Slate lists the top ten Executive Orders Obama should overturn first after the inauguration. EOs are orders a prez. issues to those who work for him and aren't approved or directed by Congress. There are also federal rules that are a bit harder to change, and of course, laws that Congress must change. The top ten:
* Gutting the Presidential Records Act.
* Blocking Stem Cell Research.
* Sidestepping the Geneva Conventions.
* Allowing the Vice President to classify documents.
* Offering broad legal protections to American corporation dealing in Iraqi oil.
* Freezing assets of any Iraqi group deemed to threaten stability without notice.
* Requiring all executive branch agencies to review rule-making work with a "regulatory policy officer" who reports directly to the White House. This is considered the source of political tampering in all agencies.
* Allow religious charities ignore anti-discrimination laws when using federal money.
* Require federal agencies to increase use of alternatives to petroleum. This looks like a good idea but most of the alternative fuels available today, such as coal, are worse than oil.
* Provide for a continuing constitutional government in the case of catastrophic crisis. Again, it looks good, but huge sections of the order are classified, not even shown to Congress. This last one was actually nominated by readers.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
That's about 0.00001%
How you view how well voting went in the past election depends on your party. Several states saw that early voting and Election Day Registration (or at least registration during the early voting period) went well. Others were aghast at the number of people who took advantage of it. And in spite of 24 instances of voter fraud out of 214 million votes cast in a four year study, states like Texas and Oklahoma are looking at voter ID laws. "You show ID to cash a check, you should show ID to vote." "But check fraud is real."
Hey boss, I can't come to work today because...
December 10 is Human Rights Day. Instead of calling in sick, we are requested to call in gay and spend the day volunteering for a human rights organization.
Careful what you say in God's name
As was expected, someone is blaming the fires currently raging in California on gays protesting the marriage ban. One would think God is happy the ban passed. But there's a strange twist -- the fires are in cities and counties that strongly voted for the ban. So lets just stop that nonsense of attributing disasters to God's wrath.
Enough of bashing blacks for their role in passing the Calif. marriage ban. If blacks hadn't voted or had voted in the same percentage as the general population the ban would have still passed, though it would have been a squeaker. There are lots of other ways of slicing up the population that produces sizable groups (over 15% of the voters) who were for the ban by over 60%. Some of these are Republicans (82% yes, 29% of voters) and those who attend church weekly (82% yes, 22% of voters) and even the elderly (61% yes, 15% of the vote). So why are we dissing blacks?
The Calif. Supremes will hear whether the marriage ban is a valid constitution amendment and whether existing gay marriages are legal. They will act swiftly and hold hearings in March. That means there may not be a ruling for a year. Alas, they said the ban is to remain in effect until their ruling. Naturally, there are threats to subject any justice who votes to overturn the ban with a recall vote.
Another voice says, so what if they toss out a justice?
There is a possible downside to overturning the ban -- gays haven't been this stirred up since Stonewall and we're ready to take on the world. Reinstituting gay marriage may let the steam out of the movement. However, the simple fact of gay marriage in Calif. will probably more than make up for it.
Enough of bashing blacks for their role in passing the Calif. marriage ban. If blacks hadn't voted or had voted in the same percentage as the general population the ban would have still passed, though it would have been a squeaker. There are lots of other ways of slicing up the population that produces sizable groups (over 15% of the voters) who were for the ban by over 60%. Some of these are Republicans (82% yes, 29% of voters) and those who attend church weekly (82% yes, 22% of voters) and even the elderly (61% yes, 15% of the vote). So why are we dissing blacks?
The Calif. Supremes will hear whether the marriage ban is a valid constitution amendment and whether existing gay marriages are legal. They will act swiftly and hold hearings in March. That means there may not be a ruling for a year. Alas, they said the ban is to remain in effect until their ruling. Naturally, there are threats to subject any justice who votes to overturn the ban with a recall vote.
Another voice says, so what if they toss out a justice?
* The repeal of the amendment still stands, meaning the Calif. legislature must approve a replacement amendment.
* Getting that ban through this legislature will fail.
* Defeating enough state legislators to get a ban through will fail.
* Any replacement justice appointed by Arnold or a future Democratic governor won't revisit the ruling.
* The amendment push has played out. Only 3-5 of the 20 remaining states will attempt it.
* There will be no federal amendment until after the federal Supremes rule and it only takes 13 states to block that.
There is a possible downside to overturning the ban -- gays haven't been this stirred up since Stonewall and we're ready to take on the world. Reinstituting gay marriage may let the steam out of the movement. However, the simple fact of gay marriage in Calif. will probably more than make up for it.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Demand, don't wait
David Jefferson (distant relation to Thomas) in an article in Newsweek tells how he scrambled to marry Jeff Bechtloff in October before the election. At the time he didn't realize marriage led to activism. He says now one reason why we lost is that most gays don't know much about gay history. The Stonewall riots are now two generations ago. And the big aspect of gay history is that we don't get our rights when we wait for others to give them to us. We must demand and take them. This is something that even ML King knew. Gays didn't get much funding for AIDS research until they demanded it. We waited for Bill Clinton to allow us to serve openly in the military and we got Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage.
In the same way we were complacent this year. Those for the marriage ban were able to say Obama was for it, even though he said he was against it. We didn't press Obama to explain how he could be both against gay marriage and against a gay marriage ban and we didn't take that message to the black community. We tried to make the whole campaign not be about gays. It is good to see the ban has mobilized new generations of activists in the same way the Stonewall riots did.
In the same way we were complacent this year. Those for the marriage ban were able to say Obama was for it, even though he said he was against it. We didn't press Obama to explain how he could be both against gay marriage and against a gay marriage ban and we didn't take that message to the black community. We tried to make the whole campaign not be about gays. It is good to see the ban has mobilized new generations of activists in the same way the Stonewall riots did.
Anger, revisited
A couple days ago I wrote about the politics and uses of anger. My niece reminded me that SoulForce, and the non-violent protests of Gandhi and ML King on which SoulForce is built, would disagree with those comments. There are times when I present ideas on this blog and don't always parse them to say what pieces I agree with and which I don't. Even the ones I disagree with (and don't roundly condemn) are worth airing and poking at.
This is a chance to recommend SoulForce, and in particular, their online "journeys" into the teachings of Gandhi and King. I've done the 4 Step Journey. It works through (1) Experience the Suffering, (2) Identify the Cause of Suffering (which includes a way to view our adversaries as worthy of reconciliation and a victim of misinformation), (3) Help Those Who Suffer, and (4) Help End the Cause of Suffering. I highly recommend it.
I see that SoulForce now has a much more comprehensive 17 step journey. I'll have to study it sometime.
Back to anger, which gives me a chance to split hairs. Yes, I believe anger fuels our activism. We see a situation and with indignation (at least) say, "This is not right." I believe that anger also fueled Gandhi's and Kind's actions, though I know there is no way for me to know for sure without some of their writings confirming or denying that.
However, if I understand my SoulForce lessons properly, the anger over the situation should not spill over into anger directed at our adversaries. The aim is reconciliation, not destruction. From what I've seen over the last two weeks, most of the protests over the Calif. marriage ban have followed the SoulForce ideals of non-violent confrontation. These protests have been amazingly peaceful, in spite of some media voice trying to portray them as a violent mob. There are, of course, exceptions with lots of anger, even vandalism, directed at the Mormon church.
This is a chance to recommend SoulForce, and in particular, their online "journeys" into the teachings of Gandhi and King. I've done the 4 Step Journey. It works through (1) Experience the Suffering, (2) Identify the Cause of Suffering (which includes a way to view our adversaries as worthy of reconciliation and a victim of misinformation), (3) Help Those Who Suffer, and (4) Help End the Cause of Suffering. I highly recommend it.
I see that SoulForce now has a much more comprehensive 17 step journey. I'll have to study it sometime.
Back to anger, which gives me a chance to split hairs. Yes, I believe anger fuels our activism. We see a situation and with indignation (at least) say, "This is not right." I believe that anger also fueled Gandhi's and Kind's actions, though I know there is no way for me to know for sure without some of their writings confirming or denying that.
However, if I understand my SoulForce lessons properly, the anger over the situation should not spill over into anger directed at our adversaries. The aim is reconciliation, not destruction. From what I've seen over the last two weeks, most of the protests over the Calif. marriage ban have followed the SoulForce ideals of non-violent confrontation. These protests have been amazingly peaceful, in spite of some media voice trying to portray them as a violent mob. There are, of course, exceptions with lots of anger, even vandalism, directed at the Mormon church.
Happy Birthday dear blog…
Yes, I started blogging one year ago today, though my comments to family and friends started 5 years ago with the Massachusetts ruling on marriage equality. The tally of posts at the side of the blog show I've written 410 entries in the year (prior to today).
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
DL at 6 weeks
The bike accident was 6 weeks ago. I'm well on the way to recovery, though not at 100% yet. There is still an arc of bruise around my left knee. It is fading but for a while it and a second arc made my knee look like a bulls-eye. There is also a fading bruise on the back of my calf and a bit of swelling around a healed wound on the shin. The leg still hurts when I brush the skin, like when I'm applying cream to skin that is a bit dry. I've done a bit of walking in the mall, though it was 15 minutes instead of 45 and I stood through most of Sunday's bell concert. Even so, my leg feels tired a lot sooner than it did before.
More than a year ago I began to feel an ache in the left hip. The pain was along the upper edge, not at the leg joint (so a joint replacement won't help). The doctor suspects arthritis and prescribed pain medication, though eventually suggested Advil, both of which work pretty well. The pain med was the same that was prescribed after the accident, the one I stopped taking when the doctor thought it might be contributing to the bruising. Alas, it was that pain that flared up on Sunday morning. I've resumed the Advil and things are much better.
More than a year ago I began to feel an ache in the left hip. The pain was along the upper edge, not at the leg joint (so a joint replacement won't help). The doctor suspects arthritis and prescribed pain medication, though eventually suggested Advil, both of which work pretty well. The pain med was the same that was prescribed after the accident, the one I stopped taking when the doctor thought it might be contributing to the bruising. Alas, it was that pain that flared up on Sunday morning. I've resumed the Advil and things are much better.
Five years later
It has been 5 years since the Supremes of Massachusetts ruled that marriage must also be available to gays. In spite of all the doom that was pronounced at the time what exactly has happened? I mean other than 30 states writing a gay marriage ban into their constitutions. Well… Mass. has the lowest divorce rate, so gay marriages apparently improve straight ones. Gay couples are no longer stared at when then hold hands in public. The number of people approving gay marriage has risen from 42% in 2004 to 59% today. Mass. legislators who opposed gay marriages tended to lose elections. But doom? Falling sky? The downfall of Western Civilization (other than the GOP losing badly this year)? Haven't seen it. The head of Mass Resistance was asked how his own marriage has been affected by allowing gays to marry. He sputtered for a while but never answered. Perhaps it is the occasional wait to have wedding photos taken at the scenic spots in Boston's Public Garden.
Power to the little guy
The current estimate is that there were gay marriage protests in 300 cities!
The ineffectiveness of the big gay rights organizations, our defeat at the polls, the anger gays now feel, the power of the internet, and the size of last Saturday's nationwide protests may spell the end of those big organizations. Saturday's protests were not organized by the big guys, but by grass-roots activists and the web. They achieved more in a few days than the big groups have managed in years. We now have the ability to go around the gatekeepers and do it ourselves.
The ineffectiveness of the big gay rights organizations, our defeat at the polls, the anger gays now feel, the power of the internet, and the size of last Saturday's nationwide protests may spell the end of those big organizations. Saturday's protests were not organized by the big guys, but by grass-roots activists and the web. They achieved more in a few days than the big groups have managed in years. We now have the ability to go around the gatekeepers and do it ourselves.
Worse than tacky
I'm not sure what to make of this, though none of the alternatives sound good. Just in time for Christmas the American Family Association, known to be fiercely anti-gay, has for sale an electric cross that looks like it might be on fire, just like something the KKK might leave behind. Except with a lot less mess. So, is it intended to be put in someone else's yard (with lots of extension chords) to scare them? Or put in your own yard, to show what? How intolerant you are? Yeesh!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Politics of anger
Who'd a thunk it? Take away hard-fought rights and people get angry. In contrast to the Stonewall riots in 1969, the demonstrations in response to the Calif. ban have been peaceful (though sometimes loud), in spite of several commentators trying to tag them as a mob. Even so, anger is appropriate -- even if it gets into a politics of anger. I hadn't been aware of such a concept before, but here are some things to think about (which is why I created this blog).
When people get angry the forget their "place." If you don't remember how you're supposed to fit into society and get angry because of the slot you've been put into, those who made you angry will quickly call for "healing." That means you shouldn't -- are not supposed to -- be angry. Which is another way of saying those who angered you shouldn't have to face the consequences of what made you angry. The batterer is saying to the battered, "Look what you made me do by ignoring your place. And if you don't shut up I'll really give you something to cry about."
A white guy's anger is justified. If he's angry there must be a good reason. But an "angry black woman"? Not so much. She's expected to remain calm, keep her voice low. Because her anger -- like that of any racial or sexual minority -- isn't justified. Anger implies entitlement to goods or power and if you aren't due those things you have nothing to be angry about when they are denied. But then dignity and humanity also gets denied. Then people have had enough and start acting on their anger.
The problem is properly directing that anger. You must focus on the right target. Otherwise, one takes on the worst traits of those doing harm, the abused becomes the abuser.
Instead the anger must be taken to the oppressors, those who did the harm, those that wanted the harm done, and those that allowed it to happen. Even then there is a difference between protest and riot. They'll be upset because you were supposed to just "take it." But their comfort should not be at your expense. Also tell your own story and encourage others to tell theirs. Making a case for your own humanity may inspire others to take action.
First, you need anger, the light and the heat of that fire. Then you need to focus it -- to get organized and to take action. Repeat as necessary until the cancer is burned away and the wounds are cauterized. Then you heal. This is from another essay by Terrence Heath, who describes himself as a black, gay father.
When people get angry the forget their "place." If you don't remember how you're supposed to fit into society and get angry because of the slot you've been put into, those who made you angry will quickly call for "healing." That means you shouldn't -- are not supposed to -- be angry. Which is another way of saying those who angered you shouldn't have to face the consequences of what made you angry. The batterer is saying to the battered, "Look what you made me do by ignoring your place. And if you don't shut up I'll really give you something to cry about."
A white guy's anger is justified. If he's angry there must be a good reason. But an "angry black woman"? Not so much. She's expected to remain calm, keep her voice low. Because her anger -- like that of any racial or sexual minority -- isn't justified. Anger implies entitlement to goods or power and if you aren't due those things you have nothing to be angry about when they are denied. But then dignity and humanity also gets denied. Then people have had enough and start acting on their anger.
The problem is properly directing that anger. You must focus on the right target. Otherwise, one takes on the worst traits of those doing harm, the abused becomes the abuser.
Instead the anger must be taken to the oppressors, those who did the harm, those that wanted the harm done, and those that allowed it to happen. Even then there is a difference between protest and riot. They'll be upset because you were supposed to just "take it." But their comfort should not be at your expense. Also tell your own story and encourage others to tell theirs. Making a case for your own humanity may inspire others to take action.
First, you need anger, the light and the heat of that fire. Then you need to focus it -- to get organized and to take action. Repeat as necessary until the cancer is burned away and the wounds are cauterized. Then you heal. This is from another essay by Terrence Heath, who describes himself as a black, gay father.
Just a little protest
I attended a couple very good gay movies on Saturday. Alas, since I already had tickets the first of the two kept me from participating in the Detroit protest of the Calif. gay marriage ban that was set up by Join the Impact. The weather on Saturday was cold and I was pleased to hear they had a substantial crowd. Participants said there were about 350, news sources said there were 200.
Though Join the Impact didn't tabulate events, they did add up the total number of participants. Since the tally for each city has an lower and upper estimate, the total does too. The low estimate is 120 thousand. The high estimate is 132 thousand.
Other sources counted the events: One estimate is protests in 110 cities from Maine to Hawaii. Here is a list of many events with excerpts from local press with pictures. Even if you don't read all the words it is worth reading the list of cities and looking at the photos. There were even 4 protesters in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
A participant tells the story of the Los Angeles protest, which drew a huge crowd. Alas, the writer feels the march part of the event was designed by the police escort to minimize visibility.
Photos from some participants here.
If you can't get enough photos, here's a site with nearly 1000 of them.
Various participant reports and photos in the comments section here. There is a nice USA map showing participating cities, though a couple cities are misspelled (no H in Pittsburgh) and Marquette ended up south of Detroit.
Now, back to my own Saturday. The afternoon movie was Chris and Don, A Love Story about the relationship between Christopher Isherwood, who wrote the stories that became the musical and movie Cabaret, and Don Bachardy, who developed into a pretty good artist. Most of the movie was about Don telling us about their love. Quite enjoyable.
I then had 6 hours between movies -- alas, the protest was over by then -- and I spent a chunk of it in the library at Affirmations Gay and Lesbian Center in Ferndale, a couple miles from the Reel Pride Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Royal Oak, which presented the movies. I also had a nice dinner and spent some time browsing in a bookstore.
The second movie was a sweet one, Were the World Mine is about an all-boys school putting on Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. That play features couples lost in the forest and subjected to a love potion. In the movie, they gay boy playing Puck (complete with fairy wings made from his divorced mother's wedding dress) decided to use Shakespeare's recipe to make the love potion. He then uses it to make the star of the rugby team love him and to create several other gay relationships, especially those involving people who spout homophobic nonsense. Though the potion is neutralized by the end, the lessons learned while walking in another's shoes are kept. The official movie site is here. That show got out after 11 p.m. and I was home by midnight.
Though Join the Impact didn't tabulate events, they did add up the total number of participants. Since the tally for each city has an lower and upper estimate, the total does too. The low estimate is 120 thousand. The high estimate is 132 thousand.
Other sources counted the events: One estimate is protests in 110 cities from Maine to Hawaii. Here is a list of many events with excerpts from local press with pictures. Even if you don't read all the words it is worth reading the list of cities and looking at the photos. There were even 4 protesters in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
A participant tells the story of the Los Angeles protest, which drew a huge crowd. Alas, the writer feels the march part of the event was designed by the police escort to minimize visibility.
Photos from some participants here.
If you can't get enough photos, here's a site with nearly 1000 of them.
Various participant reports and photos in the comments section here. There is a nice USA map showing participating cities, though a couple cities are misspelled (no H in Pittsburgh) and Marquette ended up south of Detroit.
Now, back to my own Saturday. The afternoon movie was Chris and Don, A Love Story about the relationship between Christopher Isherwood, who wrote the stories that became the musical and movie Cabaret, and Don Bachardy, who developed into a pretty good artist. Most of the movie was about Don telling us about their love. Quite enjoyable.
I then had 6 hours between movies -- alas, the protest was over by then -- and I spent a chunk of it in the library at Affirmations Gay and Lesbian Center in Ferndale, a couple miles from the Reel Pride Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Royal Oak, which presented the movies. I also had a nice dinner and spent some time browsing in a bookstore.
The second movie was a sweet one, Were the World Mine is about an all-boys school putting on Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. That play features couples lost in the forest and subjected to a love potion. In the movie, they gay boy playing Puck (complete with fairy wings made from his divorced mother's wedding dress) decided to use Shakespeare's recipe to make the love potion. He then uses it to make the star of the rugby team love him and to create several other gay relationships, especially those involving people who spout homophobic nonsense. Though the potion is neutralized by the end, the lessons learned while walking in another's shoes are kept. The official movie site is here. That show got out after 11 p.m. and I was home by midnight.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Aren't we being just a tad snide?
The Lightbox Gallery in Culver City, Calif. now has a pink sign on the door:
WARNING: This area may contain homosexuals, which are known by the State of California to be harmful to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
WARNING: This area may contain homosexuals, which are known by the State of California to be harmful to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
This life or the next?
Last night I finished the book, Humans by Robert J. Sawyer. It is the middle book of his Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, the other two books being Hominids and Hybrids. I'll start reading the 3rd book soon. The story is about an alternate universe in which humans died out instead of Neanderthals and what happens when a portal opens between the two versions of earth. This gives the author a chance to contrast the mess we've made of earth and the craziness by which we do things with a society that did things differently. We don't have to be stupid about things (though in some cases it would be hugely expensive to change now).
The story is mostly about human Mary Vaughn and male Neanderthal Ponter Boddit, both scientists. At one point, as part of explaining what humans are like, she takes him to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. He finds the reasons for the war and the humans reacting to the memorial to be quite illogical. I like his suggestion that all future presidents must declare war in front of that memorial. If they find they can't it is a war not worth fighting.
Ponter also says our belief in an afterlife leads us to devalue our current life. If we are promised heaven we are too willing to sacrifice ourselves for causes that may not otherwise be worth it.
That got me to think about the Right's view of the importance of getting that fetus born, then seeming to neglect it afterwards. That baby must be born for it to have a place in heaven (or hell), but once born the goal isn't this life, but the next one. It doesn't matter how brutish this life is because the next one is so wonderful and if some tragedy helps prepare you for the next one, all the better. These are my thoughts, put together from the Right's actions and not necessarily from any of their stated beliefs.
This idea is closely related to another that's been going through my head for a few years now. When our focus is on the next life we think nothing of being rather nasty to each other in this life. We do all kinds of trickery an coercion to make sure someone is "saved" and feel smug and superior to those who are not.
Related to that, the October issue of Michigan Christian Advocate has an article about Rita Nakashima Brock and her presentation before a meeting of area pastors. The article mentioned her new book Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire coauthored with Rebecca Ann Parker. Here is a summary of the book from Amazon: The authors did research around the Mediterranean and found none of the artwork from the First Millennium of the Christian era showed Christ as dead. The emphasis was on the living Christ and how to bring Paradise to earth for the benefit of those living now. It took a thousand years for Christ to die and when he finally did, that's all he did. With the emphasis on the crucifixion Christianity became a religion of torture, "redemptive" violence, and holy war. That got stretched into imperial tendencies -- Christ supports that we are conquering you. That view of early Christianity fits with my idea that we shouldn't focus on how Christ died to make us fit for heaven, but that he lived to bring paradise to earth. The November issue of the MCA contained a letter condemning Brock as being so far off base that her theology is no longer Christian -- which, considering how quick Fundies are to brand those who disagree with them as heretics, sounds like a recommendation for the book. I haven't ordered it yet.
Back to the Neanderthal book. It features a discussion amongst a group of archaeologists, Ponter included, about whether agriculture was central to the development of cities and culture. Ponter said his culture had never farmed, then stayed out of the debate. A hunter-gatherer society doesn't really need to spend all that much time acquiring food -- maybe 15 hours a week -- and, if they spend more time at it, they run the risk of depleting their food sources. They want small families because they want fewer mouths to feed and value the elderly for their knowledge and wisdom of how, when, and where to hunt. In contrast, a farming society can increase their amount of food by increasing the land under cultivation. They can feed more people, but need to spend much more time at food production, to where it becomes a full-time job. More children mean more hands to do the work, leading to a population explosion. The young are valued for their strength. To me this means the only reason to get into agriculture is greed, and that way of living is ultimately not sustainable (though farm technology vastly extends what can be sustained). Alas, it is the only way we have to feed the over 6 billion people we have now.
Some of the Amazon reviews of this book say it is too preachy and does little to extend the plot. Because of that the first book is better.
The story is mostly about human Mary Vaughn and male Neanderthal Ponter Boddit, both scientists. At one point, as part of explaining what humans are like, she takes him to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. He finds the reasons for the war and the humans reacting to the memorial to be quite illogical. I like his suggestion that all future presidents must declare war in front of that memorial. If they find they can't it is a war not worth fighting.
Ponter also says our belief in an afterlife leads us to devalue our current life. If we are promised heaven we are too willing to sacrifice ourselves for causes that may not otherwise be worth it.
That got me to think about the Right's view of the importance of getting that fetus born, then seeming to neglect it afterwards. That baby must be born for it to have a place in heaven (or hell), but once born the goal isn't this life, but the next one. It doesn't matter how brutish this life is because the next one is so wonderful and if some tragedy helps prepare you for the next one, all the better. These are my thoughts, put together from the Right's actions and not necessarily from any of their stated beliefs.
This idea is closely related to another that's been going through my head for a few years now. When our focus is on the next life we think nothing of being rather nasty to each other in this life. We do all kinds of trickery an coercion to make sure someone is "saved" and feel smug and superior to those who are not.
Related to that, the October issue of Michigan Christian Advocate has an article about Rita Nakashima Brock and her presentation before a meeting of area pastors. The article mentioned her new book Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire coauthored with Rebecca Ann Parker. Here is a summary of the book from Amazon: The authors did research around the Mediterranean and found none of the artwork from the First Millennium of the Christian era showed Christ as dead. The emphasis was on the living Christ and how to bring Paradise to earth for the benefit of those living now. It took a thousand years for Christ to die and when he finally did, that's all he did. With the emphasis on the crucifixion Christianity became a religion of torture, "redemptive" violence, and holy war. That got stretched into imperial tendencies -- Christ supports that we are conquering you. That view of early Christianity fits with my idea that we shouldn't focus on how Christ died to make us fit for heaven, but that he lived to bring paradise to earth. The November issue of the MCA contained a letter condemning Brock as being so far off base that her theology is no longer Christian -- which, considering how quick Fundies are to brand those who disagree with them as heretics, sounds like a recommendation for the book. I haven't ordered it yet.
Back to the Neanderthal book. It features a discussion amongst a group of archaeologists, Ponter included, about whether agriculture was central to the development of cities and culture. Ponter said his culture had never farmed, then stayed out of the debate. A hunter-gatherer society doesn't really need to spend all that much time acquiring food -- maybe 15 hours a week -- and, if they spend more time at it, they run the risk of depleting their food sources. They want small families because they want fewer mouths to feed and value the elderly for their knowledge and wisdom of how, when, and where to hunt. In contrast, a farming society can increase their amount of food by increasing the land under cultivation. They can feed more people, but need to spend much more time at food production, to where it becomes a full-time job. More children mean more hands to do the work, leading to a population explosion. The young are valued for their strength. To me this means the only reason to get into agriculture is greed, and that way of living is ultimately not sustainable (though farm technology vastly extends what can be sustained). Alas, it is the only way we have to feed the over 6 billion people we have now.
Some of the Amazon reviews of this book say it is too preachy and does little to extend the plot. Because of that the first book is better.
You'll need a lot of popcorn for this show
The are now discussions -- soon to be battles -- on how to reshape the Republican Party after such a debacle of an election. Let's line the factions up and take a look:
Big Business, interested in making as much money as possible no matter who it hurts. They favor the GOP for its willingness to be bribed.
Religious Fundies, who want to impose their theology on the rest of us. They favor the GOP for its claim to want to overturn abortion rulings.
Warmongers, who want to demonstrate America's strength. They like the GOP because the politicians usually speak the same language, even when it isn't useful.
Libertarians, who want less government. Unsure why they like the GOP.
Racists, who detest anyone not white and like the GOP because the GOP makes them think racism is acceptable and the GOP found their votes handy.
After McCain's defeat, especially since he and Palin represent different factions, each faction is blaming the others for the party's problems.
But all that leaves one problem. No matter which faction dominates (and it could be entertaining watching them battle it out) what do they have to show the rest of America? None of these factions sound like they act in the best interest of the nation.
Big Business, interested in making as much money as possible no matter who it hurts. They favor the GOP for its willingness to be bribed.
Religious Fundies, who want to impose their theology on the rest of us. They favor the GOP for its claim to want to overturn abortion rulings.
Warmongers, who want to demonstrate America's strength. They like the GOP because the politicians usually speak the same language, even when it isn't useful.
Libertarians, who want less government. Unsure why they like the GOP.
Racists, who detest anyone not white and like the GOP because the GOP makes them think racism is acceptable and the GOP found their votes handy.
After McCain's defeat, especially since he and Palin represent different factions, each faction is blaming the others for the party's problems.
But all that leaves one problem. No matter which faction dominates (and it could be entertaining watching them battle it out) what do they have to show the rest of America? None of these factions sound like they act in the best interest of the nation.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The cost of bigotry
"My Grandma vacationed in California and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" has been updated to reflect the recent election.
And you could reframe the debate this way…
The Mormon (LDS) church, after it worked mightily to ban gay marriage, said in a press release by Equality California.
Great! Wonderful! says Equality Utah. So the church won't mind, and will even support us, when we introduce legislation to make sure gays have proper hospital visitation rights and shared medical care, to pass anti-discrimination laws, and to allow state-wide civil unions. Or were these more lies to lessen the current protests against the church?
This is the Mormon church's actual statement:
Which pretty much leaves them open to protest whatever gay-friendly proposal they want. And as for civil unions, well, they're already banned by a marriage protection amendment. Aww, too bad.
We knew this would happen eventually: Vandals damaged 3 Mormon churches in Utah. On seeing the broken glass one of the members said,
Of course, my irony meter went off again. They certainly don't love us. If they did they would seek to understand us and they are clearly not doing that.
This same posting shows the sign, "Shall we vote on your marriage now?"
Several Calif. businesses are feeling the heat as news comes out that the owners contributed to the gay marriage ban. One restaurant, El Coyote in LA, had been a hangout for gays. But when the news broke that the Mormon owner had contributed as her church requested, the patrons were not pleased. The owner asked for a lunchtime meeting to explain her side of things, but since she did not apologize relations quickly soured. Gays were especially annoyed with the idea that a percentage of her profits would go to the church that condemns them. No one stayed for the free food. The restaurant may face closure if they can't attract Mormon customers -- hey, church, I donated as you requested and now face bankruptcy; how about a bailout?
Records of donors (which came from around the country) are being carefully scrutinized and gays are acting accordingly. When this issue comes up again (two years?) those wanting to stick it to the gays will find a lot of businesses have experienced or at least seen the cost of bigotry and will keep their wallets closed -- or will donate to the gay cause.
Suddenly, businesses are trying to hide their donation to the ban or say it shouldn't make any difference. You bought it, the least you can do is own it. Fortunately, donations are public record.
The Mormon church is getting many letters of resignation. And many of those who still support the church are finding they must choose between church and family.
A protest in New York City drew a peaceful crowd of 7-10,000 and included several entertainment personalities. Pictures and videos here.
There is now a loose coalition working to hold protests nationwide on Saturday. The time depends on your time zone. Look for protest cities here.
And a little bit of irony of my own: The protest in Detroit is at 1:30 and I have a ticket for a gay movie (part of the Pride Film Festival) at 2:00 in Royal Oak. It's even a love story, the relationship between Christopher Isherwood and his lover Don. The Festival is being put on by one of the sponsors of the Detroit protest.
Good for a laugh. Stephen Colbert interviews Dan Savage about the gay marriage bans.
Savage also wrote an editorial for the New York Times that said while banning gay marriage in 3 more states was heartbreaking, banning gay adoption in Arkansas is terrifying. Who is next to be found unfit for parenting based on spurious reasons? Will kids be taken away from biological parents who happen to be gay?
And you could reframe the debate this way…
The Mormon (LDS) church, after it worked mightily to ban gay marriage, said in a press release by Equality California.
…it is not "anti-gay" but rather pro-marriage and it "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." On November 5th, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose "civil unions or domestic partnerships."
Great! Wonderful! says Equality Utah. So the church won't mind, and will even support us, when we introduce legislation to make sure gays have proper hospital visitation rights and shared medical care, to pass anti-discrimination laws, and to allow state-wide civil unions. Or were these more lies to lessen the current protests against the church?
This is the Mormon church's actual statement:
"the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
Which pretty much leaves them open to protest whatever gay-friendly proposal they want. And as for civil unions, well, they're already banned by a marriage protection amendment. Aww, too bad.
We knew this would happen eventually: Vandals damaged 3 Mormon churches in Utah. On seeing the broken glass one of the members said,
"I feel badly for those people that have such anger within them that they would do something like this… I just hope that people’s hearts will be softened, that they will realize the Gospel… teaches us to love one another and not do things like this."
Of course, my irony meter went off again. They certainly don't love us. If they did they would seek to understand us and they are clearly not doing that.
This same posting shows the sign, "Shall we vote on your marriage now?"
Several Calif. businesses are feeling the heat as news comes out that the owners contributed to the gay marriage ban. One restaurant, El Coyote in LA, had been a hangout for gays. But when the news broke that the Mormon owner had contributed as her church requested, the patrons were not pleased. The owner asked for a lunchtime meeting to explain her side of things, but since she did not apologize relations quickly soured. Gays were especially annoyed with the idea that a percentage of her profits would go to the church that condemns them. No one stayed for the free food. The restaurant may face closure if they can't attract Mormon customers -- hey, church, I donated as you requested and now face bankruptcy; how about a bailout?
Records of donors (which came from around the country) are being carefully scrutinized and gays are acting accordingly. When this issue comes up again (two years?) those wanting to stick it to the gays will find a lot of businesses have experienced or at least seen the cost of bigotry and will keep their wallets closed -- or will donate to the gay cause.
Suddenly, businesses are trying to hide their donation to the ban or say it shouldn't make any difference. You bought it, the least you can do is own it. Fortunately, donations are public record.
The Mormon church is getting many letters of resignation. And many of those who still support the church are finding they must choose between church and family.
A protest in New York City drew a peaceful crowd of 7-10,000 and included several entertainment personalities. Pictures and videos here.
There is now a loose coalition working to hold protests nationwide on Saturday. The time depends on your time zone. Look for protest cities here.
And a little bit of irony of my own: The protest in Detroit is at 1:30 and I have a ticket for a gay movie (part of the Pride Film Festival) at 2:00 in Royal Oak. It's even a love story, the relationship between Christopher Isherwood and his lover Don. The Festival is being put on by one of the sponsors of the Detroit protest.
Good for a laugh. Stephen Colbert interviews Dan Savage about the gay marriage bans.
Savage also wrote an editorial for the New York Times that said while banning gay marriage in 3 more states was heartbreaking, banning gay adoption in Arkansas is terrifying. Who is next to be found unfit for parenting based on spurious reasons? Will kids be taken away from biological parents who happen to be gay?
Monday, November 10, 2008
You can go home to your iceberg now
Sarah Palin actually had some good things going for her says Katha Pollitt in the Chicago Tribune:
* She was a gift to Barack Obama, Katie Couric, and Tina Fey.
* She helped define feminism by clarifying what it isn't -- voting for a woman just because she's female or exhibiting female moxie (which Palin has) or being a frilly doormat.
* Her presence on the GOP ticket forced family-values conservatives to give public support to working mothers, equal marriages, and pregnant teens making it harder for them to spout their antagonism to these ideas in the future (though they will try).
* She, with Hillary, normalized the idea of a woman in the White House.
The whole article is worth a read for the snarky attitude.
Who would have guessed? We now hear the Secret Service warned the Obama family of a dramatic rise in the number of threats against the candidate at the same time that Palin was promoting a lynch-mob atmosphere during her rallies.
"Obama Talks with Unpopular World Leader Without Preconditions" screams the headlines. Below that is a photo of the Obamas and the Bushes.
* She was a gift to Barack Obama, Katie Couric, and Tina Fey.
* She helped define feminism by clarifying what it isn't -- voting for a woman just because she's female or exhibiting female moxie (which Palin has) or being a frilly doormat.
* Her presence on the GOP ticket forced family-values conservatives to give public support to working mothers, equal marriages, and pregnant teens making it harder for them to spout their antagonism to these ideas in the future (though they will try).
* She, with Hillary, normalized the idea of a woman in the White House.
The whole article is worth a read for the snarky attitude.
Who would have guessed? We now hear the Secret Service warned the Obama family of a dramatic rise in the number of threats against the candidate at the same time that Palin was promoting a lynch-mob atmosphere during her rallies.
"Obama Talks with Unpopular World Leader Without Preconditions" screams the headlines. Below that is a photo of the Obamas and the Bushes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)