Posts
If we forced adherence to the Broadcasters Code of Ethics as we had prior to 1977 , media could return to the days of Cronkite, Brinkley, et al., when we were briefed on the days events and allowed to decide for ourselves what those events meant to us.
I am a progressive. HOWEVER, there are definitely areas where I can agree with the right. I think we need to eliminate the possibility of anchor babies. That means we would need a constitutional amendment defining who is a citizen. My thinking is that you must be born to at least one person who is a citizen already, regardless of whether the parent is citizen by birth or naturalized. And where you were physically born does not define your citizenship. (That provision would give cover to our military and diplomats as well as business folks overseas.) For anyone else, your citizenship defaults to that of your parents.
That being said...
ICE didn't exist until post-911 and we got along fine without it. I don't see any need for it now. I do not want open borders, but we need a guest worker program and we need to streamline the legal immigration process. We also need to greatly expand the court system handling asylum cases, including investigators to determine the credibility of the applicant.
No one -- I don't care what their age, race, political point of view, or level of education -- can give us an ironclad guarantee that they won't go stark raving looney-tunes at some future point, whether soon or in the distant future. It can't be predicted. Yet, you think I should trust someone to have the power to take my life away by virtue of him or her having a gun, or unlimited guns, as well as unlimited ammunition. I actually talked with a 2A supporter that told me he would rather have his daughter murdered than for her to have to live in a country where she couldn't have a gun. /O.O\ People.... that is totally insane and should be a good indication that the person I was talking to should NOT be allowed to own a firearm. ==> BUT <==... I am not willing to see our nation devolve into a war over who should or should not own a gun, regardless that no one, in my opinion, can be trusted with one. (I am, by the way a veteran and a boomer.) As the stock market brokers say "Past performance is no guarantee of future results", and that's how I feel about gun owners due to the mental health aspect. We have a group of folks who do not make daily contact with others and have no family to become concerned over their declining mental health. They can't be monitored to assess threat level. So, increased mental health measures is not the answer, either.
From the Great Depression until the 60s, the top tax rate hovered around 90%. Hardly anyone's income was taxed at that rate, though, and we had an economic boom that propelled us to THE strongest economy in the world. During those days, one person, married, could earn enough income to save for retirement, buy a home (or possibly more than one), have a new car every 3-5 years, save for their kids college education, and could afford to take a vacation with the family each year. Those who were very wealthy in those days did not end up having to close their businesses because of the tax rate, nor did their wealth decrease. In fact, the millionaires wealth grew enormously. Because of the onerous tax rate, those business owners invested in their businesses, perhaps opening new manufacturing locations with new equipment, expanded sales force and work force, and R&D departments. Consequently, their real wealth grew many multiples of times. CEOs of as recent as 1978 made only 37 times (in salary) the average worker's salary. Then, Reagan happened. CEO pay, while contributing no more than their 1930s-1970s counterparts, has skyrocketed while worker wages have regressed in comparison to those in 1978. (These figures are all available online.) In today's political climate, we have a huge wealth gap which will only get wider until we disallow all money in politics. Politicians are bought outright, in spite of the ruling by SCOTUS. As a result, not only does the wealth gap increase, but our vote counts less and less because the politician does not represent us, regardless of party. They do what their donors tell them, not what voters need or want them to do. Anyhow, I digress. Productivity has multiplied several times since 1978, but wages haven't kept pace. What has definitely increased is corporate greed, and our political system is allowing socialism for corporations while the middle and lower classes get rugged capitalism to survive on. Why should we have to subsidize people who work full-time jobs? That should be the corporation's responsibility to pay people a living wage just like our parents and grandparents enjoyed. You may say.... that will make all prices rise and make what we need to live on unaffordable. To that I say... you should be getting paid more, then you could still afford what you want and need. What we are allowing is like there being 100 cookies on the table, the rich guy grabbing 99 of them, then telling us "Hey, watch out! That guy's stealing your cookie!"
We now live in a global economy, they say. At least that's the excuse they give when sending our jobs to India, Malaysia, Brazil, Philippines, Korea and China. Then, we let them bring their goods back into the country, un-penalized, to participate in, and profit from, our economic market. That isn't a very bright strategy, if you ask me. It can be argued that making employers pay a living wage will force them to off-shore all the jobs, but... if they're going to be allowed to participate in our economy, they should pay for that right in some fashion, especially in light of how little they pay in taxes nowadays. Slap big import taxes on them and price their products out of competition if they do that. OUR economy is what has enabled these companies to exist. Where is their loyalty to country, if not to the workers? Unfortunately, nearly all our politicians refuse to address this problem, leaving us to wonder how long it will be before our own job is off-shored, or worse yet...
when automation will replace us. Self-driving cars and semi's will soon take over the highways. Homes are already experimentally being 3-D printed. Technology is outpacing job development and what is being done to combat this problem? Not much. The only proposals for jobs to replace the old ones are from the Green New Deal and because of climate change deny-ers and energy companies constantly slamming those job proposals as socialism, the policy package will likely never get off the ground to any significant degree, at least until it's too late.
The right confuses me. They distrust government, for the most part, yet... support a continuous increase in "defense" spending that, with the exception of Coast Guard and Customs, isn't spent on defense and they also rush to defend and support cops who are, by definition, government. Please make up your minds, folks. Be consistent. You can't say you support small government and then want increased government control in areas of our lives where government should have no say at all. (If you're a libertarian, I'm pretty sure we agree on that last point.)
We, as a nation, need to get out of the habit of calling cops for everything under the sun. They aren't equipped to correctly handle half the stuff they get called for. For that, we need on-call teams that ARE equipped to handle those calls and those calls should be routed appropriately by 911 operators. So, yeah.... to a minor extent I am a "defund" person. Some of that tax money should go toward funding those other teams. It puts less stress on police and reduces the possibility someone is going to die for no good reason. (No, I don't want to hear the b.s. argument about "they should have complied" because we have seen deaths occur when the victims fully complied.)
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Sunday, October 23, 2016
I've been giving a lot of thought to the divisions we see in the nation today, especially when it comes to attempting to understand exactly the point of view of the rabidly conservative citizen.
To listen to their rhetoric, you would think their fears are they'll lose their gun rights and we'll be invaded by Islamic extremists coming across the Mexican border. Not that those fears aren't real to them, but, in all honesty, I think their fears are, at their deepest core, not those things at all.
What scares them so much? The truth? It's white women who are out of their control. The feminist movement took women out of the kitchen and put them into positions of power in some, and many who are not to the right of Mussolini would say far too few, cases. Even having women who are allowed to work outside the home gives them a small measure of independence, which to old white men, is unacceptable. When you combine that loss of control over women with the diminishing ratio of old white men versus any of the other male demographic segments of our population and throw in that white women are not always choosing white men for their mates, or even dates, the older white male conservative sees himself increasingly becoming irrelevant and impotent. How this translates into actions and speech is usually angry outbursts directed at non-white males. Sometimes it's directed at muslims, but mostly it's aimed at those of African heritage. And, in the case of men like Donald J., those comments consistently denigrate women as well as minorities. If his comments, especially tweets, are any indication, the fears of old white men are growing astronomically since the election of President Obama. Thus, the rhetoric becomes increasingly hate-filled and their sentiments regarding what have been very likely unwarranted and most certainly avoidable extra-judicial killings of black men are growing in their acerbity. If you ask any staunchly conservative white male to admit to any of this, they will deny it, to be sure. One's denial of truth, however, does not change the truth.
Slowly, but relentlessly, old white men are making strides to get white women back under their control, steadily chipping away at the foundation of what gives women much of their independence -- abortion rights. If Republicans are allowed to take the White House and retain a majority in the Senate, we are guaranteed the eventual demise of Roe due to the appointment of anti-choice Supreme Court justices. Consistently, such restrictive measures are being enacted in the southern states, which is hardly a surprise since that is also the staunchest bastion of racism.
What is surprising about conservatives actions against women is their belief in limited government, yet they are perfectly happy to allow government to take total control over a woman's body, which should be the most strongly protected area in law. Surely if we can't trust government to set rates for and distribute taxes fairly and effectively, we can't trust them to take control over how many children we feel as can afford to support and properly educate. How would these same conservatives feel if the government decided there was a shortage of livers or kidneys in the nation and they were going to be forced to grow body parts for transplant? Think their heads wouldn't explode?? So, why do they think it's fine to give the government control over a woman's body, effectively forcing her to give birth, with no exceptions to the law, to a child she doesn't want and can't afford, especially when they're not going to allow her any help in accomplishing the task of raising it?
If you have any appreciation for what women are becoming, allowing ANY Republican to be elected to office puts that progress for our women in dire jeopardy. The "southern" attitude will persist for many generations yet to come, a fact made more solid by country music reinforcing those attitudes, longing for a bygone day that actually never did exist outside the rural areas of the nation and hopefully will never overtake the rest of the nation. Therefore, our opposition to them has to remain steadfast or we will end up capitulating to the conservatives and allowing them to regress our nation more than a hundred years.
Allowing the government to become controlled entirely by a group of old white men, unapologetic conservatives in their views, will be one of the saddest times in our country's history. It will be a horrific time to be a woman. And, it won't be any less sad if you are a man who admires a woman who can be strong.
To listen to their rhetoric, you would think their fears are they'll lose their gun rights and we'll be invaded by Islamic extremists coming across the Mexican border. Not that those fears aren't real to them, but, in all honesty, I think their fears are, at their deepest core, not those things at all.
What scares them so much? The truth? It's white women who are out of their control. The feminist movement took women out of the kitchen and put them into positions of power in some, and many who are not to the right of Mussolini would say far too few, cases. Even having women who are allowed to work outside the home gives them a small measure of independence, which to old white men, is unacceptable. When you combine that loss of control over women with the diminishing ratio of old white men versus any of the other male demographic segments of our population and throw in that white women are not always choosing white men for their mates, or even dates, the older white male conservative sees himself increasingly becoming irrelevant and impotent. How this translates into actions and speech is usually angry outbursts directed at non-white males. Sometimes it's directed at muslims, but mostly it's aimed at those of African heritage. And, in the case of men like Donald J., those comments consistently denigrate women as well as minorities. If his comments, especially tweets, are any indication, the fears of old white men are growing astronomically since the election of President Obama. Thus, the rhetoric becomes increasingly hate-filled and their sentiments regarding what have been very likely unwarranted and most certainly avoidable extra-judicial killings of black men are growing in their acerbity. If you ask any staunchly conservative white male to admit to any of this, they will deny it, to be sure. One's denial of truth, however, does not change the truth.
Slowly, but relentlessly, old white men are making strides to get white women back under their control, steadily chipping away at the foundation of what gives women much of their independence -- abortion rights. If Republicans are allowed to take the White House and retain a majority in the Senate, we are guaranteed the eventual demise of Roe due to the appointment of anti-choice Supreme Court justices. Consistently, such restrictive measures are being enacted in the southern states, which is hardly a surprise since that is also the staunchest bastion of racism.
What is surprising about conservatives actions against women is their belief in limited government, yet they are perfectly happy to allow government to take total control over a woman's body, which should be the most strongly protected area in law. Surely if we can't trust government to set rates for and distribute taxes fairly and effectively, we can't trust them to take control over how many children we feel as can afford to support and properly educate. How would these same conservatives feel if the government decided there was a shortage of livers or kidneys in the nation and they were going to be forced to grow body parts for transplant? Think their heads wouldn't explode?? So, why do they think it's fine to give the government control over a woman's body, effectively forcing her to give birth, with no exceptions to the law, to a child she doesn't want and can't afford, especially when they're not going to allow her any help in accomplishing the task of raising it?
If you have any appreciation for what women are becoming, allowing ANY Republican to be elected to office puts that progress for our women in dire jeopardy. The "southern" attitude will persist for many generations yet to come, a fact made more solid by country music reinforcing those attitudes, longing for a bygone day that actually never did exist outside the rural areas of the nation and hopefully will never overtake the rest of the nation. Therefore, our opposition to them has to remain steadfast or we will end up capitulating to the conservatives and allowing them to regress our nation more than a hundred years.
Allowing the government to become controlled entirely by a group of old white men, unapologetic conservatives in their views, will be one of the saddest times in our country's history. It will be a horrific time to be a woman. And, it won't be any less sad if you are a man who admires a woman who can be strong.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
The conservatives... taking phony to new dimensions
Is it possible to expand the definition of phoniness past where the Republican party is leading?
Take border security, for example. They cry about lacking a secure border, but, they're only concerned about one border -- the Mexican border, the one over which those "brown people" are coming with ebola that jihadists are cooking up in the middle east. Let's forget the absurdity of that claim, though, and ask why they are not concerned with any other borders. Why, if they're really serious about making our borders iron-clad, impenetrable, aren't they talking about putting an electrified double fence sixteen feet high with razor wire on top around the entire nation, including the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts? Because the real truth is they're totally UNconcerned about border security. What their real concern is about is people who may eventually become citizens and vote against the conservative party. Period. It isn't about jobs, or security, or terrorism threats. It's about the threat to their power base.
How about abortion? Think they're serious about about overturning Roe? Nope. They had a Republican White House, Senate and House during the Bush administration. Did they try to accomplish the goal of eliminating abortion? No. They pushed an "abstinence only" policy. Why wouldn't they do what they say they want to do when they had the best chance they're going to have for decades to come? Because if anyone is truly serious about their Christian beliefs, when abortion is overturned and gay rights rolled back, the conservative base would have nothing to use to get Christian votes. You can't say you're truly a Christian and continue to vote for politicians whose sole existence is geared toward pummeling poor people for being poor and cutting every program designed to give them a hand up toward rising out of abject poverty. The Republicans' interest is only piqued by money that can be used for campaign contributions. They talk religion only to court votes of those to whom such a thing is important.
Lately, they've talked a lot about job creation. What have they proposed in terms of accomplishing new jobs? The Keystone XL pipeline. Nothing else. And that project will create less permanent jobs than a busy convenience store does. Sure it will create short-term employment and they'll be decent-paying jobs, but those are all a finger in the dike and will fall apart after the construction is complete. Do we want to face rising unemployment again once those thirty-five to forty thousand jobs expire in a few years? No. But, the conservatives know their base doesn't have the longer vision required to understand their proposal is only a band-aid. It is nothing more than pandering to the energy industry (read "Koch brothers") that heavily fund their campaigns.
They talk about public safety, too. But, are they willing to touch the new third rail -- the second amendment -- to secure that safety? Not a chance. There are no easy answers to curbing gun violence in this country, but at least agreeing to a three-day waiting period and universal background checks, both reasonable proposals, can't hurt. And have any Republicans come out strongly to condemn all the recent police shootings of unarmed citizens? No. Why not? Is there really any intelligent reason to question why they're not howling over excessive force usage by police? No one can really be that dense that they need the reason spelled out for them. I'll only go so far as to say look who the targets of that insanely trigger-happy force are.
The Republicans cry government overreach when the Democrats want everyone to have access to healthcare at a reasonable cost. President Obama reached out to the Republicans to get bi-partisan support for the Affordable Care Act and dismissed calls by progressive Democrats for a single-payor initiative, one that would have precluded cases like Hobby Lobby. But, because of a pledge taken by the Caucus Room 9, the Republicans only seemed to play along. The Nine pledged they would do everything in their power to ensure there was no Obama legacy, to ensure total failure for everything he wanted to do as President. That pledge was made as President Obama was taking the oath of office for his first term. But, I think there's a more nefarious reason for opposing universal healthcare. Those who would benefit most from such a plan would be the poorest among us, since expansion of Medicaid was an integral part of the plan. Who do the poor vote for more often than not? It isn't the party of the wealthy. Fewer poor people alive to vote means their base gains more voting power.
They talk about the Constitution all the time, but want to curtail the right to vote rather than expand that right because they know there aren't as many of them as there are of us. They can't produce a single bit of evidence to support their claim of widespread voter fraud, but that doesn't stop them from convincing their base that elections are being stolen by illegal voting.
This is the last point I will make about Republican hypocrisy. Spending. The Republicans voted to slash the IRS' budget more than a billion dollars. As a result, the government has been less able to collect what taxes are owed to it -- eight billion dollars less, actually. So, the Republican claim of having too little money to spend on programs we want? Well, the budget cut made that claim self-fulfilling. As long as we have fewer people to audit tax returns and fewer agents to enforce existing tax laws, the less we will have to spend on education, security, job creation, and smarter governance.
Smart voters are anathema to the conservative platform because their motives are so transparent, except to their base, of course. Anyone who can't intelligently analyze how it is that all of us are not Jewish should be banned from voting and gerrymandering should be abolished, regardless what party might benefit. Gerrymandering disenfranchises all voters, regardless of party. Make the House representatives answerable to their entire state and give them one rep per each 750,000 population. Then, the majority party of every state will be represented fairly and even the minority would be represented by at least a few candidates.
The bottom line is the Republican party has only one tactic to fall back on regarding every issue we face as a nation: FEAR.
We need to stand up and say enough is enough.
Take border security, for example. They cry about lacking a secure border, but, they're only concerned about one border -- the Mexican border, the one over which those "brown people" are coming with ebola that jihadists are cooking up in the middle east. Let's forget the absurdity of that claim, though, and ask why they are not concerned with any other borders. Why, if they're really serious about making our borders iron-clad, impenetrable, aren't they talking about putting an electrified double fence sixteen feet high with razor wire on top around the entire nation, including the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts? Because the real truth is they're totally UNconcerned about border security. What their real concern is about is people who may eventually become citizens and vote against the conservative party. Period. It isn't about jobs, or security, or terrorism threats. It's about the threat to their power base.
How about abortion? Think they're serious about about overturning Roe? Nope. They had a Republican White House, Senate and House during the Bush administration. Did they try to accomplish the goal of eliminating abortion? No. They pushed an "abstinence only" policy. Why wouldn't they do what they say they want to do when they had the best chance they're going to have for decades to come? Because if anyone is truly serious about their Christian beliefs, when abortion is overturned and gay rights rolled back, the conservative base would have nothing to use to get Christian votes. You can't say you're truly a Christian and continue to vote for politicians whose sole existence is geared toward pummeling poor people for being poor and cutting every program designed to give them a hand up toward rising out of abject poverty. The Republicans' interest is only piqued by money that can be used for campaign contributions. They talk religion only to court votes of those to whom such a thing is important.
Lately, they've talked a lot about job creation. What have they proposed in terms of accomplishing new jobs? The Keystone XL pipeline. Nothing else. And that project will create less permanent jobs than a busy convenience store does. Sure it will create short-term employment and they'll be decent-paying jobs, but those are all a finger in the dike and will fall apart after the construction is complete. Do we want to face rising unemployment again once those thirty-five to forty thousand jobs expire in a few years? No. But, the conservatives know their base doesn't have the longer vision required to understand their proposal is only a band-aid. It is nothing more than pandering to the energy industry (read "Koch brothers") that heavily fund their campaigns.
They talk about public safety, too. But, are they willing to touch the new third rail -- the second amendment -- to secure that safety? Not a chance. There are no easy answers to curbing gun violence in this country, but at least agreeing to a three-day waiting period and universal background checks, both reasonable proposals, can't hurt. And have any Republicans come out strongly to condemn all the recent police shootings of unarmed citizens? No. Why not? Is there really any intelligent reason to question why they're not howling over excessive force usage by police? No one can really be that dense that they need the reason spelled out for them. I'll only go so far as to say look who the targets of that insanely trigger-happy force are.
The Republicans cry government overreach when the Democrats want everyone to have access to healthcare at a reasonable cost. President Obama reached out to the Republicans to get bi-partisan support for the Affordable Care Act and dismissed calls by progressive Democrats for a single-payor initiative, one that would have precluded cases like Hobby Lobby. But, because of a pledge taken by the Caucus Room 9, the Republicans only seemed to play along. The Nine pledged they would do everything in their power to ensure there was no Obama legacy, to ensure total failure for everything he wanted to do as President. That pledge was made as President Obama was taking the oath of office for his first term. But, I think there's a more nefarious reason for opposing universal healthcare. Those who would benefit most from such a plan would be the poorest among us, since expansion of Medicaid was an integral part of the plan. Who do the poor vote for more often than not? It isn't the party of the wealthy. Fewer poor people alive to vote means their base gains more voting power.
They talk about the Constitution all the time, but want to curtail the right to vote rather than expand that right because they know there aren't as many of them as there are of us. They can't produce a single bit of evidence to support their claim of widespread voter fraud, but that doesn't stop them from convincing their base that elections are being stolen by illegal voting.
This is the last point I will make about Republican hypocrisy. Spending. The Republicans voted to slash the IRS' budget more than a billion dollars. As a result, the government has been less able to collect what taxes are owed to it -- eight billion dollars less, actually. So, the Republican claim of having too little money to spend on programs we want? Well, the budget cut made that claim self-fulfilling. As long as we have fewer people to audit tax returns and fewer agents to enforce existing tax laws, the less we will have to spend on education, security, job creation, and smarter governance.
Smart voters are anathema to the conservative platform because their motives are so transparent, except to their base, of course. Anyone who can't intelligently analyze how it is that all of us are not Jewish should be banned from voting and gerrymandering should be abolished, regardless what party might benefit. Gerrymandering disenfranchises all voters, regardless of party. Make the House representatives answerable to their entire state and give them one rep per each 750,000 population. Then, the majority party of every state will be represented fairly and even the minority would be represented by at least a few candidates.
The bottom line is the Republican party has only one tactic to fall back on regarding every issue we face as a nation: FEAR.
We need to stand up and say enough is enough.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The single word that changes everything
There is some question as to who is being referred to when Exodus 21:22 speaks of "further harm". Whether the one pointed to as being further harmed is the fetus or the woman changes the entire concept of when life begins. After researching this subject, I found the controversy stems from a difference in the Greek and Hebrew texts. I should say here, also, that there seems to be controversy over how to phrase the verse in English, as well, in the Torah versions that can be found online.
In the Greek text, the word used to translate the Hebrew term carried with it the connotation of the fetus experiencing a live birth. In most of the available Hebrew texts, however, no such baggage is carried, specifying "miscarry", which means the fetus was dead before birth.
This one mistranslated word into the Greek texts means all the difference in the world. You can see the modern effect by examining the various Bible translations available on the market today. Some used the original Hebrew text, others used the later Greek. Some used, for a time, the Hebrew text and then shifted to the Greek. Such a shift could have been made for many reasons, pushing a pro-life agenda chief among them.
Since 'further harm' refers to the woman according to the Hebrew text and Talmud discussions, it is fairly clear that God never intended for man to think life begins at conception. Nor is abortion considered a sin by God, since there is not yet a Life inside that husk. A perfect analogy for a fetus is a car whose motor is running, but there's no driver -- yet. (Apologies for not knowing the speaker's name but that analogy came from a guest on "Make It Plain" with Mark Thompson (XM/Sirius Progress channel).) This usage also gives continuity to all the Old Testament examples of how God sees the value of human life. The same cannot be said for the notion that one's life would be forfeit for the termination of a fetus. There is no biblical support at all beyond a single mistranslated word in Exodus.
In the Greek text, the word used to translate the Hebrew term carried with it the connotation of the fetus experiencing a live birth. In most of the available Hebrew texts, however, no such baggage is carried, specifying "miscarry", which means the fetus was dead before birth.
This one mistranslated word into the Greek texts means all the difference in the world. You can see the modern effect by examining the various Bible translations available on the market today. Some used the original Hebrew text, others used the later Greek. Some used, for a time, the Hebrew text and then shifted to the Greek. Such a shift could have been made for many reasons, pushing a pro-life agenda chief among them.
Since 'further harm' refers to the woman according to the Hebrew text and Talmud discussions, it is fairly clear that God never intended for man to think life begins at conception. Nor is abortion considered a sin by God, since there is not yet a Life inside that husk. A perfect analogy for a fetus is a car whose motor is running, but there's no driver -- yet. (Apologies for not knowing the speaker's name but that analogy came from a guest on "Make It Plain" with Mark Thompson (XM/Sirius Progress channel).) This usage also gives continuity to all the Old Testament examples of how God sees the value of human life. The same cannot be said for the notion that one's life would be forfeit for the termination of a fetus. There is no biblical support at all beyond a single mistranslated word in Exodus.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Legislating morality
There are a number of folks on the evangelistic right that want to see legislation that will declare a fertilized egg as having all the rights of already-born adults. Such a proposal begs the question: is there a verse in the Bible, or perhaps some secret handshake, that requires the total suspension of a.) the ability to read, and b.) the ability to use critical thinking where religion is concerned once you choose a faith in which to believe and practice those beliefs? Does belief in God or the Bible require that dogma replace the substance of the Bible, which is supposed to be God's true word to us all?
Upon what passage of scripture does the notion that life begins at conception rest? Not a single person who believes this is so can give a verse that tells him or her that it is so. Frequently, I am told to refer to Jeremiah 1:5 ["Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;"]. However, this verse cannot be fully understood unless it is taken in context, and that context cannot be understood without the examination of two other verses.
In Ephesians 1:4, we are told God chose us from before the foundations of the world, before there was a world, a man, a woman, a womb, or an egg. You cannot choose someone you don't know, so we are told God knew us even before He created the universe. So, how does that square with Jeremiah 1:5? The answer lies in Exodus 3:13 when Moses asked God who he should tell them has sent him. ["The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"]
God spake unto Moses saying "I AM has sent thee." What kind of name is "I AM"? The creator of the entire universe says His name is "I AM"? Why would He choose such a name? Is it simply because He never dies? Can He see us in our mother's womb simply because He sees everything? Or is it something deeper? He isn't some super-gypsy with a crystal ball.
If we take a string and stretch it tight, extending out of sight as far to the left and right as we can imagine, we can allow that string to represent time, from our perspective. It exists as one thing, its existence in its entirety existing all at the same moment. Mentally segment that string into pieces as tiny as you want, even down to the width of a single atom, and still, in every single segment, God is I AM. And, just as the string exists as one thing, all at one time, God exists as I AM in all of those segments at the very same instant. God said He is I AM, not I HAVE BEEN, or I WILL BE. The future and past don't exist for God. To Him, it is all the present because He sees it all, the entire string, at once. So, yes, He can see, in this very instant, the formation of the universe at the same time as Armageddon occurring, and yes, He would see, in that same instant, us as we were being formed in our mother's belly because time applies only to the creation, not the Creator. THAT is what He was trying to convey to us in Jeremiah and Ephesians and in His choice of name, not to say when life begins.
God often gives us clues to greater truths and when life begins is no exception. But, He does require us to use our brains for something more than taking up space in our skulls and filling it with dogma that bears no resemblance to truth.
He reached down and scooped up the dust of the earth and formed Adam's body. However, Adam's spirit was not in that dust. When God deemed that body complete, ready to house the spirit of Adam, only then did He breathe the breath of life into it. At that point, Adam's spirit entered the body, bringing it Life as we know life.
Using a bit of real-life logic on this issue is also applicable. We see a body lying on the ground, its heart not beating and not breathing. We say it's dead, or to put it another way, it is not alive. It is not alive not simply because of the lack of heartbeat or breathing, but because the spirit is no longer present in the body. By the same token, a body that is still being formed does not have a spirit yet and, therefore, is not yet alive, regardless that it has a heartbeat.
But, doesn't God consider an embryo to be life? In a word: No. What proof is there in His word that this is so?
In Exodus, God is instructing Moses and Aaron in governing the people. In chapter 21, in particular, He is instructing them on how to resolve conflicts. In verse 22, depending on which translation you read, we are told that two men are fighting and one has a wife that is pregnant. She gets into the middle of the fight and the second man hits her causing her to either miscarry, or in some translations, "eject early the fruit of her womb", which is to say give premature birth. In those days, unless the birth came within a couple of weeks prior to when it would normally have been born, being premature would mean death in a very short while. So, in essence, the second man has killed the fetus. In such a case, God says, the man must pay a fine (reparations) to the woman's husband, when no other harm is caused, which since the fetus is dead, no harm can be caused, therefore the harm must be meant to apply to the woman. If the fine is too high, the man can appeal to the elders, or judges, and they may lessen the amount. However, if the man has harmed the woman also, he must pay in kind: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This point is particularly salient in determining the answer to our question as to when life begins.
The man must give his life if he has killed the woman, but only pay a fine if he killed the fetus. Why? God has told us not to murder and that the penalty for taking a life is to forfeit our own life. Why would the man not be required to die for killing the fetus? There is only ONE answer: God does not consider the fetus to be alive, not yet a LIFE.
This position is strengthened when we see Moses being instructed by God to take a census of the tribe of Levi. In Numbers 3:14-17, God said to count only the males, and of those, even only those over 1 month old. In other words, those under one month don't even count - LITERALLY.
Evidently, none of these so-called Christians today can read or they can't understand what they have read. But, let's say, for argument's sake, that they do actually know what I am saying is true. What can be their motive for pushing an agenda to recognize a fertilized egg as a human, other than the obvious backdoor for overturning Roe?
My conclusion may be different from someone else's, but I think they're trying to force people to marry before having sex, to literally control women's bodies. Is it right to force one's religious beliefs onto someone else? Is that going to win their souls to Christ? Not likely. And, what is being totally ignored by these zealots is the fact that married women, too, use birth control, some for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy prevention.
What would be the impact of their efforts should they succeed? Overturning Roe would be the first and most obvious result. Elimination of birth control methods they deem abortifacient would come right after. Unwanted population growth would certainly result, bringing about further strain on demands for education, food, and jobs, as well as increasing the strain on the foster parent system and orphanages. (By the way, one argument the pro-life crowd uses to try and guilt people into not having abortions is that there are so many couples waiting to adopt children. They ignore the existence of orphanages bursting at the seams as well as the fact that many who want to adopt can't qualify, and of those who can, few will take babies of mixed race or one that isn't of their own race, and all want newborns.) Significant impact would also result regarding further use of fossil fuels, making our planet uninhabitable sooner than we can likely handle, if we're not past that point already. Last, and certainly not least, it would force women, young and old, to go to what I would very loosely term "doctors" in what would very likely be less than sanitary conditions. Women are going to die. That's the bottom line.
About a hundred years ago, the people of this country decided to give a controversial program a try, and it failed miserably. That failure was predictable. The program, prohibition, only made the liquor trade go underground and its quality controls became non-existent. The less scrupulous among us were made fabulously wealthy and, eventually, turned into mob kingpins. Morality cannot be legislated. No matter how you try to hide your intentions, or whether those intentions are out in the open, eventually the people are going to recognize they've been manipulated and they will show their resentment quite visibly.
Politically, I am not in the least worried that Roe will go by the wayside. It's the main tool the Republican party uses, their carrot to dangle in front of the pro-life crowd to keep them voting for conservatives. Without that carrot, they would have nothing left to campaign on that people who truly believe in Jesus and His ministry can support.
Jesus told us all, "Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel in My Name." Every time The Church opens its collective mouth these days, it's to pound on the poor and to attack those to whom we were sent. They put one more brick in the wall that separates them from those who need His love. In the eyes of the average man, determining the size of his family, how many kids he and his wife can afford to feed, clothe, educate and house... that is perhaps the most fundamental right of all. Trying to use government to force him to have more than he can bear breeds more than just children. It breeds contempt for all those who are attacking his rights and what they stand for. The Bible tells us that a seed sown on stony ground will not take root. The Church is, in effect, creating the stony ground by turning the hearts and ears of those who need the Word to stone.
Jesus told us a few other things that those who consider themselves Christians should consider, too. "Whatsoever you do unto one of these the least of My brethren, so have you done it unto Me." His ministry was entirely about the poor - feeding them, healing them, sheltering them. Some would say He was talking about charity and that government forcing people to support social programs that help the poor is not being charitable at all, simply because it is not voluntary. So, what is the alternative? We let churches, charities, and food banks handle it all? Do you really believe those organizations can handle even a tenth of the need? If so, you're totally delusional.
We cannot personally care for every need the less fortunate have. We can't be there in all the places the need exists. Our responsibility does not stop, however, simply because we can't be in all those places in person to meet the need. It goes beyond your neighbor's yard, the end of your street, your city limits, county and state lines. The only way we can meet that need is through our taxes. And, if you will read those passages in the gospels, it most surely does not mention charity nor any exemption if the needy are beyond your reach. Voting for a Republican means you are endorsing their despicable strategy of demonizing the poor and doing everything they can, every second they're in office, to destroy what little the poor can qualify for to make their lives and the future of their children better. Their sole purpose is to ensure the wealthy maintain the ever-increasing gap between themselves and the ones whose labor produced those riches. Do you really want to stand in front of the white throne of judgment and use the excuse that you did not personally enact the laws that made so many remain in poverty?
If so, I can guarantee you will be among those the Bible speaks of when it mentions "much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth", because when you cry "Lord, Lord", with tears in His eyes, His reply to you will be
"I never knew you."
Upon what passage of scripture does the notion that life begins at conception rest? Not a single person who believes this is so can give a verse that tells him or her that it is so. Frequently, I am told to refer to Jeremiah 1:5 ["Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;"]. However, this verse cannot be fully understood unless it is taken in context, and that context cannot be understood without the examination of two other verses.
In Ephesians 1:4, we are told God chose us from before the foundations of the world, before there was a world, a man, a woman, a womb, or an egg. You cannot choose someone you don't know, so we are told God knew us even before He created the universe. So, how does that square with Jeremiah 1:5? The answer lies in Exodus 3:13 when Moses asked God who he should tell them has sent him. ["The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"]
God spake unto Moses saying "I AM has sent thee." What kind of name is "I AM"? The creator of the entire universe says His name is "I AM"? Why would He choose such a name? Is it simply because He never dies? Can He see us in our mother's womb simply because He sees everything? Or is it something deeper? He isn't some super-gypsy with a crystal ball.
If we take a string and stretch it tight, extending out of sight as far to the left and right as we can imagine, we can allow that string to represent time, from our perspective. It exists as one thing, its existence in its entirety existing all at the same moment. Mentally segment that string into pieces as tiny as you want, even down to the width of a single atom, and still, in every single segment, God is I AM. And, just as the string exists as one thing, all at one time, God exists as I AM in all of those segments at the very same instant. God said He is I AM, not I HAVE BEEN, or I WILL BE. The future and past don't exist for God. To Him, it is all the present because He sees it all, the entire string, at once. So, yes, He can see, in this very instant, the formation of the universe at the same time as Armageddon occurring, and yes, He would see, in that same instant, us as we were being formed in our mother's belly because time applies only to the creation, not the Creator. THAT is what He was trying to convey to us in Jeremiah and Ephesians and in His choice of name, not to say when life begins.
God often gives us clues to greater truths and when life begins is no exception. But, He does require us to use our brains for something more than taking up space in our skulls and filling it with dogma that bears no resemblance to truth.
He reached down and scooped up the dust of the earth and formed Adam's body. However, Adam's spirit was not in that dust. When God deemed that body complete, ready to house the spirit of Adam, only then did He breathe the breath of life into it. At that point, Adam's spirit entered the body, bringing it Life as we know life.
Using a bit of real-life logic on this issue is also applicable. We see a body lying on the ground, its heart not beating and not breathing. We say it's dead, or to put it another way, it is not alive. It is not alive not simply because of the lack of heartbeat or breathing, but because the spirit is no longer present in the body. By the same token, a body that is still being formed does not have a spirit yet and, therefore, is not yet alive, regardless that it has a heartbeat.
But, doesn't God consider an embryo to be life? In a word: No. What proof is there in His word that this is so?
In Exodus, God is instructing Moses and Aaron in governing the people. In chapter 21, in particular, He is instructing them on how to resolve conflicts. In verse 22, depending on which translation you read, we are told that two men are fighting and one has a wife that is pregnant. She gets into the middle of the fight and the second man hits her causing her to either miscarry, or in some translations, "eject early the fruit of her womb", which is to say give premature birth. In those days, unless the birth came within a couple of weeks prior to when it would normally have been born, being premature would mean death in a very short while. So, in essence, the second man has killed the fetus. In such a case, God says, the man must pay a fine (reparations) to the woman's husband, when no other harm is caused, which since the fetus is dead, no harm can be caused, therefore the harm must be meant to apply to the woman. If the fine is too high, the man can appeal to the elders, or judges, and they may lessen the amount. However, if the man has harmed the woman also, he must pay in kind: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This point is particularly salient in determining the answer to our question as to when life begins.
The man must give his life if he has killed the woman, but only pay a fine if he killed the fetus. Why? God has told us not to murder and that the penalty for taking a life is to forfeit our own life. Why would the man not be required to die for killing the fetus? There is only ONE answer: God does not consider the fetus to be alive, not yet a LIFE.
This position is strengthened when we see Moses being instructed by God to take a census of the tribe of Levi. In Numbers 3:14-17, God said to count only the males, and of those, even only those over 1 month old. In other words, those under one month don't even count - LITERALLY.
Evidently, none of these so-called Christians today can read or they can't understand what they have read. But, let's say, for argument's sake, that they do actually know what I am saying is true. What can be their motive for pushing an agenda to recognize a fertilized egg as a human, other than the obvious backdoor for overturning Roe?
My conclusion may be different from someone else's, but I think they're trying to force people to marry before having sex, to literally control women's bodies. Is it right to force one's religious beliefs onto someone else? Is that going to win their souls to Christ? Not likely. And, what is being totally ignored by these zealots is the fact that married women, too, use birth control, some for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy prevention.
What would be the impact of their efforts should they succeed? Overturning Roe would be the first and most obvious result. Elimination of birth control methods they deem abortifacient would come right after. Unwanted population growth would certainly result, bringing about further strain on demands for education, food, and jobs, as well as increasing the strain on the foster parent system and orphanages. (By the way, one argument the pro-life crowd uses to try and guilt people into not having abortions is that there are so many couples waiting to adopt children. They ignore the existence of orphanages bursting at the seams as well as the fact that many who want to adopt can't qualify, and of those who can, few will take babies of mixed race or one that isn't of their own race, and all want newborns.) Significant impact would also result regarding further use of fossil fuels, making our planet uninhabitable sooner than we can likely handle, if we're not past that point already. Last, and certainly not least, it would force women, young and old, to go to what I would very loosely term "doctors" in what would very likely be less than sanitary conditions. Women are going to die. That's the bottom line.
About a hundred years ago, the people of this country decided to give a controversial program a try, and it failed miserably. That failure was predictable. The program, prohibition, only made the liquor trade go underground and its quality controls became non-existent. The less scrupulous among us were made fabulously wealthy and, eventually, turned into mob kingpins. Morality cannot be legislated. No matter how you try to hide your intentions, or whether those intentions are out in the open, eventually the people are going to recognize they've been manipulated and they will show their resentment quite visibly.
Politically, I am not in the least worried that Roe will go by the wayside. It's the main tool the Republican party uses, their carrot to dangle in front of the pro-life crowd to keep them voting for conservatives. Without that carrot, they would have nothing left to campaign on that people who truly believe in Jesus and His ministry can support.
Jesus told us all, "Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel in My Name." Every time The Church opens its collective mouth these days, it's to pound on the poor and to attack those to whom we were sent. They put one more brick in the wall that separates them from those who need His love. In the eyes of the average man, determining the size of his family, how many kids he and his wife can afford to feed, clothe, educate and house... that is perhaps the most fundamental right of all. Trying to use government to force him to have more than he can bear breeds more than just children. It breeds contempt for all those who are attacking his rights and what they stand for. The Bible tells us that a seed sown on stony ground will not take root. The Church is, in effect, creating the stony ground by turning the hearts and ears of those who need the Word to stone.
Jesus told us a few other things that those who consider themselves Christians should consider, too. "Whatsoever you do unto one of these the least of My brethren, so have you done it unto Me." His ministry was entirely about the poor - feeding them, healing them, sheltering them. Some would say He was talking about charity and that government forcing people to support social programs that help the poor is not being charitable at all, simply because it is not voluntary. So, what is the alternative? We let churches, charities, and food banks handle it all? Do you really believe those organizations can handle even a tenth of the need? If so, you're totally delusional.
We cannot personally care for every need the less fortunate have. We can't be there in all the places the need exists. Our responsibility does not stop, however, simply because we can't be in all those places in person to meet the need. It goes beyond your neighbor's yard, the end of your street, your city limits, county and state lines. The only way we can meet that need is through our taxes. And, if you will read those passages in the gospels, it most surely does not mention charity nor any exemption if the needy are beyond your reach. Voting for a Republican means you are endorsing their despicable strategy of demonizing the poor and doing everything they can, every second they're in office, to destroy what little the poor can qualify for to make their lives and the future of their children better. Their sole purpose is to ensure the wealthy maintain the ever-increasing gap between themselves and the ones whose labor produced those riches. Do you really want to stand in front of the white throne of judgment and use the excuse that you did not personally enact the laws that made so many remain in poverty?
If so, I can guarantee you will be among those the Bible speaks of when it mentions "much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth", because when you cry "Lord, Lord", with tears in His eyes, His reply to you will be
"I never knew you."
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
A Living Wage
There is a great deal of controversy over raising the so-called minimum wage to a range of $12-15/hour these days. Conservatives are, predictably, crying there will be many jobs lost as a result of such an increase, but that's a fool's argument. In nearly every case, the costs would be passed on to the consumer, eliminating the need for job cuts. Many small business owners won't realize this truth immediately and will claim such a wage increase would put them out of business. What they aren't grasping is that all their competitors will have to raise prices to keep pace with the wage increases as well, so they won't be hurt in terms of competition.
However, many will point to increased prices and ask where the benefit is in having the wage increase if everyone will pay more at the check-out stand. To explain the benefit, let's imagine a fictitious burger joint.
This fast-food establishment has 100 customers per hour with each customer purchasing an average of $5.50 of food and drink. On the shift, there are 10 employees, management not included. Each of the regular employees is a part-time worker, meaning they do not get full-time wages. Their average hourly wage is $7.50, costing the owner $75/hr. for that shift. He has made revenue of $550 per hour for a total of $4400. The cost of operations, including raw materials, electricity, water, rent or mortgage, and salary (including management) is $1600 for the single shift of 8 hours. That gives the owner a tidy profit of $2800. Obviously, he could afford to increase what he pays, but let's say he wants to maintain his profit margin and he passes on the increase to his customers. [Note: these assumptions are not taking into account the costs of government regulation compliance nor the costs of employer contributions for unemployment, social security and any benefit programs the employer may offer. However, they do give a good enough overall picture to give a fair assessment of affordability.]
He is selling 800 meals per shift. The increase in wages to $15 would double his non-exempt pay expense, totaling $150. An extra $75 spread across 800 meals would be an increase of $0.09375 per meal -- LESS THAN TEN CENTS. (I am immediately reminded of that phrase from the '60's -- "Say buddy, can you spare a dime?")
Okay, so we will pay an additional dime per meal. What do WE get for that dime?
Today's families are finding the wage-earners unable to make ends meet with just one job. Having to take more than one job leaves fewer jobs for younger workers coming out of high school or college (and YES, college graduates, some even with masters degrees, are having to take minimum wage jobs while seeking better positions.) If those same workers needed only one job, that would create openings for new workers, lowering unemployment. Additionally, if those workers, both new and established, did not have to depend on food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC and other social programs, we would need less tax money to cover government expenditures that ensure the greater social good. If we needed less tax money to do all the things we want, businesses and individuals could have their tax rates decreased. All of this from the single ten cents extra you'd have to pay for that burger meal.
This increase works for all of us, including employers. However, it can only work if Congress has the guts to eliminate the pay differential for part-time versus full-time workers. If business owners, especially corporations, think they can get away with paying less by simply hiring a fully part-time workforce, they will do it in the blink of an eye. When it comes to Corporate America, no change for social good can be counted on without the force of law.
If you think this model doesn't work for the "big-box" stores, think again. The increased cost to consumers would be far less than the dime we're talking about on a per-item basis. In fact, the entire purchase would likely only have to increase about the same dime.
Now that you have taken a closer look at the truth, ask your Republican (especially TEA party) representative why he is opposed to lowering your taxes.
However, many will point to increased prices and ask where the benefit is in having the wage increase if everyone will pay more at the check-out stand. To explain the benefit, let's imagine a fictitious burger joint.
This fast-food establishment has 100 customers per hour with each customer purchasing an average of $5.50 of food and drink. On the shift, there are 10 employees, management not included. Each of the regular employees is a part-time worker, meaning they do not get full-time wages. Their average hourly wage is $7.50, costing the owner $75/hr. for that shift. He has made revenue of $550 per hour for a total of $4400. The cost of operations, including raw materials, electricity, water, rent or mortgage, and salary (including management) is $1600 for the single shift of 8 hours. That gives the owner a tidy profit of $2800. Obviously, he could afford to increase what he pays, but let's say he wants to maintain his profit margin and he passes on the increase to his customers. [Note: these assumptions are not taking into account the costs of government regulation compliance nor the costs of employer contributions for unemployment, social security and any benefit programs the employer may offer. However, they do give a good enough overall picture to give a fair assessment of affordability.]
He is selling 800 meals per shift. The increase in wages to $15 would double his non-exempt pay expense, totaling $150. An extra $75 spread across 800 meals would be an increase of $0.09375 per meal -- LESS THAN TEN CENTS. (I am immediately reminded of that phrase from the '60's -- "Say buddy, can you spare a dime?")
Okay, so we will pay an additional dime per meal. What do WE get for that dime?
Today's families are finding the wage-earners unable to make ends meet with just one job. Having to take more than one job leaves fewer jobs for younger workers coming out of high school or college (and YES, college graduates, some even with masters degrees, are having to take minimum wage jobs while seeking better positions.) If those same workers needed only one job, that would create openings for new workers, lowering unemployment. Additionally, if those workers, both new and established, did not have to depend on food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC and other social programs, we would need less tax money to cover government expenditures that ensure the greater social good. If we needed less tax money to do all the things we want, businesses and individuals could have their tax rates decreased. All of this from the single ten cents extra you'd have to pay for that burger meal.
This increase works for all of us, including employers. However, it can only work if Congress has the guts to eliminate the pay differential for part-time versus full-time workers. If business owners, especially corporations, think they can get away with paying less by simply hiring a fully part-time workforce, they will do it in the blink of an eye. When it comes to Corporate America, no change for social good can be counted on without the force of law.
If you think this model doesn't work for the "big-box" stores, think again. The increased cost to consumers would be far less than the dime we're talking about on a per-item basis. In fact, the entire purchase would likely only have to increase about the same dime.
Now that you have taken a closer look at the truth, ask your Republican (especially TEA party) representative why he is opposed to lowering your taxes.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
One-world Government? Never happen
I've been thinking a great deal lately about the conspiracy theorists' projections of a push to create a one-world government. So, let's look at the effects such an event would entail if it came to pass.
Such a thing would, if possible, not actually be all that bad of a thing. Everyone living under the same government could expect to receive approximately the same treatment and benefits the world around. Rather than country-to-country hostilities, we could perhaps finally begin to focus where it would do the most good, which would be in improving the overall quality of life for all people. HOWEVER, that's a bit of a pollyana view. As we know from experience, people don't readily become what we would hope for them to, regardless of how successful we are at creating such a climate for them to do so. There's too much self-interest in the world for such a thing to occur.
But, in the end, I think the real reason we will never see such an event occur is the effect of eliminating war and, therefore, war machinery. Arms manufacturers don't lag far behind the most powerful financial institutions in the world when it comes to power (read "money"). Do we really think they're going to sit back and allow their bread and butter to be destroyed by having a single government? Or... do we expect they'll reform their ways, retooling their factories to build other goods that won't have nearly the income-producing potential as arms sales? No... not likely. Like it or not, conflict, armed and otherwise, is always going to be with us til the end of time. Therefore, demand for war machines is going to exist, making a one-world government impossible to realize.
Such a thing would, if possible, not actually be all that bad of a thing. Everyone living under the same government could expect to receive approximately the same treatment and benefits the world around. Rather than country-to-country hostilities, we could perhaps finally begin to focus where it would do the most good, which would be in improving the overall quality of life for all people. HOWEVER, that's a bit of a pollyana view. As we know from experience, people don't readily become what we would hope for them to, regardless of how successful we are at creating such a climate for them to do so. There's too much self-interest in the world for such a thing to occur.
But, in the end, I think the real reason we will never see such an event occur is the effect of eliminating war and, therefore, war machinery. Arms manufacturers don't lag far behind the most powerful financial institutions in the world when it comes to power (read "money"). Do we really think they're going to sit back and allow their bread and butter to be destroyed by having a single government? Or... do we expect they'll reform their ways, retooling their factories to build other goods that won't have nearly the income-producing potential as arms sales? No... not likely. Like it or not, conflict, armed and otherwise, is always going to be with us til the end of time. Therefore, demand for war machines is going to exist, making a one-world government impossible to realize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)