Yesterday I got an e-mail FW from a Republican friend of mine. Yes, I do have Republican friends. I even have a few Republican relatives. Normally they know better than to send me their political schlock, but the flesh is weak, and it’s sometimes tempting to do what is unwise. The only way I know to maintain cordial relations with Republicans is to never, ever, discuss politics. It doesn’t end well. But he was weak, and in a moment of weakness, I bothered to reply. Oh, it was the same nonsense we’ve been hearing, nothing new. Obama is taking away our rights, he hates Christians, etc. For eight years I was angry at my government, it is comforting to see the shoe on the other foot. The right wing is having conniptions. Obama is clever: even though he is Kenyan, he managed to place a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper. That was good planning. And he’s a sly one: all those years he went to a Christian church, even though he was secretly Muslim. Oh, he’s a cagey one, that Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Reverend Wright was a Muslim imam.
At this sacred time of year, I have a few thoughts on Christianity. I’m not referring to Easter or Passover, the first of April is a holy day in my book, and so, considering Christians are in the news, I have an idea. What with the Hutaree Christian militia, and the crimes of the Vatican, I think the time has come to employ the wisdom of the Bush administration. In Bushworld, if there are a few extremists, it means the whole lot is guilty. A few nutty Muslims attacked the World Trade Center, so we invaded two Muslim countries, one of which had nothing to do with the hijackers. It’s time for us to waterboard all Christians. What with the pedophiles and the militia, all Christians are guilty, and I’m sure they are conspiring. John Yoo told us that water torture isn’t torture, so there’s no problem with waterboarding people. Never mind that our government prosecuted Japanese soldiers who used water torture on us. When we do it, it’s OK. And didn’t Rummy say waterboarding was just a little dunking? Christians already baptize, is water torture so very different? Maybe we can use the baptismal fonts in churches and convert them to waterboarding facilities.
I confess, I have ties with the Presbyterian church, even though it’s a love/hate relationship. I will have to stop tithing, since churches are terrorist organizations, right? I prefer not to be waterboarded, but anything for my country. Probably, like a lot of people, I will end up confessing to all kinds of things, especially if I am waterboarded 150 times. I am no doubt guilty. The important thing to remember is that the Hutarees and Bishop Ratzinger aren’t just a few bad apples. If one is guilty, then all are. It’s the prime principle of Bush world. And at a time like this, we need W’s wisdom. Bishop Ratzinger has a lot to answer for, in my humble opinion. Maybe it’s not a good idea to keep promoting someone who was a member of a Hitler youth group. When our soldiers invade the Vatican, there may be some looting. There was when we invaded Iraq. But when the Iraq national museum was vandalized, and the history of Western civilization and the earliest forms of writing were lost, Rumsfeld said that when people are free, they sometimes do bad things. That Rummy. Such a way with words. Like when he told the soldier you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
I hope no one thinks this is an extreme reaction, to hold all Christians guilty for the crimes of a few. Rove told us that we are no longer living in the reality based world. If my suggestion to waterboard all Christians seems surreal, well, just go with the flow---- so to say. The Hutaree are dangerous, and that can only mean that all Christians are dangerous. There are criminal priests, so all clergy are criminal, right? As Rude Pundit suggests, if the child abuse scandal had occurred in the Muslim community, we would invade every single Muslim country and burn all the mosques in America.
There’s a poetic circularity in taking waterboarding back to the Vatican. They are the ones who perfected water torture for the Inquisition. Bush taught us that we don’t need trials: thankfully he dispensed with Habeas Corpus. Round’em up now, charge and try ‘em later. It’s a good thing we didn’t close Guantanamo. It won’t be large enough to hold all the guilty Christians, but we have a lot of prisons here. Maybe we can convert some of the tax payer funded ball parks to detention camps.
I deplore sarcasm and humor of any kind. I hope no one thinks I'm writing this in jest. This will be a good time for me to return to my Jewish roots. We know that Jews have never committed any crimes, and anyway, they’ve been punished enough.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Water Wars
If you love the beauty of the desert, you’ll enjoy reading books written by Craig Childs. Childs is a natural history writer and hiker. Recently I re-read the “Secret Knowledge of Water.” Childs has always lived in the desert, and has a unique understanding. His books aren’t academic, they’re poetic. The subtitle of “Secret Knowledge” is, “There are two Easy Ways to Die in the Desert: Thirst and Drowning.” Childs discusses this paradox throughout the book. The first section of the book discusses his expeditions in the state and national parks of Arizona. He is charged with finding natural water sources for the wild sheep, verifying that they don’t need human intervention. (They don’t.) Animals have a knack for finding water in the driest places, and Childs often discovers artifacts from native peoples in the water formations that act as natural cisterns for the rainwater. These natural cisterns are called tanks or tinajas. Tinajas are most often cone shaped, and can hold gallons of water in the driest places. Immigrants and hikers often perish in these unforgiving lands, but older peoples knew of the existence of these tinajas. The human artifacts are indecipherable, but clearly the same spots have been used for centuries. Childs describes the difference between a spring and a drip: to be labeled a spring, a source must produce a litre of water per minute. Drips, more common than springs in the desert, produce far less, and are sometimes just a trickle. Desperate hikers look for water in desert valleys, but it isn’t there. To find water, you have to look in the mountains, where water can often be found.
Just as dangerous as lack of water, too much water can kill. Flash floods claim as many lives as dehydration. Sudden summer thunder storm, incorrectly called monsoons, drown hikers in arroyos. These sudden storms are called “chubascos.” They account for much of the desert’s annual rainfall, and target certain spots unpredictably. Again, native peoples have a healthy respect and fear of water; Tohono O’odham Indians sing a lullaby which advises children “Do not drink too much water.” If you see dark clouds in the desert, again, your best and safest bet is to seek elevation. Rainwater can collect fast and furiously in arroyos and ditches, and often hikers are drowned in a matter of seconds.
California, like the rest of the Southwest, is in the middle of a ten year drought. In the early 1990’s, San Diego politicians and leaders called for mandatory water conservation. Many of us remember the days of “if it’s yellow it’s mellow….” You know the rest. Unwisely, this rationing was lifted when there was a very wet El nino winter. The bottom line is, San Diego is in the desert. This isn’t the Midwest. There isn’t enough water, period. San Diego, especially, is at the tail end of water pipelines. We are experiencing extreme rate hikes for water use, but there has been no wise plan proposed by city leaders. That’s short sighted. Phoenix and Las Vegas have water rationing, and residents no longer plant grass lawns there. Ironically, both Phoenix and Las Vegas have access to more water than San Diego, yet no one will have the leadership here to outlaw grass lawns.
If you want to know why government doesn’t work, try living in a condo homeowner’s association. My building is the very last one in the neighborhood to have a grass lawn. When last year’s board proposed desert landscaping, xeriscaping, we had a little contingency of Midwesterners throw a tantrum. Most Midwesterners are good, sensible, people. I’m from the Midwest. But we have a certain sociopath here from Kansas City who got himself elected HOA board president, on the issue of keeping the grass. Strangely, all the lawn happens to be in front of said new president’s unit. The rest of us don’t have access to it, but we are all paying higher dues so his grass can remain nice and green.
Future historians will debate the wisdom of irrigation in California. We are a breadbasket for the country, and our fruits and vegetables are delicious. Nonetheless, the irrigation needed for agriculture in the state is not sustainable. Still there are places like San Diego that allow large grass lawns, while farmers are closing their farms due to lack of water. Water rationing is coming, and politicians will have their hands full of people like the HOA board president here. I would like to have water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and washing clothes. There probably is not enough water long term for those necessary activities, as climate change contributes to the drought.
In the past, wars were fought for salt. Salt, necessary for life, and a preservative for food before refrigeration, was considered sacred. The words “salvation” and “save” come from the Latin “sal” for salt, and the importance of salt can be found in words like salary, salad, sausage, sauce. Today, salt is easily mined, and wars are fought for oil. Scientists and theoreticians foresee a time when wars will be fought for water. In some places, that is already happening. The melting of glaciers in the Himalayas has repercussions for densely populated India and China right now. Our time is coming. It may be too late for California now.
Just as dangerous as lack of water, too much water can kill. Flash floods claim as many lives as dehydration. Sudden summer thunder storm, incorrectly called monsoons, drown hikers in arroyos. These sudden storms are called “chubascos.” They account for much of the desert’s annual rainfall, and target certain spots unpredictably. Again, native peoples have a healthy respect and fear of water; Tohono O’odham Indians sing a lullaby which advises children “Do not drink too much water.” If you see dark clouds in the desert, again, your best and safest bet is to seek elevation. Rainwater can collect fast and furiously in arroyos and ditches, and often hikers are drowned in a matter of seconds.
California, like the rest of the Southwest, is in the middle of a ten year drought. In the early 1990’s, San Diego politicians and leaders called for mandatory water conservation. Many of us remember the days of “if it’s yellow it’s mellow….” You know the rest. Unwisely, this rationing was lifted when there was a very wet El nino winter. The bottom line is, San Diego is in the desert. This isn’t the Midwest. There isn’t enough water, period. San Diego, especially, is at the tail end of water pipelines. We are experiencing extreme rate hikes for water use, but there has been no wise plan proposed by city leaders. That’s short sighted. Phoenix and Las Vegas have water rationing, and residents no longer plant grass lawns there. Ironically, both Phoenix and Las Vegas have access to more water than San Diego, yet no one will have the leadership here to outlaw grass lawns.
If you want to know why government doesn’t work, try living in a condo homeowner’s association. My building is the very last one in the neighborhood to have a grass lawn. When last year’s board proposed desert landscaping, xeriscaping, we had a little contingency of Midwesterners throw a tantrum. Most Midwesterners are good, sensible, people. I’m from the Midwest. But we have a certain sociopath here from Kansas City who got himself elected HOA board president, on the issue of keeping the grass. Strangely, all the lawn happens to be in front of said new president’s unit. The rest of us don’t have access to it, but we are all paying higher dues so his grass can remain nice and green.
Future historians will debate the wisdom of irrigation in California. We are a breadbasket for the country, and our fruits and vegetables are delicious. Nonetheless, the irrigation needed for agriculture in the state is not sustainable. Still there are places like San Diego that allow large grass lawns, while farmers are closing their farms due to lack of water. Water rationing is coming, and politicians will have their hands full of people like the HOA board president here. I would like to have water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and washing clothes. There probably is not enough water long term for those necessary activities, as climate change contributes to the drought.
In the past, wars were fought for salt. Salt, necessary for life, and a preservative for food before refrigeration, was considered sacred. The words “salvation” and “save” come from the Latin “sal” for salt, and the importance of salt can be found in words like salary, salad, sausage, sauce. Today, salt is easily mined, and wars are fought for oil. Scientists and theoreticians foresee a time when wars will be fought for water. In some places, that is already happening. The melting of glaciers in the Himalayas has repercussions for densely populated India and China right now. Our time is coming. It may be too late for California now.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Age of Unreason
Susan Jacoby’s “Age of American Unreason,” and Charles Pierce’s “Idiot America” ask fundamental questions about our country, and the disastrous course the nation is on. Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” was one of the first books to analyze the power of the right wing in America. Frank notes that Republicans successfully used the wedge issue of abortion to inflame otherwise normal people, and make them work against their own economic interest. Pierce traces the history of American “cranks,” and the book’s subtitle says it all: “How stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free.”
Jacoby takes a sweeping historical perspective. She notes that though this country was founded by Enlightenment intellectuals, today “intellectual” is a dirty word. She observes that right wing intellectuals, those neo-liberals or neocons working in think tanks like Cato, Heritage, or AEI, paint themselves as average people. Neocon intellectuals hide in their right wing ivory towers, and label the left “elite” intellectuals. They use the word ‘intellectual” interchangeably with “liberal,” another demonized term. How is that George Bush, a child of privilege and wealth, who went to Ivy League schools, posed as an ordinary Joe people wanted to have a beer with? It’s unbelievable.
Jacoby faults the American system of education with the proud stupidity of its people. When the framers were creating our government, they ceded public education to local, state control. European countries have national education standards, and no European country scores as poorly in math, science, or history as America does. Americans balk at the notion of national standards, but nationalized education should be considered. Students in economically underprivileged neighborhoods don’t do well on standardized tests; usually their school budgets are limited. Local control hasn’t served the country well. With national standards and funding, students in economically challenged areas could do as well as their middle-class counterparts. This is easier said than done. Local control is the sacred cow of the right. Religious fundamentalists have chosen local school boards as the launch pad for their political careers.
Frank, Pierce and Jacoby all fault American religion for instilling ignorance in its adherents. America is the most religious of all the developed countries. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; but considering the harm that fundamentalism has done to our politics, it must be examined. Social issues like abortion and homosexuality brought disparate groups together: right wing Catholics joined forces with Protestant fundamentalists and Mormons. It is shocking that a majority of Americans believe creationism should be taught in school, and that so many profess belief in the literal truth of selected Bible verses. Those who claim to believe all of the Bible literally don’t: none are advocating stoning of adulterers or disobedient children. Literal interpretation only covers creation and condemnation of homosexuals. It doesn’t apply to divorce, which Jesus strongly condemns.
Religious extremism has not served the country well. A better education in civics might help the majority understand that we are not a Christian nation, that the founders wanted a wall between church and state. Currently, six of the nine supreme courts justices are Roman Catholic: five of the justices adhere to an extreme form of the faith. While Americans are religious, the majority of citizens are not ardent Catholics. The court should reflect national consensus: this court does not. Americans must have the courage to challenge religious extremism in all forms. We are quick to label Muslims terrorists: we must apply the same standard to our own fundamentalists. American fundamentalism can condone, even encourage violence. Consider McVeigh or Dr. Tiller’s murderer.
Spirituality is personal and individual. Those who have been accosted by proselytizers know how hurtful the experience can be. Evangelizers believe they are following Jesus’ commission to “make believers of all nations.” Attempts to change others’ beliefs must be discarded in today’s world. Missionaries no doubt believe they are doing the right thing, and are surprised to find their efforts appear arrogant and supercilious. Better secular education might discourage parochialism, as would emphasis on foreign language and travel. Jimmy Carter established the “Friendship Force,” a low-cost form of travel and exchange that encouraged Americans to visit other countries. It is too bad the program did not continue after his presidency.
Jacoby, Pierce and Frank don’t give reasons for optimism. They have done the first step, though, identifying the problem and its causes. A majority of Americans still believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. It is not just intellectuals who sense that something has gone wrong. After eight disastrous years of the Bush administration, it is hard to hope that a new president can turn things around. It cannot be done quickly. Some, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that the country’s misdirection is nothing new. Our bloated military budget, and the entrenched power of weapons manufacturers (so-called “defense” contractors) are discouraging. If change is to occur, real, lasting change, we must all work hard. This includes discussion of our educational system, and how to temper the political advances of religious extremists.
Jacoby takes a sweeping historical perspective. She notes that though this country was founded by Enlightenment intellectuals, today “intellectual” is a dirty word. She observes that right wing intellectuals, those neo-liberals or neocons working in think tanks like Cato, Heritage, or AEI, paint themselves as average people. Neocon intellectuals hide in their right wing ivory towers, and label the left “elite” intellectuals. They use the word ‘intellectual” interchangeably with “liberal,” another demonized term. How is that George Bush, a child of privilege and wealth, who went to Ivy League schools, posed as an ordinary Joe people wanted to have a beer with? It’s unbelievable.
Jacoby faults the American system of education with the proud stupidity of its people. When the framers were creating our government, they ceded public education to local, state control. European countries have national education standards, and no European country scores as poorly in math, science, or history as America does. Americans balk at the notion of national standards, but nationalized education should be considered. Students in economically underprivileged neighborhoods don’t do well on standardized tests; usually their school budgets are limited. Local control hasn’t served the country well. With national standards and funding, students in economically challenged areas could do as well as their middle-class counterparts. This is easier said than done. Local control is the sacred cow of the right. Religious fundamentalists have chosen local school boards as the launch pad for their political careers.
Frank, Pierce and Jacoby all fault American religion for instilling ignorance in its adherents. America is the most religious of all the developed countries. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; but considering the harm that fundamentalism has done to our politics, it must be examined. Social issues like abortion and homosexuality brought disparate groups together: right wing Catholics joined forces with Protestant fundamentalists and Mormons. It is shocking that a majority of Americans believe creationism should be taught in school, and that so many profess belief in the literal truth of selected Bible verses. Those who claim to believe all of the Bible literally don’t: none are advocating stoning of adulterers or disobedient children. Literal interpretation only covers creation and condemnation of homosexuals. It doesn’t apply to divorce, which Jesus strongly condemns.
Religious extremism has not served the country well. A better education in civics might help the majority understand that we are not a Christian nation, that the founders wanted a wall between church and state. Currently, six of the nine supreme courts justices are Roman Catholic: five of the justices adhere to an extreme form of the faith. While Americans are religious, the majority of citizens are not ardent Catholics. The court should reflect national consensus: this court does not. Americans must have the courage to challenge religious extremism in all forms. We are quick to label Muslims terrorists: we must apply the same standard to our own fundamentalists. American fundamentalism can condone, even encourage violence. Consider McVeigh or Dr. Tiller’s murderer.
Spirituality is personal and individual. Those who have been accosted by proselytizers know how hurtful the experience can be. Evangelizers believe they are following Jesus’ commission to “make believers of all nations.” Attempts to change others’ beliefs must be discarded in today’s world. Missionaries no doubt believe they are doing the right thing, and are surprised to find their efforts appear arrogant and supercilious. Better secular education might discourage parochialism, as would emphasis on foreign language and travel. Jimmy Carter established the “Friendship Force,” a low-cost form of travel and exchange that encouraged Americans to visit other countries. It is too bad the program did not continue after his presidency.
Jacoby, Pierce and Frank don’t give reasons for optimism. They have done the first step, though, identifying the problem and its causes. A majority of Americans still believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. It is not just intellectuals who sense that something has gone wrong. After eight disastrous years of the Bush administration, it is hard to hope that a new president can turn things around. It cannot be done quickly. Some, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that the country’s misdirection is nothing new. Our bloated military budget, and the entrenched power of weapons manufacturers (so-called “defense” contractors) are discouraging. If change is to occur, real, lasting change, we must all work hard. This includes discussion of our educational system, and how to temper the political advances of religious extremists.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Free Love for Valentine's Day
In 1878, my great-great-great grandfather, Eber Howe, wrote his autobiography, including his recollections of the War of 1812. He explained his thirteen point credo, which is similar to that of Andrew Jackson Davis. In this statement, he expresses belief in God, spiritualism, and his rejection of orthodox Christianity. Point number eleven is: “I do not believe in free love.” Who knew that free love was being discussed in the nineteenth century? I didn’t.
Free love in the nineteenth century was different than the free love movement of the 1960’s. It was part of a progressive agenda, and a controversial offshoot of women’s suffrage. The nineteenth century free love movement reflected a belief in individual sovereignty, and eschewed “external moral systems like organized religion and social convention,” according to an historian in the article “Feminism and Free Love.” Advocates of free love worked to overturn laws prohibiting divorce and contraception. Free love communities arose in New York and Ohio, the most famous being the one in Oneida, New York. When men advocated free love the emphasis was on sexual enjoyment and serial monogamy. When women advocated free love, their concerns were property rights, childbirth, and forced sexual relations within and without of marriage.
The most famous female free love proponents were Mary Nichols and Victoria Woodhull. The two were accused of advocating promiscuity, which they did not. Victoria Woodhull ran for president of the U.S. on the free love platform. Nichols and Woodhull, along with other women, sought to change divorce laws, women’s property laws, and promoted voluntary motherhood (free love proponent Margaret Sanger changed this term to “birth control”). Until 1848, divorce was virtually illegal, and married women had to turn all property over to their husbands. By 1850, men and women were marrying less, and the birth rate lowered. Free love philosophers were discussing ideas that were very much in the air at the time. Birth control was of concern for both men and women: some advocated withdrawal, sexual interruption, over condoms or sponges.
Politicians became concerned about free love, and in 1873 Congress passed the restrictive Comstock Law. This legislation limited discussion of birth control and sexual matters in print and speech, the way the later Hayes code prohibited elaboration on these topics in film. Woodhull became a victim of the Comstock Law. She accused the clergyman Henry Ward Beecher of hypocrisy for criticizing her free love beliefs as immoral, while Beecher was discovered to be carrying on an adulterous affair. Society was unkind to both Woodhull and Nichols. Both women eventually married, and renounced their earlier convictions.
Free love didn’t die. By the 1930’s, divorce laws were changed, property rights for women modified, and Margaret Sanger successfully sued to have enforcement of the Comstock Law abolished. By the mid 1990’s, twenty-five per cent of men age forty had never married. It is jokingly suggested that the only people who want to marry these days are gays and priests. My ancestor, Eber Howe, was liberal and progressive in so many areas. I wonder why he opposed free love, since the Victorian version seems a matter of common sense. Only extremists today oppose birth control, and even hard core conservatives rack up divorces. How many failed marriages do Rush and Newt have combined?
I'm personally ambivalent about marriage. For me, it's something that belongs to someone else, to people who are young, attractive, idealistic. I have never sought it. Maybe if I lived in a liberal state like Iowa marriage might interest me, but not here in conservative California. Those who want marriage should be able to marry. Friendship is an incredible thing, and it’s more than enough for me. Eber Howe’s final personal philosophy, statement thirteen, is “I do not promise to believe tomorrow exactly what I believe today.” Ditto for me.
Free love in the nineteenth century was different than the free love movement of the 1960’s. It was part of a progressive agenda, and a controversial offshoot of women’s suffrage. The nineteenth century free love movement reflected a belief in individual sovereignty, and eschewed “external moral systems like organized religion and social convention,” according to an historian in the article “Feminism and Free Love.” Advocates of free love worked to overturn laws prohibiting divorce and contraception. Free love communities arose in New York and Ohio, the most famous being the one in Oneida, New York. When men advocated free love the emphasis was on sexual enjoyment and serial monogamy. When women advocated free love, their concerns were property rights, childbirth, and forced sexual relations within and without of marriage.
The most famous female free love proponents were Mary Nichols and Victoria Woodhull. The two were accused of advocating promiscuity, which they did not. Victoria Woodhull ran for president of the U.S. on the free love platform. Nichols and Woodhull, along with other women, sought to change divorce laws, women’s property laws, and promoted voluntary motherhood (free love proponent Margaret Sanger changed this term to “birth control”). Until 1848, divorce was virtually illegal, and married women had to turn all property over to their husbands. By 1850, men and women were marrying less, and the birth rate lowered. Free love philosophers were discussing ideas that were very much in the air at the time. Birth control was of concern for both men and women: some advocated withdrawal, sexual interruption, over condoms or sponges.
Politicians became concerned about free love, and in 1873 Congress passed the restrictive Comstock Law. This legislation limited discussion of birth control and sexual matters in print and speech, the way the later Hayes code prohibited elaboration on these topics in film. Woodhull became a victim of the Comstock Law. She accused the clergyman Henry Ward Beecher of hypocrisy for criticizing her free love beliefs as immoral, while Beecher was discovered to be carrying on an adulterous affair. Society was unkind to both Woodhull and Nichols. Both women eventually married, and renounced their earlier convictions.
Free love didn’t die. By the 1930’s, divorce laws were changed, property rights for women modified, and Margaret Sanger successfully sued to have enforcement of the Comstock Law abolished. By the mid 1990’s, twenty-five per cent of men age forty had never married. It is jokingly suggested that the only people who want to marry these days are gays and priests. My ancestor, Eber Howe, was liberal and progressive in so many areas. I wonder why he opposed free love, since the Victorian version seems a matter of common sense. Only extremists today oppose birth control, and even hard core conservatives rack up divorces. How many failed marriages do Rush and Newt have combined?
I'm personally ambivalent about marriage. For me, it's something that belongs to someone else, to people who are young, attractive, idealistic. I have never sought it. Maybe if I lived in a liberal state like Iowa marriage might interest me, but not here in conservative California. Those who want marriage should be able to marry. Friendship is an incredible thing, and it’s more than enough for me. Eber Howe’s final personal philosophy, statement thirteen, is “I do not promise to believe tomorrow exactly what I believe today.” Ditto for me.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Gays and the Military
Seventeen years after its implementation, the government is reconsidering the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Colin Powell has changed his mind. As a liberal and pacifist, I am of two minds. Discrimination is always wrong. If gays and lesbians want to be in the military, they should have the right. As a pacifist, I worry about anyone being in the military. The United States spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined. You must never call America an “empire:” that’s a word that can’t be spoken. Instead, we are a “superpower.” Frankly, it doesn’t sound any better. As our economy collapses, many people have no choice but to become soldiers. It’s easy to think that our employment policies are geared to keeping people poor and uneducated, thus creating cannon fodder. So why shouldn’t gays and lesbians be as free as others to join the military-industrial complex, and be part of the imperial corporations who want to steal oil in the Middle East?
Gay marriage brings up a similar dilemma. I’m not sure what I think of a religious institution that has been used for centuries to ensure that women and children are the property of men. Cynically, comedians say that gays and lesbians should be free to become as miserable as heterosexuals. Civil rights are a matter of common decency, but it seems to me that questions about marriage and the military must still be asked. Maybe the government should be out of the marriage business, and domestic partnerships could be offered to anyone who wants them.
Last summer, Howard Zinn wrote an article for “The Progressive,” in which he challenged the idea of just war. Google it--- it’s worth reading. He discusses our most “justifiable” wars, the Revolutionary, the Civil, and WWII. As Zinn observes, other colonies broke away from England without a shot being fired. Most countries abolished slavery without bloodshed. World War II is a bit trickier; Zinn became a pacifist after being a soldier in that conflict. My great-great-great grandfather, Eber Howe, the Abolitionist journalist, became a pacifist after serving in the War of 1812.
We live in a country in which gays and lesbians suffer discrimination. In thirty-three states, you can be fired from a job for being gay. This congress barely passed a hate crimes bill for gays. ENDA is stalled. But then, we have not even passed an Equal Rights Amendment for women. We need a discussion about civil rights for everyone, gays and lesbians, people of color, women, the disabled. It’s too bad that the discussion of gay rights has to be tied to the military, as this prevents real discussion about the military industry.
Gay marriage brings up a similar dilemma. I’m not sure what I think of a religious institution that has been used for centuries to ensure that women and children are the property of men. Cynically, comedians say that gays and lesbians should be free to become as miserable as heterosexuals. Civil rights are a matter of common decency, but it seems to me that questions about marriage and the military must still be asked. Maybe the government should be out of the marriage business, and domestic partnerships could be offered to anyone who wants them.
Last summer, Howard Zinn wrote an article for “The Progressive,” in which he challenged the idea of just war. Google it--- it’s worth reading. He discusses our most “justifiable” wars, the Revolutionary, the Civil, and WWII. As Zinn observes, other colonies broke away from England without a shot being fired. Most countries abolished slavery without bloodshed. World War II is a bit trickier; Zinn became a pacifist after being a soldier in that conflict. My great-great-great grandfather, Eber Howe, the Abolitionist journalist, became a pacifist after serving in the War of 1812.
We live in a country in which gays and lesbians suffer discrimination. In thirty-three states, you can be fired from a job for being gay. This congress barely passed a hate crimes bill for gays. ENDA is stalled. But then, we have not even passed an Equal Rights Amendment for women. We need a discussion about civil rights for everyone, gays and lesbians, people of color, women, the disabled. It’s too bad that the discussion of gay rights has to be tied to the military, as this prevents real discussion about the military industry.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Words Matter
In “The Wordy Shipmates,” Sarah Vowell writes about the beautiful words of the Puritans who founded Boston. It was John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts who compared America to a “city on a hill.” The idealistic and lovely words of the Puritans were at odds with many of their actions. Winthrop proposed a society based on biblical principles, where each person would take care of the other, a religious welfare state. (As Vowell points out, if you want to see such a society, go to Canada.) Winthrop, the eloquent preacher, punished a man who spoke against religion by cutting off his ears. Winthrop banished Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and condoned the massacre of seven hundred Pequot Indians, including women and children. His talk was pretty, though.
Words do matter. I recently attended a large Protestant church in the area with a friend of mine. During the sermon, the pastor gave an illustration that involved Jewish refugees. His comment was not anti-Semitic--- if it had been, I would have left the service—but it was insensitive. This pastor believed that Christianity was superior to Judaism, a chauvinism I do not share. I would have a hard time going back to that church, even though the music is excellent. I don’t believe that one religion is better than another, or that one country is the greatest country on earth. That is tribal prejudice.
The same week, the owner/manager of a charity where I had been volunteering yelled at me like I was an incompetent three year old. Now, I was a volunteer there. I had been for almost a year, and she had never thanked me. She yelled at me. I haven’t been back. I don’t like to be the kind of hypersensitive guy that bristles every time someone looks cross-wise at me. But words matter.
It’s been a week of disappointment for liberal and patriots. A Republican took Ted Kennedy’s seat in the senate. The Supreme Court decided that corporations should have the free speech right to contribute unlimited amounts to political candidates. It’s easy to believe there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. At least Dems say the right words, even when they don’t deliver. Words matter.
I’m a descendant of Puritans. My ancestor, Exercise Conant (there’s a catchy name!) came to America in 1623 on the ship Anne. He and his brother, Lot, built the first house in Salem. By the time of the War of 1812, my forebears had discarded their religion. But, like most Americans, I nonetheless share the Puritan legacy. Sarah Vowell writes of Reagan’s interpretation of John Winthrop’s speech. Reagan changed the words slightly, and spoke of the “shining city on a hill.” Reagan said some lovely words, but his actions were perverse. Reagan slashed the budget of H.U.D. (Housing and Urban Development) from $32 billion in 1981 down to $7.5 billion in 1988. It was during Reagan’s presidency that we began to have the epidemic of homelessness. Reagan had the gall to say, in 1984, that people were “homeless, you might say, by choice.” No. They were homeless because Reagan slashed H.U.D. funding.
Actions matter. Eliminating school lunch programs, increasing Pentagon spending, slashing social services--- those are inexcusable actions. Saying that the homeless live on the streets by choice is both stupid and cruel. Words matter. Calling America a “city on a hill,” a light to the nations, when you slaughter Indians and import African slaves is a sham. In her autobiography for her children, medieval Jewish mystic Gluckel of Hameln wrote, “God forbid that you should give out to people that you are one thing, but in your heart you are another.” Hypocrisy is when our words don’t match our actions. God knows I’ve said and done my share of stupid and cruel things, and for that, I am sorry. Words matter, and actions matter. When a country or institution lies, or is hypocritical, it’s sad. Calling America the “city on a hill” or “shining city on a hill” is problematic when that country tortures, ignores the Magna Carta and Constitution, and engages in unlimited war. It’s odd to claim superiority for one religion when that same religion has a bloody history.
We’ve got to pay attention to our words, and make sure they match our actions. God forbid we give out to people we are one thing, when in our heart we are another. Saying pretty words doesn’t undo the crimes of history. If our words are lies, maybe we should just keep our mouths closed for a few decades till we can get out house in order.
Words do matter. I recently attended a large Protestant church in the area with a friend of mine. During the sermon, the pastor gave an illustration that involved Jewish refugees. His comment was not anti-Semitic--- if it had been, I would have left the service—but it was insensitive. This pastor believed that Christianity was superior to Judaism, a chauvinism I do not share. I would have a hard time going back to that church, even though the music is excellent. I don’t believe that one religion is better than another, or that one country is the greatest country on earth. That is tribal prejudice.
The same week, the owner/manager of a charity where I had been volunteering yelled at me like I was an incompetent three year old. Now, I was a volunteer there. I had been for almost a year, and she had never thanked me. She yelled at me. I haven’t been back. I don’t like to be the kind of hypersensitive guy that bristles every time someone looks cross-wise at me. But words matter.
It’s been a week of disappointment for liberal and patriots. A Republican took Ted Kennedy’s seat in the senate. The Supreme Court decided that corporations should have the free speech right to contribute unlimited amounts to political candidates. It’s easy to believe there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. At least Dems say the right words, even when they don’t deliver. Words matter.
I’m a descendant of Puritans. My ancestor, Exercise Conant (there’s a catchy name!) came to America in 1623 on the ship Anne. He and his brother, Lot, built the first house in Salem. By the time of the War of 1812, my forebears had discarded their religion. But, like most Americans, I nonetheless share the Puritan legacy. Sarah Vowell writes of Reagan’s interpretation of John Winthrop’s speech. Reagan changed the words slightly, and spoke of the “shining city on a hill.” Reagan said some lovely words, but his actions were perverse. Reagan slashed the budget of H.U.D. (Housing and Urban Development) from $32 billion in 1981 down to $7.5 billion in 1988. It was during Reagan’s presidency that we began to have the epidemic of homelessness. Reagan had the gall to say, in 1984, that people were “homeless, you might say, by choice.” No. They were homeless because Reagan slashed H.U.D. funding.
Actions matter. Eliminating school lunch programs, increasing Pentagon spending, slashing social services--- those are inexcusable actions. Saying that the homeless live on the streets by choice is both stupid and cruel. Words matter. Calling America a “city on a hill,” a light to the nations, when you slaughter Indians and import African slaves is a sham. In her autobiography for her children, medieval Jewish mystic Gluckel of Hameln wrote, “God forbid that you should give out to people that you are one thing, but in your heart you are another.” Hypocrisy is when our words don’t match our actions. God knows I’ve said and done my share of stupid and cruel things, and for that, I am sorry. Words matter, and actions matter. When a country or institution lies, or is hypocritical, it’s sad. Calling America the “city on a hill” or “shining city on a hill” is problematic when that country tortures, ignores the Magna Carta and Constitution, and engages in unlimited war. It’s odd to claim superiority for one religion when that same religion has a bloody history.
We’ve got to pay attention to our words, and make sure they match our actions. God forbid we give out to people we are one thing, when in our heart we are another. Saying pretty words doesn’t undo the crimes of history. If our words are lies, maybe we should just keep our mouths closed for a few decades till we can get out house in order.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Christmas, Hannukah, and Football
ABC News reported that Rick Warren’s church was short on funds. Sadly, someone came to his rescue, and his little church has more money to bash gays and spread hatred with. James Dobson’s Locusts on the Family is spending millions on anti-abortion ads for the Superbowl. If their enterprises had folded during these times of economic stress, maybe some good might have come from the hard times. Warren and Dobson are turds in the punchbowl of American religion.
We made it through the holiday season. It’s a time of year when religion is in the forefront, from O’Reilly’s war on Christmas to the right wing chant of keeping Christ in Christmas. For those of us from mixed religious backgrounds, it can be difficult. For some Jewish friends, it’s a time of alienation. Although half of my background is Jewish, we never did much for Hannukah, and my Jewish relatives celebrated Christmas with gusto. Sure, we had ladkes, but we didn’t light candles. My relatives were from a different era of American Judaism, and sought to blend in with their Christian neighbors. Intermarriage is the ultimate step in religious syncretism.
It’s tempting for me to fall back into a “Cher” half-breed perspective. Sometimes it feels like “both sides are against me since the day I was born.” I’m neither fish nor fowl, and never at home with fanatics of either faith. Cher analogies are melodramatic, though: I prefer football metaphors.
During football season, my family is split between Cowboy supporters and Greenbay fans. Cowboys vs. Packers. Football rivalry can be both playful and vicious. In my own life, I’ve gone back and forth between rooting for both teams. They’re great teams. I don’t want to choose. When they play each other, it’s confusing. I have a cousin in pro football. (If you know what I look like it sounds funny, I’m a shrimp.) C.J. is a cousin by marriage, who started his career with the Cowboys, and now is with the Packers. I wonder who he’s really for, deep down inside. Does it matter to him? Does he have divided loyalties? C.J. is Swedish, and looks like a stereotypical Viking. He’s blond and huge. My great-great grandmother was born and raised in Sweden, and left in 1880. Some of her relatives stayed behind. She was an illegal immigrant, and never learned to speak English. She planned on returning to Sweden in her old age, but by 1930, Hitler’s regime was on the rise, and her relatives warned her to stay in America.
The Packers and the Cowboys both have good players. The two teams are a lot alike. So are Christianity and Judaism, and I wonder why people don’t see how similar they are. Jesus was a Jew. His teachings were in the Pharisaic, rabbinic tradition, like those of Hillel or John the Baptizer. Jesus wasn’t as urbane as Philo of Alexandria, and his teachings seem rural, homely. If not for the fall of Jerusalem, Christianity might have continued as a sect of Judaism. Sadly, Judaism and Christianity had a nasty divorce in the 2nd century, and have nurtured hard feelings ever since.
I’m not trying to trivialize either faith. I’m not trying to trivialize football. Maybe some people are genetically hard-wired to root for one team more than another. Maybe it’s part of our tribal heritage to think one group, our team, is better than another. I have mixed loyalties, and I refuse to take sides. The Cowboys and the Packers are both great. Judaism and Christianity are both good traditions--- so are Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Football fans might notice an inherent violence in the game: religious observers could draw the same conclusions about religion. I’ve written before about the inherent violence of the Abrahamic religions, which might be due to the legacy of human sacrifice in the Near East. Religion is good, but it has a dark side. Maybe being an outsider, I can critique both religions. Neither completely Jewish or wholly Christian, I’m a foreigner to both. That’s not a bad thing. It can be a gift. As Edward Said wrote, it’s important to “investigate in spite of barriers, and always move away from the centralizing authorities towards the margins, where you see things that are usually lost on minds that have never travelled beyond the conventional and comfortable.” Sexual minorities, the disabled, expatriates, all of us have an opportunity to move away from the “centralizing authorities,” and see new things. So, go ahead, root for the Christians or the Jews, the Cowboys or the Packers. But take a moment to see both “teams” from an outsider’s perspective.
We made it through the holiday season. It’s a time of year when religion is in the forefront, from O’Reilly’s war on Christmas to the right wing chant of keeping Christ in Christmas. For those of us from mixed religious backgrounds, it can be difficult. For some Jewish friends, it’s a time of alienation. Although half of my background is Jewish, we never did much for Hannukah, and my Jewish relatives celebrated Christmas with gusto. Sure, we had ladkes, but we didn’t light candles. My relatives were from a different era of American Judaism, and sought to blend in with their Christian neighbors. Intermarriage is the ultimate step in religious syncretism.
It’s tempting for me to fall back into a “Cher” half-breed perspective. Sometimes it feels like “both sides are against me since the day I was born.” I’m neither fish nor fowl, and never at home with fanatics of either faith. Cher analogies are melodramatic, though: I prefer football metaphors.
During football season, my family is split between Cowboy supporters and Greenbay fans. Cowboys vs. Packers. Football rivalry can be both playful and vicious. In my own life, I’ve gone back and forth between rooting for both teams. They’re great teams. I don’t want to choose. When they play each other, it’s confusing. I have a cousin in pro football. (If you know what I look like it sounds funny, I’m a shrimp.) C.J. is a cousin by marriage, who started his career with the Cowboys, and now is with the Packers. I wonder who he’s really for, deep down inside. Does it matter to him? Does he have divided loyalties? C.J. is Swedish, and looks like a stereotypical Viking. He’s blond and huge. My great-great grandmother was born and raised in Sweden, and left in 1880. Some of her relatives stayed behind. She was an illegal immigrant, and never learned to speak English. She planned on returning to Sweden in her old age, but by 1930, Hitler’s regime was on the rise, and her relatives warned her to stay in America.
The Packers and the Cowboys both have good players. The two teams are a lot alike. So are Christianity and Judaism, and I wonder why people don’t see how similar they are. Jesus was a Jew. His teachings were in the Pharisaic, rabbinic tradition, like those of Hillel or John the Baptizer. Jesus wasn’t as urbane as Philo of Alexandria, and his teachings seem rural, homely. If not for the fall of Jerusalem, Christianity might have continued as a sect of Judaism. Sadly, Judaism and Christianity had a nasty divorce in the 2nd century, and have nurtured hard feelings ever since.
I’m not trying to trivialize either faith. I’m not trying to trivialize football. Maybe some people are genetically hard-wired to root for one team more than another. Maybe it’s part of our tribal heritage to think one group, our team, is better than another. I have mixed loyalties, and I refuse to take sides. The Cowboys and the Packers are both great. Judaism and Christianity are both good traditions--- so are Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Football fans might notice an inherent violence in the game: religious observers could draw the same conclusions about religion. I’ve written before about the inherent violence of the Abrahamic religions, which might be due to the legacy of human sacrifice in the Near East. Religion is good, but it has a dark side. Maybe being an outsider, I can critique both religions. Neither completely Jewish or wholly Christian, I’m a foreigner to both. That’s not a bad thing. It can be a gift. As Edward Said wrote, it’s important to “investigate in spite of barriers, and always move away from the centralizing authorities towards the margins, where you see things that are usually lost on minds that have never travelled beyond the conventional and comfortable.” Sexual minorities, the disabled, expatriates, all of us have an opportunity to move away from the “centralizing authorities,” and see new things. So, go ahead, root for the Christians or the Jews, the Cowboys or the Packers. But take a moment to see both “teams” from an outsider’s perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)