the packing guy.
He could pack anything to withstand a direct hit from a bazooka.
Anyway, upon unwrapping and opening the box, we noticed this dreadful,
wafting, evil aroma of rubber. Really nasty. (Like walking into a tire
store or a modern-day Harbor Freight. If you've ever done either, you
know that smell.) Her legendary McFadden olfactory sense
operating perfectly as ever, Rosemary immediately made a face and backed away,
but I --- not wanting to believe what I knew in my heart was the real
truth of it --- grabbed one and popped it in my mouth. How could I not?
It was one of those cookies and... it was made by Rita O'Brien! You
guessed it, that cookie tasted exactly how the box smelled, only a whole
lot worse because it was in my mouth. It was dreadful. I had a boot in my mouth, but a boot I was,
nevertheless, yearning to chew and swallow. It was beyond dreadful. It was whatever word that "dreadful" uses.
We examined the box
and sure enough it was a box in which a pair of rubber boots had been
shipped from some factory and in which those (or other) boots had been
stored for what was probably a very, very, very long time. My dad had,
no doubt, found the box, had probably thought, "This'll be perfect!",
and had then faithfully worked his usual packing magic, all the while
never noticing (or simply ignoring) the delicate-as-a-hammer fragrance
of Eau de Firestone. Well, not being the brightest bulb at times, I had
to try another, only to remove it from my mouth every bit as fast as I
had removed the first one. I even tried airing out the cookies, but to
no avail. The odor was in each cookie, forever. In fact, wherever those
cookies are now, they probably still reek of rubber. Eating those
cookies was a non-starter from the moment Harry found that box. Those
cookies were doomed.
The word "heartbroken" doesn't quite cover it.
At any rate, being the kind person my folks made sure I was, I told my
mom and dad that the cookies were great, told them thank you, and told
them that I loved their thoughtfulness. I never told them the true
story. There was no need. The simple acts of baking them, packing them,
and sending them to us were better than all those cookies ever could be,
times 1000 boxes. In retrospect, it was just as well, because that
single box probably contained more useless calories than any 20 people
needed in a week, let alone the two of us.
I thought I'd share.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Saturday, November 14, 2015
They're definitely not a JV team...
Before I begin,
please know that I'm a naive idealist. One more thing. I employ a logical
fallacy by engaging in ad hominem (name-calling) argument. I admit all this
freely. Enough preface.
Back in 2014, the conservative media were beside themselves when President Obama compared Da'esh to a junior varsity (JV) sports team. Was that a glib remark on his part? Sure. Should he have never said it? Probably not, because that sort of blithe statement always seems to come back to bite. But regardless of the spun/counterspun defense by supporters, or of the hateful invective of detractors, his was a fair comparison between real teams versus faux teams; however, his analogy was unfair to JV teams everywhere, because when a JV team does compete, it has the self respect and good grace to do so against other JV teams, head to head, team to team, evenly matched. What Da'esh has been doing, conversely, is surprise-attacking target-rich, non-militarized environments, such as civilian aircraft, magazine offices, small Iraqi and Syrian towns, and French shopping malls, theaters, and restaurants.
This is akin to a fully suited-up football team scrimmaging with children from a daycare center and then bragging about a victory that was never a contest and not anything even remotely close to a fair fight.
Oh, bravo and well done you.
Clearly, I'm facetiously straining this army-as-competing-sports-team analogy, but it does accurately describe things: Da'esh has yet to go head to head with a real army, with a real fighting force, with another evenly matched group on an even playing field. The Iraqi army is a living oxymoron, unworthy to be used as a comparable entity. It truly is the "daycare kids' team." A possible exception? the Kurdish Peshmerga, with whom Da'esh has had its hands full; if the Peshmerga could get the weapons they need to be on an equal footing, Da'esh would be in big, big trouble. Da'esh seems to realize this, too, because what they've done in response to it is lash out at the defenseless and unarmed and claim, in so doing, to be heroes for their cause.
Look, it must be absurdly and understandably frustrating (as admittedly understated as this word might seem) for anyone to have had to live under the results and effects of the poor decisions made by Britain and France when the ridiculously arbitrary and unfair Sikes-Picot Agreement was struck back in 1916. Yes. Agreed. No argument from me. These two countries were nothing but invaders and colonialists, and it is inarguably and always wrong for any outsiders to lay claim to any land that isn't theirs and to dictate policies to that land's sovereign people. The Brits tried it with us and look where it got them. The French tried it in Indochina, which we 60-somethings know as Viet Nam. Some might argue that the Israelis have been doing something similar since the late 40s with disastrous effects. The USA pulled similarly heinous stuff with the North-American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries. And it was equally unfair and unwise of the USA to invade Iraq in 2003 under the false flags of a connection with the 911 attackers and the presence of non-existent WMDs.
But before you get your gung-ho hackles up, be completely honest: how would you feel as an American if some other country came into the USA and set up an unjustified, uninvited presence in, say, Arizona or Montana or Oklahoma, simply because that invading country claimed that doing so was necessary for A) its national interests and B) your country's own good? Precisely. You'd be pissed. Allow me to further suggest that even the most vitriolic Obama-haters would probably go out of their minds if a foreign entity attempted to come into the USA and depose him by force, but this wanders from the point.
The point is, we are not even close to blameless in this regard, and no matter the actors, them or us, all such examples have largely been a function of making huge mistakes, resulting in bad decisions, yielding terrible outcomes. We aren't doing ourselves any favors when we continue to prop up (or depose) dictators who mistreat their own people and who will inevitably be replaced by, you guessed it, more dictators. The other side-effect of laying down with dogs is waking up with insurgencies; some have suggested that Da'esh is just one such insurgent result of our incursion into Iraq. Does anyone doubt that a home-grown insurgency would rise up here if another country invaded the USA?
Yet even as bad as these historically and objectively terrible decisions were, and they were all really terrible decisions, none of them is an excuse for throwing grenades at unarmed people at a rock concert or murdering unarmed diners in a restaurant or slaughtering unarmed children in their schools or selling women and children into slavery or beheading dutiful journalists or burning innocent people in cages. You want a real fight? You want to show how tough you are? Then man the fuck up and fight with real combatants who are just as well armed as you are, and stop killing innocent people who are blameless, unarmed noncombatants. Seriously. If someone slaps you, only an asshole kicks the cat in response.
Barrack Obama's critics were correct: Da'esh is definitely not a JV team. Nope. What it is, though, is a psychotically delusional death-cult of pathological pricks who think it's heroic and noble to slaughter innocent, unarmed men, women, and children. The day will come that Da'esh gets the fair fight it so richly deserves, and when it does, it will have its collective ass handed to it.
For reasonable, sensible, fair-minded (and naively idealistic) people everywhere, that day can't come soon enough.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Does any GOP candidate know about Article VI?
Last Thursday evening's three-hour-plus GOP debate was nothing short of a pander fest. And before anyone takes umbrage, I know, I know... Dems pander all the time as well; it's what politicians do. But pandering for something that is counter to the spirit and, quite literally, the letter of the US Constitution is another thing entirely.
If the GOP's candidates weren't consuming CNN airtime praising Ronald Reagan, slamming Planned Parenthood, or showing just how much they loved Israel, they were trying to show their potential voters just how Christian they were, and very little could matter less in real terms.
In a recent Politico story, Donald Trump was said to be actively courting the evangelical vote in order to bolster his sagging poll numbers, even after he has publicly stated he doesn't read the bible or ask God's forgiveness for much of anything. Former Governor Huckabee, one of the many GOP candidates and a former Baptist pastor, is telling his followers that, if necessary, he'll ignore man's laws in order to adhere to God's laws, even as he decries the supposed rise of Sharia law in the USA. (Apparently the word theocracy has more than one meaning for the Huckster.) Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz, who's also running, launched his campaign at Liberty University (to a captive audience, quite literally), which was founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Cruz recently crashed Huckabee's pander party at the rally for Kim Davis without much success. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's Governor and yet another GOPer on the campaign trail, has recently mimicked Rick Perry's "Response" rally with one of his own.
And the list of candidates attempting to show their close and personal connection to Jesus goes on and on. But even as these same candidates admonish voters to follow the constitution ΓΌber alles, they, and the folks who support them and tacitly require them to proclaim their Christianity, all seem to ignore an important part of that very same constitution, which they all claim to love so, so dearly: Article VI.
Next time you hear or read something about someone questioning whether any political candidate or office-holder is Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian, or WhatEVERist, feel completely free to remind him or her of the following: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And as you remind them, know that their doing otherwise is simply pandering.
Updates, 10/27/15: Don Gump is now saying, "I don't know about that" when it comes to Dr. Ben Carson's religious beliefs, which happen to be founded in Seventh-Day Adventism. In other words, Don is impugning Ben (and pandering to his base, and please remember that "base" has more than one meaning) simply by pointing out Ben's religion and, thereby, calling it into question y way of a rhetorical statement. For a guy who professes to be so smart and know so much, it's difficult to believe he doesn't truly know about this.
Meanwhile, Jeb! just met with Pat Robertson in a blatant pander to secure the evangelical vote in Bush's run for nomination. It. Just. Does. Not. Matter. Why? Because Article VI says so. Would that the same folks who constantly wail about the need to adhere to the constitution actually adhered to the constitution.
Look, I don't give a rip who believes what, but this sort of practice and behavior represents exactly the type of mealy-mouthed garbage that Article VI of the US Constitution was intended to preclude. If you're running for office in the USA, it just doesn't matter what you believe.
If the GOP's candidates weren't consuming CNN airtime praising Ronald Reagan, slamming Planned Parenthood, or showing just how much they loved Israel, they were trying to show their potential voters just how Christian they were, and very little could matter less in real terms.
In a recent Politico story, Donald Trump was said to be actively courting the evangelical vote in order to bolster his sagging poll numbers, even after he has publicly stated he doesn't read the bible or ask God's forgiveness for much of anything. Former Governor Huckabee, one of the many GOP candidates and a former Baptist pastor, is telling his followers that, if necessary, he'll ignore man's laws in order to adhere to God's laws, even as he decries the supposed rise of Sharia law in the USA. (Apparently the word theocracy has more than one meaning for the Huckster.) Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz, who's also running, launched his campaign at Liberty University (to a captive audience, quite literally), which was founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Cruz recently crashed Huckabee's pander party at the rally for Kim Davis without much success. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's Governor and yet another GOPer on the campaign trail, has recently mimicked Rick Perry's "Response" rally with one of his own.
And the list of candidates attempting to show their close and personal connection to Jesus goes on and on. But even as these same candidates admonish voters to follow the constitution ΓΌber alles, they, and the folks who support them and tacitly require them to proclaim their Christianity, all seem to ignore an important part of that very same constitution, which they all claim to love so, so dearly: Article VI.
Next time you hear or read something about someone questioning whether any political candidate or office-holder is Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian, or WhatEVERist, feel completely free to remind him or her of the following: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And as you remind them, know that their doing otherwise is simply pandering.
Updates, 10/27/15: Don Gump is now saying, "I don't know about that" when it comes to Dr. Ben Carson's religious beliefs, which happen to be founded in Seventh-Day Adventism. In other words, Don is impugning Ben (and pandering to his base, and please remember that "base" has more than one meaning) simply by pointing out Ben's religion and, thereby, calling it into question y way of a rhetorical statement. For a guy who professes to be so smart and know so much, it's difficult to believe he doesn't truly know about this.
Meanwhile, Jeb! just met with Pat Robertson in a blatant pander to secure the evangelical vote in Bush's run for nomination. It. Just. Does. Not. Matter. Why? Because Article VI says so. Would that the same folks who constantly wail about the need to adhere to the constitution actually adhered to the constitution.
Look, I don't give a rip who believes what, but this sort of practice and behavior represents exactly the type of mealy-mouthed garbage that Article VI of the US Constitution was intended to preclude. If you're running for office in the USA, it just doesn't matter what you believe.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Offer help to those who might need help...
Although this post will probably be taken by some as an
opportunity to editorialize against what is, to them, a hot-button issue, to me what
this post demonstrates is that yet another aspect of the ACA is working. (And
yes, in saying this I am
editorializing, but it’s my post… ;-) …go write your own.)
...military bases or NSA listening posts we can close… or
...giant corporations that aren’t paying their fair share of income/property taxes (corporations are people, after all, right?)… or
...esoteric weapons systems we can resist having… or
...giant piles of scrap metal we can sell in the form of obsolete weapon systems we no longer use… or
...badly needed infrastructure projects that, in being repaired/replaced, would generate revenue through new wages and new sales taxes...or
...millionaire congress people who can forgo their pensions or who, in retirement, can afford to provide their own security… or
...billionaire/millionaire Americans who can forgo their social security checks in retirement… or
...wealthy athletes, coaches, actors, actresses, directors, producers, agents, or publicists who advocate for wealth redistribution and who can, instead of just talking about it conceptually, simply write a couple of large checks now and again ... or
...gun owners/enthusiasts who buy/use/hoard guns and ammo --- as is their undeniable 2nd Amendment right, and mine --- maybe paying a little something extra for the privilege of buying/using/hoarding all those guns and all that ammo (one of the prices of freedom)... or
...obscenely giant estates that can afford to pay higher inheritance taxes… or
...little-used presidential libraries --- and don't we have enough already? --- that can shut their doors completely or just reduce their hours… or
...ginormous sports organizations that routinely don’t pay for their own sports facilities, and yes, I'm talking to you FIFA, NFL, NASCAR, NCAA, IOC, et al. (see also, “corporations are people, after all”)… or
...high-risk hedge fund and derivatives investors who might not be paying their fair share of income taxes... or
...churches/temples/mosques/synagogues that sit on all-too-often-enormous tracts of currently untaxed city and county property… or
...any number of other ways to come up with the cash.
The undeniable fact is that we’re an aging country with people who need help now and will need some in the future. From whom will this help come? From those who can most afford to help, that’s who. Folks in need can always refuse help, but we can at least ensure we have the ability to offer it to them in the first place.
When we signed up for a 2014 healthcare policy under the
ACA in November of 2013, we estimated our 2014 income based solely on information available to
us at that time, but after doing our 2014 taxes, we found we were off
in this estimate. We were low. As a result, we have to pay back 100% of what we received in 2014
policy-premium tax credits.
So be it.
So be it.
We both believe this scenario is proof that the ACA is
working. Why? Because thanks to the ACA, we received A) healthcare coverage for which we otherwise could not have qualified, because of preexisting conditions or that we would not have received via an employer, because we're both retired, and B) the premium tax
credit to help pay for it; however, due to a better-than-expected 2014, we ended
up not being eligible for the premium tax credit after all.* Meanwhile,
though, others who do qualify for this tax credit
will also receive healthcare and will, subsequently, also be able to pay a little less for it. Moreover, still others who are on the cusp will have the chance to receive premium tax credits at the end of their tax year when they file, thereby
reducing what they will have paid in healthcare premiums for healthcare they
need, just like everyone else who needs it.
You bet this is wealth redistribution, but so what? What’s
the alternative? the invisible hand of the market reaching into its invisible
pocket and pulling out invisible cash? People who can't even afford feeding themselves somehow finding the cash? Or worse, people going without even basic, subsistence-level healthcare, like some bizarre, Darwinian imperative made flesh? You can only pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you can afford boots in the first place.
Having applied twice now, I can tell you the ACA is nowhere near
a perfect system, but right after you
suggest it needs to be repealed/eliminated, please also suggest a viable alternative,
because we have US citizens who are one severe illness away from total financial
collapse, and these are people who are neither freeloaders nor welfare kings/queens. Who are they? They're our parents, our grandparents, our uncles and aunts, our brothers and sisters, our friends, and complete strangers, many of whom were maybe not as fortunate, maybe not as able to provide for themselves.
Look, I realize healthcare is not free. I get this. It isn't free because it can't be free. Doctors aren't free. Nurses aren't free. Hospitals aren't free. Procedures aren't free. Prescriptions aren't free. Even free clinics aren't free because donations help pay for them. I am not advocating for free healthcare, because it's an impossibility, by definition. Even the countries that provide healthcare to their citizens offer anything but free healthcare, because their citizens pay the taxes that pay for that healthcare. Free healthcare? No such thing.
What I am suggesting, though, is simply offering a "healthcare hand," so called, to people who might need it, and not an invisible hand with its invisible middle finger raised, either. A real hand. One these folks can grab and use to pull themselves up a little.
But wait, you say, can we afford this?
By way of an answer, ask yourself what we actually choose to afford, then ask the previous question again. Sure, the US spends money it doesn’t always have. I know this as well as you. But this is about priorities.
So, as just a few possible ways to help pay for the ACA's tax credits, maybe there are some...
Look, I realize healthcare is not free. I get this. It isn't free because it can't be free. Doctors aren't free. Nurses aren't free. Hospitals aren't free. Procedures aren't free. Prescriptions aren't free. Even free clinics aren't free because donations help pay for them. I am not advocating for free healthcare, because it's an impossibility, by definition. Even the countries that provide healthcare to their citizens offer anything but free healthcare, because their citizens pay the taxes that pay for that healthcare. Free healthcare? No such thing.
What I am suggesting, though, is simply offering a "healthcare hand," so called, to people who might need it, and not an invisible hand with its invisible middle finger raised, either. A real hand. One these folks can grab and use to pull themselves up a little.
But wait, you say, can we afford this?
By way of an answer, ask yourself what we actually choose to afford, then ask the previous question again. Sure, the US spends money it doesn’t always have. I know this as well as you. But this is about priorities.
So, as just a few possible ways to help pay for the ACA's tax credits, maybe there are some...
...military bases or NSA listening posts we can close… or
...giant corporations that aren’t paying their fair share of income/property taxes (corporations are people, after all, right?)… or
...esoteric weapons systems we can resist having… or
...giant piles of scrap metal we can sell in the form of obsolete weapon systems we no longer use… or
...badly needed infrastructure projects that, in being repaired/replaced, would generate revenue through new wages and new sales taxes...or
...millionaire congress people who can forgo their pensions or who, in retirement, can afford to provide their own security… or
...billionaire/millionaire Americans who can forgo their social security checks in retirement… or
...wealthy athletes, coaches, actors, actresses, directors, producers, agents, or publicists who advocate for wealth redistribution and who can, instead of just talking about it conceptually, simply write a couple of large checks now and again ... or
...gun owners/enthusiasts who buy/use/hoard guns and ammo --- as is their undeniable 2nd Amendment right, and mine --- maybe paying a little something extra for the privilege of buying/using/hoarding all those guns and all that ammo (one of the prices of freedom)... or
...obscenely giant estates that can afford to pay higher inheritance taxes… or
...little-used presidential libraries --- and don't we have enough already? --- that can shut their doors completely or just reduce their hours… or
...ginormous sports organizations that routinely don’t pay for their own sports facilities, and yes, I'm talking to you FIFA, NFL, NASCAR, NCAA, IOC, et al. (see also, “corporations are people, after all”)… or
...high-risk hedge fund and derivatives investors who might not be paying their fair share of income taxes... or
...churches/temples/mosques/synagogues that sit on all-too-often-enormous tracts of currently untaxed city and county property… or
...any number of other ways to come up with the cash.
The undeniable fact is that we’re an aging country with people who need help now and will need some in the future. From whom will this help come? From those who can most afford to help, that’s who. Folks in need can always refuse help, but we can at least ensure we have the ability to offer it to them in the first place.
We claim to be exceptional, but why do we so often have
such difficulty behaving that way?
* We have consequently opted out of premium tax credit assistance, going forward.
* We have consequently opted out of premium tax credit assistance, going forward.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
An angelic voice...
I'm fairly certain I'll never have the opportunity to hear angels' voices as they were described to us when I was an altar boy, choir member, and a believer back in my Catholic-school 60s. But now that I'm in my recovering-60s, I'm certain that I've come as close as I ever will to hearing an actual angel voice as when I heard the voice of Rachael Davis, singer and songwriter out of Nashville TN, and originally from Cadillac MI.
Rachael's first two albums are "Minor League Deities" (2001) and "Antebellum Queens" (2008) --- with her latest EP, "Bandbox Jubilee," just released last week. And even as these three albums offer excellent opportunities to hear her voice, they also allow us to hear the development of her voice in that 14-year time-span. And now I've had the opportunity to hear her sing at the Wheatland Festival, twice, with the most recent time being last Friday evening to support her new EP. As a result, I can easily say her voice, already excellent in 2001, has improved with time and effort and is now a finely tuned instrument, to be sure.
Singers' voices are far too often overproduced in studios. As a result, these singers are just as often left to the un-tender mercies of their voices during live performances, where every weakness is on display, and amplified exponentially. Not so Rachael. She just stands in front of the microphone and sings, without smoke, mirrors, or magic; however, what resulted last Friday just might have been magical, as Rachael's obvious vocal strength was clearly conjured during her performance at Wheatland. ("Happy Wheatland," indeed!)
She was a complete and utter delight. The suppleness and power she demonstrated seemed effortless, with the broad smile on her face suggestive of a person who was thinking, "This is just too damn easy!" But as a musician and a singer, I can assure you that singing isn't anywhere near the vicinity of easy, especially as well as Rachael does it. She is a peach.
Her intonation was as close to perfect as a human voice can get, but she was not at all mechanical with it. Her tone, her note choices, her phrasing, were all just pure and wonderful. One could easily hear and see a passionate power in her style, which showed in every well-chosen note of every well-written song (many, if not all, her own work), as she floated from a full, rich, sometimes growling chest voice to a sweet falsetto, with grace and ease. The eager crowd in Wheatland's Centennial Stage tent were clearly there to hear Rachael, enthusiastically cheering her often-chilling, always-exciting vocal passages.
The band supporting her was excellent as well and provided supple support and a fine framework for Rachael's lovely, lovely voice. Everyone involved were fine musicians all around, and having been in bands for close to 50 years, I know how lucky they all are to have one another.
If you have the opportunity to hear Rachael Davis sing, to hear her and the band play their instruments, whether on CD or, most especially, live, do not pass it by: you'll be glad you didn't, as you too discover that angels do sing after all.
Rachael's first two albums are "Minor League Deities" (2001) and "Antebellum Queens" (2008) --- with her latest EP, "Bandbox Jubilee," just released last week. And even as these three albums offer excellent opportunities to hear her voice, they also allow us to hear the development of her voice in that 14-year time-span. And now I've had the opportunity to hear her sing at the Wheatland Festival, twice, with the most recent time being last Friday evening to support her new EP. As a result, I can easily say her voice, already excellent in 2001, has improved with time and effort and is now a finely tuned instrument, to be sure.
Singers' voices are far too often overproduced in studios. As a result, these singers are just as often left to the un-tender mercies of their voices during live performances, where every weakness is on display, and amplified exponentially. Not so Rachael. She just stands in front of the microphone and sings, without smoke, mirrors, or magic; however, what resulted last Friday just might have been magical, as Rachael's obvious vocal strength was clearly conjured during her performance at Wheatland. ("Happy Wheatland," indeed!)
She was a complete and utter delight. The suppleness and power she demonstrated seemed effortless, with the broad smile on her face suggestive of a person who was thinking, "This is just too damn easy!" But as a musician and a singer, I can assure you that singing isn't anywhere near the vicinity of easy, especially as well as Rachael does it. She is a peach.
Her intonation was as close to perfect as a human voice can get, but she was not at all mechanical with it. Her tone, her note choices, her phrasing, were all just pure and wonderful. One could easily hear and see a passionate power in her style, which showed in every well-chosen note of every well-written song (many, if not all, her own work), as she floated from a full, rich, sometimes growling chest voice to a sweet falsetto, with grace and ease. The eager crowd in Wheatland's Centennial Stage tent were clearly there to hear Rachael, enthusiastically cheering her often-chilling, always-exciting vocal passages.
The band supporting her was excellent as well and provided supple support and a fine framework for Rachael's lovely, lovely voice. Everyone involved were fine musicians all around, and having been in bands for close to 50 years, I know how lucky they all are to have one another.
If you have the opportunity to hear Rachael Davis sing, to hear her and the band play their instruments, whether on CD or, most especially, live, do not pass it by: you'll be glad you didn't, as you too discover that angels do sing after all.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Will "Freedom of" ever share space with "freedom from?"
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare (Polonius, from "Hamlet," Act 1, Scene 3)
"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."
- Mahatma Gandhi
"Arguing against discrimination is not intolerance."
- Richard Dawkins
Freedom of religion, the right to practice a religion, the right to believe in what a religion offers as truth, is considered to be a human right. It's considered to be important in countries throughout the world, but it's so important in the United States that it's specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, right next to freedom of speech.
But isn't there a corollary?
Doesn't this freedom have to include the freedom to not practice a religion? The freedom to believe differently about a religion or to not believe in what that religion offers? In other words, the freedom from religion? It has to. Otherwise, how is the underlying point, the very foundational concept of the U.S. Constitution and other constitutions --- freedom --- to be taken seriously? Freedom of, just has to allow room for freedom from, and it's where these two prepositions meet, where they so often collide and leave their rails, that is at the heart of so much of the world's discontent, so much of its turmoil, and in historical terms.
This ongoing discontent, this conflict between "from" and "of" is almost entirely a function of intolerance, of one religion not tolerating the tenets of another, or of one faction of a religion not tolerating the tenets of another faction of that same religion. It's as if the very existence of an alternate viewpoint is seen as unacceptable. Discrimination does spring from intolerance, certainly, but this is not about discrimination. This is about its source: intolerance.
Non-acceptance can manifest itself as something simple, something seemingly benign, such as disagreeing about what day of the week is considered the sabbath or holy day.
Or it can be passive-aggressive... sending missionaries to places where other religions are practiced, purely because these missionaries and their religions don't accept the "otherness" of those religions and feel duty-bound to bring the "heathens" out of darkness and into the light that they believe shines only on their way of thinking.
Or it can be something mean-spirited... saying outright that those of another faith --- or possibly everyone who doesn't believe exactly what you do --- will not get to heaven, based solely on opposing beliefs, on an opposing viewpoint, on an opposing interpretation of some text.
But it can also be horribly aggressive, even savage... torturing, mutilating, and killing people who don't believe what you believe, even if A) your religion expressly prohibits violence, and B) the folks you're being violent toward are simply another faction of the very same religion in which you profess to believe.*
This all seems to be bound up in the concept of belief. As an example, most religions espouse life after death, and most religions hold as essential the concepts of heaven (so called) and, its opposite, hell (so called). But those of one religion, one faction, quite often believe that those of another religion, of another faction, will never attain the former even as they most assuredly will attain the latter.**
I get that these folks might feel this way about agnostics, atheists, and agnostic-atheists, but to feel this way about someone who might very well be as much a believer in their religion as you are in yours, to deny these equally devout, equally sincere people the right they feel they have as a result of their beliefs, is just plain intolerant, which is ground zero in the collision between "of" and "from."
I wish I could say intolerance could be reckoned with, could be changed, but with history as our guide --- the Romans and the first Christians (and vice versa), the Mideast since the 7th Century, the Crusades, the African continent, Irish Protestants and Catholics, Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc, etc., etc. --- it certainly appears that this is not possible. As missionaries keep proselytizing, as religions keep interfering in the beliefs (or non-belief) of others who very well may be every bit as sincere, as factions keep rejecting and fighting with other factions, as true believers keep truly believing their causes are more just and more true, as folks keep rejecting, messing with, and, in many cases, killing disbelievers and unbelievers, we quickly arrive at a very, very ugly, terrible, and unholy place, and all in the name of someone's religion.
If they believe their deities, who dwell in their heavens, are "speaking unto them" and proclaiming this horrible behavior is okay, then we have a huge problem, because --- voices-in-their-heads delusion notwithstanding --- this hatred is spilling over and affecting people who are innocent of any wrong-doing, and who, if they are guilty of anything, are guilty only of believing differently (freedom of) or of not believing at all (freedom from).
Intolerant behavior is not okay, especially when it spills over onto innocent people. It's wrong. As ironically silly as this might sound, it's something of which we all should be intolerant. It's an affront to human rights and to personal freedoms.
You want to practice your religion? Go ahead, do it! But do it in your own place, in your own space, in your own church, in your own head, in your own heart, and in your own mind. Stop trying to convert and mess with those who believe differently. Stop making signs that read, "God hates fags." Stop ridiculing and burning and micturating on each others' holy books. Stop rejecting those who just might share beliefs very similar to yours. Stop hating, attacking, mutilating, and killing anyone who doesn't believe what you do, anyone who might believe a slightly altered version of what you believe. And, above all, stop assuming morality springs best or only from your religious beliefs. Q.E.D. The history of the world is replete with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Thought Experiment: How many wars/conflicts would have been [be] eliminated if intolerance did not exist?)
If you believe in your god and if you believe your god "speaks" to you, fine and dandy, but... if you believe your god tells you such things are okay to do in his name, then your god is probably not worthy of respect, of love, of fealty, of belief, or of your valuable time, because you're not here for very long, so stop wasting your time on someone so paranoid, so jealous, so horrid, so shallow, so vengeful, and so hateful, and start connecting with real people...
who you can see...
who you can touch...
who you can love...
who you can believe in far more easily and with far less collateral-damage...
than a voice in your head.
* Here is an example, as if the world needs another.
** Ironic considering they can't achieve one but can the other. Oh well.
2: Even more intolerance, and I am no fan of Senator Cruz.
3: And here we go again... again.
- William Shakespeare (Polonius, from "Hamlet," Act 1, Scene 3)
"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."
- Mahatma Gandhi
"Arguing against discrimination is not intolerance."
- Richard Dawkins
Freedom of religion, the right to practice a religion, the right to believe in what a religion offers as truth, is considered to be a human right. It's considered to be important in countries throughout the world, but it's so important in the United States that it's specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, right next to freedom of speech.
But isn't there a corollary?
Doesn't this freedom have to include the freedom to not practice a religion? The freedom to believe differently about a religion or to not believe in what that religion offers? In other words, the freedom from religion? It has to. Otherwise, how is the underlying point, the very foundational concept of the U.S. Constitution and other constitutions --- freedom --- to be taken seriously? Freedom of, just has to allow room for freedom from, and it's where these two prepositions meet, where they so often collide and leave their rails, that is at the heart of so much of the world's discontent, so much of its turmoil, and in historical terms.
This ongoing discontent, this conflict between "from" and "of" is almost entirely a function of intolerance, of one religion not tolerating the tenets of another, or of one faction of a religion not tolerating the tenets of another faction of that same religion. It's as if the very existence of an alternate viewpoint is seen as unacceptable. Discrimination does spring from intolerance, certainly, but this is not about discrimination. This is about its source: intolerance.
Non-acceptance can manifest itself as something simple, something seemingly benign, such as disagreeing about what day of the week is considered the sabbath or holy day.
Or it can be passive-aggressive... sending missionaries to places where other religions are practiced, purely because these missionaries and their religions don't accept the "otherness" of those religions and feel duty-bound to bring the "heathens" out of darkness and into the light that they believe shines only on their way of thinking.
Or it can be something mean-spirited... saying outright that those of another faith --- or possibly everyone who doesn't believe exactly what you do --- will not get to heaven, based solely on opposing beliefs, on an opposing viewpoint, on an opposing interpretation of some text.
But it can also be horribly aggressive, even savage... torturing, mutilating, and killing people who don't believe what you believe, even if A) your religion expressly prohibits violence, and B) the folks you're being violent toward are simply another faction of the very same religion in which you profess to believe.*
This all seems to be bound up in the concept of belief. As an example, most religions espouse life after death, and most religions hold as essential the concepts of heaven (so called) and, its opposite, hell (so called). But those of one religion, one faction, quite often believe that those of another religion, of another faction, will never attain the former even as they most assuredly will attain the latter.**
I get that these folks might feel this way about agnostics, atheists, and agnostic-atheists, but to feel this way about someone who might very well be as much a believer in their religion as you are in yours, to deny these equally devout, equally sincere people the right they feel they have as a result of their beliefs, is just plain intolerant, which is ground zero in the collision between "of" and "from."
I wish I could say intolerance could be reckoned with, could be changed, but with history as our guide --- the Romans and the first Christians (and vice versa), the Mideast since the 7th Century, the Crusades, the African continent, Irish Protestants and Catholics, Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc, etc., etc. --- it certainly appears that this is not possible. As missionaries keep proselytizing, as religions keep interfering in the beliefs (or non-belief) of others who very well may be every bit as sincere, as factions keep rejecting and fighting with other factions, as true believers keep truly believing their causes are more just and more true, as folks keep rejecting, messing with, and, in many cases, killing disbelievers and unbelievers, we quickly arrive at a very, very ugly, terrible, and unholy place, and all in the name of someone's religion.
If they believe their deities, who dwell in their heavens, are "speaking unto them" and proclaiming this horrible behavior is okay, then we have a huge problem, because --- voices-in-their-heads delusion notwithstanding --- this hatred is spilling over and affecting people who are innocent of any wrong-doing, and who, if they are guilty of anything, are guilty only of believing differently (freedom of) or of not believing at all (freedom from).
Intolerant behavior is not okay, especially when it spills over onto innocent people. It's wrong. As ironically silly as this might sound, it's something of which we all should be intolerant. It's an affront to human rights and to personal freedoms.
You want to practice your religion? Go ahead, do it! But do it in your own place, in your own space, in your own church, in your own head, in your own heart, and in your own mind. Stop trying to convert and mess with those who believe differently. Stop making signs that read, "God hates fags." Stop ridiculing and burning and micturating on each others' holy books. Stop rejecting those who just might share beliefs very similar to yours. Stop hating, attacking, mutilating, and killing anyone who doesn't believe what you do, anyone who might believe a slightly altered version of what you believe. And, above all, stop assuming morality springs best or only from your religious beliefs. Q.E.D. The history of the world is replete with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Thought Experiment: How many wars/conflicts would have been [be] eliminated if intolerance did not exist?)
If you believe in your god and if you believe your god "speaks" to you, fine and dandy, but... if you believe your god tells you such things are okay to do in his name, then your god is probably not worthy of respect, of love, of fealty, of belief, or of your valuable time, because you're not here for very long, so stop wasting your time on someone so paranoid, so jealous, so horrid, so shallow, so vengeful, and so hateful, and start connecting with real people...
who you can see...
who you can touch...
who you can love...
who you can believe in far more easily and with far less collateral-damage...
than a voice in your head.
* Here is an example, as if the world needs another.
** Ironic considering they can't achieve one but can the other. Oh well.
Relevant Updates
1: Here is a news story from TPM.com, on 8/26/2014. Religious intolerance rules.2: Even more intolerance, and I am no fan of Senator Cruz.
3: And here we go again... again.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Goodbye, Joey!
My friend Joe Dalmon died last week from complications brought about by an illness. Joe had struggled for a long time and I was not made aware of his illness until only recently. But this is no one's fault but mine. I tried to stay in touch, and Joe wasn't much of a letter writer, so it wasn't always as timely as maybe it could have been. So be it. My heart goes out to his family and to everyone who knew him. He was a delightful guy.
When I found out in March of this year that Joe was ill --- and just how ill he was --- I wrote him the following letter and sent it to him in the hospital. I have to trust he received it and was able to read it (or have it read to him).
If I had been given the opportunity to select the ideal people with whom I could have played music, I could never have done better than you, Joe. That was one of the best experiences of my musical life and I will always be grateful to have shared it, but I will always be most grateful to you. You were my first contact and you remain one of the sweetest, kindest people I’ve ever known and probably will ever know, Joe. I mean this from the very bottom of my heart. I really need for you to know this and to believe it. I hope you do; I hope you already did know it. Row sends best wishes and thoughts as well.
In closing, please know that I love you, and in this I am most certainly not alone. To be a Joe Dalmon fan requires only having to have met you once, because it’s love at first sight. I was lucky enough to have spent a few years in your company, and I’m a better person for that chance.
When I found out in March of this year that Joe was ill --- and just how ill he was --- I wrote him the following letter and sent it to him in the hospital. I have to trust he received it and was able to read it (or have it read to him).
Dear Joe,
I’ve tried reaching you via Facebook for about a year, and I only recently found out from David that you’ve been ill for about that long. You’re in my thoughts every day.
I’ve tried reaching you via Facebook for about a year, and I only recently found out from David that you’ve been ill for about that long. You’re in my thoughts every day.
I want to
tell you a few things, so please bear with me.
Finding you and the rest of the people who would comprise Genghis Prawn back in 1996 was, for me, like finding water in a desert. That’s the truth of it. I had auditioned for so many goofballs and weirdos (in other words, what you would call musicians) that I was starting to give up hope of finding normal people. Then you called me.
Finding you and the rest of the people who would comprise Genghis Prawn back in 1996 was, for me, like finding water in a desert. That’s the truth of it. I had auditioned for so many goofballs and weirdos (in other words, what you would call musicians) that I was starting to give up hope of finding normal people. Then you called me.
If I had been given the opportunity to select the ideal people with whom I could have played music, I could never have done better than you, Joe. That was one of the best experiences of my musical life and I will always be grateful to have shared it, but I will always be most grateful to you. You were my first contact and you remain one of the sweetest, kindest people I’ve ever known and probably will ever know, Joe. I mean this from the very bottom of my heart. I really need for you to know this and to believe it. I hope you do; I hope you already did know it. Row sends best wishes and thoughts as well.
In closing, please know that I love you, and in this I am most certainly not alone. To be a Joe Dalmon fan requires only having to have met you once, because it’s love at first sight. I was lucky enough to have spent a few years in your company, and I’m a better person for that chance.
It has been
and remains my abiding honor, Joe.
I remain sincerely,
respectfully, affectionately, and always your friend…
Can't get a date, eh? Well too freaking bad!
The shooter in Isla Vista, CA apparently wrote what would prove to be his suicide letter*, in which he detailed his frustrations with, among other things, being rejected by women. Seriously? Not being able to date people was what put you over the edge? Who hasn't been rejected at some point in his or her life?
Get in line.
And it's a pretty long line, too. It's a line I was in for a time. Hell, we all were. In high school and college, rejection was standard operating procedure. It happened regularly. It was like an elective course. I actually got good at being rejected and could almost predict when it would happen. (Hell, considering how immature I was at times, I would have rejected me!) Sure, I was hurt by it sometimes and, on occasion, deeply so, but I didn't hurt anyone else because of how I felt or even think about hurting anyone. I just did what most non-bat-shit-crazy people do: I sucked it up, got over it, learned from it, and moved on.
I mean really... how messed up do you have to be to see a shooting spree as your only recourse... and just because of what? Someone saying "No" to you? Someone insulting your manhood? What kind of a dickhead does this? Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Your kind of dickhead. Apparently even your family (who I feel so, so badly for) saw how messed up you were and tried to warn people. Too bad no one else listened to their warnings. Too bad for your family. Nice going, dickhead.
Dude, if you wanted to commit suicide, then you should have just done that. You had a gun, and the evidence clearly shows you had ammunition for it. What's the problem. Bang. Done. But no, you had to be one of those "blaze of glory" types; you had to take the lives of people who may have done nothing more to you than say, "I don't want to go out with you"; you had to turn your self-centered pity party into a mass blood bath. There is no glory in what you did, but your head was too far up your own ass to see this. And now, because of your fit of pique, because of your blinding narcissism, because you were a dumb shit, all those innocent families are forever affected --- with some of them quite possibly destroyed. And all of this misery just because you couldn't get laid? Rrrriiight.
It's becoming clear that you might have been somewhat unhinged, somewhat unbalanced to begin with, and although I will not make light of mental illness, if this is what your underlying problem happened to be, neither will I view it as an excuse for what you ultimately did; however, and in truth, something like this was probably inevitable for you. If you hadn't done it in Isla Vista, you probably would have done it somewhere else.
And so, even though you might possibly have been a decent guy at some point in your short life, you managed to allow a silly thing that happens to pretty much everyone affect you rather badly and cause you to behave like a dickhead. The result? You're now nothing more than a dead dickhead, and you will never be anything more than this.
Congratulations. Well done.
If the flowers don't appear on your grave site, you'll know they're from me.
* Why do these morons always have to call their rantings, "manifestos?" I don't get it.
Get in line.
And it's a pretty long line, too. It's a line I was in for a time. Hell, we all were. In high school and college, rejection was standard operating procedure. It happened regularly. It was like an elective course. I actually got good at being rejected and could almost predict when it would happen. (Hell, considering how immature I was at times, I would have rejected me!) Sure, I was hurt by it sometimes and, on occasion, deeply so, but I didn't hurt anyone else because of how I felt or even think about hurting anyone. I just did what most non-bat-shit-crazy people do: I sucked it up, got over it, learned from it, and moved on.
I mean really... how messed up do you have to be to see a shooting spree as your only recourse... and just because of what? Someone saying "No" to you? Someone insulting your manhood? What kind of a dickhead does this? Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Your kind of dickhead. Apparently even your family (who I feel so, so badly for) saw how messed up you were and tried to warn people. Too bad no one else listened to their warnings. Too bad for your family. Nice going, dickhead.
Dude, if you wanted to commit suicide, then you should have just done that. You had a gun, and the evidence clearly shows you had ammunition for it. What's the problem. Bang. Done. But no, you had to be one of those "blaze of glory" types; you had to take the lives of people who may have done nothing more to you than say, "I don't want to go out with you"; you had to turn your self-centered pity party into a mass blood bath. There is no glory in what you did, but your head was too far up your own ass to see this. And now, because of your fit of pique, because of your blinding narcissism, because you were a dumb shit, all those innocent families are forever affected --- with some of them quite possibly destroyed. And all of this misery just because you couldn't get laid? Rrrriiight.
It's becoming clear that you might have been somewhat unhinged, somewhat unbalanced to begin with, and although I will not make light of mental illness, if this is what your underlying problem happened to be, neither will I view it as an excuse for what you ultimately did; however, and in truth, something like this was probably inevitable for you. If you hadn't done it in Isla Vista, you probably would have done it somewhere else.
And so, even though you might possibly have been a decent guy at some point in your short life, you managed to allow a silly thing that happens to pretty much everyone affect you rather badly and cause you to behave like a dickhead. The result? You're now nothing more than a dead dickhead, and you will never be anything more than this.
Congratulations. Well done.
If the flowers don't appear on your grave site, you'll know they're from me.
* Why do these morons always have to call their rantings, "manifestos?" I don't get it.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Here it comes: Christian Nationalism...
“Theology is ignorance with wings.”
― Sam Harris
Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore is at it again, acting as a lightning rod for the Christian Nationalism and Dominion Theology movements.
Judge Roy has claimed that the First Amendment is for Christians because it was the Christian God who created man. Please do forget what all the other faiths believe about their versions of creation, even though if you follow Judge Roy's "logic," his God also created Buddhists, and Jews, and Muslims, and Sikhs, and so on and so on.
Oops.
Judge Roy's former 15 minutes of fame came during the Ten-Commandments-in-the-Alabama-Judicial-Building dust-up back in 2003. Read about that here.
If you feel that rewriting and reinterpreting history and the US Constitution is messed up, as Slate's Dahlia Lithwick clearly suggests it is in this op-ed piece about SCOTUS's recent ruling on public prayer, and that any theocratic government --- regardless of the faith it espouses --- is probably not a great idea, and you haven't read Michelle Goldberg's book, "Kingdom Coming," or Chris Hedges' book, "Americian Fascists," you might want to read them, as both writers take close looks at these growing theological-meet-political movements in America.
If someone can tell me how a sectarian government in America would stand apart from a sectarian government in some other country (Sharia, etc.), how ours would not exclude every other religion practiced in the United States, and how ours would differ from theirs (and not just in terms of dogmatic and canonical aspects), I'd be happy to hear it.
Update on the topic of Christian Nationalism as of 8/13/14: Talking Points Memo published this piece about the Christian Right's part in the resurgent Libertarian movement.
Update from the New York Times, as of 3/16/15: more potential evangelical influence on the 2016 campaign and elections. Note the metaphorical use of the term "army." Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution be damned, I guess.
― Sam Harris
Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore is at it again, acting as a lightning rod for the Christian Nationalism and Dominion Theology movements.
Judge Roy has claimed that the First Amendment is for Christians because it was the Christian God who created man. Please do forget what all the other faiths believe about their versions of creation, even though if you follow Judge Roy's "logic," his God also created Buddhists, and Jews, and Muslims, and Sikhs, and so on and so on.
Oops.
Judge Roy's former 15 minutes of fame came during the Ten-Commandments-in-the-Alabama-Judicial-Building dust-up back in 2003. Read about that here.
If you feel that rewriting and reinterpreting history and the US Constitution is messed up, as Slate's Dahlia Lithwick clearly suggests it is in this op-ed piece about SCOTUS's recent ruling on public prayer, and that any theocratic government --- regardless of the faith it espouses --- is probably not a great idea, and you haven't read Michelle Goldberg's book, "Kingdom Coming," or Chris Hedges' book, "Americian Fascists," you might want to read them, as both writers take close looks at these growing theological-meet-political movements in America.
If someone can tell me how a sectarian government in America would stand apart from a sectarian government in some other country (Sharia, etc.), how ours would not exclude every other religion practiced in the United States, and how ours would differ from theirs (and not just in terms of dogmatic and canonical aspects), I'd be happy to hear it.
Updates
Here's an update, as of 5/6/2014: Judge Roy is now apparently backing off his previous position and saying he didn't mean to suggest that the First Amendment applies only to Christians, even though he...wait for it... did suggest that the First Amendment applies only to Christians. But, bless his heart, he is still locked onto his classic perspective on creation, which simply obviates every other religion's version of creation. Sounds uncannily like the chant, "There is no God but God." I guess there was a good reason for the First Commandment after all. Hmmm... why do you suppose that is?Update on the topic of Christian Nationalism as of 8/13/14: Talking Points Memo published this piece about the Christian Right's part in the resurgent Libertarian movement.
Update from the New York Times, as of 3/16/15: more potential evangelical influence on the 2016 campaign and elections. Note the metaphorical use of the term "army." Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution be damned, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
