The Sentimental Heretic רגשיות עם רגישות

What a President Should Sound Like

2008-03-19T16:34:00.004-04:00

I listened to Barack Obama's speech yesterday not once, but five times. This was not a mere political stump speech or an elongated sound byte replete with platitudes and non-offensive buzz words. Obama delivered a lecture on racial history in America and how to go about reconciling those differences and animosities that still linger. It is those hatreds, resentments, and bickering that hold us back from addressing the problems that effect all races, creeds, and peoples equally. Obama put his life in perspective and in turn, showed the commonality all of us share. Obama dared to tell it like it is and, no doubt, lots of very timid people will complain about it.

I cried tears from sheer elation, listening to the brilliant thoughts of this highly educated and widely experienced man speaking a well-known, but seldom spoken, truth about our national heritage. Simultaneously, contrasting Barack Obama with the fucking nincompoop that currently occupies the Oval Office, I bawl from sadness. This once great and powerful nation has, for the last eight years, been subjected to the lowest common denominator and the meanest of intellects. The emptiness of the Neocon/Republican movement and the condescending nature of its purveyors becomes ever so much more evident in light of what Sen. Obama offers to the American people in terms of poise, ability, and compassion.

I had supported John Edwards in his bid for the nomination, but he unfortunately didn't catch on beyond the small dedicated progressive circles in which I travel. His talk of 'Two Americas' is true enough, but this country wasn't quite ready to hear that important message. Perhaps Sen. Obama, who seemed at times to be channeling Edwards, will be the inspirational leader that Edwards could not, for reasons which I do not know. Barack Obama preaches 'Hope'. Let's hope he comes through.

Should he get that far, he has my vote. Barack in 2008!

Please click on the title above for the video.

Kol Tuv

The Prodigal Amendment?

2008-03-19T15:42:00.003-04:00

Imagine having a favorite child, a ‘prodigal son’ whose best interests, in your mind, take precedence over the concerns and care of all your other children. Spectators to this doting protectionism will invariably wonder as to why that ‘special’ child receives so much more attention than does his siblings. Your answer to them might entail claims to legacies and posterity, because this treasured child will become the future guarantor and protector of his not-so-favored brothers and sisters. They become, in relation to him, nothing more than appendages and remain forever codependent to that singular, all-important “wunderkindt”. Imagine being one of the ‘others’ for a moment, living in his psychological shadow, relegated to second tier status.

This favoritism is a common mistake of most 2^nd amendment supporters in failing to recognize the inherit danger in affording special or elevated status to one particular right from among the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I do not pick on 2^nd Amendment advocates because I support gun control or gun confiscation, and this article should in no way be misconstrued as an attack on individual gun ownership. However, it does appear that 2^nd Amendment supporters and lobbyists for the gun manufacturers tend to have a narrower overall focus than do those whose efforts are applied to 1^st, 4^th, 5^{th, or 14th}Amendment issues.

This myopic view stems from two colossal errors in judgment, one principled and the other practical. The main roadblock is the predominate misperception that gun ownership among the general populace provides the sole guarantor of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The assumption, although not totally off base, is that as long as the forces of tyranny know that the people will shoot back, they will be very reluctant to ever exercise undue power over the citizenry. On its face, it sounds like a very good, common sense theory. The threat of a motivated and mobilized citizenry taking up arms in revolt, providing the necessary deterrent to government, hangs looming over the heads of agencies and politicians alike.

However, this assumption is patently false. Not that it couldn’t work in theory but, at least since the American Revolution, it just hasn’t ever happened. In fact, several periods of our history i.e. Sedition Acts when enacted in violation of the Bill of Rights and enforced, the bulk of the gun-owning American populace stood by and did nothing. The shot-guns, muskets, pistols, and revolvers sat in perfect quiescence. In many cases, it was the armed citizens themselves who offered to use those guns to help the government! Couple this with the realization that the overwhelming force of a modern and quickly deployed government agency cannot be outmatched by even by the most able of local insurgencies. A prolonged stand-off is possible; a victory, not likely.

In addition, supporters of individual gun ownership tend to be more conservative and Republican in their outlook, though libertarians tend to be very outspoken as well. In today’s divisive and polarized political atmosphere, there are no longer Democrats and Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, but a highly charged, issue driven world of hatred borne from conflicting political, social, and corporate interests. If the ACLU, for example, supports the 1^st Amendment right of a socially unfavorable group to disseminate literature, then the social conservatives will, without just cause, dismiss any and all issues the ACLU supports as ‘liberal’, and refuse to consider the deeper implications of censorship. The conservative never imagines that he or she might ever have any thoughts or ideas worth censoring, and therefore 1^st Amendment arguments are moot. They would also falsely conclude that since they have nothing to hide, at least at the present, that the breaches of the 4^th and 5^th Amendments are also of no immediate concern.

The abrogation of civil rights is always acceptable when that violation is intended to affect the freedoms someone else deemed ‘subversive’, ‘foreign’, or ‘threatening’. As gun control advocates ask for stricter regulation on ownership, for more comprehensive background checks, or for the restriction of certain types of weapons, the 2^nd Amendment supporters go, for lack of a better term, “ballistic”. Yet, when a critic of government policy is wrongfully jailed or persecuted for his beliefs by that government for some contrived reason, the gun owning, 2^nd Amendment true believers are suddenly nowhere to be found. The gun they promised would protect and uphold the Constitution is again strangely silent. Their pens and keyboards seem to be gathering dust as well.

I can fully understand the desire of some to engage the latest technology in protecting our borders from real threats i.e. foreign invaders, terrorists, and governments whose rhetoric disparages the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy. I also understand the need for law enforcement to have the latest tools thwarting criminal enterprise and ensuring public safety. Yet, the eagerness of many gun advocates to permit government the carte blanche, universal surveillance of ALL Americans in the name of ‘national security’ befuddles me. How does one stand so strongly for one of the rights as inviolable and, one the other hand offhandedly discard the others?

Many who support the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms, myself included, believe there is an element within that inalienable right that allows the people access to an ability and wherewithal to organize and engage in violent revolt when they feel the government fails to redress their issues or becomes tyrannical in other ways. This is where the FISA surveillance problem and the erosion of Habeas Corpus interfere with the practical implementation of your 2nd Amendment rights and the purpose for which that right was established.

Let’s say the horrific day comes around that the once docile and law-abiding American people have had their fill of warrantless wire-tappings, asset seizures, writs of eminent domain, and fewer government services even with much higher taxes. Their peaceful redresses of the various grievances fall upon the deaf ears of bureaucrats and elected officials alike. They sense a bad government and want a radical change to bring about new momentum moving us back to the old liberties. We, the people, decide then and there to take up arms. Yet, we have an insurmountable difficulty blocking our way. How exactly are we going to organize to fight an already organized government, even if we had a hope of out gunning them in the first place? A revolt requires a network.

During the 2^nd World War, lightly armed underground resistance militias were very effective at hampering the occupying or advancing Nazi forces in several countries. This was possible because within these countries, both nationalist and Communist underground movements existed and were able to organize, assemble, and continue clandestine operations throughout the war. The Germans did not have the technological means to listen in on every telegraph wire, radio signal, transmission, or phone call and that inability allowed for the people, many who relied also on word of mouth or written communication, to actively organize a resistance. Their obscurity afforded them time to organize. Secrecy keeps you one or two steps ahead of your enemy.

Fast forward to our modern era to a technologically perceptive and advanced society, in which well-funded government agencies operate in league with complicit and submissive communication conglomerates to know everything they want to know about anyone they desire. Certainly, the claim is made for national security or criminal justice. They may claim it’s about terrorism and border security, but as we know, the definition of what constitutes ‘terror’ can be interpreted as foreign and it can just as easily be translated to take on a ‘domestic’ character. Speak of revolt or radical change and you instantly become a ‘terrorist’, irrespective of whether or not your cause is a noble one. Even quoting the Constitution can get one sent to prison.

Once our emails and telephone conversations are closely monitored and our ability to communicate is hamstrung by wiretaps and wide dragnets of our emails for ‘subversive’ elements, then how would we ever organize well enough to fight the government and exercise, what Thomas Jefferson called our ‘right’ to revolt? In practical terms, even should the right to bear arms remain sacrosanct, the stated purpose of said right loses its effectiveness in the erosion of any other right needed make that right an effective recourse to a government gone awry. The leaders of the proposed resistance would end up being singled out for arrest long before any organization could manifest and thus be quickly removed before the revolt takes hold. The government, that ominous monster so feared by gun advocates will, through closely monitoring communications, undermine the very purpose of the 2^nd Amendment through destruction of the others.

Let’s not play favorites with the Bill of Rights. All those ‘children’ need to be loved equally. Ignoring the other ‘siblings’ to favor another will, in the end, leave a child standing alone without any help at all. The Founders were neither saints nor savants, nor were they always motivated from the noblest of desires, yet they were wise enough to forge an ideal from within a framework of interdependent political and social imperatives. We call these ‘rights’, and each right is mutually inclusive of the others.

Peace!

“In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” (Carl Sagan, 1934 - 1996)

Trouble in Beit Shemesh

2008-03-11T14:08:00.003-04:00

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87870417

A small group of ultra-Orthodox extremists has been intimidating fellow Jews who they deem to be not kosher or modest enough, or who don't keep the Sabbath the way they want them to.

Women wearing jeans or pants, Wahlbe says, are a distraction to what he calls "the focused, settled minds" of the Haredim. "When dealing with this issue of Torah, your mind has to be much more settled and can't be jumping around to all sorts of different planets and all sorts of different fantasies and thoughts that might come up on a teenager's head," he says.

Re: Focused, settled minds?

I almost laughed myself into an early heart attack over this one. Focused? Settled? You’ve got to be kidding me! Exactly how ‘focused’ and ‘settled’ can the Charedi mind possibly be if a few wisps of a woman’s uncovered hair and a bare elbow can throw it off its game? Besides, even without non-tznius abiding men and women haunting the streets of Beit Shemesh or Boro Park, the Charedi mind would still be a maze of irrational fears, money concerns, hero worship, guilt trips, inter-Orthodox infighting, jealousy, and denial of scientific reality. That a passing woman wearing blue jeans could somehow divert the God-fearing attentions of any person so completely engrossed with Torah and the above-mentioned day-to-day worries demonstrates either the super-powers of well-fitting denim slacks or, more likely, the manic, overzealous obsession with sexuality that turns all things quite simple into one very complex psychological monster.

Re: A teenager’s head?

Well, Rabbi. What about your head? It is interesting that this ‘rabbi’ deflects the problem from himself and other adult Charedi males, and instead seeks to foist the issue onto ‘teenagers’. This is his underhanded way of saying “Do it for the children!” He speaks as if grown Charedim don’t have sexual desires or thoughts and are quite blind, due to the high level of Yiras Shamayim no doubt, to uncovered women and girls. If you think for a minute that adult Orthodox men don’t check out pretty women, even those dressed according to halacha or local minhag, I have some bad news for you. They do lots more than just look. In any case, for this shmendrik to place the situation on adolescent boys is ridiculous.

Can you say Taliban?

My advice is for the Charedim to go about their business and, at the same time, mind their own business as well. No one is forcing sexual thoughts into their heads. If their educational-moral system isn’t strong enough or their rabbonim not sufficiently effective to stem the tide of these illicit ponderings, then maybe the fault isn’t in the non-orthodox society, but from a deep-rooted psycho-social defect within the Charedi community.

I used to be one of them, but NOT any of those.

Kol Tuv

Shareholders vs. Consumers : An Old Trick

2008-03-09T16:37:00.002-04:00

The defenders of corporate greed and institutional usury attempt to split the loyalties of consumers and investors who, often enough are the same person, into two rival factions. After all the other ridiculous pseudo-philosophical arguments and historical revisionism miserably fail to support their objective, they then turn back to the old ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. This is effective because it uses a truth, an obvious truth, and by some ‘logical’ extension, abuses that same truth to defend a detestable status quo.

This is similar to the rationale that says “Corporations are people, too.” Well, duh. The intent is to deflect the problems of corporations as entities by saying that they are, somehow, just like regular people. It’s bullshit. We all know it’s bullshit, but taking the time to break the claim down and explain why it’s bullshit is nigh impossible on the fly. The shortest answer might be to say, “Corporations are people, yes. But like people who behave badly or have misguided or dangerous notions, they should be carefully monitored and regulated to make sure they don’t act on those impulses.”

The ‘Shareholder vs. Consumer” tactic is more effective than the ‘corporations are people’ tactic, because it pits the conflicting interests of the same individual against himself! However, in the following ‘observations’ I will explain, or try to, why this is a fallacy that derives from the roots of corporate financing and misperceptions of how the market works. If you really believe that higher consumer prices are good for the common investor, then read on.

Observations:

Let’s do the arithmetic. While there is no doubt that consumers may also be shareholders, does the dividend the average shareholder receive equal to or exceed the amount of money now spent at the gas pump, either before or after taxes? I have some small investments in petroleum and not only does my monthly output because of the increased prices for everything exceed my dividend, the percentage of return that I receive on my stock has also gone DOWN, in spite of the price per barrel skyrocketing. I received a better dividend when oil was $25 per barrel than I do when it is over $100.

The mega-wealthy shareholders who hold the most of the stock wouldn’t have to worry about gas prices anyhow, even if they didn’t own it. I don’t see why the majority of consumers should be required to feed their irrational greed for wealth they do NOT need. That the average American should have to fore go some small luxuries in order for someone else to earn a dividend is wrong. I won’t deny them a profit, but why s profit so holy that it allows all and any abuse in it’s attainment?

I don’t understand why any consumer should worry about the problems of investors. If a person has enough money to gamble in the stock market or lend to a wealthy speculator, then it follows that they must have also enough plenty over to pay all their bills, take a nice vacation, and eat out once in a while. Many Americans can’t manage that much these days and much of it is due to the rapid increases in gas prices and petroleum derivatives along the ripple effect those increases place upon our economy. If a person has enough left over to play the market then why should their wants take precedence over the needs of those who aren’t so fortunate?

I fail to grasp why corporations need investors at all. After all, isn’t it good business not run solely upon the ‘confidence’ of investors but rather upon sound business practice that turns the profits from real goods or services back into the company? For a company like Exxon-Mobil to have to ‘borrow’ money from others is ridiculous! Every other small businessperson buys his equipment, mows a few lawns, pays off his loans, and then turns some of the money into getting better or more equipment. His profits and reputation build with time without the need of complicated financial engineering schemes and political lobbying. A corporation exists solely to draw money from outside the company into the hands of those running the company so that they can PLAY WITH IT without taking any risk of their own. Their goal is NOT to put as much as they can into the company, but to take OUT as much as possible.

If the defenders of the status quo are truly concerned for shareholders, then maybe a discussion of the bloated and exorbitant CEO compensation packages should be addressed. Every CEO that takes millions in salary and options robs each and every shareholder of monies they are due. Sure. The CEOs deserve to get paid well, but how well? As an investor, I have already done he company a huge favor by risking my money, so why should I also have to coddle a CEO, especially when it’s costing me? I didn’t invest in Enron to help Ken Lay. I invest to help myself. The billions and billions of dollars taken from corporations by individuals who do not risk nearly as much as I do, percentage wise, is obscene and it robs the common shareholder of his portion of the take.

An investor might begin to realize that his investing perpetuates the system and actually causes the inflation that downgrades the real value of his own investment. As corporations, financial institutions, and those who manage them feed the continuing addiction to wealth and ‘success’, it is the consumer AND shareholder who takes the hit, along with employees in most cases, to ensure the corporate profits.

“The chief weapon of sea pirates, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was too late, how heartless and greedy they were.” (Kurt Vonnegut, 1922 - 2007)

Kol Tuv

Private Water, Public Problem

2008-03-09T14:51:00.005-04:00

Troops Sick from KBR-supplied Water (AP)

Dozens of U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by the military and a contractor once owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, the Pentagon's internal watchdog said.

This is what happens when you ‘privatize’ anything. KBR privatized the water supply in Bolivia and ended up not only sickening the population they serviced but impoverished them as well through high fees and legally sanctioned restrictions on individual water collection. Corporations have no conscience. Not even for those who unknowingly and willingly risk their lives to fill the corporate coffers. Imagine what they’d do to workers! Oh wait, they already do.

Companies like KBR have been angling for a way to take over the water supply here in the US as they did in Bolivia. If you think the water bills are high now, just wait until it gets ‘privatized’ and YOU, the consumer who cannot live without the water, will have to pay for the bloated salaries and desired dividends of already filthy rich bastards just so you and your kids won't die of thirst. Then, of course, the cost of all food will inflate because the farmers have to pay those prices, too.

The problem with the military’s water supply was first noticed in 2004 and now, in 2008, the problem continues unabated. No one is being held accountable and the corporation is still getting paid! Is this a good example of privatization being better than government? No. However, this is typical of what happens when corporations run amok anywhere.

Fuck the corporation. And if you like them, then fuck you, too. If a corporation takes over anything, be prepared for a colossal ass-raping of the public.

Visit this link for more information : Water Privatization Overview.

Privatization is fine when it comes to automobiles, cosmetic products, and televisions. However, for the necessities of life, which are RIGHTS and not mere luxuries or conveniences, rigid government control and oversight are necessary. Local municipalities in the US have done an awesome job keeping our water safe and affordable for both residents and businesses. There is NO reason to change anything.

“It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success.” (John Steinbeck, Cannery Row)

Kol Tuv

An Atheist's Creed

2008-03-07T18:08:00.004-05:00

I believe in time, matter, and energy, which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind, the only tools we have; they are the product of natural forces in a majestic but impersonal universe, grander and richer than we can imagine, a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt. I do not seek out reassurances, but embrace the question, and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality. We have but one life, brief and full of struggle, leavened with love and community, learning and exploration, beauty and the creation of new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me, and an earth that will abide without me.

(I did not write this piece, but how I wish I had! It’s brilliant and to the point! I would likely have ruined it with florid and verbose verbiage.)

Kol Tuv

Cheating Spouses & Stupid Americans : 9-11

2008-03-03T12:35:00.003-05:00

“The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” (H. L. Mencken, 1880 - 1956)

Americans are dumb asses. On one hand, we assume that Moslem peoples are ignorant and backward yet, at the same time, we give them credit for pulling off the most original, timely, and coordinated attack on modern America. You know, for the first few minutes after 9-11, I believed it, too. After all, Arabs are known for acts of such terrorism. They make the perfect scapegoats. They speak a different language, come from a different culture, and have different color skin. For most backward, knuckle-dragging, illiterate, racist white-American buffoons, Arabs, blacks, Jews, and anyone who can read is pretty much guilty of whatever can be attributed to them, lack of evidence or reason notwithstanding. I learned from 9-11 that my fellow American is a dumb shit.

AS I watched the continuous and repetitive coverage on CNN, FOX, NBC, and the various other media outlets I came to notice something rather odd. Initial interviews with persons who escaped from the buildings, in which witnesses clearly suggested that there were multiple explosions and detonations in the lower parts of the WTC buildings, ended up scrubbed from subsequent broadcasts as the day went on, until they were no longer part of the overall story. The BBC pulled the same wash-job, though it took them a few days longer to get in line with the cover-up.

THAT piqued my interest right away. It is known that in any conspiracy to control information, the first thing necessary is to scrub out any data or testimony that refutes the official version or events and then to attack or discredit the messengers of dissent.

For example:

I am planning a night out with a girl friend and I don't want my wife to fine out. In order to cover my ass, I enlist the help of my buddies. They are to say, if asked, that the bunch of us were playing cards at so-and-so's house until whenever and that I was there the whole night. I tell the wife that the place were are playing is some friend of a friend and that all I know is that it is somewhere at least 20 miles away. (This is, by the way, a classic conspiracy in motion. Remain vague enough in few details to stay flexible for later on.)

Problem is that life isn't limited to those involved in the conspiracy. Along the way to pick up the mistress, there are any number of things that can happen and I, being somewhat astute, have come up with some backup explanations or obfuscations should something not go exactly as planned. I can't control the all the information yet, since I don't know yet what information might be added to the story at this point.(This is also a basic part of any well-laid out conspiracy.)

Well, sure enough, something goes wrong with the plan. For example, I am stopping for gas or some soda and the mistress is sitting next to me in the car when one of my wife's co-workers, whom I do not notice, spots us together at a Quickie Mart. Subsequently, the next morning she mentions running into me at a convenience store the night before, at some distance from where I said I would be playing cards with the guys. Although she makes no mention of the woman, perhaps to be polite or non-nosy, my wife's suspicions are already aroused and she is planning to ask me a few questions later on.

Sue, enough my wife confronts me with eyewitness testimony that contradicts my version of events. How does a good conspirator handle it? First of all, I ask her to call my buddies and see if I was lying. If they are in synch, they will of course say “yes”. The problem occurs when she asks more detailed questions concerning what game as played, when it ended, and who won. She may start to receive conflicting reports as to when the game started, ended or how long I was there. She might even all their wives and girlfriends to confirm or deny the alleged course of events. My wife does not confront me with the conflicting information but rather with her co-worker’s eyewitness report of my being in said place at said time and NOT at card game when I said I would be there. Either way, there is a problem and now I have to scramble to fix it.

The best way to do that is to confuse the wife with mind games to plant the seed for denial and create the plausible impossibility of your being anywhere other than at a card game with Mike, Bob, and Hussein. There is more information than for what I planned and now I have to control or debunk the new testimony. Things like:

1) Is she sure it was me? After all, I don’t know the coworker that well and she could have easily mistaken someone else for me. (Maybe the coworker is sane but simply mistaken about who she saw.)

2) What time was that? Impossible. I can’t be two places at once. (True statements help. It IS in fact physically impossible to be two places at once. You have stated a fact, although it has no bearing on where you were, it is helpful. Maybe the coworker was also mistaken about when she saw me, meaning that she could not have seen me at all.)

3) Are you sure this coworker isn’t just saying that to mess with you? Does she have something against you? What kind of person would torture their coworker and fellow female with outlandish stories of husbands and mistresses? You need to watch out for people like her. She’s obviously a nut. (Now that you’ve planted some doubt to time and place, you must disparage the witness, who might persist in her claims, as a ‘loose cannon’.)

4) Whom do you believe? Me or some loonie and jealous coworker? She just wants to cause trouble in our marriage for some reason. I am absolutely and totally insulted by your lack of trust! Isn’t that hat our marriage is based upon? Who are you going to believe? Some ½ stranger who might hate you? There is no reason to ask anymore questions about that night.

5) I am not going to discuss it any more. You’re becoming as crazy and paranoid as that psycho who claims she spotted me with some ‘mystery’ woman who, by the way, doesn’t exist. If you don’t trust me, then that’s your problem. (Make the wife think she is unstable or unreliable for not trusting and asking questions.)

6) Hope the whole thing goes away and that your wife doesn’t persist in seeking any more truth.

7) Repeat process as necessary and enlist at least one good friend to defend your ‘honor’. (Turn yourself into the victim here.)

So, too, with the 9-11 cover-up. The story starts with a plausible tale of angry Moslems, threats against America, and smuggled box cutters and ends up with so many unanswered questions and incongruencies to the government story that the classical obfuscations became necessary, and on a grander scale than ever before. The 9-11 ‘Truthers’ are painted as loonies, but they are just like our suspicious wife who remains persistent in her doubts as to her husband’s ‘official’ tale of events.

As to the official storytellers of 9-11, they have acted just like our cheating husband in every way and then some. If you believe their version of events without question, you’re a damned fool and deserve to be cheated on.

'Whims of Providence'? : 9-11 Excuses

2008-03-02T19:06:00.001-05:00

I remain one of the many outspoken critics of the government’s 9-11 account. This ‘note’ was a response that I received via e mail some weeks ago regarding this apparent skepticism and my unashamed wearing of tin foil undergarments. I will not to republish the author’s ‘liberal’ use of pejorative or invective and will instead stick to the main gist of the comment.

Re: They (9-11Truthers) appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they had they'd know that minutely planned operations--let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency--screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and other whims of Providence.

You know, this statement is certainly true enough. In any job, it is possible for unforeseen problems or random mistakes to screw things up beyond belief. That orders are not properly given or followed, or that some piece of important equipment fails at the worst possible time is a common occurrence in any workplace. That a sudden emergency might, due to the sheer shock of the event, incite panic in those trained to handle the crisis is also quite possible. That man and machine would unintentionally collude to fail is an everyday thing. I will grant them that much.

Just how much irresponsibility, however, are we going to chalk up to these ‘whims of providence’? A ‘providential’ screw up of this kind would consist of one of the four hijacked planes getting through to strike its intended target, or maybe even if two were able to do so, should it be that all those highly skilled and trained Air Force radar operators were having a really, really bad day at the office. Then again, maybe those highly skilled and decorated professionals with top-level security clearances and fancy strips of ribbon are in reality complete fucking morons and nothing more than Keystone Cops in military drag. Who knows.

No matter how shocked or surprised the military was on that terrible day, ALL FOUR commercial airliners planes went virtually untracked or unstopped. To make matters worse, even after two of them had already successfully struck their targets and it was known then for certain an attack was underway, yet another airliner was permitted to crash into the most secure and heavily fortified facility in the western hemisphere! Considering the amount of ‘providence’ that had to occur that day, one has to wonder whether or not there was some deliberate lack of effort on the part of NORAD and the FAA in their abject failure stop any of these flights.

It is interesting, though not entirely surprising, that these mostly conservative ‘debunkers’ of alternate theories of 911 find it necessary now to BLAME OUR MILITARY for malfeasance while, at the same time beating the drums for war and begging America to ‘support our troops’. They also seem confident that we can ‘win’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while fighting terrorism everywhere around the globe. Frankly, if the above “debunker’s” statement regarding ‘military history’ and the ‘whims of providence’ are true, then our military complex of men and machine is so hopelessly inept in the face of such odds that there is no way we could ever achieve victory! We are doomed.

I am not a fan of the military establishment or the corporate structure that feeds off it, but I reject outright any backhanded insult to their service. Soldiers are common citizens like you and I, trained to do their jobs efficiently and effectively, just as police officers and firefighters are, and they receive the sort of extensive training that enables them to respond quickly to both national and local threats to our security. They are, as part of that training, inculcated with a military discipline that requires them NOT to make decisions on their own, but to follow procedure wherever possible and to strictly follow the orders of their superiors. That somehow the entire unit watching the skies over America sat back, based on their own thinking, and did nothing, is an insult to their service. A captain, colonel, or lieutenant is never left to make that kind of decision on his or her own. A superior is must be consulted to advise on what measures to take, if any.

Allowing one hijacked airliner to crash into the most famous skyscraper in the world is, at best, a horrible error in judgment or timing on the part of an officer or maybe a group of officers on duty at the time. Two planes hitting the target is just plain malfeasance. For FOUR PLANES to have been simultaneously airborne and to have three of them, at different times, reach highly likely and visible targets is something that could have occurred only where a direct ORDER was given by Air Force command or the Pentagon to stand down.

The official explanations of 9-11 are a joke from top to bottom. Stop making excuses for the government.

Bill of NON-Rights (Rebuttal)

2008-03-02T17:16:00.003-05:00

Some lame-brain conservative idiot posted these 'non-rights' on another message board. There were a few others besides those I've listed and rebutted here, but I seem to have misplaced the file somewhere. Although these 'non-rights' might seem obvious to many, they are actually, upon closer inspection, fairly insidious attempts at destroying some very important protections currently in the law.

(ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.)

Whoever said that this was an inalienable right in the first place? Talk about stretching a nothing to look like a something! This is typical Republican shit. No one has ever suggested these luxuries be paid by taxpayers, although the politicians themselves appear to receive many such luxuries at taxpayer expense. That a politician derides the idea of anyone getting something for nothing is laughable. No one does less than a politician does and gets so much in return.

What exactly does “other form of wealth” mean? He is not very specific. Does he mean education, health care, savings accounts, stock portfolios, real estate, or employment opportunities? How does he manage to lump those in with big screen TVs and cars? At least he could explain his idea of ‘wealth’ a bit clearer. We all know that wealth is not about things we have but opportunities that provide long-term security and growth. That the author should harp on small-time material possessions is just plain fear mongering. Besides, wouldn’t making sure that everyone had a big screen TV be really good for the big screen TV makers?

(ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.)

What he really means to say is that he has the right to offend you in any way he sees fit. He wants to wear a swastika in a synagogue or shout ‘nigger’ in downtown Harlem and expect no one to get upset about it. This is typical of the racist majority who acts the victim in order to shift blame away from his own divisive and infantile behaviors. He does not realize the effects of ‘mere’ words, or how ideas can shape society’s attitudes and overall demeanor. That he fails, perhaps deliberately, to grasp this simple concept is not surprising. It means he can be the childish, raving asshole he always wanted to be without consequence.

He is correct in one matter. The world is chock full of idiots and, if he takes a good look at his immediate surroundings, one idiot in particular should stand out.

(ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.)

This is probably the worst NON right of all. The author posts what appears comman sense and obvious but really intends it as something dark and sinister. What he truly envisions is an economic and legal culture where one can make any product one wishes, no matter how awful or dangerous, and have no liability whatsoever should someone be injured by its use. He wants a world where ‘buyer beware’ is the only rule, whether it be apples, automobiles, or children’s cold medication. No law suits, no government oversight, no product testing, and no corporate liability or accountability. They assume the ‘market’ will correct the problem on its own, but care little about those who become ill, are impoverished, or die in the process. The ‘market’ corrects nothing on its own.

(ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes….)

This right-wing asshole asserts that “Americans are the most charitable people to be found” yet, simultaneously he decries the notion of making this ‘charitable’ behavior part of our national policy. Amazing ‘logic’ he employs there. What gives? If we are charitable as he claims then why the opposition to social programs that HELP others? I don’t get it. One should not feel ‘forced’ or put out when performing an act that one would, or a least claims would, perform quite willingly.

As we are a nation that frowns upon negative behaviors and makes it part of the law to dissuade fellow citizens from engaging in such acts, why not, conversely, encourage good acts through the law? If we are ‘charitable’ people then we should encourage more charity! I cannot think of a better medium than government to promote such a noble public cause.

(ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.)

This idiot thinks that because he has some ‘philosophical’ objection to a program, therefore the rest of us shouldn’t have it. This is the basic reasoning behind all conservative ideals. He has no clue how national health care would or wouldn’t turn out in America because he really doesn’t care how it would turn out anywhere in the world. That’s not the real issue here. He just doesn’t like the idea and, by golly, we ain’t gonna have it! This in spite of the fact that the right-wing douchebag is himself a government employee receiving public, taxpayer-funded health care as part of his salary package. He loves having taxpayer funded medical care for himself and his family, but when it comes to you and I, suddenly the system he benefits from would become a horrific national nightmare.

Hypocrites abound.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

2008-03-02T17:09:00.001-05:00

If invited to a social gathering and upon arrival I should discover there is a police officer present, I leave. I do not ever socialize with cops. I do not engage in illicit or illegal activities, but cops are paid snitches that spy on everyone except their own. Never trust that a police officer will casually overlook that which he is trained to spot or to forgive his own ingrained sense of suspicion. That I should find fault with anyone as cynical as myself in this regard seems duplicitous, but as my attitude does not really influence other people’s lives nor do I possess the power of state authority to act upon those impulses, my skepticism is of little real consequence.

Now, you may think that I am being overly harsh and general. Maybe you’re right. Yet, consider this for a moment. When was the last time you heard of an active-duty police officer speaking out publicly against the conduct of another police officer? This is the only profession where one employee cannot even with good cause speak out against the malfeasance of fellow employee or service provider without jeopardizing his own career status. If I call a plumber and ask which plumbers NOT to use, he or she will likely tell me who is crooked and who is not. There is no ‘thin blue line’ in the plumbing profession that protects the bad ones. So, why do we allow this for cops?

I know there are good, honest people that work in law enforcement. However, when those ‘good’ people see their fellow officers break the law or violate the civil rights of citizens, where is their outrage? What keeps them silent and ineffectual? If they are sworn to ‘serve and protect’ the community, does that not also include protecting it from other police officers gone awry? Maybe they forget, amidst the tumult of doing their jobs, paying their bills, upholding their own egos, and trying to protect each other that they must, while being in the public employ, do what is right and not what is merely safe for their own careers.

As a result, the professional courtesy that police officers, prosecutors, and judges extend to each other violates the bounds of community trust or benefit and most often results in the violation of civil rights and liberties of the common citizen. Sometimes, it means that someone dies in the name of the law and the law doesn’t hold itself accountable. It is time for the ‘good’ cops out there step up and go after their own rogue brothers in uniform. We cannot be expected to trust law enforcement if they cannot or will not police their own.

I am all in favor of legislation that would punish police officers (prosecutors and judges, too) with double or triple the penalties meted out to common citizens when caught breaking those laws they are entrusted, by oath, to enforce upon society. I’m sick and tired of reading about cops who run numbers, deal drugs, use drugs, shoplift, beat suspects, or whore out their own cocaine addicted wives and still end up with no jail time and take their full pensions upon ‘retirement’.

Biology Mine

2008-03-02T16:39:00.002-05:00

Though unknown horizons beckon desired sanctuary
And divergent pathways draw me further away from home
A subconscious history awakens inner voices
Father and mother calling out from within
Their perverse biology forever mine to bear
Racing to discover elsewhere
Beginnings that never left me

SL

Silent Salvation

2008-03-02T16:29:00.004-05:00

Let the stillness of my own voice be respite enough
For uneasy pause do words turn to force and banality
Tear out this wagging, bantering rogue of a tongue
Should it beckon you not in meaningful earnest
That my indolent insecurities
Not rape your psyche with idle chatter
To which device you may choose matters not
Shut me up and save us both!

Please Leash Your Conservative

2008-01-28T11:33:00.000-05:00

It has been stated, concerning many things, “Ignorance is the source of irrational Fear.” A man possessed by irrational and ignorance-based motivations, typically conservative by his nature and rejecting change out of some self-centered principle, becomes like the ill-mannered dog that howls at the vacuum cleaner simply because it makes a noise the he or she doesn’t like. The dog does not realize the ultimate purpose or benefit of the ‘evil’ machine or that it is, barring the accidental insertion of the errant tail or chew toy, a relatively harmless tool producing a loud but equally harmless tumult. The canine perceives itself under immanent attack from the noisy thing being pushed around the living room, and must bark in order to secure his own survival. This, in spite of the fact that its loving human companion, who it loyally trusts and loves, operates that very same diabolical thing of doggy destruction it fears most. It might take years of rigorous training to cure the dog from this behavior.

Similarly, the politically and socially conservative mongrel incessantly yelps out a fear-laden warning, crying out his mantra of ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘small government’ at any attempt that a society makes to help those in dire straits, be it of their own doing or as a result of being victimized by forces, natural or mega-corporate. He does not see the person crushed by natural disaster, poverty, war, greed, or physical or emotional illness as a victim, but as a major contributor to his or her own demise through lack of foresight or indolence. This dog thinks himself as the real victim, mercilessly hunted by those who threaten his very survival by showing the unmitigated gall to expect him to offer help others of his own breed. Somehow, to this conservative-type canine-like creature, the humming sounds and undertones of other organisms organizing through the power of government to assist fellow citizens in establishing a better sense of well-being and security is an anathema to his biological functioning. Like the dog who cannot share a food dish without snarling, he cannot feel safe or happy in a world where he is asked to relinquish one inch of ‘his’ territory or realm for the sake of another. This ill-tempered and paranoid beast imagines itself to be the true ‘victim’.

(In shelters, those types of dogs are usually put down, albeit humanely.)

The conservative position on most issues is symptomatic of this territorial ‘dog’ syndrome. They inject into the approach, diagnosis, and solution to social ills and their root causes nothing more than their own personal likes and dislikes. The sole concern is only insofar as what they fear it will cost them should we, heaven forbid, actually begin to treat social problems as diseases to be treated rather than as a crimes to be punished or markets to be exploited. In the fervor to maintain ‘principle’, as the old dog that adamantly refuses to learn even one new trick, the conservative fails to see that his justifications for such ‘principled’ stands cost taxpayers much more than would the clinical approach. He also denies that such a program could possible ever affect him or his loved ones for the better. Don’t ever bother arguing the point either, since he can’t hear you over the din of his own incessant barking.

There is also no compromising with such a creature. We cannot say to this dog "Hey, Buddy. I won't be giving him ALL of your food and not all the time. Just a little now and then is enough." Dogs cannot add or subtract on that level. This is why conservative ‘principles’ always entail all-or-nothing views with little room for maneuvering. Even should you explain that sharing allows him to partake of the system if it ever becomes necessary, should he not attack you outright, he will close off his ears and attentions before sulking off to lick his ‘wounds’. The fight-or-flight threat level of fear they manifest is wholly irrational and that fear, though a biologically fundamental function in all humans, could be brought under some rational control if other higher thinking and functioning human beings were doing the dog training.

The greatest myth that our conservative canine companion suffers from is that it believes that what it eats or possesses was made possible by its efforts alone. It thinks the food in that dish is either all the food there is to be had or, that his sharing of he dish means that he would be losing ‘his’ coveted dish altogether. This dog doesn’t realize that it is the careful planning and preparation of rational humans that provides it with a meal and warm shelter. It has no idea that the compassionate and caring human gives freely of his time, money, and ease to keep it safe and happy. It has no idea that sharing is what brought about its ‘success’ and he need not be fearful should that sharing seek out more ‘success’ in other venues.

It would not matter were one to spend a little or a lot of money on social programs like public education or national health care. Size is a meaningless measure. To the anxiety-driven conservative hound, should even a leashed and docile miniature breed of much lesser stature, that poses no threat at all, pass by ‘his’ yard, the much bigger and aggressive pooch will be pressed against the fence, frothing at the mouth with violent rage. Those kinds of canines cannot distinguish big from small, in the same way they can never seem to tell costly from truly efficient or productive.

Well, it's about time to vacuum the house.

Perfect Sense? LOL

2007-12-06T08:45:00.000-05:00

Talmud : In Defense Of

2007-11-07T15:54:00.000-05:00

Every so often, in one of the many chatrooms or message boards, the anti-Semites post various controversial passages from the Talmud in order to foster anti-Semitism in others. One would assume that anyone, in these modern times, who knows at least few Jewish people here and there, would think that these quotes are a complete fabrication of a hatred-driven delusional mind. Much like the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and other hatred-inspired anti-Jewish propaganda, these passages are likely considered by most to be outright lies. However, they’d be wrong; at least most of the time.

The majority of these oft quoted passages, carefully culled for their provocative value, are absolutely true in that the Talmud does, in fact, say exactly (well, almost) what it appears to say. The Talmud, a vast and varied body of Jewish knowledge, does at times offer to its readership some very weird and disturbing ideas. Nonetheless, these Talmudic dictums, be they logical, mysterious, practical, or just plain crazy have to be understood within the context and circumstance under which they were conceived. This is not to excuse the import of such statements or rationalize them, rather that we should understand how these ideas developed and what role they played, or didn’t play, in shaping Judaism and the Jewish world outlook.

In assessing these passages, one has to remember that the language of the Talmud is primarily Aramaic, the language of the Persian Empire and therefore, was the spoken language of the Jews under Persian rule and demand. Talmud Aramaic is written utilizing Hebrew characters and is mixed with a great deal of ancient and Biblical Hebrew as well. Even some accepted translations of Talmud, no matter how accurate, become mistranslations when viewed in a narrow context. As is common with any foreign language, especially those of ancient times, the nuances of Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew, which developed and operated from within specific historical and cultural contexts, are lost to the reader whose sole venue for reading the Talmud comes from a simplified and historically distant English translation. The ‘Soncino’ translation, though indeed quite scholarly, still requires some tweaking on the part of the reader, once again requiring the infusion of context and ‘religious’ nuance to understand Talmud clearly.

One should, while reading these passages, also realize that the vast majority of modern age Jews today do NOT read or study the Talmud, let alone adhere faithfully to its rulings and philosophy. Talmud study, at least in any appreciable depth, is the pretty much exclusively the realm of the rabbinical/yeshiva academies and perhaps among a few secular academic scholars here and there. The tenor and tone of the Talmud, though it continues to provide a basis for much of Jewish religious practice, is often not the last word on Jewish belief. In the centuries since those rabbinic discussions occurred and their subsequent compilation into a single legal/religious tome, much has transpired to mitigate much of the nationalistic and paternalistic fervor of ancient Israelite thinking. Living, as we have, as an oft-persecuted and fearful minority, whilst surviving and thriving among sometimes very hostile neighbors, has forced Jews to be more understanding of racism and bigotry. This is why Jews have been, since the Enlightenment, at the forefront of egalitarian and socially conscious movements. Even the most devout of religious Jewish authorities vehemently forbid Jews from engaging in many of the behaviors spoken of in the Talmudic Era.

It is equally important to understand that the Talmud is not exclusively a legal tome or law book, rather a comprehensive record of the rabbinical debates and personal insights that sometimes would lead to a definitive legal decision or merely Biblical exegesis. The anti-Semite pulling quotes from the Talmud perhaps does not realize that the particular statement may be one of a single rabbi, whose minority opinion, upon closer reflection from his colleagues, becomes completely and utterly dismissed as sheer nonsense. As is often the case, these passages merely express the personal observations of a single authority. The reason that the Talmud includes these extraneous and often ridiculous notions is to teach us, reading these debates centuries later, the process by which the legal ends are determined. It is an almost exclusively Jewish method of using absurd arguments en route to proving a crucial point of law. The anti-Semite cherry-picking these statements does not know where in the debate process the passage occurs and therefore makes the mistake of thinking it is at the end, rather than somewhere in an obscure, rejected, and almost forgotten middle.

Now, one might ask at this point, why it is that the compilers of the Talmud chose to include these controversial and crazy ideas, knowing that the Gentiles would eventually have a copy and then, as we have seen so often, misunderstand the import and context? The answer is simple. Those who had to compile the Talmud, which is vast in its scope and coverage, due to time and persecution, had eroded much of the memory of it. The Talmud, referred to as the ‘Oral Law’, was not written down until centuries later and, as history shows us, these type of things are subject to wanton forgetfulness. The compilers, Rav Inu and Rav Ashi, put in every bit if whatever it was they could remember or gather from other sources, be it good, bad, or indifferent. Every bit of information needed preservation if for no other reason than for posterity.

Another very important point is to understand the various layers of Jewish thinking. Talmudic Judaism is quite legalistic. It concerns itself primarily with what is, according to Biblical tradition, the strictly legal guidelines regarding human behavior. It does NOT condone or advocate those seemingly horrible or cruel behaviors that it considers as technically ‘legal’, but simply states that, according to the religious law as written, these acts are not punishable by human courts. Rabbinical responsa penned since the Talmud era firmly and vehemently forbid, and for many reasons, many of the behaviors and attitudes that prevailed during Talmudic times. Actions that would be considered within the ‘letter of the law’ now became proscribed as violating the ‘spirit’ of Jewish practice.

This legalism also has three distinct and often contradicting positions to maintain. First, there is the Biblical law, which forms the basis for all Jewish law and, being of primary concern, must be shielded from any hint of violation. The rabbinical law stands as an extension of the Biblical Canon in that it provides for an enforced buffer zone, much like a behavioral ‘speed limit’, setting reasonable boundaries intended to keep the Jew one or two additional steps away from committing an infraction of Biblical magnitude. These laws sometime also apply to positive commands as well and serve to reinforce Biblical precepts. The Talmud also sorts out some of the ambiguities in Biblical language and law. Yet another layer regards civil law and ethics, which surprising at it may be to some, makes up a substantial portion of the Talmud. The rabbis had many social, economic, and political issues to address and although they fed upon both the Torah and the wisdom of their predecessors, many of their decisions were derived from the here and now, having based their legal on exploitable loopholes in the Talmudic law. It was flexible enough in its scope to allow for looser ‘interpretation’. Even when viewed from our modern perspective, this latter approach, favoring the benefit of the believer over the strict religious dogma, seems very a practical and enlightened way of thinking, much unlike other widely held religious doctrines.

There are times that the highly technical religious viewpoint has conflicted with political concerns. The well known Talmudic dictum of “Dina d’Malchusa Dina”, though never quoted by Jew-haters, provides an underlying principle of Jewish law in the Diaspora, showing that Jews are obligated to recognize and obey the laws of their host countries with the same tenacity and acceptance as they do their own religious teachings. There are many different circumstances and justifications surrounding this particular clause, but that differentiation between legality and social necessity is a common theme in Jewish Law. The Talmud, which was compiled under the dominion of foreign rule, provides some guidelines for maintaining that precarious balance between foreign secular rule and insular religious doctrine. Our national survival from within and our biological survival in the face of outside hostilities depend upon this peculiar ability to satisfy both obligations simultaneously.

Do not consider my defense as exhaustive or even effective. At best, and I am extremely hopeful in saying this, there will come a better understanding of Talmud, how it works, and what it offers in terms of wisdom, insight, insanity, irony, and humor. I remain the strongest and most vocal critic of Talmudic doctrine, rabbinic law, and their philosophy. Yet, even in my apparent heresy, I find no need to misrepresent or lie about that which I have chosen to reject. Telling the truth, the whole truth, is quite enough to provoke anger, thought, and even a profound insight or two.

The Talmud is not without its value. Anti-Semites, in their hurried rushing to quick judgment, are missing out on a golden opportunity to garner some bits of ancient wisdom and also learn something of Jewish history and the Jewish people.

Knowing your enemy can be quite a learning experience.

Nu?

War on God? : Babbling Builders of Yore

2007-10-23T20:54:00.000-04:00

(Genesis 11:1 - 9)

א ויהי כל-הארץ, שפה אחת, ודברים, אחדים

ב ויהי, בנוסעם מקדם; וימצאו בקעה בארץ שנער, ויישבו שם

ג ויאמרו איש אל-ריעהו, הבה נלבנה לבינים, ונשרפה, לשריפה; ותהי להם הלבינה, לאבן, והחמר, היה להם לחומר.
ד ויאמרו הבה נבנה-לנו עיר, ומגדל וראשו בשמיים, ונעשה-לנו, שם: פן-נפוץ, על-פני כל-הארץ

ה ויירד יהוה, לראות את-העיר ואת-המגדל, אשר בנו, בני האדם

ו ויאמר יהוה, הן עם אחד ושפה אחת לכולם, וזה, החילם לעשות; ועתה לא-ייבצר מהם, כול אשר יזמו לעשות

ז הבה, נרדה, ונבלה שם, שפתם--אשר לא ישמעו, איש שפת ריעהו

ח ויפץ יהוה אותם משם, על-פני כל-הארץ; ויחדלו, לבנות העיר

ט על-כן קרא שמה, בבל, כי-שם בלל יהוה, שפת כל-הארץ; ומשם הפיצם יהוה, על-פני כל-הארץ

Why is this story even necessary? If we removed it from the Torah, we might not miss it at all. In fact, it seems, much like the non-ending genealogies of hard to pronounce names, and wholly redundant. Yet, for the purpose of which the story becomes necessary, it fits right in with the aforementioned family trees. The tale of the Tower is not needed, in and of itself, but exists to fill in a ‘blank’. While reading thus far in the Torah, one wonders how multiple languages, human migration, and demographic diversity came to be. In the mind of the ordinary person, families stay close to families and, in those days, people stayed near the clan and rarely ventured very far from home. To anyone alive then, the idea of migrating away from your people was considered insane, so the Torah has to tell us that God 'forced' people to do the unthinkable and spread out far and wide across the globe. As we see with Cain, having to leave the family was a terrible curse!

Verse 11:1 tells us what humanity looked like immediately prior to the Tower and, at the same time, leads us to some more interesting questions. So far, despite the racial differences we are told existed between Noah’s children, they seemed to be, at least we imagine them to be, of one huge and very cooperative extended family, while speaking one common language among each other. There is no reason to assume otherwise and it makes perfect sense, should the Torah be correct, that one common means of verbal communication among these cousins was the norm. That everyone shares a bloodline, lives within the same community, and speaks a common language should come as no surprise. After all, they were grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the same man.

However, if we take allow ourselves a moment of respite from our Torah reading to take a quick glance at the world around us, we see something very confusing. Whether in ancient or modern times the various traders, merchants, mercenaries, ministers, refugees, and vacationers from distant lands, none of whom spoke the local language, began arriving within the boundaries of the fledgling human family. The clever child would immediately ask the obvious question, and the Torah anticipates that curiosity with the Tower story. It became necessary to explain to children (and I suppose some adults, too) how such varied linguistic diversity came to be if, in fact, the Torah, up to that juncture immediately prior to the Tower, was even remotely accurate. Thus, the telling of the tale of the Tower of Babel was needed to answer the obvious and keep the flow of the Torah narrative running smoothly.

Why did they build the Tower anyhow? The Torah says that the people were worried that they would become too spread out and wanted to establish the Tower as a beacon which people could see for many miles around, much like a lighthouse does for ships nearing the shoreline. There is nothing here to substantiate the Rabbis claims that these people were going to 'make war on God' and eventually climb the Tower to attack Heaven. I realize the Rabbis have to concoct that nonsense to try and make sense of the story, which is also nonsense, but they just make the whole problem even worse. From the plain Torah account, there appears nothing amiss or sinful in their motives for building a metropolis or a skyscraper within it. One has to wonder how, in light of the Tower story, this God allowed any cities to ever be established.

The Rabbis reasons for assuming a 'war on heaven' are two-fold. One, it provides a reason why God would be angry over this and two, it permits all kinds of other assumptions clearly not stated in Torah. We will deal here with only the first assertion. The obvious question becomes as to how exactly one wages war on an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent being. It's not as if one could launch a direct assault on something which is everywhere nor could one ever hope to hold the high ground or use the element of surprise to any particular advantage. Besides, what weapons would they have been using? If God is vulnerable to spears and swords, whereas God being equally present everywhere one turns, He would have to fear the blade at sea level just as He might at 5000 km above it!

Why build the Tower in the valley and not on a mountain top? If their purpose was, as the Rabbis suggested, to ‘wage war with God’, then wouldn’t it make more sense in any case to use existing geography to their tactical and practical advantage? I think it's pretty clear that the Rabbis were talking out of their asses, merely trying to justify the Tower story through the smoke and mirrors of allegory or parable, rather than dissecting the Torah account to root out the apparent flaws.

Rabbis say that humanity's sin here was in developing too much self-reliance and not maintaining enough faith in God. The 'war on God' was not a literal war in the physical sense, but a psychological war whose indirect effect would be to lessen one's dependency on God. The Rabbis assert that the people, by establishing themselves as a civilization, were rejecting faith. Apparently, only nomads and farmers are steadfast in faith and belief and God was worried that living in anything other than tents that reek of dried camel dung and human urine would incite humanity to rebel against Him. If real faith can only exist in nomadic agrarian societies, then modern Judaism is utterly screwed. In either case, the Tower tale makes no sense at all.

Who is God asking to help confuse languages? When He decides that "We" should be doing something about the Tower, who is asking? This is a similar problem to the verse in genesis where God says "Let US make man". So who is us? Now you may suggest that 'us' here is perhaps angels, but why doesn't it just say 'angels' and not leave us guessing? I have no answer for this one, and it appears to be yet another instance where polytheism is strongly implied in the Torah. This problem, however, is not integral to our story.

What is God's problem with peaceful human cooperation? It seemed that humanity was doing quite well; without wars or other societal problems that, under the best of circumstances, tend to fragment a society. This is, in part, how you know the story to be false. I cannot, myself, imagine all of humanity, no matter how few in number, working toward one purpose so efficiently as to scare the bejeezus out of the Almighty. One has to ask what exactly it was about their peaceful and focused mutual effort that ticked off the Lord. Not only that, but you’d think that all this happy cooperation would be a really good thing and not pose a threat to God. After all, just a few generations back, God flooded the planet and damn near wiped out humanity for NOT behaving peaceably with each other! So now, they are conducting themselves quite nicely and God gets pissed off at that, too! No wonder people stop believing in God; he is just plain impossible to please!

How exactly did God mess up their communication and to what extent? Rashi tells us that if one worker would ask for a brick the other would hand him a hammer and this thwarted any effort to continue building the tower. Yet, to have total societal confusion spring from this incident, it would require much more than just the mere bewilderment of artisans and laborers. For God's plan here to unfold as desired, both husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, etc. would also have to become linguistically estranged from one another. The result would be that no one, even those on the most intimate of terms, would be able to communicate! Total chaos, and one well beyond what the Torah suggests here, would have almost instantaneously ensued. Yet, somehow, the people did not disperse as individuals in random chaos, but remained, even while migrating away from Shinar, in their basic family units.

This problem is further accentuated by the fact that, as the Torah claims, they were of "few words", implying a language very much based upon symbols, signs, and other forms of non-verbal communication. If we are to believe what Rashi tells us, then even if their spoken language went awry, the basics of their communicative abilities still remained. This applies even more so to the artisans and laborers whose skills, once highly developed, required no direction at all, as they were able to continue their work without need for spoken language. If a mason needed a brick he could simply point with his finger to the brick and the laborer would know what to do. In any case, whatever the Torah (or Rashi) claims to have happened either would have had a much greater or significantly lesser effect than the Tower story seems to imply and does not answer any of the obvious questions.

The list goes on, but I have no more time at the present to donate to this subject. Comments and ideas are always welcome.

Kol Tuv

Burying the Goldfish : Funny!

2007-10-23T05:36:00.000-04:00

Conversation w/a Capitalist Doofus

2007-10-23T05:16:00.000-04:00

There is nothing more entertaining that a Republican, corporate-brainwashed windbag trying to discuss economics and sociology. The scary part is that this person is convinced that he or she is right. His comments are in parentheses.

(Re: The overtaxed and over worked employers are entitled to make a profit.)

Correct, but at what price to everyone else involved? How much more of worker’s rights, safety codes, and consumer protections are you willing to do without in order for the owners and shareholders to make even more return than they are already? Besides, if a company cannot remain competitive in the marketplace simply by producing and selling their product or service, then perhaps that is the fault of the people running the company and they should be out of business altogether. Financial engineering does not a healthy economy produce.

Bottom line? Capitalists are too busy defending the people who don’t need any help while preaching that no one should be helped anyhow. Does that make any sense at all?

(Re: In spite of how hard you try, we are not a socialist country yet.)

I’m working on it though, and there are millions of working class and educated Americans who don’t buy the corporate bullshit anymore either. As American wages and buying power decreases, more average folks are seeing the light. Unfortunately, those at the top continue to manipulate the news and the numbers to show otherwise. In spite of all your bragging about ‘Capitalism ending the Cold War’ and ‘Communism dead and gone’, the right wing still trots it out as the great econo-political bogeyman when needed.

(Re: The uneducated, entry level worker does not deserve the same wage as the business owner, or upper level manager.)

No one ever suggested that an entry level worker should receive the same compensation. You are flaunting your ignorance of a subject you should avoid. The ‘entry level worker’ excuse is overplayed. They are earning money for the company and providing needed labor. To degrade the entry-level position as if it is some sort of hazing ritual is disrespectful to your fellow American who very often now, has to take that job because his former corporate masters relocated his job to Indonesia.

(Re: The "free" healthcare, the "free" bridge card, housing assistance, SSI, & SSA checks....Where does that come from?)

Same place corporate welfare comes from. Same place the military comes from. Same place from which the roads get paved and the school are built. Same place from where every federal employee and politician gets free health care. Same place that pays for all the tax breaks and subsidies given to lumber companies, coal companies, etc.

You are not opposed to welfare. You merely demand that it to go to those to don’t actually need it.

(Re: There should be no free rides.)

That is a very heartless thing to say. You would begrudge a hungry family a meal or shelter because they didn’t ‘work’ for it. Why does everything with you Republicans have to come with ‘work’. All you want us to do is work, work, work, work. If you are mentally ill, that’s too bad. The rest of us normal people would like more vacation and don’t mind one bit if our money helps another human being. All human beings are deserving of compassion. Even you.

In the Republican mind, which follows the old Calvinist ideal of will-breaking and hard labor, nothing is bestowed without maximum effort or endeavor. It’s a bullshit cultist philosophy that should have died out with the Pilgrims, but still survive in the psyches of Capitalists world over. As long as you slave for their profit, you remain worthy of sustenance, otherwise you are a drag on the system and to be caste out and forgotten.

(Re: The generation, after generation, of soulless, beat down, individuals. Who have no drive, no motivation, are living proof that Welfare does not work.)

People are alive, fed, and sheltered? Then it’s working! Before FDR’s New Deal we had people starving in the streets in this country, most of them elderly. I don’t know what you think social programs are supposed to accomplish, but their goal is maintain the life and welfare of the citizens. You also need an honest history lesson and not rely on the white-washed, brainwashed bullshit you heard in elementary school and on talk radio.

The New Deal saved lives. People like you opposed it then and still do today.

(Re: Take out the emotions, and insert the facts and figures, the math doesn't work)

Spoken like a true bean-counter. Amazing how you can detach yourself so easily from human suffering so to be able to earn .08% more on one of your many investments. Facts and figures, you say? Is wealth that all there is to life? The facts and figures don’t add up either. Your beloved capitalism is KILLING this country from the inside out.

You also need a good lesson on empathy.

(Re: Less people working every year, less paying into the system, more drawing and draining on the system.)

The people not paying their fair share into the system are those who can afford off shore tax shelters and can lobby for loopholes in the tax code. The people draining the system are wealthy people who don’t need SSI and take it anyway. I know a fellow, richer than you can imagine. Guy went out and bought a $50,000 car and paid cash. Yet, when his wife needed a hip replacement and Medicare asked a co-pay of $600, he went berserk!

(Re: The poor 25 year olds, working today, will have nothing from our government. I wish everyone had a nice home, job, and a car. )

Those 25 year olds won’t have jobs either, because the 50-75 year olds are still racing to get richer and richer by pulling the rug out from under the American economy through outsourcing jobs and other forms of crafty financial engineering. Besides, why do you worry about anyone taking SSI?

(Re: The way to achieve that is through work and determination.)

Tell that to the slaves, sharecroppers, and serfs throughout history. And, if you had brains or any experience, you’d know that many other factors besides hard labor determine success. To be successful, one’s labor has to be rewarded. One also has to be healthy. One has to be respected and honored by those he labors on behalf of and by the society in which he lives. One also has to be working in or investing into an HONEST system, and not the cutthroat trading games that exist on Wall St.

Most of all, to be successful, one has to be LUCKY. If you are not in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances, it won’t happen no matter how hard you imagine yourself to be working. Luck is the mechanism by which most everything honest occurs because it involves no conscious manipulation on the part of opportunists.

(Re: Stay strong Mr. President, you didn't cause the Hurricane (Katrina), the heat wave we are experiencing, but I know you will be accused.)

Right. Bush didn’t cause it. No one said he did. The POTUS simply dropped the ball on preventative measures and the rescue effort. Sure the fire department didn’t set the blaze, they just stood by while it burned, blamed someone else, and then reneged on their promises to help. .

I have to wonder at this point what you think a president’s job should be.

(Re: Consider the source, the bitter, hate filled Democrats who never got behind their President.)

You mean just like the Republicans got behind Bill Clinton? LOL

Bush was never my president. He was never elected. Not once. You obviously are not a believer in individualism or liberty if, as you assume, one must stand behind a leader no matter what the circumstance. Your ‘my leader/country right or wrong’ attitude is quite disturbing.

Now, you may say that this person's arguments are simplistic and easily debunked, but that really is not the case. Arguments in support of Capitalism have never changed, but have, at certain times gained support from pseudo-philosophies and fancy advertising, neither of which say anything about the consequences of their favored ideals. This fellow had all the requisite talking points well rehearsed.

Repunzel's Dilemma

2007-10-22T20:06:00.000-04:00

Does the princess truly await one royal
Or merely any escape from lofty prison?
Should but a plain commoner
Seek to rescue her
Would she still abide by prior decision?

Even should one of regal birth dare ascend
Upon braided locks now lowered aground
For after loving embrace
The problem they’ll eventually face
Is exactly just how both will get down!

Never Really Mine

2007-10-22T19:57:00.000-04:00

Strangers dared to call me their own

And even boasted of my presence among them

Adorned in their clothing

Inundated with their culture

And faithfully

Did I imitate their mannerisms

Calling them family

But they were never really mine

I followed their religion

Bearing burdens of unique family bonds and piety

Speaking proudly their accomplishments

Their loving advice a holy word

But internally

Was I raging for something other

I couldn’t withstand anymore

Since they were never really mine

Subconscious desperations leading me astray

From the safety of their caring embraces

Taken to rebellion

Never knowing why

Not even knowing how

Their warm welcomes back into the fold

Now becoming searing wounds

Tears burning my skin

For they were never really mine

No longer could I endure

Living outside of my own context

A new circumstance with no definition

Only a hope

Wherein the eye that is mine

The face that shares my gazes

Lies somewhere beyond the confines

Of the places named home

Where they were never really mine

I go back to them for want of nothing else

Their dutiful forgiveness

Of my oddities and back-lashings sickens me

They cannot fathom

Living without knowing

Being without identity

Picking and choosing yourself is never enough

From among lives

That were never really mine

Rooting for Defeat? Hell Yes!

2007-10-22T18:58:00.000-04:00

Am I rooting for defeat in Iraq? You bet! Losing a bad war isn’t such an awful thing. Leaving would save American lives and allow the Iraqis the chance to do it on their own without the constant threat of corporate-oil manipulation and intervention. We should juts cut our losses and be done with it. The problem is that our Chimp-in-Chief cannot nor will not ever admit error and, therefore, will never alter or dismantle his destructive and incredibly stupid ruination of the Middle East and, by way of war funding, the American economy.

I want to see the Americans leave Iraq immediately. This war remains an unprovoked, illegal escapade conjured by oil-hungry robber barons disguised as human beings. At some point, we the people have to say "Enough already!", and bring our brothers and sisters in uniform back home to their waiting families. This illegal invasions, looting, and systematic destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq must end.

Only a complete boob would believe in "my country right or wrong" without pondering the merits of each national policy. Think about what kind of horrible atrocities that sort of feeble, blind nationalism permits i.e. illegal invasions of sovereign nations, the loss of civil liberties, rampant taxation to support favored industries and military build-up, torture, cronyism, corporate welfare, etc. These 'patriots' see a flag waving somewhere and suddenly every evil done its name become a morally righteous crusade, infallible and beyond any critique or question.

Sorry to say it, but my government and the corporate bastards that dictate our current national policy need to be taken down a few notches and face a hard reality. They are NOT America. They do not define what is American. They are nothing more than sycophantic abusers of ambiguous symbolisms and spout inane, meaningless jingoisms, while deceiving otherwise good, common people with platitudes and colorful banners.

I am a citizen of the world and if the place of my birth and my residence, be it Russia or the US, goes astray from what is decent and good, I speak up loudly. I don't give a shit about flags or national anthems. I care about people. Fuck the corporations and the bomb makers. They have enough blood money already.

Time to end it for good. But how?

Peace

Over-Reacting & Recovery

2007-10-22T18:40:00.000-04:00

Over zealous prosecutions and overreaction to everything and anything that occurs is typical American behavior for any and all contacts with law enforcement or those who fall prey to public scorn or scrutiny. This era of zero-tolerance began with Republicans in the 1980s and has now reached its paranoid schizophrenic zenith under the ever-vigilant gaze of the Bush administration’s corporate lackeys and their badge-wielding protectors.

I have watched the government rhetoric and lingo change steadily over the last 25 years into something reminiscent of Soviet-era nomenclature. Everything becomes a ‘war’ on something, but really ends up being an attack on civil liberties in order to maintain the corporate status quo and eventually bleed the average American dry of money and the will to defend his own rights. Dissenters become ‘agitators’, protesters become ‘traitors’, and a man taking a leak become a ‘sex offender’, even though no sex was involved. Kids are expelled from schools for carrying nail clippers and sharing Midol, while airline passengers are strip searched and forbidden from carrying toothpaste on board.

We are the biggest nation of pussies, crybabies, and wimps on the planet. We are afraid of everything it seems. Everyday the ‘terror’ level are raised somewhere for something else. Meantime, the ones who instill the fear and profit from it turn out to be the very same people of whom we need to be wary. A Republican US Attorney soliciting sex with a five-year-old, and yet another law-and-order conservative getting caught looking for blow jobs in a rest stop men’s room.

I do not believe the Democrats innocent in this either. They are a bunch of complicit enablers who don’t know how to use power even when the majority of Americans DEMAND they do something, anything to protect us from the encroachment on our civil liberties. Bill Clinton represents the absolute worst of what the democratic Party had to offer in terms of his capitulation to the corporate establishment and the Republicans or the 1990s. Hillary Clinton will be no different, just a bit less charming, should she attain the Oval Office.

People who are emotionally secure do not live in fear, do not arm themselves for ‘inevitable’ attack, do not imagine enemies behind every bush, and treat their fellow citizens with compassion and offer the benefit of doubt whenever possible. The American trend for overreaction and overzealousness is a mental defect infecting every level of government, local, state, and federal. Their attitude leads them to justify tasering peaceful citizens, seizing assets without proper claim, and torturing those suspected of any and all offenses to even the 'spirit' of the state.

Individuals who behave in this manner are normally considered mentally ill and deemed as dangerous to both themselves and society. We isolate those individuals in order to protect society. What happens when a government goes paranoid schizophrenic? Who is going to institutionalize it? A government has never been known to stop itself from following the wrong course of action. How long before America seeks its emotional recovery?

Unfortunately, nations, much like individuals, must hit their 'bottom' before ever seeking remediation or therapy. I would like to believe that this nation, which regards itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy for the entire planet can see the light before the 'bottom', rushing up towards us becomes too close to avoid. Otherwise, it may be up to the people, through the upheaval and chaos of revolt, that bring the nation full circle and with very mixed results.

I guess we'll see.

Urination: Sex Offense?

2007-10-22T18:37:00.000-04:00

A wise man once told me “Morality is something you do when no one else is looking.” Morality differs from ethics in that it has an intangible, personal, and non-causative motivation that disassociates it from the very behaviors it attempts to restrain. Morality is based in nothing more than “God said so”, or “just because” or, as is more likely the case, it becomes simply a matter of personal tastes being projected onto others. I have no objection to anyone having a moral basis for their own behaviors, but to project that intangible onto others is dangerous and misguided.

The inherent danger of morals are that, unless clearly defined, people will find the slope into control freakism very slippery and easy to navigate straight to the bottom. Something without a logical basis, not being reinforced by observable causes and effects, possesses no boundaries in terms of the insanity to which it may lead. The case of public nudity becoming a ‘sex offence’ is a good example of morality gone wrong.

A man stops to urinate along the side of the road or behind a dumpster. Certainly, it would be best if he found a restroom, but he didn’t, so we deal with what we observe. The poor bastard gets caught by a local gendarme and is cited for public nudity, even though the only public around was this man and the cop who saw him peeing. The man is then hauled before a judge and becomes a sex offender, even though there was no sex, no women, no children, or even animals present. The man was simply emptying his bladder in the same manner every one of us do at least three times or more daily.

Now, if the police officer wishes to cite this fellow for ‘public urination’ or littering, which I would agree he should do as we don’t want our streets to smell like cesspools, I would have no issue. However, the lawmakers, forever pandering to the senseless and vengeful moralists, have pushed for tougher penalties for any type of public nudity under the guise of ‘protecting children’. I would also agree that if our ‘public urinator’ was already a REAL sex offender that his behavior now should be treated more seriously.

Morality has made my penis a ‘wrong’ or ‘evil thing’ no matter what it is I am using it for or why I have it out. Morality, since it has no real rules to it, cannot distinguish between right or wrong and therefore anything goes and everything eventually becomes a ‘forbidden’, even under the most innocuous circumstances. People, whose behavior yesterday was perfectly acceptable, if not laudable become, by today’s ‘morality du jour’, enemies of society and virtual pariahs.

In America, we are masters of moralizing. We equate ‘right and wrong’ with ‘good and bad’, when the two have absolutely nothing in common.

For Karen

2007-10-22T18:27:00.000-04:00

Only constant thoughts of our time together make the days away from you the least bit bearable. I still see your smiling, radiant face looking up at me in the sunlight and I am smitten again and yet again by your beauty, intelligence, and passion. There is something so simple and so serene between us that we dare resist only because we haven’t acclimated to the joy we thought, perhaps, would never come.

I can tell you that I love you, but that wouldn’t be nearly enough to express what I truly feel. Words, no matter how fancy or rhythmic, born from the heart of the cleverest lyricist remain wholly inadequate. Our touching, our kiss together, is everything that anything joyous could be. Your bluest eyes shine as you speak my innermost thoughts back to me. Never have I known this sort of emotion.

We are left lying together, entwined in each others love-tired bodies, and laughing at each other's stupid jokes told in that hazy, haphazard Sunday afternoon post love-making fatigue. The world is all but abandoned to its own designs, not having us to care one whit was transpires beyond the confines of our love.

I love you.

S

If Elected : Vote Shlomo!

2007-10-22T18:22:00.001-04:00

If elected, I would endeavor to implement the following changes to our society within the first three months of my administration:

1)Legalize marijuana, prostitution, and assisted suicide (If we are serious about the concept of individual freedom, then let's get serious about it!)

2) Universal Health Care (We can't shout "united we stand" with any sense of pride if we aren't willing to care for one another.)

3) Universal Education K-PhD (We always talk-talk-talk about the importance of education for the welfare of our economy and nation, but we treat students like second class citizens and force them to spend more time working than studying.)

4) Ecologically Based National Mass Transit System

5) Increase in Hemp production for paper and bio-fuel (No more special deals for the lumber and paper industry.)

6) The President will be permitted one intern-administered blow-job for each fiscal year providing the the budget is balanced for said year. Should there be a revenue surplus for any year, the President will then be permitted to have the intern stroke his balls as well. (Should the President be a female, then it means that I wasn't elected.)

7) There will be no bombs dropped on anyone who doesn't drop one on us first. No preemptive wars or policing of peoples whose nation's name most of us cannot even spell. If we don't like a nation's policies, we can just as easily ruin their lives by dropping Britney Spears albums on them.

Shlomo in '08!

Dear Hater

2007-10-22T18:20:00.000-04:00

What I would give for hatred pure
Such a thing would surely give me pause
If only your sense of right and wrong be truly sure
In critiquing all my many flaws

But alas you’re just the sort of fellow
Whose merely hates which he can’t understand
Could anyone, white, black, red, or yellow
Ever fulfill your harsh demands?

So hate me as you do already
From that much I expect you won’t relent
Bearing rancor, firm and steady
Not for me as me, but for what I, to you, must represent

Come now, good hater, face up to your foe
Whom you regard in such low esteem
Then perhaps you can hate him from what of him you know
Rather than that for which he only seems

Talking Tough?

2007-10-22T18:16:00.000-04:00

He challenged me boldly in two-fisted duel
Thinking I might be the kind of fool
To take him up upon this barbaric offer
Without pondering options I may instead proffer

With such hostility does he my person despise
Yet, were wherewithal had then perhaps otherwise
He’d engage me from across a board of chess
And spare us both a bloody awful mess

Having yet to decide which course to pursue
I’ll give it consideration, maybe just for a day or two
Reflecting upon the harsh, taunting threat
Before involving in something that I might later regret

Defeating me in combat he may very well succeed
But trust me on this, he will suffer indeed
Staggering home victorious that awesome night
While knowing for certain it was one hell of a fight

Hillary, Hillary

2007-08-27T20:09:00.000-04:00

Hillary! Hillary! Run for Prez!

Do just what the man on Wall St. says

Maintain, hold fast to the status quo

Or to the Oval Office you'll never go

Kiss some ass at Goldman Sachs

Shake all the hands at Pfizer

When on WalMart’s board

You were truly whored

And most were none the wiser

The health care talk that you began

During your husband’s reign

Now not a peep

Were you bought off cheap

By the big insurers again?

Go ahead and support that war

Of which you claim others deceived you

And that vote for wiretapping

Was just you slapping

The faces of those who dared believe you

Don’t tell us how you understand

Plights and pains of the working man

You forgot about us long before

You ever hit the Senate floor

You’re labeled as a real Democrat

But few of us are fooled by that

So go home now and wash that tush

‘Cuz to me you smell like rotten Bush!

Political Inexperience

2007-08-27T18:58:00.000-04:00

Sometimes we hear a political candidate described by the incumbent he or she is facing as being ‘inexperienced’. It’s very catchy phrase, but honestly I have no idea what it means or why it matters in a political context.

I can understand why an auto shop would seek out a mechanic who is experienced in all facets of auto maintenance and repair. I suspect that, were I to require surgery or dental work, that I’d much prefer an experienced doctor or dentist to a relative novice. There is no way, in either instance, that I’d trust myself to a rank amateur.

Regarding politics, however, try as I might, I don’t see the practical effect of experience or the need for it. A causal look at the ‘experienced’ Washington politicians tells me that whatever political experience they have gained is proving to be detrimental to their characters and to the country overall. These ‘experienced’ elected officials are so morally and ethically bankrupt that they lie to us even when they aren’t running for re-election!

Now people will say that experience matters for several reasons. The most common rationalization is that experience and tenure offer the possibility of special committee appointments, only available to ranking members of Congress. Yet, it makes no sense to base these appointments on tenure rather than actual hands-on experience with the subject at hand. If senator has no military service or training, why would he be qualified to serve on a committee assigned to determine military questions simply because he has been re-elected by his constituency a dozen times?

A junior senator who had served in military and in the defense department would have an infinite knowledge and experience base when compared with the older senator sitting on the committee, but he or she don’t get the job. See, that sounds just plain stupid to me. If I were to drive into an auto repair shop and ask to have a consult on how to best repair my vehicle (otherwise known as the ‘estimate’), I would not want to speak to the guy who has been most popular with his buddies for the longest time, rather the younger mechanic who has hands-on experience. The young guy might not be the smooth-talking salesman, but he knows how to fix a car and that's why I drove my vehicle into a repair shop.

I would hope that most people want a government that works in the best interest of the people and addresses the nation's problems, hopes, and dreams in the same nuts-and-bolts fashion as would our younger, yet more hands-on experienced mechanic. I don't care how long the more popular fellow has known someone in the auto industry or that he has close personal ties with a tire manufacturer. I just want my car fixed. That requires one sort of experience; that of a trained auto mechanic.

In reality, the claim that one’s opponent is ‘inexperienced’ is meaningless argument. Yet, it must have a ring of truth to it for so many to nod their heads in agreement. Literally speaking, the candidate would likely be inexperienced due the fact that they never held the job before! Yet, the incumbent had no problem taking the position when he, too, was ‘inexperienced’. I'm sure, were we to look back at the campaign speeches of the incumbent, prior to his 'experience', he would have conjured many ways to claim such experience when, in fact, he is now claiming his challenger is a lesser man for possessing the same virtue.

The question of experience is moot anyhow. Politicians have an incredible support system awaiting them once in office. They have staffers, secretaries, legal teams, party advisers, and the collective expertise of those elected officials around them. I wish I had that much support and assistance in my own job. I would be able to do even less than the politicians!

What is the novice inexperienced at doing that would negatively affect his or her public service? Well, for starters, the novice is likely to be a wide-eyed populist, the sort of person who really speaks for the interests of the people and not merely for lobbyists or the party machine. This fellow would be the guy who had his credentials put into question from day one of his campaign. Why? He will not play nice.

I don’t want any more ‘experienced’ politicians whose ‘experience’ forces them into the mold of kissing the asses everywhere and anywhere they walk in DC, be they the ubiquitous lobbyist or the senior senator or anyone else. The claim of ‘inexperience’ is nonsense. I have seen what ‘experience’ in politics creates and I’m sick of it. It's a game of cronyism and seniority that has no tangible meaning whatsoever.

A whole lot of other Americans are fed up, too.

Feeling Much Better of Late

2007-08-04T08:59:00.000-04:00

I am starting to get into real good groove right now. I'm feeling somewhat better, and I am training almost as hard as before. I hope I can continue to step it up a bit more before the summer is out. I haven't felt this strong and energetic in a long time. It is amazing what a krahnkeit can do to your psyche.

I am back up to the usual drills, though with less intensity than I'd like. I still get dizzy and sick to my stomach sometimes, but as long I keep right on moving through the workout, it passes. the pain is intermittent. The 1/2 hour skipping rope, 1/2 hour on the heavy bag or speed bag, and then a 1/2 hour run seems to do the trick. I have to however, do my strength training, cycling, and stretching in separate work outs. I don't have the stamina for that much yet. Another 10 pounds down or so and I'll be in better form.

Kol Tuv

On Anarchy: For Benjamin

2007-07-28T08:37:00.000-04:00

“Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.” (Oscar Wilde)

One thing that my education and experience have taught is that freedom comes with a price paid in the process of procuring and, once secured, in preserving it. That price, history has shown, is the willingness of the people, to leave the relative peace of their jobs, homes, and families to physically confront tyranny and oppression. Those forces of oppression, even when out of power, still desire to hold on and regain their former status. They do not change their stripes nor do they go quietly into the night. They attained and held their power through blood, slavery, and deceit and it is through such savagery, or the threat thereof, that power is to be wrested from them.

It is unfortunate that any human endeavor, especially one as noble as social justice, should be awash in violence and social upheaval. None of us desires civil war. However, we should not allow the false tranquility of the present, nor the fear of possible future chaos, to deter us from speaking up or acting out for social justice and parity. There is much to risk and much to lose, and the human psyche, once acclimatized, abhors change. Yet, like an addict seeking recovery, there comes a time where that man, or that society, reach the bottom of what they can endure and risk everything to ensure their survival.

Non-violence is a wonderful idea and, in a perfect world, Gandhi’s image of a peaceful transition of power to the people would be a welcome sight. However, we are not marching against a far-off British Empire split amongst itself on the issue of colonies and self-determinism encased in the courteous affectations of the Victorian Age. Those seeking ‘empire’ now do not break for tea at a set hour each day. We are now dealing with local and national police acting solely to protect corporate interests. These police agencies arrive in full combat gear and operate in full combat mode. They are fully prepared to do harm to peaceful protestors. How many times must we witness the trampling, gassing, and beating of peaceful citizens, exercising their 1^st Amendment rights to gather peacefully, before you and others finally believe what your eyes are telling you?

We have all been thoroughly lectured by our media and those in power to believe that violence is no way to solve problems yet, those same people who speak against it, use it willingly and often when it suits their own personal or ideological ends. Why is the violence done by men in Kevlar helmets and badges condoned and supported, while the same violence perpetrated by men in tennis shoes and faded blue jeans, in reaction, considered as criminal? Is it the uniform and the ‘order’ it represents that you worship or do you ever consider the root causes?

The corporate overlords did not achieve their wealth without shedding someone else’s blood. Pick any industry or commodity around the globe and you will find human beings exploited by the hirelings of some far away and well-protected corporate master. For them, it is just ‘business as usual’. They are detached from the sufferings of every-day human beings by their social station. They do not share in the labor or witness the real-world nuts and bolts goings on of what must occur in the real world for them to amass such power and wealth.

Democracy and ruthless greed cannot coexist. Eventually, the people tire of their masters and rebel en masse. The lessons of history i.e. the American, French, and Russian revolutions that we, the people, so often take for granted, are not lost on the corporate aristocracy and their underlings. They know full well what will happen and are already making careful and deliberate plans to counter any dissent or rebellion. Those in power have a plan and are implementing it. To do so, they must diminish the power of the vote and voice of the populace, either through clever marketing or, if necessary, by subterfuge or military force.

Of course, anarchy can be peaceful. We can boycott those corporations we don’t like and we can still speak out. However, civil disobedience, such as that of an H.D. Thoreau is laudable, but the somewhat quaint circumstances surrounding his particular time no longer exist. The penalties for non-compliance are these days are much higher and much more costly. Thoreau chose not to pay a tax levied for the Mexican war and he spent a few days in a local jail for his anarchy. Choose not to respect and comply with today’s revenue service and the consequences prove to be good deterrents to any such form of dissent.

“When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.” (C.P. Snow)

Taking Action : Anarchy & the Money Train

2007-07-13T07:44:00.000-04:00

It is obvious that those who were elected or appointed to keep a check and balance on the executive/corporate branch are, if not outright complicit conspirators, inept to the point of utter uselessness. It is also clear that the will of the people, as expressed by several polls and reflected the in the last Congressional election cycle, is being ignored. Lastly, the media, corporate-owned and sponsored, will no longer and nevermore act the whistle-blowing, investigating, and independent-minded voice it was intended to be by those who enshrined the rights of the press within the first few frames of our Constitution. Let’s face it folks, unless you want to obediently follow their plans for you, there is only one recourse left to the people.

I have no idea how that is going to happen and I sure as hell don’t think we can pull it off unless we can do it while the majority of our armed services are scattered all over the globe as they currently are now. Riots and civil unrest do get the attention of our leaders, because that sort of behavior causes a drop in stock prices and commerce which, in case you haven’t noticed yet, is the raison d’etre of the American government. If we slow down or impede the cash flow to the wealthy aristocracy, even if for a day, they will begin to buckle. This entire Iraq War is about that cash flow. Union busting is all about cash flow. Trade deals are all about cash flow. Lowered environmental standards are all about cash flow. It’s all they care about.

We unionize. We blockade. We protest. We riot. We revolt. We stop the money train. We join hands in defying them. They cannot do it without us, and we cannot stop them without each other.

Ultimately, and sadly, the wealthy elites and their personal protectors in government will have to be taken out and shot. Yeah, I know these are strong words, but you have to consider history and realize with whom we are dealing. Do you think they have any regrets when it comes to killing to make or protect an investment? The capitalists consider whatever damage they inflict upon humanity and nature as ‘collateral’. The accumulation of wealth and the power to control resources and labor is the only creed they know and, as history shows time and time again, they will go any length and make any justification in defending or promoting their greed.

My grandfather may have been an ardent Socialist at heart, but he never understood why the Russian Revolution had to be so brutal and unforgiving. He left the Soviet Union with his family under a cloud of disillusionment and disgust. I see now maybe what he didn’t see then and have come to understand why it is that the Bolsheviks had to destroy, kill, and erase every vestige of the old system and its holders. The fact remains that those regimes won’t let go of their power without fighting a ruthless and cruel war in response. Even were we to permit them to walk away with what they have accumulated and then accede to social and economic reform, they would adamantly refuse and unleash their armies and police to suppress any dissent or, even should they go peacefully, eventually return to reclaim what they believe to be their manifested ‘birthright’.

The violent anarchists of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries served as messengers of much needed political and social change. Those anarchists inspired many to stand up, and speak out. They set in motion the downfall of monarchies and erased class divisions around the globe. Those separations have returned and the keepers of the wealth and power have learned a lesson that we have long since forgotten in our heated jealousy to emulate and imitate those who dominate our culture and politics. We must become anarchists of some sort, either in word, in action, or in demeanor. It would be a start and perhaps, as we saw in both in 19^th century Europe and the US, this anarchy could be the harbinger of greater social change and social justice.

Is peaceful change possible when those we elect ignore the people? I am no longer hopeful. Perhaps with peaceful defiance, an anarchy that stops the flow of wealth is what they need to jolt the ruling classes back into a social consciousness. If not, this nation will suffer either dictatorship or worse. If they refuse to hear your words, then it becomes required for them to feel your presence.

Take Action!

Look, It's Not Just Islam

2007-06-25T07:57:00.000-04:00

In recent times, due to the many arrests of American Moslems committing fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and other crimes, there has been a lot of ballyhooing regarding the interaction of Islam and our rule of law. Still riding the nationalistic fervor of 9-11, these xenophobes attack the entire Moslem community for something which is not exclusive to Islam. It is an overall attitude into which fundamental religionists are raised. I know. I was raised around it, too.

See, the problem with the Moslem community is not that they are Moslem or that they originate from a different continent or culture. One does not have to arrive at our shores from New Fuckistan in order to possess the same sort of problems that we see with many Moslem communities in various nations around the globe. We have enough Christian, Mormon, and Jewish Americans, born and raised right here in the Good Ole US of A that exhibit that same type of casual indifference, if not even outright hostility, toward the established rule of law, who will flaunt the law when it suits their religious or political ends. Yet, in either case, the religionist feels that if his god sanctions or doesn’t explicitly forbid a particular act, one can look the other way if it conflicts with secular law.

(Examples: Honor killings of disobedient daughters, polygamy, the murder of physicians who perform abortions, election fraud, and lying to federal regulators in order to get more federal tax dollars for their institutions.)

Not everyone who isn’t religious is free from this particular sin either. Average people tend to disregard laws they feel are immoral or just plain impractical. For example, most of us have smoked marijuana or used another person’s prescription medication knowing full well that it was illegal, realizing those laws are misguided for various reasons. Some of us might even make repairs on our homes without consulting or getting the approval of city inspectors. Many others might boost their tax deductions a little more than they should to get a larger refund. That is normal, expected behavior. Some will go to Canada or Mexico to get cheaper prescription drugs and smuggle them back into the US. Given the right incentive, people will bend the rules a little. However, this doesn't mean that those people possess an utter disdain for the rule of law in general. Most people in this group will cite practical concerns as their reason for civil disobedience.

However, once we add religion into this mix, over and above the possible personal dislike for certain statutes, we have a person who is no longer acting on his own for his own earthly purposes, but now he is doing it for the ‘lord’, and this act, even if punishable on Earth, will receive an ultimate reward in the hereafter. A religious person believes that God's law is the ultimate authority on all issues governing behaviors and interaction. Orthodox Jews and Moslems alike prefer to settle their differences via own internal legal systems rather than go through secular courts. Like the Hebrew National hot dog they "Answer to a Higher Authority". Essentially, this belief fosters and attitude of non-compliance and even, in some cases, a complete rejection of civil codes and statutes. They aren't just common criminals, they are, what I call, 'Anarchists for God'. They see our laws as inferior to their own religious views and doctrines and, though not always contrary, still of the ‘lesser’ variety.

In addition, consider that our fundamental religionist may also believe that those of other faiths are not ‘saved’ or possessed by ‘evil’. We become, in their eyes, as second-class, misguided children, spiritual inferiors, or, at worst rebellious infidels. Judaism and Islam both possess two sets of rules for believers and non-believers with the ultimate goal of having everyone come to believe in some way. The infidel’s law, the mental product of infidel society, is to be ignored and that obfuscation is justified by this religious double standard. In their minds, the infidels and gentiles enact laws to protect themselves and each other and, to the devout fundamentalist, acting within the infidel's legal boundaries means that he is now enabling a system that his god most likely abhors. Non-believers are also imagined to be hostile to religionists. Using the secular system also allows the infidels and gentiles a view into their religious world; a world they would rather leave closed off to prying outside eyes whenever possible.

This is not to say that members of a religious community who commit criminal acts do so solely because of their faith. That is far from true. Criminals are criminals and the religious criminals use the religion and cultural differences as a shield from apprehension or capture. Still, if they can justify their act through the religion, it gives them the added comfort of not having the gods upset with their actions. Co-religionists as well, might turn a blind eye to such criminality because it would draw undue attention to the community and blacken their reputation among neighbors. Yet still, this attitude of superiority and a sense of being ‘above the human law’ contribute to that disregard.

Secular-Atheist types like me might not follow the absolute letter of the law either, but we also don't harbor any fantasies concerning divine systems of absolute morality and eternal justice emanating from some invisible, intangible higher power with dreams that it supersedes or supplants the established, secular legal system. I have no delusions of mankind authoring a perfect legal or political system that everyone can follow without hesitation, but at least the secular outlook avoids the absolute moral constructs and, therefore, can remove from the law outmoded, impractical considerations. We don’t claim perfection, but we can, when our system works best, strive for the next best thing.

Delusions of Health?

2007-06-25T01:36:00.000-04:00

The supporters of the health care status quo in the US are defending a system, if the situation is to be judged by their own words, that doesn’t exist in any reality that I’ve encountered thus far. According to the advocates for the privatized, profit-driven health ‘management’ industry, you can see any doctor any time you wish anywhere that you prefer and be treated for anything right away. Excuse me, but except for the very famous or the incredibly wealthy that hasn’t been the case in the US for at least 20 years running. I’m left to ask at this point, exactly what country are they talking about?

I have a typical HMO plan that costs my employer somewhere between $280 and $320 per month. If I suffer abdominal pain that isn’t too severe, I can call my primary care physician and schedule an appointment. As a rule, I have never waited less than one week to get into see him and, by that time, the symptoms which plagued me have usually already passed. Then, when finally I do get to see this doctor and he refers me to the next level of ‘care’, I must again wait another week for the next appointment! So now, I have gone two weeks longer without having my condition treated and, in case you didn’t notice, I had co-pays along the way as well. Welcome to American Health Care! Hardly the fast and efficient service the privateers say they perform.

This reminds me of a joke my father, having spent his childhood in the Soviet Union, used to tell. It suits the situation perfectly.

A group of western dignitaries were in the Soviet Union and wanted to visit one of the local schools as a gesture of good will and international friendship. The commissar headmaster was notified by the political office, and together they prepared a carefully scripted question and answer session to be asked by the visitors and answered by the children. Each child was coached to respond in the most positive and enthusiastic manner.

On visiting day, the children were lined up in the gymnasium in perfect Soviet order, wearing neat school uniforms, and standing at military-like attention.

The first child was asked “Do you like your teachers?”

“Soviet Union has nicest teachers!”

The next child was asked “Does the school serve good food!”

“Soviet Union serves the best food!”

Another child was queried “Do you have time for recreation?”

“Soviet Union is best place for lots of playtime!”

This assembly went on for some time with each subsequent response being pretty much the same as the previous one. The Soviet Union was obviously the greatest place on Earth.

Just then, as they were about to end the program, the leading dignitary heard a little boy in the back of the gym start to cry. The visitor walked down the row of students and asked “What is the matter? Why are you crying?” The little boy looks up, wipes his runny nose and says “I want to go to the Soviet Union!”

A Cardinal's Sad Haiku

2007-06-18T23:47:00.000-04:00

She calls to her crimson mate
He answers not
Cats watch from the window

Hummingbird's Haiku

2007-06-18T23:42:00.000-04:00

Answering the flower’s beckon

Laden while aloft

Home Precious Spoils!

Sham 'n' Scam : Fake Personal & Want Ads

2007-06-18T23:31:00.000-04:00

Classified advertisements, especially those designed for dating and employment, are riddled with misleading and false statements. The singles magazines that one might get for free at a newsstand are filled with phony descriptions of fictional men and women seeking romance and companionship. This is an easy and simple scam to get you, the lonely love-seeker, to fork over your hard earned dollars in the hope that the person whose ad you just paid $28.95 to answer will possibly answer you back. Sure, you just listened to a human voice, but it’s just a recording made in 2002. If she or he doesn’t ever call you back, well, that just means you weren’t a match and you should try again with another ad.

I actually tested this out myself a few years back with several different singles magazines and about $300.00. They market these magazines usually to ‘professionals’, you know, people with money. Of the dozen ads I answered, I never received a response from any one of them. Not one. This, in spite of choosing ads that suited me and carefully wording my replies to suit the advertiser. I even misrepresented myself just a wee bit in several. Now, you might say that my little sampling proves nothing and you’d be sort of right. Yet, compare that with a personal ad I placed on a local (and free) venue not six weeks ago, wherein I received over twenty-five responses in one week, without having to embellish my credentials at all!

Now you might think it crazy that companies would post phony or misleading job ads, but it’s true. I’ve known it for years. Yet, did you know that your resume is meant to be rejected before they even begin the interview process? They want your resume so that they can tell the federal government they tried, and then they can now bring in guest workers and work to get them green cards. Corporations do NOT want American workers. The Department of Labor approves this practice.

It is interesting that when we talk about unemployment or the inability of many highly skilled or educated people to find jobs, that many will pick up the Sunday paper or go to Monster.com and point out the hundreds of jobs posted for various positions. They, naturally and naively, believe there are jobs to be had for everyone. Well, such is not the case. The postings are a legalized misdirection to allow companies to exclude Americans from the work force.

Watch the video posted below and tell me just how corporations and our legal system are good for America or American workers. This is the video the HR companies and guest worker advocates don’t want you to see. They tell Congress and the American people that Americans aren’t available for the jobs yet, as this video shows, they aren’t really interested in hiring Americans at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

So much for all the crap about corporations ‘creating’ jobs! Such bullshit. Class warfare is alive and well. Stop defending the corporations! They don't give a shit about you.

What Happened to My Life? (The American Worker)

2007-06-17T10:09:00.000-04:00

Worker: I am now a production slave to seven machines of the kind I used to design on Unigraphics and Cadkey.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: The company is owned by a Wall Street investment firm. And the good news is we beat the Chinese and Mexican divisions in quality, and speed. The bad news is, I give up breaks, and lunches to keep up with production.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: I am on call 24 / 7 to come in and keep up the production quota. This is expected by the company (unofficially).

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!
Worker: It costs me $3000 a year, NOT to use my medical insurance, but these are the best benefits that that can be found now.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: Since my Military service, I have spent 3000 hours in classroom technical training, as requested by the Business community, and the Government because they needed tech workers. Those jobs are now located in India, China, or performed by imported workers for a fraction of what I was earning.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: I make $5.00 LESS an hour than I made 25 years ago and my dollar goes nowhere near as far.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: When laid off from my last job, as a last resort, I applied at farms and orchards, (you know, the jobs Americans won’t do), and was deemed over-qualified for the position and denied work.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE...ERR...HAD A JOB! FREE MARKETS MUST BE PROTECTED! GLOBAL ECONOMY! INDIVIDUALISM! BLAH BLAH BLAH.......

Re: What happened to your life?

Well, that is an easy question answer. Unregulated, ruthless and truth-less Capitalism happened to your life. You became too expensive for them even after all the hoops you jumped through while trusting them that everything would still be alright. If they just paid less in taxes, less for your health care, had less government safety regulations, and maybe outsourced a few non-technical positions to “There-went-my-job-istan”, then you would be perfectly safe and weather the ensuing economic storm that snatched up many of your co-workers. You, my friend, are a huge sucker to have ever believed them.

It’s not all your fault, the corporations and the venture capitalists spend millions of dollars to convince everyone that they were really ‘benefactors’ and wonderful people running almost charity-like institutions. “We create jobs!” Really? Where are they creating jobs now? All around us for the last 30 years, we have seen the degeneration of American production and wages, and now, when it finally hits the white-collar sector, do we see even one little bit of outrage.

Do not ever believe that this is some result of ‘market forces’. Look back to the corporate advertising and lobbying of 30 and 40 years ago, and you see today in their vision of the future. This was a deliberate strike at worker’s rights, fair wages, and fair trade built upon the premises of Capitalism and the re-establishment of political and economic power into the hands of the few. They have so much propagandized and muddled the common man’s head with nonsense that even when reality strikes hard and sudden, the American whose wages and lifestyle are diminished will continue, even to the death, to defend the Capitalist who put him into that horrible predicament. They use you, throw you away, and then you fight for their honor! THAT is power.

Karl Marx was right. He viewed human history and he personally bore witness to the horrors wreaked upon workers, families, and children by that never-ending greed machine we refer to as the Industrial Revolution. He knew then that it was sustained only through morally reprehensible labor practices and it remains so today.

They don’t give a shit about anyone.

Wall Street Confidential : Cramer On Games Hedge Funds Play

2007-05-22T18:42:00.001-04:00

The very foundations of capitalism are corrupt. It is a big game of manipulation and lies.

Bleeding & Pissed-Off

2007-05-21T22:16:00.000-04:00

From the Progressive Daily Beacon:

The 'bleeding heart Liberal' - the person who hoped to stop nonsensical wars being perpetrated for no reason other than creating safe new markets for corporations to either sell their product in, or to enslave the population so that they could sew cheap clothing designed only to increase profits and CEO annual salaries. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who hoped to end global poverty and feed hungry Americans. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' who had warned of global warming long before it became fashionable and even before Exxon and other corporations began paying propagandists to refute its existence. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought to protect drinking water, rivers, lakes, and wetlands from unnecessary corporate pollution. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought for living wages, vacation time, and medical benefits for America's workers. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought for programs to feed the elderly and ensure, after retirement, that they had affordable healthcare.

The so-called bleeding heart Liberal was shamed into near extinction by thugs and snake oil salesmen. That's too bad really, because there was a time 'bleeding heart Liberals' were willing to fight for what was right. What could be more right than America's humanity?

The Republican will ask me ‘not to be so angry’ or not to speak in ‘shrill tones’. It makes sense that he should request my silence really. No criminal ever wants the victims or witnesses to cry foul or fight back. The tough-talking conservatives want us, the American people of good conscience, to maintain a gentle, compliant state of non-resistance to any of their efforts to turn this great land into a fascist corporo-stocracy. Too bad for those mother fuckers. As one commenter so aptly put it, “The death of the bleeding heart liberal is maybe a good thing. We are transformed, thanks to the GOP, into “Pissed-off Progressives.” Passivity in the face of Republican policy and rhetoric is an admission of defeat. Do not ever let them shut you down by demanding that you be ‘polite’ or ‘civil’. Fuck them and fuck that. When human beings are being exploited and tortured as a matter of public policy, I am going to be very mad about it. There are no punches pulled and no holds barred.

I hope the Democrats in Congress (are you listening Nancy?) understand this and adopt an entirely offensive and non-conciliatory posture when dealing with the GOP. There is no reason to negotiate with those elements bringing us into perpetual wars, torture, erosions of civil liberties, and the bankrupting of social programs, while contaminating the American ideal through the merger of big mega-business and the force of federal government. None whatsoever. If we accept incremental changes in policy, and there is no reason to do so, it must on OUR terms, and never theirs. Negotiating with them will just mean more wasted time and more needless suffering.

Some of us are still fighting the good fight and remember that anger is justified in the face of ongoing atrocities. This bleeding heart has always pumped red, thick human blood; never oil, depleted uranium, or stores of gold. It pumps compassion for victims and anger at those who cannot bear themselves to show others simple human considerations and empathy. I will hate the warmongers. I will not feel sorry for the false victims and pretentious yes-men who front them. I will speak to truth loudly. I will not be ashamed to stand up for what is just and right. If they want me quiet, they will have to kill me.

Good luck with that. Nature will probably beat them to it.

The Charedi 'War' on Computers?

2007-05-20T07:58:00.000-04:00

From HaAretz:

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish group declares war on computers

Every Gerrer Hasid with a computer can expect a house call in the near future, meant to persuade him to get rid of the treyf device. Those with an Internet connection - the height of spiritual contamination, which only a few members of the community have rabbinical permission to use, and that for work purposes only - will receive special attention.

The purpose of the campaign is not to threaten computer users with sanctions, but rather to explain the "spiritual dangers" to which they and members of their household are exposed. If the Gerrer rebbe so wished, members of the community say, he would have ordered the computers removed from his followers' homes. But the Rebbe is not doing so, perhaps because he, Rabbi Yaakov Aryeh Alter, knows how difficult it is to round up the horses once the stable door has been left open. And so, the campaign's purpose is informative: Every shtibl [small synagogue] is to appoint two people to go from house to house with the message that it is preferable not to have a computer at home.

HaAretz is one of those periodicals that allows for comments from readers. I’ll post just a couple of those here so you get some idea of how polarized people are on the issue and how stupid they can get when the subject comes to Charedim. I know that may of you might assume that I, being the vocal apikores, agree with such harsh critiques of the Chasidishe Veldt, but that is not so at all. I do not agree entirely with the Gerrer Rebbe’s initiative, but I see a great deal of wisdom in it.

The title of the article is no doubt misleading and provocative. Most of the redundant controversy and rhetoric stems from readers getting caught up in the sensationalism rather than the content of the article, which in no way suggests the Gerrer Rebbe intends to wage a ‘war’, but rather an outreach program.

A woman from Rechovot writes (I tidied up her spelling and grammar):

They are violating human rights by shutting their children and wives away from the world. It`s imprisonment against one`s will. Say what you want, but if you`re questioning that, then you must be thinking that also the 12 year old girl kidnapped and made into n-the wife of a Mormon somewhere in the U.S. was so-to-say acting out of her "free will"! Do these rabbis think they`re G-d to order people around like that?! I`d say it`s time for them to review their own behavior!

I don’t know how you read this comment, but frankly, I think she has some serious issues unrelated to computer abuse in the Charedi community. To go from banning the internet to Mormons is quite a leap. I agree that there are some controlling aspects to Charedi lifestyle and that parents and community leaders exercise an inordinate amount of control, in the eyes of many, over their followers. But guess what? There are some communities, especially in urban America, where people are crying out for such active and effective leadership! I grew up in that world and I call it “being responsible for your family and community.” We may argue as to what extent that control should or should not apply, but for a community to police its own is not a bad thing. I do not believe the Gerrer Rebbe is over-reacting.

Shmuel, also from Rechovot, speaks wise words when saying:

The responses are sadder than the article. Everyone is so upset that the Gerrer Chasidim shut off their children from the internet, as though they are now abandoned to the Middle Ages. I (although not Charedi), choose to have no internet connection in my house, and I live a rather modern life without it. To me, it is more sad to see how the general secular public ignores the risks and and danger that the internet poses to our children, and rather just blames the Charedim for their response to the danger (even if you don`t agree with it). Filth and the destruction of the education of our children does not equal modernity!

I have to agree with much of what Shmuel is saying. You don’t need the internet to become smarter, worldly, or educated. Arguably, past generations that created the technology we have today did so without the aid of computers or the internet. The internet is simply a venue for communication, but certainly not the only or even the most effective means to do so in terms of educational value. We utilize the computers in schools, not as matter of necessity, but for convenience. Nothing replaces the face to face interaction of a real teacher in a classroom or real people in a real, three-dimensional social setting. When the virtual world becomes ‘real’, we find many social and individual problems growing from the associated behaviors. I would venture to guess that internet junkies and ‘gamers’ are far more likely to become shut off from the real world than are the children of those Gerrer Chasidim who have chosen to unplug their PCs from the World Wide Web.

Kol Tuv

Energy Crisis?

2007-05-20T00:00:00.000-04:00

I had my first energy drink a couple of months ago. I’d been fighting an illness related fatigue and, in order to keep working at an acceptable level without arousing suspicion, I turned to Red Bull to give me a little boost. That was a huge mistake. Not that it had any adverse physical side-effects. Quite the opposite occurred, in fact. It gave me exactly what I needed to get through the day and be quite productive. The problem was that it made me too energetic, so much so that I turned into a complete, raging asshole, something which normally only happens when I’m in the midst of depression or drinking Wild Turkey with Republicans.

I already knew from my co-workers that energy drinks can be very addicting and frequent drinkers become physiologically and psychologically dependent upon them. They possess an ultra-high dose of vitamins, sugar, caffeine, and minerals that quickly boost energy levels and alertness. Something that works that hard and that fast cannot be good for you if overused. So now, when I feel the need for a little pick-me-up, I drink one of the lesser powerful, ‘natural’ energy drinks that don’t send my id into total nuclear meltdown. I only will drink a shot or two at a time, and usually at the end of my work day right before I begin my workout. I know to be careful.

I see people much younger than I, even children, buying the strongest of energy drinks in the middle of the day. If these kids don’t have enough energy, what the hell can I expect at my age? What exactly are they doing, or not doing, that requires them to take high doses of stimulants? Is playing video games that important? I almost don’t even want to know at this point. What the hell does the 15 year old have to be tired about? (If you tell me he or she is having lots of sex, I’ll be very jealous, so please, if that’s the case, let me savor my ignorant bliss for a little while longer.)

I think we are going to see some serious physical and emotional damage in both kids and adults from abusing these drinks. I see value in their ability to help someone fatigued, on an occasional basis, get through the day, but otherwise, they seem redundant, over-powerful, and untested. Not that I’m a psychic doctor, but I see kidney failure and thyroid problems in their future.

For now, I’ll just try to stick with a good night’s rest and deep breathing exercises when needed.

Kol Tuv

Children See

2007-05-19T23:08:00.000-04:00

This short video says it all. Please watch.

Home Schooling

2007-05-19T21:37:00.000-04:00

As a former public school teacher I have, as you might readily surmise, an opinion about the home-schooling movement. Surprisingly, I am, at least in theory, very much in favor of it, though home schooling isn’t well-suited for every student. It also has to be determined whether the parental decision to home-school is based on realities of the child’s educational needs or merely upon a religiously-based schizophrenia or racism turned anti-government paranoia. There is home-schooling that is borne out of concern for the child and his or her specific needs and another that is the product of isolationism and separatism.

I believe there are legitimate and important reasons to home-school and, overall, home-schooling done by competent parents and tutors can create amazing results. Were one to make a general study of past luminaries in science and literature, for example, many of those men and women were home-schooled, though not exclusively by parents. Granted, it was an age when public school systems were weak or non-existent, but nonetheless, the results were quite remarkable. It is possible to mold a genius from within the confines of your own hearth and home.

It is ironic that a society which demands that the parents, on one hand, take full responsibility for their child’s welfare, education, and behavior and then, conversely, continue to harshly criticize those home-schooling parents that actually accept that weighty task willingly! I cannot tell you how many times I heard people say “Education is the parent’s responsibility.” A parent that home-schools takes on a huge responsibility and a great risk that their efforts might fall short. However, would the home-schooled kid be at any less peril than a child left vulnerable to the free-for-all of public and parochial systems? There are some children who will thrive in home education setting and encounter greater risks by the public setting. I believe that option should be available with, of course, strict guidelines that conform to accepted academic standards.

The most common critique of home schooling centers around the socialization of the home-schooled child, wrongly assuming that being stuffed into a classroom with 30-40 other children, subjected to endless and various peer pressures, cliques or perpetual teasing, or forced into a collective schedule is somehow a healthy start to life and preparation for the future. Sure, many of us developed a thicker skin and learned to ‘roll with the punches’, but not all kids are that resilient. Some, whom you may know personally, retain those deep, silent scars of childhood taunts borne in an anarchic social atmosphere with no escape or adequate release. Such emotional scars adversely affect learning and later socialization much more profoundly than would being coached in iambic pentameter by your own mother.

These same critics are under the false impression that home-schooled children social captives confined to their rooms and seldom, if ever, venture out for extra-familial contact. It is likely there are, in fact, some very over-protective parents who, with perhaps the best of intentions, hide their children from the world, but most home-schoolers are not of that variety. Home-schooling families take part in group functions that include other home schooled children in addition, to the normal family functions and parties that we all must endure from time to time. To assume that a home-schooled kid will inevitably become a maladjusted social illiterate is just plain wrong. One would make an equally grave error in asserting that a publicly schooled child, by virtue of his education being ‘public’ must, therefore, be socially well-adjusted. Lest we forget, the ‘Columbine killers’ were products of our public schools.

I may be a little biased toward home-schooling because I was, at least in part, home-schooled or strongly assisted in many subjects. I am a product of the religious Jewish parochial system. As Chasidic Jews, we have very strict behavioral and social norms that preclude us, in general, from mixing within a public school setting. There are dietary concerns, dress codes, and time constraints that do not exist in the secular world. Fortunately, we have our own private schools and incorporate a basic secular curriculum alongside the religious training. Within the system, the secular subjects were downplayed as necessary evils and held to be unimportant. Had it not been for the loving guidance of specific family members, I would likely not be here today conveying any meaningful information in a sensible and organized manner.

I don’t know if home schooling is overall better or worse than the parochial or public alternatives. Some kids do better, and some do worse. Einstein, for example, did not thrive in the German public schools of his day and did not achieve his own greatness and potential until he was free of its rigid, institutional restraints. I feel the various systems can overlap and enhance each other when needed. In order to make some useful order out of it, we have to begin with a discussion free from hyperbole and misunderstanding. There is a way to provide options that work for everyone.

Michigan HB 4564 : Fair Parenting Act 2007

2007-05-19T14:58:00.000-04:00

In many states around the country, bills have been introduced in legislatures that ask for family courts to order joint custody of children in divorce as a default, or assumed, position, rather than granting full custody and visitation to one parent or the other. It is generally referred to as the “Fair Parenting Act”, and it is much like the Uniform Parenting Act, which also seeks to reduce controversy and acrimony in divorce and custody cases. Essentially, both proposed acts, if passed, would offer fathers a benefit of the doubt in such cases where none currently exists.

Below you will find a portion of the HB 4564 and then the comments of its most vocal opponents. I will rebut this opposition at the end to show just how vacuous their ‘reasoning’ has become.

HB 4564 (Proposed)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 6a. (1) In a custody dispute between parents, the court shall order joint custody unless either of the following applies:

(a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.

(b) A parent moves his or her residence outside the school district that the child attended during the 1-year period preceding the initiation of the action and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption. If a parent is unable to maintain the child's school schedule, the court shall order that the parents submit the dispute to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with the child while accommodating the child's school schedule. A parent may restore joint custody by demonstrating the ability to maintain the child's school schedule.

(2) (1) In If subsection (1) does not apply in a custody disputes dispute between parents, the parents shall be advised of joint custody. At the request of either parent, the court shall consider an award of joint custody, and shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying a request.

This next part comes from the National Organization of Women (Now) who, not surprisingly, opposes any measure that would grant fathers a greater share of parenting time with the children. I honestly thought they could have done better, but who am I to tell them what to do? Here it is:

HB 4564 has serious consequences women and their children as well as victims of domestic violence. Action is needed NOW! We need you to contact your legislator by letter, email or phone and urge them to OPPOSE HB 4564.

If you go to their national (or state) website, NOW does not explain how giving joint custody or HB 4564 in general would effect the existing domestic violence statutes. If you read the bill, and can comprehend even just a fraction of it, there is no preclusion from asking the court to review the individual case and set custody or visitation accordingly. There is no explicit or implied clause in HB 4564 that prevents a mother (or father for that matter) from seeking the court’s permission to restrict access or visitation based upon extenuating circumstances that may arise. HB 4564 simply allows a father, as a parent, to have the presumption of equal footing in the deciding of custodial and visitation issues.

They continue:

Joint custody is based on several assumptions, which are:
* That both parents were active co-parents before the divorce or separation;

Active co-parents? I don’t know what that means exactly. Is ‘active’ determined by time, by money, or by effort? If a parent is away at work, earning the money that pays the household bills and provides the means by which the child thrives, wouldn’t that also count as ‘active’ parenting? And, why does NOW assume that one parent is ‘non-active’ and not both? If you don’t know for sure, without a hearing, then how can you assume that either parent isn’t ‘active’? It makes no sense.

* That both parents are skilled negotiators who can put their feelings aside and put the needs of their children before their own;

Once again, how do they know that the mother can put aside her feelings any more or less than would the child’s father? By their logic, neither parent should be assumed capable of such stoic fortitude. Besides, the parents aren’t negotiating anything. It will be the family court ordering joint custody based upon relative and fair assumptions unless, or course, evidence exists to preclude such an order.

*That the best and only way for both parents to be active in a child’s life is through joint custody;

Do they think that the best way for divorced parents to raise their child is for one parent to see his or her child two weekends a month? If ‘active’ is their criteria for custody, as it shows a healthy and strong parental bond, then why do they insist on one parent, usually the father, becoming ‘inactive’ by court order? Joint custody is the best way; equal time, equal exposure, and equal responsibility. Best for everyone involved. I cannot understand how separating a child from a competent loved one does any good for anyone.

* That the need for a child to have both parents in their life supersedes the child’s need for safety and stability.

Where do they think safety and stability come from? Could it be from parents? Do they really think that separating a decent parent from his or her child or limiting access without good reason is somehow creating a ‘stable’ environment? I don’t think it can get crazier than this. Children don’t look to courts, to the police, to the lawyers, or to NOW for safety and stability. They look to their parents who, under the unfortunate circumstances of divorce, must continue best they can to provide that emotional and physical security. Once again, HB 4564 does not prevent one parent from suing for sole custody or questioning the court’s decision.

I think that HB 4564 and similar bills are going to change family law for the better. Too often, a parent goes into court and is accused of something inappropriate or even criminal as a means to extract concessions or deny visitation. In English law, divorce fell under what was known then as ‘Fairness Laws’ where the decisions were made by judges, not based upon evidence, but by what was considered fair or, as we put it today, in the best interest of the child. They did this to streamline their overloaded court dockets. There were no evidentiary hearings or trials, just the administrative posturing.

HB 45664 doesn’t do away with fairness or the best interest of the child. It does however, demand that a father or mother, receive equal consideration in the interests of that child unless evidence suggests that one, or both, are unfit or unable to fulfill the requisite requirements to maintain joint custodial input.

Sexuality & Obsession

2007-05-19T09:32:00.000-04:00

Everyone has their opinion concerning extra-curricular sexual activities outside of the relationship they currently share. Each couple makes their own rules and each relationship has its own particular and often very confusing dynamic. Whether it appears good, bad, or ugly, I have learned not to pass judgments on other couples. It does not matter whether they are sexually ‘liberal’ or horribly abusive and controlling, from my vantage point, those relationships and what those persons choose for themselves is none of my fucking business. I have enough to worry about in my own relationship.

Couples make agreements, some of them explicit and others develop with time and circumstance, remaining unspoken yet very clearly drawn lines of conduct and demeanor covering a wide range of things. In my own relationships, I simply ask for honesty and teamwork. Keep to what you agree to, and don’t make shit up as you go along or change the rules in the middle of the game without good reason. One of the things I do not demand from a woman is sexual fidelity. She will be faithful or she will not. I would only ask that she use better judgment when playing around.

I learned long ago that to force people into monogamy does not always work out well in the long run. Some people are sexually expressive and curious beyond what is normally acceptable in our Puritanical-American view of sexuality. Many years ago, I loved a woman who, to put it bluntly, ‘couldn’t control her pussy’. She was open about her sexuality and on again off again lesbianism. I didn’t love her any less, but in my exuberant youthful male desire to maintain control, I drove myself from someone who I loved very much. Looking back from the vantage point of hindsight, I could have taken a much more enlightened approach to her sexuality and my own. People can share their bodies without giving away their hearts, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s a strictly personal matter.

Marlene Dietrich once said, “In America, sex is an obsession. In Europe, it’s a fact.” Only in America, does the nation go completely berserk when a sitting President gets a blow job. The effects of that prosecution wasted more than just time or money. It shifted our attention from truly important issues. Sex is just sex, and Marlene had it right. To turn sex into an obsession is to make it a religion unto itself, where we worship the attainment as some sort of epiphany while regulating it to the point of destroying the ease and pleasure with which sex is to be enjoyed.

It isn’t really about the sex, rather the attitude that punishes decent people for merely expressing their physical desires. No, I don’t advocate sexual anarchy at all. There are, of course, health and family issues to consider. For some, sexuality becomes a means of acting out on deeper psychological issues and those people should seek professional help. In my quest for social enlightenment, I recognized within myself the severe emotional frustrations caused by artificial and superstitious social stigmas surrounding sexual taboos. I chose to exclude those quasi-religious propositions from my personal relationships and I am happier for it.

It is all about the agreement.

Kol Tuv

Gas prices: How to Bitch About It

2007-05-17T14:00:00.000-04:00

I have been contemplating how to proceed, most effectively, in voicing my discontent over high and ever-increasing gas prices. It is pretty clear, at this juncture, that the CEOs of the major oil companies and associated refineries have no intention of forgoing on massive and unequalled profits just to appease a malcontented consumer base. That Americans should have ever expected the 21^st century Robber Barons to hear our cries for economic mercy, shows to our overall naiveté and collective inability to understand a common lesson from our own history. We certainly cannot turn to the political sphere for assistance as they, too, have fallen under the wily enchantments of oil money. There seems to be no one to turn to anymore.

Or, is there? Is there someone to whom we can address our dismay? Someone, who perhaps, does have the ear and attentions of the Oil Barons? We know that CEOs talk to other CEOs. They are an aristocracy unto themselves and behave as royalty. Their friendships, associations, and even recreations remain shared only amongst their own kind. They even sit on the executive boards of each other’s companies sometimes. They do talk to one another.

Now when I have to pay twice as much for my transportation as I did a year ago, it affects my bottom line, and I cannot spend as much money on recreational activities such as dining out, going to the cinema, or taking a vacation at some fancy resort. These very pleasurable and once commonplace experiences are no longer affordable due the rising costs gasoline. Sure, I can cut corners by driving less or buying a car that gets better gas mileage, but at some point I still will be paying more for my basic needs than before and that hurts my pocketbook.

This realization gave me an idea. Rather than pleading endlessly, and futilely, unto the deafened ears of criminals in Big Oil, why not write a polite letter to one of the CEOs of those other corporations whose products and services you can no longer afford or enjoy because of high gas prices?

Here is an example: (I am using Disney, but you could stick any company in there i.e. McDonalds, Star Theatres, etc.)

Dear Mr. Eisner,

Let me first congratulate you on offering a wonderful and stimulating vacation experience for millions of people worldwide. It is a truly remarkable happening. My family and I are very eager to visit your park and enjoy the myriad of rides and attractions to the absolute fullest.

However, due to the recent surge in gas prices, my family and I have had to cut back on discretionary expenditures of all kinds and, I am very sad to say, so too, must we put off visiting Disney for another time. My kids are really disappointed, but the rising cost of transportation makes such a trip impossible at this time. I hate breaking their hearts this way, but the financial realities must be considered.

I wonder how many other middle class families have to forego their vacations, some of them at your establishments, because of financial constraints due to rising energy and gas prices. It is a shame, because, for the children at least, a visit to Disney is an experience that lasts a lifetime.

Maybe we can get there next year.

Yours truly,

Mr. or Mrs. Potential Consumer

Or, should you prefer something less verbose:

Dear CEO of McDonald’s Corp.,

The convenience of having a hot cup of coffee and a tasty breakfast ready for me on my way into work each day cannot be understated. Your breakfast sandwiches are addictive! Unfortunately, due to much higher gas prices than normal, I have to choose between the tasty convenience of your delicious product and having enough money to fill my gas tank.

I don’t know how many other people are having to consider such an option, but I imagine there must be some others also financially hard-pressed due to the rising gas prices.

Sincerely,

Mr. Consumer

If other corporations realize the impact that higher gas prices have on their bottom line then perhaps the CEO of Brand X will have a conversation with CEO of Gas Co. A, and, if all goes well, the consumer night see some relief at the pump. It does us no good, at this point, to rant and rail against the whole machine when certain parts of the machine can be utilized to dampen the effects of the other. I suspect the CEOs of Disney already imagine that higher basic living costs mean that fewer people will visit their parks or purchase their products. However, we do need to tell them so they know for certain.

An Honest Waitress?

2007-05-15T00:06:00.000-04:00

I have to agree with the person who expressed a heretofore unspoken reality concerning friendly waitresses or female bartenders. After having worked a few night shifts in a local club, I began to notice the starkly contrasting personality shifts that wait staff would undergo in between times spent in front of customers and the few moments they spent out of sight and earshot of patrons. That eye-opening experience caused me to pretty much stop eating out altogether. I began to wonder if every time I ate in a restaurant that the server was employing some uber-phony friendliness and really couldn’t give a damn if I was happy or not with my meal. If I wished to dine in the company of an actress, one well-trained in faking most everything, I would hook up with my ex wife.

So, dear waitress, if you see me sitting at your table please don’t patronize me with tossing a hip my direction or batting your eyes. Don’t twist your hair or try any coquettish nonsense. Don’t call me “Honey” or “Sugar”. Don’t ask me how I am doing or how my day is. You don’t give a shit and please don’t ruin my day any further by trying to convince me that you do. Be polite and be prompt. That’s all you need to do. There isn’t any chance in hell that you would interact with me were I not seated in your section. Don’t try to persuade me otherwise. You’ll get a better tip not treating me as if I’m some gullible, love-struck dupe.

Yet, why single out wait staff or servers for being disingenuous? Hell. We all smile for our bosses, our customers, and even our families when we don’t want to. We all lie to ourselves and to them in order to achieve some financial or social end. I think this is what disgusts me about myself sometimes, in that I have to play the game just to pay the bills and have a few dollars for fun left over. I can imagine the frustration of having to fake everything, perhaps not all the time, but enough of the time that one ends up carrying a huge Santa-size sack of unspoken resentments and hatreds. I should know.

We are all whores, doing shit we don’t always want to do for someone we sometimes hate. So, dear waitress, go ahead. Tell me you how much you don’t want to be serving these scrambled eggs and how my physical appearance makes you either sick to your stomach or brings on a painful indifference. Tell me that you don’t give a damn about the eggs or me. Be honest. I am so tired of being patronized, and I am sure that someone is secretly wishing that I, too, would cease being disingenuous with them.

People demand candid honesty, but turn hateful when it when it arrives. Go figure. Oh, dear waitress, here is yours. Where is mine?

'Fixing' the Fight Game

2007-04-15T21:08:00.000-04:00

The only sport I follow closely is boxing. I do watch the UFC and, on occasion, I will also check out some of the international martial arts competitions when available. Even though the skill level and pain tolerance of some of the fighters in other martial arts venues is nothing short of amazing, classic boxing still has my heart and soul. I truly enjoy watching the sport, analyzing the game and the fighters, and I train, when possible, as would a middleweight boxer. I had a few amateurish fights and have sparred many rounds, but that was long ago before getting older made recovery time a much longer process. Being hit hard by another fighter teaches you to respect the effort and skill of the game.

This is my short list things professional boxing can do to improve itself and widen its quickly eroding fan base. (No, it doesn’t include naked women.)

** Do away with the alphabet soup of belts and titles. A boxer’s ranking can be more easily determined by a universal numbering system that places them a single hierarchy based upon fight experience, opponent experience, and fight record. As it stands now, a promoter decides to create a fictitious boxing league and then anoints a ‘champion’ from among his own fighters. It’s just nonsense.

** Boxing should have set standards for glove and ring size that varies only with the size of the fighter. Heavyweights would all fight in the same size ring and wear gloves of the same weight, for example. The legal and managerial wrangling over such matters takes away from the sport. As it is now, many fights are won or lost for a fighter even before he steps into the ring. The fighter with the bigger ‘money draw’ basically decides what will happen.

** Make champions face better challengers and not fight a slew of lesser fighters in between just so they can cruise around taking easy paydays. In a numbered ranking system, a level one fighter must face at least a level two, a two at least the three, the three the four, and so on. This way the best will be fighting the best all the time and those at a slightly lower level will get the chance to move up. Allowing managers to pick and choose who their fighter will face makes for very boring boxing. It means that good fighters won’t be tested by better fighters and better fighters, although fearing the potential loss at the hands of a really good one, would have to take the challenges.

** Boxing is a business, but it is often a very crooked one. Fighters who have earned millions of dollars for their promoters and managers are often left with nothing but a tax bill at the end of the day. There is no regulatory commission or union looking out for the fighter’s best interests. Boxing needs a union to protect the fighters from those who claim to be their best friends. Boxers as a rule are not financially savvy characters.

** The payout for fights should be determined by the numerical ranking and not the backroom games of lawyers and casino owners. It would be easy enough to work out a system where we can do this. Say a level ten boxer fights a level twelve. Since he is higher in ranking, we automatically give him a certain percentage of the overall purse, as he is taking the bigger risk by possibly losing his ranking to the lesser fighter.

Implementing these few suggestions will not be easy, but they would, I believe, go a long way to improving the sport. That is, if we can ever get them past the promoters. Chances of that happening, however, are slim to none. The greedy don’t let go easily.

Look Alikes

2007-04-15T19:48:00.000-04:00

Peter the Great of Russia (1672-1725) King, Reformer, Military Genius, Engineer, Westernized the Russian Empire.

Ron Jeremy (1953- ) Big Penis, Cheesy Porn Actor.

Drug Testing & Welfare

2007-04-15T14:37:00.000-04:00

There remains a great deal of controversy over whether or not potential Welfare recipients should face mandatory drug testing before becoming eligible to receive benefits such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, or any other taxpayer subsidized social program. I happen to think such a policy makes good sense. It is not unreasonable to demand that a beneficiary of any social program be at least, from the start, in a state of mind that allows him or her to use the assistance responsibly. No one wants to see the system overburdened by bad decision making or have public funds end up going for things not intended by the good will of the people. Drug testing is therefore a good policy.

On the other hand, I also feel that mandatory drug testing is intrusive and it doesn't really tell you much about the person or the quality of their person or work. Different drugs have different effects on different metabolisms and, to lump all drug users, be they recreational marijuana smokers or hardcore meth-heads, together, is just plain stupid. I don't see why a guy who smoked a joint last weekend on his brother-in-law's houseboat should be denied employment or social benefits while the alcoholic who closed down the bar the night before, drunk off his ass, gets all he needs with no questions asked. Plenty of people use drugs occasionally and are quite responsible in all other ways. To single out drug use a prohibitive factor to collecting benefits or employment is misguided.

Now, in the private sector, if I know that company is drug screening employees, then I have two choices. I must either quit using drugs, or apply for a job elsewhere. At this point, and until drug testing becomes universally mandatory, I voluntarily make that choice. There may be an economic consequence, but it remains a trade-off that I would be willing to accept in most cases. The company that I work for does not drug test, and some of our long term employees remain for just that reason.

For Welfare, we still want to ensure that the money we give is used properly, but we also don't want to be too intrusive into their privacy. As an option, we set up a two or three-tiered system of benefits. The first level includes a voluntary drug test and, should the applicant pass this test, they receive the maximum allowable benefit. If they choose to test and then come up positive for drug use, they then would have the choice of rehabilitation, in which they could still collect a reduced benefit, and subsequently, should they demonstrate clean living at a later time, they then become eligible to receive the maximum. Should the recipient refuse to be drug tested altogether, he or she would still receive benefits, but they would be greatly reduced. Most importantly, we give the applicant the choice. At any time along the way, the applicant or beneficiary can improve or harm their status.

This system would allow the recipient to voluntarily take the drug test and also provide the welcome opportunity and financial incentives to kick drugs altogether. Of course, no system is perfect and each program has its obvious flaws, many of which do not surface until it is too late to change direction. Yet, in terms of how we administer social programs, we have enough experience now to make the right changes to ensure fiscal stability for both program and recipient. Let's start out facing reality and be able to adjust, from the onset, to the inevitable.

On Corporate Welfare

2007-04-15T10:37:00.000-04:00

Re: do any of you rubes have any idea how so called corporate welfare works?

Yes. We do.

Corporate welfare is offered in various forms. Mostly it takes the form of subsidies, reduced fees, tax deferments, tax rebates, and tax amnesty. In some cases, it shows up as legislation designed to protect companies from liability due to financial malfeasance or injurious products. Corporate welfare also shows up in tariff and import laws, where certain products from favored nations or manufacturers receive a wider range of available international markets. Any and all government intervention that assists a private corporation to increase its profits is, de facto, corporate welfare.

For example, the current lobbying efforts of Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton to enact retroactive legislation which would allow them to evade criminal and civil liability, are excellent examples of corporate welfare, should they succeed in getting it passed. It would save them each billions of dollars in payout to victims and in legal fees. There are also fees that private companies, particularly those who deal in natural resources pay to the federal government for access to federal lands. These fees are often waved. Why?

Re: in your simple mind it's just a big check handed to a CEO.

Any tax that is not paid by the corporation increases it profit by decreasing its overhead. Now that increase in profit may not go to the CEO directly, rather to the corporation and thus to the shareholders who, by contract with the CEO, usually pay him a bonus according to his performance. So yes, some of it usually does wind up in the pockets of a CEO. I honestly don’t care where it goes. It is from where it is being taken that is the issue.

Re: money is used for research, development and implementation of ideas. without government funding many of today’s technological breakthroughs would not be possible.

Bullshit. If a private company wishes to do research to develop newer and better products, why should the taxpayer have to contribute to a private venture? If the corporation can’t profit from what it does without taxpayer help, then perhaps it should, following the laws of the free market, go the fuck out of business. Corporations can hire the best and brightest with all their money and, with all those MBAs and PhDs running around, one would expect them to have enough brain-power to succeed. If they need MY help to develop a new product, they don’t need to stay in business.

Edison, Bell, Fulton, Whitney, Ehrlich, Salk, Marconi, Ford, Wright Brothers, Winchester, Browning, Cooper, and thousands of other inventors and scientists were able to develop new, useful, lifesaving innovations WITHOUT any taxpayer help. Why can’t Verizon? Besides, many large corporations do not produce anything at all, i.e. Citicorp and WalMart, but are either just financial institutions or retailers of shitty Chinese products. Even if they did develop new products, I am still wondering why, in light of free market ethics, they should be taxpayer subsidized.

Re: funding provides jobs which in turn create tax paying employees

WRONG AGAIN. Name one corporation in the USA that hasn’t cut jobs, downsized, or outsourced to cheaper labor markets. Corporate welfare merely creates a means by which a corporation can increase its bottom line without having to do anything tangible in relation to sales, marketing, product development, or consumer protections. Citicorp just received a HUGE tax break from NYC and then promptly announced they were laying off 17,000 workers so they could show the same profit percentage as their competitors.

In fact, the corporations the receive the LARGEST benefits from ‘welfare for the rich’ have already moved their manufacturing bases overseas, where they rape the local labor force and taxpayers as they did when they were here. If what you were suggesting was even remotely truthful, I would readily admit to the upside. When it has happened, as in the bailout of Chrysler in the 1980s, it did enable 1000s of regular guys to keep their $20/hr jobs for a short time but, more importantly, it allowed the upper management of Chrysler to keep their $20 million a year salaries and bonus packages. Do you really think that the CEOs were worried about the guys and gals working on the line?

Your assertion is also, even if true, fundamentally unfair in principle. Why should the guy who does the actual work that enriches the corporation, pay a larger percentage of his income to shoulder the tax burden that the corporation has wriggled itself out of? So not only does Joe Worker pay income and sales taxes for himself, but he has to pay a higher tax to make up for what is either being directly given to or forgiven of the company he works for! In addition, since most workers do not work for these companies to begin with, what advantage does corporate welfare offer them? I, who do not work for a Fortune 500 company, will have to make up the difference they didn’t pay. Absurd!

Re: yes, there is corruption

I have to wonder what you define as ‘corruption’. Embezzlement, fraud, and insider trading are corrupt, no doubt, but they are criminal acts that still fall under established criminal and civil codes. So is shoplifting for that matter. We are not speaking here of individual or even institutional criminality, although they are part of the issue. The corruption is of the system that permits any corporation to be legally subsidized by taxpayer’s dollars or legislation.

The entire system of corporate welfare is from its core, a corrupt, albeit still legal, game of extortion and bribery. It is interesting that the many champions of the free market are so willing to advance the cause of taxpayer assisted corporate expansion, and thus ignore the basic rules of free market economics. If the government is helping one company over another, it is just plain unfair to all the others. If the government is helping anyone, then why should they be in business?

Corporations, WalMart in particular, know exactly how to approach a municipality and what line of bullshit to lay on them in order to gain a most-favored tax exempt status for a determined period of time. Let’s be real, the Walton family is one of the wealthiest in the world. I don’t wish them any evil, but c’mon already. Do you really think, at this point, being the largest retailer in the USA, that they should be receiving property tax rebates and deferments? Corporations that have their hands out for welfare is like Bill Gates sitting along the highway asking for spare change from passersby or asking the federal government to let him not pay his water bill. If WalMart needs taxpayer help, they should not be in business. Someone else was there before WalMart, operating without those enormous tax breaks, and someone new would easily fill in the gap when WalMart is no longer.

Corporate welfare also allows companies that should no longer be in business, either because of lousy products, strong competition, bad business planning, or criminal behavior to continue operating beyond what normal market forces would permit. Corporate welfare also means that they get to play with YOUR money and protect their own from risk. Corporations also have investment portfolios. I would love to have someone else’s cash to play the market risk-free. Corporate welfare SUBVERTS the normal business atmosphere.

Re: do a little research before you start yammering your jaws about a subject in which you obviously have no knowledge of.

Take your own advice, please.

Don Imus: Bye-Bye Asshole

2007-04-13T14:50:00.000-04:00

I’ll be honest here. I never really listened to Don Imus on the radio or watched his show. I tried once or twice (ok…three times) while under the influence of nothing better to do, but even at its best, getting a root canal without anesthetic by comparison seemed more pleasurable. His humor is the sort of cruel, degrading type that makes one wonder as to what dark and foreboding character traits lie at the depths of this man’s psyche. When Dom Imus tells a joke that berates someone else, it comes across as if he really means it. Anyone who can claim Dick Cheney as an ardent fan of his show must be one truly and profoundly impaired human being.

There has a lot of tumult and controversy over his latest comments regarding a female college basketball team and something about them being “nappy-headed hoes”. (I have no idea if I spelled any of that correctly.) My response? So what? We all know this guy is an asshole in the first degree and that his show is only popular among old conservative fuckers and tolerated by others who are addicted to any available noise the media provides to break the monotony of the work day. His fan base, I am told, is the provincial and pedestrian corporate or corporate friendly middle-aged to senior white guy who has nothing good to say about anything that he perceives will hurt his bottom line.

I don’t care any more that Don Imus is gone as I did when he was there. I could care less. His listeners were inconsequential and his groupies even less so. The important event here is the quick and decisive response on the part of corporate sponsors and the networks who, already under fire for their propagandist reporting style of the Bush regime, took no time in distancing themselves from Don Imus and his racist remarks. This means that the corporate media is listening to the people. It’s also possible that his ratings were so bad that the executives were just waiting for an excuse to fire him.

Either way, Imus is history, and I won’t miss him at all. Good riddance!

The Big Three (Idiots)

2007-04-13T12:54:00.000-04:00

I was up late last night flipping channels and trying to either fall asleep or find something, anything, from among the 200 channels available that would pique my interest enough to make the awake time somewhat worthwhile. I don’t want to feel as if I wasted the entire night in just readjusting my derriere to the futon mattress or merely staring off toward the digital abyss into the haze of static noise and infomercials.

So, I come across a CNN business interview with one of those slick-talking, smarmy VPs from General Motors marketing division. Normally, I could care less what big business hirelings have to say about anything, as they are usually lying out their asses, but this time I was actually bored enough to take note, and I set down the remote to await the inevitable. Sure enough, it took only thirty seconds for this corporate douchebag to tell a giant fib. These assholes never disappoint.

The topic du jour was hybrid vehicles and compliance with federal mileage standards in comparison with European automobiles. I shit you not, this suit-and-tie son-of-a-bitch said, “General Motors has been at the cutting edge of hybrid technology, and our cars get as good if not better gas mileage than do cars in Europe.”

Anyone who knows anyone in Europe, or anything about Europe, knows that statement is about as patently false as any statement could possibly be. Ford, Opal, Volvo, etc., have been producing cars in Europe for the European market that gets 45 to 77 miles per gallon, and have been for decades. Some of these cars still have carburetors! I regularly chat with Europeans and have been to Europe myself a few times and it is painfully obvious that Europe is, much like in many ways, years ahead of America in terms of their engineering and ecological thinking.

These cars have never been made available here. I keep hearing the usual mantra of “There’s no market for them here.” What? The myth that Americans won’t drive smaller cars was dispelled in the 1970s when German and Japanese imports struck the America market in a huge way. There will always be those with large families, commercial needs, and small penises who require uber-large vehicles. They are NOT the entire auto market and, as we see by the success of Toyota and Nissan, by example, these buyers of large gas-guzzlers are not even in the majority. America has been clamoring for better choices and the Big Three have ignored us. They continue to roll out the same tired models with the same meaningless cosmetic adjustments. Blah.

One has to wonder what exactly this VP was thinking when he uttered those words. Now, you can pay a whore to say, “I love you”, but you know damned well that she doesn’t. This corporate whore just spews what he’s paid to say and hopes that enough people are stupid enough to buy it and the crappy product his job is dependant upon. Fact is that the smallest model sold by GM, the Aveo, only gets 26 miles per gallon in city driving, or at least that’s what the sticker at the dealership says. I was about to buy myself one of those until I read that. Twenty six? That’s it? And someone thinks this is good gas mileage?

It’s no wonder the Big Three will soon disappear. They think we are fucking idiots. It’s been twenty, maybe thirty years running and they still don’t want to get it. They aren’t ignorant of the facts. Everything is about profit margins, and smaller cars just don’t have the same profitability as do the big huge trucks and SUVs. Apparently, they were counting per unit rather than long-term overall sales. There is no profit if no one buys your product. That they have been losing money hand over fist is telling.

Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007)

2007-04-13T08:36:00.000-04:00

Photobucket" border="0">

There was a lovely Asian woman in a skin-tight pair of Guess jeans leaning up against a ill-maintained and weather-battered kiosk somewhere in the middle of the NYU campus. She was completely engrossed, mentally and physically it appeared, in Kurt Vonnegut’s Sirens of Titan. She looked up just long enough to notice this Chasidic Jew, the quintessential anomaly on campus, checking out her ‘reading material’. As a knee jerk defense to being caught red-handed (or red-eyed!), I casually inquired as to what exactly it was that captured her unwavering attention, although I had already, in spite of being focused on her physique, caught the title in passing.

I had no moral right to interrogate her on the choice of reading material but, in an effort to deflect attention from my obvious moral misstep, I did so anyhow. She responded politely and expressed, in no few words, her intense appreciation for Vonnegut’s style. The conversation ended with me heading directly for the nearest bookstore and she, a woman whose name I hadn’t even bothered to ask, was left in a bit of shock over her first and probably final close encounter with a Chasidic Jew. There was likely something she wanted to ask me, but didn't. Even though our kind are found swarming all over New York, we aren’t exactly the most sociable or accessible.

This seemingly short and abrupt interaction led to my baptism into the cult of Vonnegut. Modern American literature, most certainly not someone as controversial as Vonnegut, is not a 'staple' of the yeshivishe intellectual diet. The garbage that passes for literature (music and art as well) in the sanctimonious, unimaginative, and victim-guilt ridden religious Jewish world becomes unreadable once a thinking or feeling person is confronted with real art and meaning. To be fair, the Moslems and Christians do no better in this respect. At best, the purveyors of religious literature parody the worst parts of secular art and infuse their plagiarism with morality and historical revisionism.

I was immediately enamored with Vonnegut as I had, albeit clandestinely, with Melville, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and many, many other great literary greats. I don’t have much to say about the man that hasn’t been shared by many others in much more eloquent fashion, so I won’t say more. I suppose I enjoyed Vonnegut for his caustic wit and ability to put things plainly, without hyperbole or exaggeration. He was clearly a beloved leftist and perhaps somewhat of a Budhist as well. I can very much associate with his sentiments and his not-so-subtle critique of the over-romanticism that most apply to life or seek to wring from it. Vonnegut saw the best parts of life as simply ‘nice’ moments. I saw the reflection of Spinoza in Vonnegut’s straightforward and plain outlook on his own experience. Vonnegut saw the good in people, in spite of his sometimes darkened attitude. Some might say this association is misplaced. They could be right.

I will miss you Kurt. Be at Peace.

Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why.

Still Around For Now

2007-03-23T10:06:00.000-04:00

I am not lost, nor have I abandoned the blogosphere. I am just tired. Really tired. I have been struggling with some health issues of late, and it appears, though as of yet uncertain, that it may be 'yenne machaleh'. Residual pains in my lower back and legs is also sapping my quality of life down to nothing these days. I work, come home, complain about the pain, and sleep as much as I can. I have some good days when work goes well and I can get to the gym, but those are becoming fewer and further between.

Aside from these problems, trying to follow the immensely and overwhelmingly corrupt world of American politics and corporatism is draining me emotionally. It seems there is nothing to be done about war, corporate infleunce, and misguided justice that favors the privileged over the needy. Those whom we trusted to take on the machinery of war and greed have not and will not do so.

I could still write day and night on the issues, but there are enough on-line resources devoted to the many political and social topics that my small voice is, at this point, redundant.

Hoping that all is well with everyone. Act for Peace, dream of Peace, and Live for peace!

Kol Tuv

FOC Firing Squads?

2007-02-21T07:56:00.000-05:00

A Federal District Court Judge ruled that it is against the law for an officer to shoot a father in the back for a misdemeanor child support charge. More evidence of a program that is lacking sufficient administrative and legal controls, where even the officers have become the executioners of the corrupted legal system.

Judge: Officer violates suspect's civil rights, must pay $558,026
By The Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK -- A Kensett police officer violated a suspect's rights during a 2005 attempt to arrest the man on misdemeanor charges and the officer should pay more than a half-million dollars, a federal judge says. U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes ruled against Officer Mark Wages in a lawsuit filed by Jerry Lee Cooperwood after Cooperwood was shot in the back and side by the officer almost two years ago. The judge noted Cooperwood was unarmed and did not have a history of violence.

"It is undisputed that Cooperwood never hit Wages," the judge said in his order Friday. "A reasonable officer in Wages' position would have known that shooting Cooperwood as he was running away violated the law."The judge said the officer violated Cooperwood's freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and his rights to due process. Holmes awarded Cooperwood $558,026.91 to cover his pain, suffering and mental anguish, plus medical bills.

Ok. I know that the FOC in Arkansas does not have a set policy of shooting deadbeat parents, at least not literally. This case probably shows the lack of control and professionalism on an individual officer's part more than it does on FOC procedures, but this officer's conduct does reflect the overall attitude of law enforcement and child support collection agencies. More and more, overwhelming force is being applied to warrants and arrests of parents past due on support payments, regardless of circumstances. This overkill is also seen in other places as well i.e. traffic warrant, delinquent tax bills, and for failure to appear in court. That discussion is a larger issue, perhaps better suited for another post.

I am more than willing to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt. It is not an easy job trying to keep human beings under control and in line with the law. There are a lot of non-custodial parents, and yes, mostly fathers, (because so few are ever considered for custody-another problem) who often deliberately decide not to support their children. Those men need to be held accountable, yet their neglect, rotten as it is, does not warrant a blitzkreig attack endangering the lives of both violator and police or court officer. It makes no sense and certainly, no Constitutional sense, to treat misdemeanor violations with the same severity as one would rapists or bank robbers. Clearly, there are cases where well-meaning police officers step way over the line when doing what they believe is a good thing. I know that police have to use caution at all times, but they appear to 'protect and serve' each other more now than they ever have done for common citizens.

Being as active as I have been on FOC issues, I can relate dozens of stories of men arrested in the dead of night by police tactical units kicking in doors in order to serve misdemeanor warrants for non or overdue child support payments. In one instance, a West Highland terrier was beaten with a baton when the police forced their way into a man's home. (The man, after 30 days in jail, came home to find the decomposed corpse of his beloved companion.) One would think that this fellow was an armed serial killer raising pit bulls, but he was just an unlucky guy who suffered a work-related injury and was waiting for his compensation benefits to kick in. In the meantime, the FOC, at the behest of his ex-wife, issued an immediate warrant for his arrest. We have no idea what she told the officers to expect, but they could have knocked on his door at lunchtime to ask a few questions before springing a midnight ninja attack expecting mortal combat. At least give the guy a chance to go peaceably. The vast majority already do.

I still want to be fair to the police. There are cases where retaliation should be expected i.e. the delinquent parent has a history of violence. No one sane would suggest that a historically violent suspect should have to be gently coaxed into a waiting squad car by unarmed officers. Let the force be available if necessary. Yet, the blatant and premeptive use of force, excessive or otherwise, seems to be creating more problems than it solves. If a suspect imagines that he will be more than likely facing a physical threat from the officers, he will be more inclined to prepare himself for what he believes will be an inevitable confrontation.

The police and courts operate in small professional bubble and because of this subculture mentality, they commonly fall prey to the 'fallacy of vividness' which, in plain English, means that whatever happens anywhere in any courtroom, crime scene, or lock-up becomes that standard by which all agencies gauge their future behavior. It is a tunnel-vision of sorts. Due to this phenomenon, ALL suspects, no matter how docile, are treated as 'potentially' dangerous and, as instances of courthouse shootings escalate, so do the attitude toward even non-violent, honest citizens. I understand the worries of police and judges, but their culture doesn't concern itself with my safety, only my unquestioning obedience to their authority. Most of the time that isn't a problem.

Now, I don't think that Mr. Cooperwood is a nice guy, model citizen, or even a sympathetic victim, but the officer had no business shooting this man (in the back no less) who didn't threaten that officer's life or that of any other civilian. They could have reissued another warrant and picked him up another time. This is a good decision though that will hopefully put a little restraint on police violence against non-violent offenders and common citizens suspected of criminal acts. Similar suits were needed to curb police chases through populated areas. The overuse of police force is a huge problem everywhere, especially during protests and demonstrations, where tactical teams of militarized units routinely bully peaceful marchers. My hope is that such awards will curb this use of force. Likely, however, the police agencies will simply cry 'victim' and their aforementioned attitude problem will just get worse.

Mr. Cooperwood may be savoring his victory in federal court, but I'm sure that the Friend of the Court in his locale is already waiting for the check to clear so his children can get that which they rightfully deserve. I just hope he stops being an dumb asshole. We know the system is broken and that the odds of repairing it are slim to none. However, his being a deadbeat jackass will only make matters worse.

I also find it ironic that the officer's last name was "Wages".

Peace!

(This case concerned 'misdemeanor' child support, which varies from state to state and is based upon the amount of support owed and length of delinquency. Felony child support, which carries a greater penalty, along with possible Federal charges, does not appear to be addressed in this decision.

The question remains: Should the police have the right to shoot a non-violent suspect/criminal for failure to pay a debt, should he choose to flee? Even if the charges are within the limits of a felony? Do we want law enforcement agencies to shoot people for being in debt? Arrest makes sense, incarceration makes sense, but shooting?)

Yeah, I know. I'm Twisted

2007-02-20T20:19:00.000-05:00

These are just a few 'graphics' I scooped up from some rant-n-rave sites on the internet. They made me laugh. They are all rather tasteless, I must admit, but still funny. Unless, of course, your sense of humor is rather limited.

Enjoy.

Trotsky on Anti-Semitism

2007-02-18T11:25:00.000-05:00

(White Army poster of Trotsky as a 'Jewish Devil' circa 1919)

Anti-Semitism means not only hatred of the Jews but also cowardice in relation to them. Cowardice has big eyes, and it endows its enemy with extraordinary qualities which are not at all inherent in him. The socio-legal conditions of life of the Jews are quite sufficient to account for their role in the revolutionary movement. But it has certainly not been proved, nor can it be proved, that Jews are more talented than Great Russians or Ukrainians.

This is yet another interesting quote from Comrade Trotsky that I recently discovered. He wrote a series of letters on the post-Revolution Civil War and of the various White and Red factions. This comment comes from Trotsky's analysis of a paper written by an officer of the White army, who had previously defected from the Bolshevik camp. This 'general' seemed to have a preoccupation with Jews, and Trotsky, being of Jewish origins, did not miss commenting on the obvious.

He continues:

It is worthwhile saying a few words about this question. The Jewish commissars are far from constituting such a big percentage of the total as is maintained in White-Guard reports, leaflets and newspapers. But it is undoubtedly a fact that the percentage is fairly high. Kotomin, like many other anti-Semites, sees the reason for the considerable number of Jewish commissars as being due to the special abilities and talents of Jews. He twice speaks of their ‘great talent’. Such an evaluation of the Jews certainly calls for no objection. It is a fact that the Jews are a predominantly urban people, and that they form a very high proportion of the town population. The Tsarist regime, which established very harsh conditions for the Jews, impelled not only the Jewish workers, like the Russian workers, but also petty-bourgeois intelligentsia elements of the Jewish community to take the path of revolution. Among the considerable number of Jewish Communists who have joined the Party in recent times there are quite a few the source of whose Communism is not so much social, not so much a matter of class, as national.

Trotsky was intellectually honest enough to acknowledge, however, the truth in the words of his staunchest critics and enemies, as is seen from the entirety of his works. Agree or disagree with Marxism, Comrade Trotsky did show a rare capacity to engage ideas outside communist circles and integrate them with his own philosophy to make practical and, in this case, tactical improvements to the movement.

Comrade Trotsky rightfully calls such biased hatred "Cowardice", and makes no apology for being of Jewish stock. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that Bolshevism, too, being made up of formerly very anti-Semitic Russian peasants and professionals did, in practice, engage in extreme anti-Semitism. It was such a latent anti-Semitic attitude, though institutionally non-Bolshevik, that the bastard Stalin manipulated to drive Trotsky from power after Lenin's death.

I don't know if Comrade Trotsky took all this to heart or if his focus was on much wider issues than reflections on other people's mis-perceptions of his Jewish heritage. I suspect the latter. Myself, I sometimes wonder if I live in greater danger among my philosophical peers than I do my Jewish adversaries.

Kol Tuv

The 'Sin' of Wages

2007-02-18T10:57:00.000-05:00

Being neither a professional scientist or teacher, and having to earn a modest living, eat, sleep, and relax on rare occasion, means that I am always just a little bit behind when it comes to the latest in research and discovery. Sometimes, even current events pass me right by into history before I am even aware of their happenings. My limited mental capacity is even further dampened by intellectual and emotional laziness. In addition, the vast amount of subject-varied reading material I sift through daily often leaves me without any context of time and place, as many repetitive and monotonous activities do. As a result, I end up running around shouting "Eureka!" over something that the rest of humanity has already completely forgotten. I suppose dedication does count for something.

Forgive me here if I'm doing it again.

In the February 2007 edition of Scientific American, there is a small blurb entitled, "Think of Money, Be Less Helpful", which discusses a study done by researchers at the University of Minnesota. Here is the the abstract from the study:

Money has been said to change people's motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to non-money reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance.

The most interesting thing about this study is who did it. Only one of the authors was from a psychology department, and the others were from, get this, marketing and business! In retrospect it kind of makes sense. After all, who better to study the effects of money on people than those who study marketing?

From the Scientific American:

Money is an incentive to work hard, but it also promotes selfish behavior. Those conclusion may not be surprising, but psychologists at the University of Minnesota recently found that merely thinking of money makes people less likely to give help to others. Researchers subconsciously reminded some volunteers of money by showing them lucre-related words such as 'salary'..........When money is on the brain, people become disinclined to ask for help when faced with a difficult or even impossible puzzle. And, individuals who think, even subconsciously, about money are less helpful than others, as researchers report....."

(Now if you haven't figured out where this is going yet, you either don't know me very well or haven't been reading my blog.)

One has to wonder what the defenders of Capitalism and the lovers of money have to say about this study. I can imagine the followers of Ayn Rand, author of "The Virtue of Selfishness", gathered around pile of objectivist and libertarian writings, and wondering how, how, if possible could their world view be so wrong-headed. I doubt, of course, that the results of this study will slow down the Neocons, Wall St., or Madison Ave. in any way. There are both 'bulls and bears' in the china shoppe. Good luck trying to change their attitudes with the 'science' thing. It's never had much if any effect thus far.

Being infatuated with money is like addiction to anything else. Infatuation, like blind hatred, tends to create a mental and emotional image of a desired object or result that doesn't quite match reality. Until now, the defenders of free-markets and capitalism have told us time and time again that free flow and access to profit is key to solving all the world's problems. They tell us that if people are willing to pay enough, someone would surely be willing to help them out. Conversely, these capitalist cretins argued, if someone does not sense any significant monetary reward for their actions, then inaction or non-action will be the consequent behavior.

I am a supervisor in a blue-collar industry. Over the 15 years, I have seen many types of employees and managers alike, coming, going, and remaining under many different circumstances. One thing, and this required no university psychology department to confirm in my mind, is that employees whose preoccupation is with the time clock or the salary, are just plain lousy workers. They will work just well enough to be able to say that they did their job and now they're finished. Any extras that may need doing or perhaps some finishing touches that enhance the job will not ever be performed by such people. They also shy away from helping others and often evacuate the vicinity before anyone has the chance to request their assistance. By their non-action, they inevitably will leave work behind for others. Then, at the end of the day, they complain that other workers aren't doing enough, and they imagine themselves as the only ones working! Workers with this mindset shouldn't last long, but alas, the manpower is required and training a new idiot to replace an old one is a burden on everyone, despite the inherent behavioral difficulties.

I have also had the opportunity to witness those same lousy workers outside of the work environment acting selflessly without any expectation of money or recognition, and even endangering themselves in the process. One afternoon, while out on the road (moving and storage), we happened upon a serious auto accident. The car was on fire and the passenger was trapped inside, obviously unable to get out of the car. The lousy employee that I ranted about earlier, jumped from the passenger side of the moving truck onto a busy highway, right up to that burning vehicle, smashed the back window, climbed into the car, and pulled the driver to safety. He then walked back up to truck, lit a cigarette, and climbed in without saying a word. I bought that man a beer. He never mentioned the incident again, though he did want more beer. The man who wouldn't pick up a paper clip if it wasn't specifically stated in his job description, just risked his life to save another. (We ended up firing that fellow for doing drugs while on the job.)

I have always felt that money is not a primary motivator for those with healthy, well-socialized attitudes. There is something deeper, an evolutionary sense of community and interdependency that transcends the financial and monetary. It is how mankind survived in his evolutionary infancy and how mankind will continue to thrive in a world where we face mounting challenges of environment, ecology, resources, and cultural conflicts. Sure we need money to pay our bills and have some quality of life in terms of relaxation and recreation, but beyond that, is a personality or economic system that demands, or should I say craves, excessive surpluses and profits really a healthy thing?

I will quote J.M. Keynes again. Keynes knew many years ago what this study tells us today when he said,

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

Kol Tuv

Goldman-Sucks

2007-02-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

Jon Tasini writes:

In the summer of 2005, Goldman Sachs successfully extorted money from New York, threatening to leave the city unless it received tax breaks and low-interest bonds. It did so in a fairly ugly way. Using the specter of September 11th as a club, the company pocketed an unbelievable deal: $1.65 billion in low-interest, triple-tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, enabling the firm to save as much as $9 million a year in financing costs, which would save Goldman about $250 million over the life of the bonds. If that wasn’t enough, the city also threw $115 million in sales and utility tax breaks at the company, in return for a commitment to maintain its headquarters in Lower Manhattan and employ more than 9,000 people through 2028; those breaks could rise to as much as $150 million if Goldman adds 4,000 new jobs by 2019.

Jon continues:

So, here we are now: a company that is taking money out of my pocket and yours is setting aside $16.5 billion in cash to pay out as bonuses—an average pay day of $622,000 per worker. Of course, average really is misleading—the top dogs at the company will reap the big windfalls (CEO Lloyd Blankfein is reportedly in line to cash a check of up to $50 million), with the support staff probably getting a free Metro Card or maybe a nice holiday gift basket, at best.

Jon now brings in the punchline, tough it feels more like a punch in the gut than a laughing matter.

Why shouldn’t Goldman give some of that money back to the city, or the federal government (the low-interest Liberty Bonds are backed by the faith and credit of the feds)? Sure, some of the money will come back in tax revenues. But, why should a company that chooses to devote $16 billion to bonuses continue to be underwritten by the average person? Here’s the cruel irony: New York’s residential real estate market is out of control, with the city increasingly becoming a place for the rich. Blankfein and his high-rollers will likely spend a huge chunk of their new riches to buy multi-million digs in the city, further pushing up prices and making housing even more unaffordable for millions of people—the very people who are paying taxes that are supporting the tax-breaks Goldman Sachs is enjoying so it can rake in even larger profits.

Isn’t capitalism great?

If only Jon Tasini had been elected to the U.S. Congress rather than Hillary Clinton. Madame Hillary is up to her neck-fat in Goldman-Sachs campaign money and elbow rubbings, and neither she, nor they are part of any solution to America’s economic problems. Goldman-Sachs is typical of the problem; corrupt selfish city government in league with bullying corporations. Who pays the higher taxes? You and I. Goldman-Sachs never pays their way. I doubt they ever have.

This is another example of how the notion of ‘free markets’ are a complete myth. Goldman-Sachs, who should be competitive enough to survive without tax breaks, brokers a deal with Bloomberg and leans on the taxpayers of NYC, who will now have to make up the difference. It’s not a ‘free’ market when larger companies bully access and take corporate welfare.

I wonder if the executives at Goldman-Sachs will be thanking New Yorkers for the big fat bonus checks. Somehow, I doubt such gratitude will even cross their greedy little minds, even as they watch, from the comfort of their penthouse apartments, the average person struggle along below in order to make ends meet.

Peace

The Truth About American Automakers

2007-02-16T07:28:00.000-05:00

A Modern Parable

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motor Company) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program", with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India .

Though I am not a fan of Henry Ford (1863 - 1947) or his anti-Socialist, anti-Semitic philosophy, on occasion he did offer up some great quotes. Here is one that is apt. I hope the irony isn't lost in time.

It has been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste.

How true. How true.

Darwin on Darwin on God

2007-02-15T15:54:00.000-05:00

Darwin's Study (Haig)

Since I never read Darwin's autobiography (and should have!), I honestly had no idea what Darwin's specific beliefs were in relation to God and religion. Apparently, Comrade Trotsky may have misread either the words or the meaning of Darwin's account. Here are a few excerpts from his autobiography that may shed some light on the father of modern evolutionary theory.

I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of becoming a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with great care Pearson on the Creeds and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted...

Then Darwin, further on, writing of his later recantation of said beliefs:

But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.......Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine....

Then speaking of belief in general:

At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God.....This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists....

It appears that Charles Darwin was, by his own admission, either a weak atheist or strong agnostic. The question of the previous post is perhaps really no question at all!

Deus sive Natura

Trotsky on Darwin

2007-02-14T17:47:00.000-05:00

This is an interesting quote from Leon Trotsky that I came across while browsing through some miscellaneous reference materials. It was quite an unexpected surprise!

Darwin destroyed the last of my ideological prejudices. ... The idea of evolution and determinism ... took possession of me completely. ... Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. ... I was the more astonished when I read in one of the books of Darwin, his autobiography, I think, that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural and sexual selection, and a belief in God, could find room in one and the same head.

Well, Mr. Trotsky, you and I have the same question.

Deus sive Natura!

Labor Leadership & Bloated Salaries

2007-02-14T06:17:00.000-05:00

There is a sad truth about union-labor leadership that has bothered me for at least a decade and it explains why labor 'leaders' are so complacent in the face of dwindling enrollment.

Just read it @ http://labornotes.org/node/513

I know that some of right wing anti-union, anti-worker, pro-corporate readers will lean back in their comfy Italian leather office chairs, satisfied and smugly entertaining a thought of "See? They're crooked! All unions are communist and corrupt. Even Shlomo admits it!" First of all, the corporate leadership in the union world is unfortunately a political issue detached from the rank and file by a series of rules and regulations designed to protect leadership. That needs to changed and I have always advocated a single-tiered set of rules for all union workers, managers, and corporate affiliates. Secondly, does internal corruption or institutional income disparity warrant ending an organization? If that were the case, every major corporation on the planet would find itself dissolved at the first hint of tax fraud, tax evasion, tax sheltering, golden parachuting, insider stock trading, wrongful discharge, racial and sexual discrimination, double billing, and consumer fraud; just to name a few of the zillion laws that corporations break every day around the globe. If corruption and illegality are your issues, and I applaud you for that, then first clean up where the biggest pile of filth lies.

One of many myths circulated about rank and file union laborers concerns salary. In the most recent study, cited in the above mentioned article, union laborers earned an average of $43K per year, far below the alleged '$100s of thousands' that some anti-union people believe. That $43k is just higher than the average mean income of American families. Let's be frank here, union supporters know very well how to critique their leadership and improve working conditions, pay, and productivity. We know the truth because we live it. We don't need arm-chair free marketeers and corporate apologists to tell bold faced lies about organized labor in order to put us down and keep us down. Besides, our leadership seems to be doing that job well enough these days.

Income and economic inequity cannot be addressed without the full and unified support of a committed leadership and a motivated rank and file labor force. Until we get our own 'corporates' in line, the rank and file will remain as disillusioned and cynical as always. It's bad enough that idealistic and greedy corporatists and their 'think-tanks' already have the upper hand in this struggle, we don't need lazy fat-cats amongst our own keeping us down, too.

Peace!

Stuff I'm Reading Lately

2007-02-12T20:21:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been two years now and I am still working my away through Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", and I might add, without much success in mastering "heterophenomenology". I do however, much appreciate that Dennett takes a completely naturalistic approach to a very mystical subject. If you have the stomach for some real thinking about awareness, experience, and time, Dennett is an awesome read. Maybe someday I might even finish it, but I have to chip away at this book in spurts when due diligence and patience are available.

As a member of the Scientific American book club, I come accross some great deals on some incredible and interesting books from all branches of science and mathematics. Some, especially those concerned with mathematics and higher physics, are a bit beyond what I would call 'entertainment reading' and frankly, much of the material is above what I am interested in tackling at this point.

"Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" is not another one of those boring mathematical treatises requiring one to reference college texts in order to understand and enjoy the book. It is a trail through a concept turned practical and then heretical and back again, tracing the roots and tribulations of zero. I highly recommend it even for non-math people, as the author does a great job explaining even complicated equations in their context. It offers a phenomenal lesson in philosophy and history as well. (ISBN 0-670-88457-X)

Peace!

In the News (or Snooze) 02-12-07

2007-02-12T19:41:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI had more than 300 weapons and laptops lost or stolen in just under four years, and some of the computers contained sensitive or classified information, the U.S. Justice Department inspector general said on Monday in a highly critical report. Fewer had gone missing than before a 2002 report in which Inspector General Glenn Fine's office reported 354 FBI weapons and 317 laptops lost or stolen over the previous 28 months, but he said the bureau had done too little to address the problem.

Once again, how can we ever trust an agency to keep track of criminals and terrorists when they cannot even keep track of their own equipment. These bastards treat every American citizen with suspicion yet, in a very dangerous irony, it becomes they who we need to be watching. Frankly, I think all police agencies suffer from a nasty case of arrogance. Then again, maybe it's a blessing they really are as stupid as they appear. The downside of stupid government is that it becomes a horrible mix of cruelty and unchecked power. If only police agencies kept as good a handle on their weapons as they do our reading material. Fucking fascists!

CHICAGO (AP) - Office nappers now have the perfect excuse: New research shows that a little midday snooze seems to reduce the risk of fatal heart problems, especially among men.In the largest study to date on the health effects of napping, researchers tracked 23,681 healthy Greek adults for an average of about six years. Those who napped for about half an hour at least three times weekly had a 37 percent lower risk of dying from heart attacks or other heart problems than those who did not nap.

Save this article for your boss when you are caught, once again, asleep at your desk. The study also showed, though did not publicize, that people who never wasted time going to work or killing themselves for the greed of others had a 90% lower chance of heart disease. I sneak off in the summer months into the warehouse for a ten or fifteen minute nap. I simply set the alarm clock on the cell phone and doze off. That little power-nap is a lifesaver and gets me energized for the balance of the day. I suspect the boss knows and says nothing. I am not sleeping 'on' the job, I am sleeping 'for' it!

(AFP) Chimpanzees from West Africa were cracking nuts open using stone tools in prehistoric times, according to a study that suggests some chimp populations may have been using this kind of tool technology for thousands of years. Researchers have speculated that the tool-using behaviour seen in some chimp populations might stretch back to ancient times, and this study provides the first solid proof to support that theory. The evidence comes from the world's only known prehistoric chimpanzee settlement in the Tai rainforest of Ivory Coast.

Chimps have now evolved beyond hammer wielding nutcrackers and transformed into the Bush Administration. Yet, the hammer hasn't been forgotten. As Mark Twain remarked "To the man with a hammer, the whole world appears as nails." The sudden demise of this hammering chimp tool-culture apparently coincided with an increased outsourcing of hammer production and importation of low wage nutcracking labor from neighboring jungles.

Peace!

יום דארווין שמח

2007-02-12T16:55:00.000-05:00

Darwin Day is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin on February 12, 1809.

Darwin provided the first coherent theory of evolution by means of natural selection. His theory has had far-reaching implications in almost all disciplines and has rocked the very foundation of our knowledge base. Human civilization has been deeply affected by Darwin's work, with over 150 years of evidence collected that supports his initial findings. Modification and refinement to the details of the theory continue among contemporary scientists. For his contributions to humanity and his commitment to the scientific method, Charles Darwin is celebrated globally on February 12th each year.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

We must, however, acknowledge as it seems to me, that a man with all his noble qualities...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

Hob A Freyliche Darwin Day!

Same Shit, Different Street

2007-02-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

Among the many, many things about commercialized and corporatized America that I detest is the mundane and over-hyped 'sameness' that pervades every strip mall, storefront, warehouse, gas station, and restaurant throughout the US and Canada. The uniqueness and colloquial variety of small town America is just about gone, along with the family businesses and farms that sprouted up alongside the road stops, truck stops, and greasy spoons. Prefabricated shopping malls, tech centers, and warehouses pop up everywhere and anywhere a few lonely trees dare to remain upright. Fucking greedy developers can't leave us one blade of grass!

The latest trend in sameness is the growth and spreading of condominiums. Everywhere you go these days, formerly undeveloped parcels of trees and grass are turning into high priced complexes with the same landscaping, same roofing, same windows, and the same low occupancy rates. Even when you thought a city had used up all its available land to kiss the ass of some greedy developer and increase its own tax base, city planners are seeking out ways to sell off public parks and community gardens for top dollar. Usually, as in NYC, this is a direct result of major campaign donations. (That means you Rudy! You asshole!)

Sterling Heights is nothing like Detroit. I kind of feel lost here in a way. I had become accustomed to the smaller family-owned, stand-alone, restaurants of my old neighborhood where they knew my name and what I was having for breakfast. Mega-corporations aren't trying to muscle in on my old turf. Nobody wants to be there I guess. Sterling Heights, however, in spite of being well established, is still a wide open tract of commercial building frenzy and, if one travels along Hall Rd., the miles and miles of rank commercialism stretch endlessly to the 94 Fwy. and beyond, with plenty of room left for more. The problem is, there isn't much along Hall Rd. that one could not see while driving along any other major artery in any major American city. It's all the fucking same. Augh!

Many of my friends don't seem to mind it as much as I do. If we do gather for dinner or some other special event, these occasions are typically arranged to be held at one of the 50 billion chain restaurants in town. Now I have eaten in some of those, and though Red Robin makes a good burger, it's not anything so special that I would wake up drooling for it. It's just a fucking burger that costs twenty bucks when all is said and done. The Macaroni Grill has excellent food as well, but after having eaten in thirty of them in various cities and not found even one tiny bit of difference between them, the chances of me ever setting foot again inside a Macaroni Grill are slim to none, and 'Slim' left town. The Applebee's, Coney Islands, Chili's, and Friday's of the world can go straight to burning Hell. They won't get any of my money. I am sick and fucking tired of the same old shit every fucking where I go in America. If I see another damn WalMart go up I might start killing people. Don't even get me started on Walgreen's, Rite Aid, and CVS. The individual character of states, cities, towns, and villages is disappearing under the commercial might of the mega-corporations in league with tax hungry local governments and greedy developers.

One would think that the Chinese restaurants would be different, and though they are family owned, they pretty much serve the same rancid, run of the mill pseudo-Cantonese fare. There are two Chinese places I enjoy; one in Ferndale near my office, and the other in my old neighborhood. I knew that establishment was different because when Janice and I first discovered it, we turned out to be the only Anglos there. Everyone else was Chinese! And yes, the food was awesome. In Sterling Heights, we have a famous Polish restaurant called "Two Sisters" and it's fantastic. I fear that soon it will be gone, too. Ma and Pa establishments can't keep up with rising costs, corporate competition, and higher taxes. As soon as Starbuck's opens up in your neighborhood, the taxes will rise for everyone. Look at what happened in Harlem when certain sections were redeveloped; the rising rents forced out families that had lived there for generations, and the apartments were now only affordable to those who wouldn't live in Harlem to begin with. (I regret to say that my alma mater is also involved in some unethical land-dealing.)

Our local character will soon be nothing more than a stamped out, prefabricated, low quality, monotony with zero personality. America, the land of the individual (or so we are told), will be no more. Everything we see, everything we need, and everything we dream of will be commercialized, corporatized, and we will be forced to purchase the same exact things everywhere we go no matter how far away from 'home' we end up. It's just sickening.

In America, we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Unfortunately, there are soon to only be two corporations still supplying those commodities and your personal preferred form of "Happiness" will soon be discontinued in favor of a more stream-lined and popular Chinese-made version. I used to wonder why foreigners saw Americans as one dimensional caricatures. I think now I know the reason.

Kol Tuv

Spinoza? Shlomo? Or Memorex?

2007-02-11T08:26:00.000-05:00

Let's be clear about this. Spinoza managed to, dare I say, intuit, so much in his day that he could not possibly know from the science available to him. His foresight and genius are indeed remarkable and amazing qualities, but nor he or his philosophy were perfect. It was said of Freud that the biggest problem with his theories were that they were too 'perfect' and he had an answer for everything. We know today that Freud's brilliance and his perseverance in establishing psychoanalysis among the sciences is tainted with some glaring and perhaps even dangerous ideas. And yes, even the great Einstein turned out to be wrong a time or two. Infallibility is for Popes; honest knowledge is the domain of the irreverent and often leaves us feeling a little disappointed.

There exists a common danger that devout Spinozists, like myself, in an attempt to reconcile Spinoza to all circumstances, will retrofit later mathematical or scientific discoveries into his philosophy. This is a typical trait of religions and religious mind-sets that view their gods or leaders as infallible and all-knowing. When this occurs, it becomes more of a fan club that a real honest-to-goodness acceptance and analysis of ideas. I suspect that I, too, have been guilty a time or two of this mistake. If you spend enough time with an idea, it becomes sort of timeless. You forget when it started and from where it began in relation to context. One could forget that unlike the late 20th or early 21st century biology student, Darwin, Wallace, or Mendel did not have the broader scope of genetic knowledge we possess today. That they were correct as often as they were, without knowing the true depth of their observations, is still truly amazing!

It is not a brilliant bit of deduction, equation, or experiment that transforms a great thinker into a hero. Our heroes are beloved because they challenged the enforced and regulated status quo of outdated ideas and false beliefs at some danger to their lives and reputations. Men like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes, Spinoza, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, etc. were not angels or divinely inspired saints, imbued each with intellectual prowess unlike any mankind has ever known previously. There were, in fact, men of greater capability that our heroes used as a foundation for their own endeavors. The distinguishing factor was a curiosity so strong that it simply overwhelmed any reservations brought about by external conditions. They, too, became caught up in the idea, so much so that they forgot their own time and place, thus transcending the existing paradigm to such an extent as to shift the totality of human knowledge from one level to the next, in spite of the danger dissemination of that idea may have posed. That later generations become infatuated with these concepts and their authors is no real dilemma at all. It testifies to the man's overall devotion to a deeper understanding and the roots of discovery. As far as a love affair goes, one could do a whole lot worse.

Yet, with ideas, as in romantic love, there may lurk a dangerous blindness caused by infatuation turned habituation. The psychological associations i.e. culture, behavior, science, etc. that I form when reading the Ethics, while having the benefit of modern neuroscience and psychology at my disposal, are not going to necessarily be the same as those of a 17th century Dutch lens grinder. I should be careful not to project what I know now onto what he knew then. As Spinoza himself would have warned, "Caute!" I can imagine (there I go again!) sitting at a greasy spoon with Benedict while chatting about 'passions and appetites', where he strongly disagrees with everything I say in reference to and on behalf of his philosophy, if for no other reason than to keep things intellectually honest. At least I hope that's what he'd do.

Like a good piece of literature that catches your deepest interests and emotional sensitivity, an idea that takes hold doesn't easily let go, and those which convey a 'common sense' or innovative theory that suits our understanding, can easily transcend time, space, and the accurate, well-placed critique of others. I have to careful to maintain an objectivity and detachment from what Spinoza's philosophy does for me, as me, from what Spinoza actually said as Spinoza. The question to ask becomes "Is it Spinoza talking here? Or is it Shlomo?" Sometimes we must remind ourselves that heroes can still be heroes and be dead wrong about something very important. We should not instinctively rush to their rescue by changing their meaning or context to suit modern mentalities. That is a job better suited for theologians and fanatical groupies.

Deus sive Natura!

"Authenticity matters little, though our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility." (David P. Mikkelson)

Speaking of Spinoza (Psychology)

2007-02-10T21:35:00.000-05:00

Questions from the Ethics and Spinoza's psychological theory:

“…everyone has the power of clearly and distinctly understanding himself and his emotions, if not absolutely, at any rate in part, and consequently of bringing it about, that he should become less subject to them.”

Unproven assertion that understanding emotions means one is less subject to them. What’s Spinoza’s proof?

There is an old saying that goes "Knowing is half the cure." This is what self awareness offers, the ability to ACT differently after knowing how much influence the emotions held before that awareness. For those of us who have overcome serious depression, Spinoza is telling what seems to be an obvious truth, but still requires a bit more than just my anecdotal advocacy. Let me put it another way. Spinoza sees mind and emotion (much as he does mind and body) as two languages describing the same event. What if one doesn't speak the language of the other, or perhaps doesn't even hear the other at all?

What if we were able to have any level of emotion we wanted at any given time? How about anger? What if every time you felt angry you acted out? You would probably lose your job, spouse, and most of your friends pretty fast. Now what if you never realized that you became angry? Or never knew the source of the anger? Or what changes anger creates in your biochemistry that exacerbates the rage? Or how acting out, even if it achieves short term goals i.e. control or manipulation, truly destroys long-term happiness? Now even Spinoza admits that it will likely come down to matter of degrees as to how successful one would be in reigning in the emotions, but at least he is not asking anyone to deny or change them. Be angry, just be reasonable about it. There is another old saying that goes "Do not teach your children not to anger; teach them rather how to be angry."

“. . . hence it will come to pass, not only that love, hatred, &c. will be destroyed (V. ii.), but also that the appetites or desires, which are wont to arise from such emotion, will become incapable of being excessive (IV. lxi.).”

If love, hatred, etc. are destroyed, how can the appetites or desires, arising from such emotions, simply become incapable of being excessive. Logically, they should likewise be destroyed, their foundation having been eradicated.

Spinoza just says that with constant application of reason and the habituation of reasoned emotional reaction, little by little the behavior modification becomes second nature. The emotion isn't dead, just sedated. For example, in my recovery from Depression, I discovered that as time went on and I would slowly apply self-awareness (admitting to and knowing my moods) that certain situations that would have, in the past, triggered an almost autonomic and heightened emotional response, suddenly did not effect me in the same way. This is, by the way, how many of us living with depression gauge our emotional progress. Not only did I not act out as I was prone to do, but the level of emotion was mitigated to almost naught.

I will agree that the last part about 'eradication' is unrealistic and a mistaken assumption on Spinoza's part.

“For it must be especially remarked, that the appetite through which a man is said to be active, and that through which he is said to be passive is one and the same.”

One cause produces two diametrically contradictory effects? So what’s the impinging variable (switch) that turns one on and the other off?

To demand that one is turned off or turned on is a misnomer. If it's on. It's on. Emotion is a chemical reaction triggered by thoughts of pain or pleasure. The question is where will it go once it starts or who will stop it if necessary? Reason gives me the tools to stop and think before I do something stupid. Myself, when I get manic and a little too 'Esther', a condition nicknamed for my grandmother, I run, skip rope, and hit the heavy bag rather than just sit around and stew. There were any number of other avenues I could have taken to self medicate or escape. Even now, years later, I still have to re-mind myself sometimes to get my sorry ass to the gym. That is reason overcoming the inertia of depression. (I'm in really good shape by the way.)

We are still living under the false assumption that intellect and emotion are two very separate functions. They are not at all. Read Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence". His work confirms much of what Spinoza's psychology is saying here. In addition, one could say that Spinoza is all along only speaking in short-term remediation and not toward eradication.

“In like manner all appetites or desires are only passions, in so far as they spring from inadequate ideas; the same results are accredited to virtue, when they are aroused or generated by adequate ideas.”

(1) What makes an idea adequate? Adequate for what? Adequate implies a goal.
(2) Are appetites generated by ideas? I am hungry, not because I’m thinking about food, but because of physiological processes having nothing to do with thoughts.
(3) Isn’t saying all appetites and desires are only passions simply a tautology? Are all passions likewise just appetites and desires?

I'll answer them in order:

1) By example. Your teacher is giving an exam on cell biology. You master the knowledge of cell structure, cell division, cell function, etc. You show mastery of the knowledge required to understand the cell. Your teacher gives you an 'A'. You now have an adequate idea. The goal, if there is one, is to know what the 'f' is going on around you. A non-adequate idea would be an opinion or statement about cells not based in fact i.e. created by an Omnipotent Transcendental Deity who takes personal interest in my choice of reading material and condemns my soul to Eternal damnation for studying Spinoza.

2) Ask Pavlov. If I even just smell someone else smoking weed, I get the munchies. Seriously though, hunger is a desire based in our physiology. Have you ever tried not to be hungry when your body demanded food? Yet, the thought of pleasure that comes from the good memories of a tasty dish (or woman) will induce an 'appetite' for that thing. As Bill Cosby says "There's always room for Jello."

3) Good question and you're right for asking it. Many philosophers think Spinoza uses a 'perfectionist' language that tries to make distinctions without any real differences. I'll give it a shot here. Desire (conatus) is part of our natural being, whereas pain and pleasure are derivatives of that desire which determine what 'appetites' we will mentally form images of being drawn to or repelled from. This 'desire' could be homeostasis (striving), 'passion' the unchecked or unaware physical wanting (determined), and 'appetite' the psycho-mental imagery that connects them (imagined). Do not think of passion as an active, but as a passive; determined solely by non-conscious influences. In other words, passion is the opposite, sort of speak, of an adequate idea.

re: “For all desires, whereby we are determined to any given action, may arise as much from adequate as from inadequate ideas (IV. lix.).”

All desires MAY arise from etc, etc? How can one test the hypothesis if it is hedged with the qualification MAY? (I’ll pass on how one distinguishes an adequate idea from an inadequate idea.)

Spinoza says "may" arise because human beings also have genetic predispositions or physical conditions that already mitigate or exacerbate desires. One may be a complete nincompoop when it comes to an 'adequate idea' of emotions, but he might also be the kind of person who just never gets angry. even when we think he should!

Kol Tuv

Of Women & Bitches

2007-02-10T17:25:00.000-05:00

Arora writes:

"Shlomo, It is definitely heartening that you try not to objectify women/people in your own life. To be honest, though, in reading some of your posts, I find some paragraphs to be laced with subtle misogony."

Well Arora, there are two sorts of women. There are those who display a general sense of decency, compassion, or integrity throughout their lives, seeking the better in themselves and others, while trying to establish identity in an overwhelmingly patriarchal society. There is yet another group of women who, if you may have noticed from earlier posts, we can refer to as 'lying-ass, no-good, scheming opportunistic bitches' who use the very systems society established in order to protect a woman's interest as a weapon for personal gain or revenge.

You know who I am talking about here. I know exactly how to treat a woman. I also have learned, the hard way mind you, exactly what to do when confronted with a 'bitch', and never fear to point out those predators among the 'fairer sex' who use victimhood (or womanhood) as a shield or smokescreen for greed or personal vendetta. I am always wary of the damsel in distress and wonder what it was exactly that led her to be locked up. I much prefer women who wear armor and ride alongside me into battle. I have a feeling this man-woman thing was always meant to be more or less an equality-based venture.

Stupid metaphor maybe, but you get the idea.

You'd be right to assume that I look down upon women who try to 'play' the victim or manipulate typical male attitudes for their benefit. That's because I imagine the possibility of what could be to be less likely than the probability of what will be. I think we can both do better than relying on old stereotypes and outdated social norms. There are real victims out there whose causes are hurt every time a bad woman does something awful using their good name.

Peace!

Feeling Right At Home

2007-02-10T17:00:00.000-05:00

Cherem? No Hard Feelings

2007-02-05T13:36:00.000-05:00

We have to clarify the excommunication issue by putting it in proper context. Some place guilt upon the Amsterdam Jewish community for their actions taken against Spinoza, but I find it justified, if not unavoidable on their part. Jewish excommunication, called Cherem, is a rabbinical decree that cuts off the community from the one being excommunicated, and not the other way around, although it may have the same effect. It means that no one can have contact, offer aid, do business, mourn, or engage in any contract with the excommunicated. He becomes a persona non grata. This institutional and ritual form of 'shunning' has been very rarely used in Jewish history. Jews are very much community oriented and have a saying that goes "Kol Yisrael areyvim zeh bazeh" which, loosely translated, means that Jews stand as collateral for each other and the debt of one becomes the debt of all. It is statement of communal responsibility. To actively cast out a member of the community in such a way is the antithesis of Jewish living, and is a very serious matter.

In Biblical times, a Spinoza, and there were many dissenters, would have been dragged out into the town square and put to death. In Rabbinic times, he would have had a trial and would likely have reached a similar verdict, especially considering Spinoza's irreverent and caustic responses to the suppression of his ideas. Though the Amsterdam community had no power to execute him, they did have the power to order others not to have contact with him. The Talmud says that four types of people are considered good as dead, and if you dissect the rabbis statement you find that at the core of each case is loneliness and abandonment. The excommunication was tantamount to this sort of 'death' sentence. In a world of Inquisitions and Calvinists, a Spinoza might have nowhere to turn for help, and that door was now closed to him. They were hoping the threat alone would shut him up, but they underestimated his resolve. He begged them to 'just do it'.

The community is exempt from judgment on my part because of their time and place. Had this excommunication went off in 1998 at the Temple Beth El of Teaneck N.J., it would really concern me that a modern American Jewish community would feel so threatened by the presence of a Spinoza and go to such great and horrific lengths to distance themselves from him. However, 17th century Amsterdam was still living in the shadow of the Inquisition and most of that community came from Spain or Portugal, having already endured the worst of "Christian Love" and the Inquisitor's wrath. How many of them lost their fortunes, their loved ones, and their lives? How much fear did this refugee Jewish community still feel while living within the long and powerful reach of Rome? In their recent past, any all pretexts were used to attack and impoverish the Jewish nation, and the Amsterdam Jews had plenty good reason to fear that a Spinoza, with his atheism, would bring the wrath of both Catholic and Protestant down upon them. I would have been more surprised had they not tried, by whatever means necessary, to shut him up.

The community tried to buy him off with a stipend of florins per annum. They hired a local scoundrel to murder him. They repeatedly tried reasoning with him and he persisted. In a way, Spinoza, no matter how true to his ideals and principles he remained, though admirable, was in fact putting the entire Jewish community in a certain degree of danger, and for that, even I would have asked him to "Please, shut the hell up already!"

Kol Tuv

Israel & the 'Ex Wife' Effect

2007-02-05T08:25:00.000-05:00

As a political and philosophical junkie, I frequent a few of the hundred or so online chat rooms and message boards dedicated to international politics. I cannot say how much of what we argue over causes any major shift in the real world politique, but I can tell you that a certain portion of the debate is bothering me a great deal. Ever since the onset of the American Invasion of Iraq for Oil, anti-Israel sentiment has steadily increased. Failure in Iraq and Lebanon has the Israelis, once again, looking the stooges of an imperialist American regime. I happen to agree that a vigorous critique of the Sharon and Olmert governments is in order, and I would be the first to say that taking sides with the American Neocons was a blunder of international and historic proportions. I do not see the State of Israel rebounding any time soon from the public policy and publicity nightmare that the Olmert government has created. I don't want Israel to go away, however. I wish for it to improve its relationships with its neighbors.

Most disturbing is who makes the most vicious and exaggerated remarks. These comments are not coming from toothless, backwoods, uneducated, beer-guzzling right-wing Neanderthals, nor from radical Moslem college students, as one might expect. The authors of this ridiculous anti-Israel vitriol are highly educated Manhattan liberals, Ivy league Boston progressives, and well-to-do California Democrats. They are people who know Jews, probably know a few Israelis and, as their education suggests, should know how to define the parameters of a discussion, avoid hyperbole, and establish those distinctions necessary to form a cogent analysis of the situation. I find that many of these people, some whom I have known for some time, have turned to generalizing statements about Israel and Jews. They should know better and I cannot, for this life of me, figure out what it is that impels this sudden loss of rationality.

These individuals are not painting similarly same wide brush strokes over the Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, or anyone else. Some of my fellow 'lefties' are well aware the various political, economic and religious factions at work in those countries yet, when it comes to Israel, they fail to account for Chiloni, Peacenik, or Charedi, etc. All they see are the evil 'fascist Zionists' "Jewish Apartheid", and their 'illegal settlements'. If one were to know by asking them, Israel would appear to be the most unified nation on the planet, having just one opinion shared and acted upon universally by all Israeli Jews. The faults of Medinat Yisrael, many as they are, are not exclusive to Israel or Jews yet, to hear them say it, Israel invented the issues! Their selectivity in assessing guilts, blames, faults, and even offer credit where credit is due is a skill honed almost to perfection.

I am also a vocal critic of Israeli policy, right and left, but I am not an enemy of the state. I take the time to know the crucial differences because they are important to understanding how we arrived at this juncture and will provide information as to how both Israel and her neighbors can move past the problems at hand. I would never speak of the Saudis or Palestinians as 'they' or 'them' but define each group or ideal for itself in relation to the whole. Fatah and Hamas, for example, have some disturbing similarities, but also some glaring differences. The PNAC and the Bush administration failed to account for any differences between Shia and Sunni and look at the results in Iraq. Failure to grasp the intricacies leads to a failure in judgment and in problem solving. Success in Iraq, or Lebanon for that matter, was not dependent upon moral rectitude, but on whether or not the Americans or Israelis knew what they were doing and with whom they were engaging.

Another careful distinction that many decide not to make is who they are rooting for and why. Otherwise Pro-Choice, Pro Gay Marriage, Pro Women's Rights, and anti-death penalty persons choose to defend Islamic regimes over Israeli secularism. Now, I have no problem with extending the olive branch of love and understanding to the Moslem world, but let's be real. In their worldview, almost universally, homosexuals are executed, abortions are prosecuted, and women are still persecuted. This is not the case in Israel, whose domestic social policies look more like Holland or Denmark than anywhere else in the Mideast, certainly nothing like the repressive exploits attributed to the 'fascist Zionists'. To blindly take sides with religious ideals that oppose personal freedoms or human rights and only exist as nationalistic or religious entities over a nation that is fundamentally socialist and liberal to its core, simply boggles the mind. It reveals the depth of their anti-Semitism. I would not expect Israel to get a free pass because they are more western than other nations, but that the careful and important distinctions be considered before forming opinions of right, wrong, and redress.

These seemingly otherwise understanding and contemplative individuals cannot see Israel as a liberal western society imbued by higher education and European values and yet, caught between the 'rock' of survival and the 'hard place' of a world opinion that has never warmed up to a Jewish presence in the Mideast. This fervor doesn't permit them to see chilonim, discotheques, physics professors, Arab universities, Druze, Buddhists, atheists, Christian, Israeli Arab, or charedi kindergartens. The inherent diversity and tolerance within Israeli society means nothing in their eyes. That the Arab or Palestinian underdog they so ardently support possesses a value system diametrically opposed to leftism, human rights, and social justice matters not, but should. Consider that there have never been gay pride marches in the West Bank, Gaza, or through downtown Cairo is not for lack of homosexuals. They simply would never be permitted to gather and if they did, they would be met with horrific violence. As one gay Palestinian man told me "I hate Israel for what they have done to my people, but it is the only place for a 1000 miles that I can go out on Saturday night and be myself."

Similarly, the same arguments used to defend Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians does not carry over to Israelis defending their person or property. Any defense of AIPAC, the IDF, or Israeli policy is answered with "Zionist! Zionist! Imperialist! Fascist!" I dislike the stench of the corporate Israel lobby as much as I would any other, but to throw around jingoisms and slogans rather than rationally discuss the merits of the argument is childish, and for these seemingly educated Americans, of all people, to resort to such a low level of rhetoric tells me that this dislike of Israel is not about policy, but of Israel and Jews overall. The failure to make distinctions and recognize realities is what defines prejudice and racism. I am watching the best and brightest among us reveal their true anti-Semitism. They are beginning to sound like spokespersons for Fatah and Hamas rather than people who, like myself, are anxious to see peace and cooperation despite the stark differences in philosophy. Were I to make the same sort of comments regarding blacks, natives, or Mexicans, I would quickly be stripped of my ACLU membership.

These same individuals do not claim to be anti-Jewish. In fact, some of them are married to Jews, have Jewish friends and business associates. They say they love Chomsky and 'those chasidim who hate Zionism' and call them "real Jews" or the "good Jews", because they happen to also take an irrational and misguided opinion to its most illogical extreme without considering the important in-betweens. They are anti-Semites not because they say bad things about Israel, rather because they simply cannot find anything good or reasonable to say about it either, which shows the to extent and tenor of what appears to me a latent and pervasive prejudice. It is the same destructive approach that the Bush administration and its corporate cronies took in Iraq, and to see those who should know better behave in the same manner is telling.

I prefer to call this syndrome the "Ex-wife effect." In my divorce, for example, to hear my ex-wife tell it, I was the most vile, evil, angry, vicious, mean-spirited, lazy, good-for-nothing, raving lunatic on the planet without exception or equal. Twenty years later, her opinion of me hasn't softened one bit. It is impossible for her say a good thing about me, even though we all must know there must have been something, as she married me, bore children, and stayed with me for six years when she could have left anytime she felt like it. (In fact, it was I who left her.) Truth be told, I was not a great husband and I said and did many things that I wish now I hadn't. To garner the sympathies and the support of friends, the courts, and relatives would not have required her to be anything other than perfectly and plainly honest, but she couldn't do that without evoking some sympathy for her estranged husband. She had to 'pile it on' sort of speak and I became not merely an ex-husband with whom she could not agree, but legendary if not epic in the proportions of my nefariousness and deeds of evil. Oh. I smell bad, too. Attributing any decency to me whatsoever would have shaken her own delicate position and possibly threaten her support system. One should not have to lie where the truth is sufficient enough.

Same here goes with the critique of Israel. If someone has one thing bad to say about Israel, don't worry, because I have several they haven't thought of yet. However, if they cannot even manage to find or offer one positive or even-handed thought on Israel's behalf, then I have to wonder just how rational they really are and if it is even possible for them to make sound judgments in her regard. And since, as with my ex-wife, the 'truth' must correlate with an emotional predisposition, falsehoods must also be offered as justification. This is why you will hear anti-Israel rhetoric peppered with phrases like "World Bank", "Imperialism", "Fascism", and other 'isms' that have no relation to Israel or her neighbors, and a blatant disregard for the double standard that judges Israel with a very different moral meter than is used on her Arab neighbors or the rest of the planet.

"The worst mistake I made was that stupid, suburban prejudice of anti-Semitism." (Ezra Pound)

Already Missing Molly

2007-01-31T21:22:00.000-05:00

AUSTIN, Texas - Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as “Shrub,” died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62. In a column in mid-January, destined to be her final submission, Ivins urged readers to stand up against Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war," Ivins wrote in the Jan. 11 column. "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!'"

Among millions of others, I will miss Molly's brilliant and irreverent commentary and mourn her passing. She was a voice for the common man and spoke truth to power.

R.I.P.

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority."

"The first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging."

" It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong."

"I know vegetarians don't like to hear this, but God made an awful lot of land that's good for nothing but grazing."

"Let me say for the umpteenth time, George W. is not a stupid man. The IQ of his gut, however, is open to debate. In Texas, his gut led him to believe the death penalty has a deterrent effect, even though he acknowledged there was no evidence to support his gut's feeling."

Speaking of Spinoza (2)

2007-01-31T20:44:00.000-05:00

Spinoza's substance monism is considered by many to be the Western expression of philosophical Taoism. Compare the first stanzas of the Tao Te Ching with the first of Spinoza's propositions and a stark similarity appears. From there, however, they part company in method and implication. Lao Tzu will tell you that not everything is as it seems to be, and Spinoza, considering his dualist-moralist audience, wants everyone to know that things are exactly as they appear.

I don't know exactly what is meant by 'modernity', and I cannot say what effects Spinoza did or did not have on it. With the exception of Leibniz and his perversion-plagiarism of Spinoza, Spinozism didn't see much daylight until 150 years after his death, and even then, only among scholars. On could say that Spinoza was part of a chain of 'modernity' among the likes of Galileo, Da Vinci, Bruno, Uriel de Costa, and many others whose legacies and ideas likely disappeared during the Inquisition. To say that Spinoza had a marked effect would be true, but the strongest? No. I think Galileo gets that honor.

Spinoza wanted to change the language of religion, and thus of human ethics, from one of moral judgment (holy vs. evil) to natural ethic (good vs. bad). He used the story of Adam and Eve as a metaphor for this. "Had Adam", Spinoza claims, "seen the apple as bad i.e. poison to his physical body (rather than as evil), then there would have no possible way for anyone to convince him to eat from it." Now to break down the moral aspect one has to address the alleged source of morality, which was the common Judeo-Christian understanding of God.

Spinoza's Judaism taught him that God is Infinite, Eternal, and yet, in spite of It's expansive nature, takes a very personal and specific interest in human affairs. Spinoza was also taught that suffering and pain was part of Judaism, but that God had a plan which would lead to a Messianic Era and reward in the hereafter. Like Uriel de Costa before him, and with whom everyone is pretty sure Spinoza befriended at some point, the questions of national or personal suffering versus the loving and protecting God of Israel likely weighed heavy on the minds of many a Marranno. I imagine that a Spinoza would have asked many of the same questions we do today in terms of why bad things happen to good people, vice versa, or as to how Providence and free will coexist. A lot of conflict there to resolve.

Spinoza also took a more positive attitude regarding humanity. He posited a 'positive freedom' which he called 'self determinism". Today, we might call it 'self empowerment' or some other self-esteem boosting slogan. The secret to this self-determinism is awareness that comes through what he calls the "adequate idea". I would sum it up into "Know the thing, know its effects, and know its source." This is where Spinoza sees morality as hindering freedom, because a moral assumption does not consider evident cause and effects, it merely assumes an effect based upon an 'opinion', which Spinoza considers to be the lowest form of human understanding. In self-determinism, I know full well that I am being influenced by things beyond my control, yet the adequate idea allows my own degree of influence to increase in proportion to the adequacy of the idea held. (Think Social Cognitive Theory or Reciprocal Determinism of Albert Bandura.)

Spiritualists and philosophers today look to QM and Relativity as the apex of human understanding and possibility, while trying to shove some philosophical or religious framework into modern science (Fritjof Capra is a good example.) For Spinoza, the highest science of his day, available to him, was Euclid. I bet that he had one question on his mind that plagued him to no end. It is a simple question at which many balk, but I think it was the most profound dilemma he encountered. The $64,000 question is ; "What must God be in order to be God?" This is where Euclid came in. Judaism itself gave Spinoza no tools to answer that problem, and even the Kabala, which I believe he was exposed to early on, only provides a Platonic-hermetic apparatus for expanding the idea without ever directly addressing that question.

If I were asked to sum up my view of Spinoza in a sentence, it would be "If it isn't natural, then it isn't at all. I wouldn't worry about it."

Deus sive Natura!

(immoralism, naturalism, determinism, atheism)

Speaking of Spinoza

2007-01-30T13:17:00.000-05:00

Chardal said:

“The mistake Spinoza made is that he conceived that humanity can ever grasp the infinite and in the end had a monistic and static view of the world - or at least the logical conclusion of such a conception of reality.”

One of the major difficulties in answering questions or claims regarding Orthodoxy’s view of Spinozism is that it oft times comes from those who haven’t studied Spinoza as Spinoza, but rather as Spinoza through the eyes of someone trying from the beginning to refute Spinoza’s position. In other words, for many the Orthodox Jewish reader, Spinoza is rejected outright, and there can be no reconciliation of ideals. In fact, when I began my first clandestine venture into the works of Spinoza as a teenager, I, too, entered the battle with what I believed were enough philosophical and ecumenical weapons to refute the ‘Heretic from Holland’.

The second error, and perhaps the most popular one, is that most Orthodox critics of Spinoza read and regurgitate an answer pre-packaged by someone of the first, above-mentioned group. Since there is no need to question the truth of Orthodoxy or the ‘falseness’ of Spinoza, there is also no requirement to spend any quality time sorting through the ideas. After all, a member of the first group has supposedly already done the tough and dangerous job of sifting through the heresies on Judaism’s behalf. In this vein, I have heard comments like “If Spinoza had learned Chasidus, he would have changed his mind.” There is so much false assumption and conjecture within that small comment that it warrants a posting of its own. (Those same people also assert that Aristotle and/or Plato recanted their philosophical views and claimed Judaism to be true.)

Yet, even with these errors in mind, it isn’t so simple an analysis to make. Spinoza is a difficult read even for philosophers, and I have to admit, even after years of study, parts of Spinoza’s teachings continue to baffle me. In part, it is because I am not all that intelligent to start with. Spinoza’s methodology is circular and reflexive, requiring one to backtrack and reread a great deal, thus making his works more of a lesson in patience and perseverance than in philosophy. Lastly, Spinoza created his own nomenclature, which can be very confusing even to those with both experience in Latin and Talmudic logic. Spinoza also left us a legacy of doubt regarding many issues and we are left to derive from his earlier writings what he may or may not have meant by an ambiguous comment made later on. He died too soon.

As a result of this unintended language barrier, we have some who believe that Spinoza was a mystic and others, like myself, find Spinoza to be a refreshing and definitive expression of materialism and determinism, much like philosophical Taoism was to eastern thought, but with the added features of rationalism and circular reasoning. Chardal’s statement could be agreed to by some and, at the same time, vehemently opposed by others, and all speaking out in defense of Spinoza! Some who believe they vilify Spinoza may in fact be unwittingly offering him support.

I can’t blame the defenders of Orthodoxy for their distaste of or unwillingness to take Spinoza seriously and undergo the pain and effort needed to plumb the depths of his ideas. His outlook remains as radical today, in the year 2007, as it did to the Jewish and Protestant mind-sets of the mid-17th century. If we couple that with the social pressures, religious obligations, and time constraints placed upon Orthodox Jews, to expect these folks to master a point of view diametrically opposed to their own is unrealistic, and to judge them for not taking the effort is simply unethical. I would no more expect them to study Spinoza than I might be likely to study Wicca. Nonetheless, being uneducated in Wiccan practice, I avoid assuming any sort of authority on the subject and speaking out of line.

Where I do take issue, obviously, is with the many statements or claims attributed to or derived from Spinoza's writings that are wholly inaccurate. It is one thing to ask a question or pose an optional interpretation, but it is quite another thing altogether to, deliberately or not, offer misleading commentary on his philosophy. In addition, there are those who co-opt the rationalism of Spinoza in name only, yet still cling to their Orthodoxy, claiming that somehow Spinoza provides some kind of link between the rationalism they desire and the religious and mystical absurdities they wish to preserve. It is known that Jewish-style debate prides itself upon the ability to turn around an opponent's arguments against him, but here we have nothing more than a misrepresentation of Spinoza run amok.

I have not even addressed the details of Chardal’s statement in terms of what Spinoza himself might have offered in rebuttal. That may come later.

Kol Tuv

New Home, Old Fears

2007-01-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

"Cats seem to go on the principle that it never hurts to ask for what you want." (J.W. Krutch)

It has been one full week since Janice and I moved into the new home. Thus far, we have managed to repair most of the obvious problems and, soon enough, the vinyl windows will be installed and we can then get on with the rest of the renovations. Some of the fixtures here are rather unique, so there is a challenge in finding the right parts. A simple faucet repair almost became a nightmare and without the help of someone else who had ordered the wrong parts for her own shower, I would have been waiting three weeks to get a part for mine! Turned out that her wrong part was my right one! (It pays to strike up conversation while in line at the hardware store.) Other than a leaky faucet and some non-working electrical outlets, everything seems in good mechanical order. I do not expect any major problems.

Our commute to work from the old place took anywhere from 35 minutes on a Saturday morning to a full hour in weekday traffic, depending on road conditions. In addition, we were forced, by demands of geography, to drive through the city along the most direct route to work just beyond its limits. Driving itself isn't so bad but other motorists can be a real headache. The ultimate down-side of urban traffic is the urban motorist; not known for courtesy or driving skill. (I wonder if anyone ever tells African-American drivers where the turn signal is or what purpose it serves.) Under good road conditions, city folk drive like wild animals and, should it rain or snow, then suddenly behave as if boulders are falling from the sky and thus bring traffic to a complete standstill.

The new route to the office is a dream cruise. It is a few miles shorter, but even without that, the drive is much better. The roads are in much better condition and the drivers seem to be moving along with more of a purpose, thus facilitating a smoother commute overall. I like it. We can get to work within 30 minutes and home even faster. You gotta love that. Not to mention, there are at least a dozen good breakfast joints along the way. On the old route, there wasn't anyplace you'd want to stop without a police escort, even if you somehow found it possible trust the city cops.

My biggest worry in moving was for my cats. Most will advise you to keep the cats indoors for at least a month before allowing them out of the new home. I have heard good stories and bad ones in that regard. Cats are quite unpredictable it seems, and I was worried that one or both of them would wander off and not find their way back. I am not interested in that kind heart-break ever again. Silo disappeared for fours days last summer and I was a wreck over it. I decided that I would not be letting them out at all for quite a while. This was, however, until both Silo and Princess spent the better part of the last week pestering me to open the door for them. The chosen time for purring, pawing, and cater walling always took place between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. I was simply not allowed to sleep a whole night. (They never bother Janice!)

I was worried more about Silo than I was Princess. Her range in the old neighborhood was limited by her inherent and exaggerated dislike of other cats, of which there were many to contend with on our street. She stayed close to home even if out for long periods. Silo, on the other hand, loved to roam and I would see him coming back from one of his arduous excursions from a full city block away, meandering carelessly from lawn to lawn and doorstep to trashcan like some drunken vagrant seeking a discarded cigar butt. I was fearful that Silo would wander off, even maybe looking around for his old stomping grounds and becoming disoriented. I am also worried about them encountering neighborhood dogs.

So, in order to finally get a good night's rest, I decided to take the chance and let them escape into the wilds of our new neighborhood. Well, to put it bluntly, my cats have swapped personalities. Silo is keeping very close to home and comes back in almost as soon as the door is reopened. Princess is now wandering much more because, unlike our former abode, there are few if any other cats running the streets. She loves it! Both have been out and both have come back a few times now. I can sleep! I am sure once the cold weather lets up they will spend more time exploring the local terrain.

So my original plan to keep them in has failed and, turns out, was probably obsolete to begin with. Now, the cats come and go pretty much as they please. In the spring, I will install a kitty-door. In the meantime, I remain a lowly doorman catering to the needs and wants of my feline masters. I am just happy not to be worrying so much.

Some things change and somethings don't.

Just Say NO! to Hillary

2007-01-28T15:33:00.000-05:00

We all knew this would happen sooner or later. We did not need the advice of a tarot card reader nor some cryptic Nostradamus-like quatrain with her in mind to foresee this future. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. "Oy vey" is all I have to say about her running, and "Och und vey" if she should manage to win the nomination or the White House.

My reluctance, dare I say, refusal to support Mrs. Clinton is not about her electability. She would handily beat any Republican candidate laid out as sacrificial lamb to oppose her. I object to Mrs. Clinton because she isn't a progressive or necessarily liberal Democrat, but part of the elite corporo-political establishment that also adored her former-President husband in canonizing him into a form of populist sainthood. Bill Clinton is still the sole 'rock star' in American politics and, unfortunately, his word and support carry a lot of weight in Democratic circles. Hillary's success comes as being enamored of and by the condescending 'feel-good' crowd that doesn't actually do anything, but feels really good about hoping they could help when, of course, it doesn't interfere with shopping on 5th Ave. or catching a Broadway show. We already have dozens of congress-persons exactly like her, and they are usually referred to as 'Republicans'.

Hillary Clinton is a person who, as they say in baseball terminology, started out on 3rd base and 'thought she hit a triple'. She rode into the Senate on the star-power of her ex-president husband and frankly, most New Yorkers know full well that she does not and will not truly represent their interests. Her faithful constituency are the corporate elite (limousine liberals), Hollywood, and Goldman-Sachs. The average New Yorker doesn't know Hillary at all. She never lived in New York, worked in New York, or paid New York much attention at all until her cult-following from Upper Manhattan lured her into a lucrative Senate race with good odds of winning. New Yorkers weren't really offered any other choices, as Mrs. Clinton's star power essentially eclipsed and silenced all progressive opposition. She refused to acknowledge those Democrats or progressives running against her. She declined debate in spite of being urged by many grass-roots Democratic organizations and the media to do so. This deliberate avoidance shows Hillary's glaring disdain for the common citizen. All we wanted is for her to listen and respond. She didn't have time. She doesn't care what we care about, rather she chooses what we care about for us.

Hillary is nothing more than a ruthless a power-hungry troll who cannot handle a difference of opinion and her campaigns are based on clever marketing ploys designed to shield her from criticism and tough questions on issues. She is about herself and herself only. She will do whatever it takes to win, no matter who gets hurt. Her 'cult' reminds me of the Oprah followers; half mind-numbed fat ladies and half-delirious star-struck hangers on. So far, other than her unwavering approval of the failed War in Iraq, we really don't know for sure what Hillary Clinton stands for. We know she loves fine dining and CEOs. I would have to sacrifice a great deal of dignity and self-worth to walk into the voting booth and cast a ballot for that bitch. I am not the only liberal who feels this strongly. There are many who hold much stronger opinions. Some of them have very popular left-wing radio shows. Some of them have children who died fighting in Iraq.

Now I was willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt when it was suspected early on that she would be running for the Presidency. After all, she was inexperienced in politics and perhaps she became a little flustered by the learning curve of being a freshman senator and a prominent female in Washington. It's not an easy job. Then, almost as if by divine fiat, I discovered that her campaign staff, anticipating a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards, actually co-opted a domain name that the Edwards campaign would have likely used and, get this, linked it to a site for Hillary Clinton! Did she know? I don't care. That episode shows me what kind of people she is hiring and they are starting to remind me of Karl Rove. It seems that Hillary is more aggressive in attacking candidates or avoiding challenges from within her own party than she ever has been in defending the rights of working Americans. This stunt pulled against the Edwards campaign is just plain low-class.

To be fair, these are the areas where Hillary seems to be taking a definitive and positive progressive stance:
1) Universal Health Care
2) ummmm.....can't think of anything else at the moment

I don't know yet which candidate I will support. I only know which one I won't. (Dennis Kucinich would be my first choice, but I will be peddling parkas in Purgatory before he ever gets within spitting distance of the Oval Office.)

An Uncompromising Fantasy

2007-01-28T08:28:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has tried living in a world not to their liking knows full well how frustrating life can become. I suspect that most philosophies, coping mechanisms, and addictions are due, in part, to this conflict between reality and idealism. Some of us slip into denial about past events and future prospects. Some of us even turn to dogmatic religious or political beliefs as an either short cut panacea to salvation or, at least, to enjoy the company and support of other delusional, albeit like-minded, people. It can be quite comforting. After all, misery does love sharing the drama.

Sadly, my idealism has waned somewhat over the years. No. I haven't become an ardent supporter of laissez faire capitalism or conservative in my politics. Far from it. Now, more than ever, I see the need for a vast, united grass-roots front against the outsourcing of our humanity for the sake of profit. However, the more I see and hear and watch and witness of the global struggle against this corporate fascism, the more I am inclined to believe that humanity will not ever win this war. The battle waged for social justice and fairness is no longer merely a matter of practical concern; it has become one of extreme idealism. The corporate forces are fighting for their right to enslave us. They believe they are entitled to our labor and the tremendous profits thereof.

The opposition to increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over the course of two years is symptomatic of the problem workers will face in the future should the corporatists ultimately win out. Do you think the real argument is over a pittance of $2.10 per hour? Get real. This is a symbolic opposition to a populist trend that the corporatists must defend against to the very last CEO, lawyer, lobbyist, senator, and Wall St. broker. For the past two decades, union membership and influence is driven down, corporate profits are at record levels, and real wages for working humans, in terms of purchasing power and savings, is dismal. They almost have everything they want already. It's not about the money.

To make matters worse, elements within the union leadership (I was tempted to agree with them at one point) believe that there is no purpose in fighting for what we consider as proper or fair, but we should perhaps only seek what we can realistically achieve based upon increased productivity and market influences. It saddens me to see this happen. Sure. We could, through such tactics, have some short-term victories and perhaps delay the inevitable, but in the end, the corporatists will prevail, since a concession based on their terms is tantamount to an unconditional surrender, if not in dollars, at least in principle. They get the best of both ends in that kind of deal. We work harder for less pay or benefit, and they take the golden opportunity to portray themselves as altruistic benefactors in the public limelight. We have to draw a clear and unbroken line on the factory floor and not let anyone from either side cross over it.

One we, those who support workers and worker's rights, begin to banter about in the specifically and carefully chosen nomenclature utilized by those corporate forces we oppose, we are well on the road to our ruin. This battle isn't about productivity or market share or even profit. Those are excuses, rationale, and by-products of their real agenda; a mission whose goal is to assert their (assumed) manifest right to your hard work and effort. Were it just about dollars and cents, there surely would be some way to entice the robber barons to put their nefarious business models on hold. Now, however, it has gone way beyond common sense financial decisions. With the deliberate dismantling of labor union power and the misguided dictates of dehumanizing international agreements, the corporatists have smelled real worker-blood for the first time since slavery in the old South. They aren't going to give up that 'high' without a fight.

In addition, I see police and military all over the world shutting down protests and blockading cities to protect members of the global corporate elite and their representatives from various governments friendly to the corporatists, and I'm saddened by it. Why is it necessary to go to such extremes to protect these people from mere words and slogans? Why are they so afraid of the populist voice? I fear from myself and for my fellow workers. I fear that police officer or soldier is now merely an agent of the corporatist whose only job is to preserve his job through following the mandates of his superiors to such an extent that he or she are bereft of compassion and understanding. His mission statement is to "keep the peace", even if that 'peace' is means nothing more than shutting down any and all opposition to the status quo by any means necessary. (It seems ironic that police officers, who have strong unions themselves, would march out to oppose those arguing for worker's rights. )

I am not hopeful for the future and I don't think compromise is acceptable. Ironically enough, Ayn Rand, mother of Objectivism and champion of laissez faire, said something with which I tend to agree. "Compromise", she said, "Is where both parties leave the negotiation unhappy." (I'm paraphrasing here.) In the end, we end up having to latch onto yet another fantasy, philosophy, or complete state of denial in order to cope with the paradox of reality and idealism. No one is going to be happy.

Perhaps the words of Ashleigh Brilliant sum it up best. "I have given up on reality. Now, I am searching for the perfect fantasy."