I am not generally someone who believes there are two kinds of people. There are as many kinds of people as there are people. But uniqueness aside, there are sometimes issues that divide humanity into two sections. I think this US election has brought one of these to the surface. Envy.
The Republicans use this term to describe the unhappiness of those who are trying to change the inequality in our country. I believe this might be because of their viewpoint based on their own envy. People like Mitt Romney ARE driven by envy, by the desire to have at least as much, if not more, than the next guy. This is so deep in their nature they cannot imagine people who don't feel that way.
But many of us truly don't care how much someone else has, AS LONG AS we have enough. Enough to live a reasonable, comfortable life. We don't need or desire car elevators, just accessible transportation. We don't need five houses, just one decent one.
In fact, that is probably why we don't have anywhere near as much as Romney. We didn't have the intense drive to get there. But we still believe we deserve a decent life. It seems in this world, that means people who get paid 20 million dollars a year might have to give some of that back. Not because we envy them, but because all human beings deserve a decent life and because somewhere along the way, they could have shared the credit for their success a little differently. No matter what they tell themselves, they didn't get where they are alone.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Sexual Devolution
The cultural revolution of the 60s-70s involved 3 parts: drugs, politics & sex. I took part in all 3, but now I would say only the political part was a good thing. The negative outcome of the drugs part is clear. But I don't think many people see the downside of the sexual revolution (other than Rick Santorum et al). I will readily grant that sexual attitudes before the revolution were just as wrong, but our change wasn't the solution. We simply swung the pendulum all the way in the other direction. The repression and rejection of 'loose' women and 'bastards' were cruel. But the divorce of sex from love is equally wrong. Treating other human beings as instruments for physical satisfaction IS demeaning.
To justify this we have created a culture where sex is a necessity. This is untrue. The only reason to believe this is to justify casual frequent sex.
I totally disagree with the right that homosexual relations are wrong, and I despise their treatment of sex outside of marriage as evil and immoral, but I do agree that sex should only accompany a serious, caring relationship.
I can only hope the pendulum can swing to the middle someday.
To justify this we have created a culture where sex is a necessity. This is untrue. The only reason to believe this is to justify casual frequent sex.
I totally disagree with the right that homosexual relations are wrong, and I despise their treatment of sex outside of marriage as evil and immoral, but I do agree that sex should only accompany a serious, caring relationship.
I can only hope the pendulum can swing to the middle someday.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Why stop there?
I support most of President Obama's stand on legal gay marriage. I do think, even if he believes it is a state issue, he could come out for a change in federal marriage rights for gay couples. Otherwise, I agree with him.
The right makes a lot of analogical arguments on the subject; if you let gays get married, why can't you marry a duck, or a child, or five people? But, as I see it, these arguments don't stand together.
Part of the reason gay marriage has gained such acceptance is that the opposition has not given a good rationale against it. They tried marriage will be destroyed, but people didn't buy that. They tried it will mess up the children, but research was done and nothing backed that up either. All their arguments evaporated when looked at seriously.
But now I hear gay proponents making similar statements. Of course, gay marriage won't lead to child marriage, or inter-species marriage. There is a sharp dividing line there - consenting adults. Rights for consenting adults have NEVER led to the same rights for children or animals. Our legal code is chock full of age limits for rights. It is a deeply accepted part of our legal code. And obviously animals are not able to consent to a marriage type relationship. These are CLEARLY different situations.
However, rights of different numbers of consenting adults is a different matter. If we legalize gay marriage, why not multiple marriage? Here I have heard gay leaders say "because marriage is for two people" just as the right said "marriage is for a man and a woman". Why??????????
Why does one statement stand up when the other doesn't? I have yet to hear reasoning. They might fall back on the children as the right did, and I am not sure if there is research on children of multiple partner households and what it showed if there is. But since it has been practiced in many places in the world over many centuries, it must have something to say for it.
I think we must face the fact that legal gay marriage MAY lead to legal multiple partner marriage and examine whether that is such a bad thing. In my book it's not.
The right makes a lot of analogical arguments on the subject; if you let gays get married, why can't you marry a duck, or a child, or five people? But, as I see it, these arguments don't stand together.
Part of the reason gay marriage has gained such acceptance is that the opposition has not given a good rationale against it. They tried marriage will be destroyed, but people didn't buy that. They tried it will mess up the children, but research was done and nothing backed that up either. All their arguments evaporated when looked at seriously.
But now I hear gay proponents making similar statements. Of course, gay marriage won't lead to child marriage, or inter-species marriage. There is a sharp dividing line there - consenting adults. Rights for consenting adults have NEVER led to the same rights for children or animals. Our legal code is chock full of age limits for rights. It is a deeply accepted part of our legal code. And obviously animals are not able to consent to a marriage type relationship. These are CLEARLY different situations.
However, rights of different numbers of consenting adults is a different matter. If we legalize gay marriage, why not multiple marriage? Here I have heard gay leaders say "because marriage is for two people" just as the right said "marriage is for a man and a woman". Why??????????
Why does one statement stand up when the other doesn't? I have yet to hear reasoning. They might fall back on the children as the right did, and I am not sure if there is research on children of multiple partner households and what it showed if there is. But since it has been practiced in many places in the world over many centuries, it must have something to say for it.
I think we must face the fact that legal gay marriage MAY lead to legal multiple partner marriage and examine whether that is such a bad thing. In my book it's not.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Kind power
Gay rights has been all the conversation this past week, but one thing started me thinking. I saw an old statement by Ronald Reagan where he opposed both discrimination and acceptance for gays.
To me that is an impossible stance. If you really oppose discrimination, you must be for acceptance. As a victim of non-acceptance, I can tell you how discriminatory it feels. You know you are different, not accepted like others - that is discrimination. This is true even if your non-acceptance is just personal, familial, like it was with me. How much more painful must it be if it is social non-acceptance, which is what he was talking about although he seemed to be treating it as if it was personal. How much of what the dominant culture has always blamed on the aberration of homosexuality comes really from a life of separation, 'otherness'?
But this is only one of two reasons why his statement is far worse than he understood. As bad as the mental and emotional cruelty of non-acceptance is, the physical cruelty it engenders is (arguably) worse. When Reagan made his statement he was grown, even older, long past his youth. But youth is a wild, confusing time and people in this phase take things differently. I once came upon a group of college (!) boys having great 'fun' tormenting some turtles to walk off a bridge into a stream. When I confronted them and rescued the last of their victims, they protested extensively that they were not hurting them. Technically true, but they were inflicting mental pain on the animals - and that was the point. If there hadn't been terror, it would not have been 'fun'. The fear of the animals made them feel powerful and that was what they were after. In youth, particularly for men, one needs to discover and feel power. We are moving from being helpless to being independent and this is one way to do that, the way our culture seems to have stuck with. Sometimes the victim is not an animal, but another child who is easy to attack because he/she is different. Our society tacitly encourages bullying.
But there is another way to feel one's power. Power doesn't have to be about dominating someone/something else. It can be about helping someone/something. Destruction can be powerful, but so can construction. Somewhere along the way, whether in the home, school, or religious institution, we need to formalize teaching of kindness, and express the power and strength of helping. That may be the best cure for cruelty and bullying.
To me that is an impossible stance. If you really oppose discrimination, you must be for acceptance. As a victim of non-acceptance, I can tell you how discriminatory it feels. You know you are different, not accepted like others - that is discrimination. This is true even if your non-acceptance is just personal, familial, like it was with me. How much more painful must it be if it is social non-acceptance, which is what he was talking about although he seemed to be treating it as if it was personal. How much of what the dominant culture has always blamed on the aberration of homosexuality comes really from a life of separation, 'otherness'?
But this is only one of two reasons why his statement is far worse than he understood. As bad as the mental and emotional cruelty of non-acceptance is, the physical cruelty it engenders is (arguably) worse. When Reagan made his statement he was grown, even older, long past his youth. But youth is a wild, confusing time and people in this phase take things differently. I once came upon a group of college (!) boys having great 'fun' tormenting some turtles to walk off a bridge into a stream. When I confronted them and rescued the last of their victims, they protested extensively that they were not hurting them. Technically true, but they were inflicting mental pain on the animals - and that was the point. If there hadn't been terror, it would not have been 'fun'. The fear of the animals made them feel powerful and that was what they were after. In youth, particularly for men, one needs to discover and feel power. We are moving from being helpless to being independent and this is one way to do that, the way our culture seems to have stuck with. Sometimes the victim is not an animal, but another child who is easy to attack because he/she is different. Our society tacitly encourages bullying.
But there is another way to feel one's power. Power doesn't have to be about dominating someone/something else. It can be about helping someone/something. Destruction can be powerful, but so can construction. Somewhere along the way, whether in the home, school, or religious institution, we need to formalize teaching of kindness, and express the power and strength of helping. That may be the best cure for cruelty and bullying.
Friday, May 11, 2012
We all have a dream
The events of the last week have put American intolerance in the spotlight. But this is nothing new. Contrary to what we like to believe about America, we have always been intolerant. The objects of our disdain and cruelty have changed over the years, but someone has always borne the brunt. Even when this is talked about these days, it is glossed over and people seem to believe it wasn't as bad in the past. It was.
We should not be surprised, and certainly not discouraged by this. Not only was America populated by mere mortals, often they were uneducated, hard living mortals. They had no room for high flung ideals in their hand to mouth existence. Lady Liberty's inscription talks about the wretched refuse and some took us seriously.
But we did have our ideals - the ones mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. At the time, these were the real revolution, not the war. No one else came even close to them. This is what the modern left overlooks in its dissatisfaction with America. Yes, we fail every day in living up to those ideals, but we still have them and we still revere them. This in itself is something to celebrate.
The right, on the other hand, seems to think having ideals is all we need to do and that is wrong too. They don't mean much if we don't try to live up to them, no matter how often we fail.
We are no longer the only country that has the ideals of democracy, justice and equality, but that doesn't mean we can let them slip to the back of our minds. The Cold War is over, but our biggest rival in the world is still authoritarian, with little respect for human rights and freedom. If the free world falters, the power hungry will always be there to pick up the slack.
We need everyone to do whatever we can to preserve the American ideals. The left can't despair and the right can't get complacent. We all have to do our best.
We should not be surprised, and certainly not discouraged by this. Not only was America populated by mere mortals, often they were uneducated, hard living mortals. They had no room for high flung ideals in their hand to mouth existence. Lady Liberty's inscription talks about the wretched refuse and some took us seriously.
But we did have our ideals - the ones mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. At the time, these were the real revolution, not the war. No one else came even close to them. This is what the modern left overlooks in its dissatisfaction with America. Yes, we fail every day in living up to those ideals, but we still have them and we still revere them. This in itself is something to celebrate.
The right, on the other hand, seems to think having ideals is all we need to do and that is wrong too. They don't mean much if we don't try to live up to them, no matter how often we fail.
We are no longer the only country that has the ideals of democracy, justice and equality, but that doesn't mean we can let them slip to the back of our minds. The Cold War is over, but our biggest rival in the world is still authoritarian, with little respect for human rights and freedom. If the free world falters, the power hungry will always be there to pick up the slack.
We need everyone to do whatever we can to preserve the American ideals. The left can't despair and the right can't get complacent. We all have to do our best.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Blue Justice
In my part of the world, the police are a big issue now. An officer was tragically sent to the wrong address and there shot a dog he felt was threatening him. Dog lovers reacted instinctively and sided with the owner exclusively. More information has come out and the owner is looking more suspicious - the dog has even had past occurrences of biting, but many people are still attacking the officer and have brought up other cases from other places and times, as if there is a dog killing conspiracy among law enforcement around the country.
I know that police sometimes do things wrong, even commit crimes themselves. We unfortunately have to hire flawed human beings to protect us. And it is true that a job like this attracts power hungry, even violent people and sometimes they slip through the process and get hired. But I have known a few cops in my lifetime and many of them are sensible, well-intentioned people.
My generation has a history of being anti-police. In our youth, some called them pigs and occasionally I still hear that. And police misbehavior has caused others to write off the entire profession. This is wrong. When officers are wrong, they must be corrected, even going to jail like any other criminal if they break the law themselves. But the fact remains: We need police. Most of them, even the ones who do wrong, have a very hard job, a job the rest of us would have a hard time doing, probably even couldn't do. Every time they go to work they know they may not come home that night. Even something as simple as a traffic stop could turn deadly. And like any other group, most of them are good and shouldn't be lumped with the miscreants.
It's time for us all to grow up and oppose the wrong while standing by the right. And let them know.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Religious evolution
I am not a Christian. I simply cannot accept either the whole story of Eden or the concept of original sin. Certainly humans evolved consciousness, but I don't consider that a sin.
And, while I always considered Jesus to be an exceptional human being, I didn't consider him any more a son of God than the rest of us. So I didn't accept the stories of his birth or death.
But recently I have gained some very interesting information on this topic. I finally saw Bill Maher's movie Religulous, wherein he mentions that other, older cultures had their own Messiah stories. That left me questioning if there was even a real person of Jesus. But I was still stuck on all the wonderful doctrine of Jesus - love thy neighbor, the meek inheriting the earth, etc. Someone had to have said those things, right?
Then I happened upon a documentary on Jesus that pointed out that much of his doctrine was the same as the Essenes who lived in his area of Judea around the same time.
Of course, it makes much more sense that a whole group of people came up with all that wisdom, so did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John just make up Jesus? To fulfill the prophecy their people had been waiting for so long?
And where does that leave us?
And, while I always considered Jesus to be an exceptional human being, I didn't consider him any more a son of God than the rest of us. So I didn't accept the stories of his birth or death.
But recently I have gained some very interesting information on this topic. I finally saw Bill Maher's movie Religulous, wherein he mentions that other, older cultures had their own Messiah stories. That left me questioning if there was even a real person of Jesus. But I was still stuck on all the wonderful doctrine of Jesus - love thy neighbor, the meek inheriting the earth, etc. Someone had to have said those things, right?
Then I happened upon a documentary on Jesus that pointed out that much of his doctrine was the same as the Essenes who lived in his area of Judea around the same time.
Of course, it makes much more sense that a whole group of people came up with all that wisdom, so did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John just make up Jesus? To fulfill the prophecy their people had been waiting for so long?
And where does that leave us?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
2nd or 1st?
That is, which do you fear most:
An Obama second term in which he is not beholden to anyone,
or a Romney first term in which he is?
An Obama second term in which he is not beholden to anyone,
or a Romney first term in which he is?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Democrats on defense
No surprise the Republicans can't even let the Democrats have one on national security. They have been spreading the lie that Democrats are 'soft' for so long, they couldn't get by without it.
But how did this nonsense ever get started?
It has no basis in fact. A Democrat won WWI; Democrats won WWII; Korea & Vietnam stymied both parties.
As far as I can tell, it is because Republicans are willing to talk tough and Democrats prefer to negotiate whenever possible and don't want to spend ALL our budget on defense.
I think the Republicans learned the wrong lesson from the old westerns. Watch them again and see how often the real hero is the soft-spoken guy that avoids trouble when possible and knows how to fight when it isn't. Not the braggart that is always itching to draw his gun. That guy usually ends up looking foolish.
Just saying.
But how did this nonsense ever get started?
It has no basis in fact. A Democrat won WWI; Democrats won WWII; Korea & Vietnam stymied both parties.
As far as I can tell, it is because Republicans are willing to talk tough and Democrats prefer to negotiate whenever possible and don't want to spend ALL our budget on defense.
I think the Republicans learned the wrong lesson from the old westerns. Watch them again and see how often the real hero is the soft-spoken guy that avoids trouble when possible and knows how to fight when it isn't. Not the braggart that is always itching to draw his gun. That guy usually ends up looking foolish.
Just saying.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The First of May
In case you were wondering why all the demonstrations took place today, it is because this is the significant date in true labor history, not the first Monday of Sept.
And these days we need to mark as many Labor Days as possible, up to and including EVERY day.
It is completely timely that at this time a chart has come out showing the almost locked downward trends of union membership and middle class jobs & wages.
I have heard many people say that unions are great things and were really necessary - once. But now we have won those wars and our pay and benefits are secure.
WRONG WRONG WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate to be the one to tell you, but those wars will NEVER be over. The other side will NOT give up and so we cannot either. The good news is that it doesn't take much. You don't have to keep up with all the politics, or go to meetings every week, or go out on strike and maybe lose your job.
YOU JUST HAVE TO JOIN A UNION.
If membership went up and SOME of the membership volunteered on campaigns and most of the membership voted MOST of the time by their union guide, things would turn around fast.
You don't have to be the one volunteering, and you can certainly vote your conscience, although I would expect you would go along most of the time with the people working for your rights.
JUST JOIN.
And these days we need to mark as many Labor Days as possible, up to and including EVERY day.
It is completely timely that at this time a chart has come out showing the almost locked downward trends of union membership and middle class jobs & wages.
I have heard many people say that unions are great things and were really necessary - once. But now we have won those wars and our pay and benefits are secure.
WRONG WRONG WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate to be the one to tell you, but those wars will NEVER be over. The other side will NOT give up and so we cannot either. The good news is that it doesn't take much. You don't have to keep up with all the politics, or go to meetings every week, or go out on strike and maybe lose your job.
YOU JUST HAVE TO JOIN A UNION.
If membership went up and SOME of the membership volunteered on campaigns and most of the membership voted MOST of the time by their union guide, things would turn around fast.
You don't have to be the one volunteering, and you can certainly vote your conscience, although I would expect you would go along most of the time with the people working for your rights.
JUST JOIN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)