I read an article lately in which a poor woman in a forgotten area of eastern Kentucky said she didn't like mainstream denominations because she didn't like people trying to "put God in a box." I can really relate to that woman. Except I haven't just abandoned mainstream Christianity, I have pretty much abandoned all of the large religions in the world.
Sure, I find bits and pieces in many of them that resonate, but in general, I find that they all try to bring God
( a term I just use for its convenience) down to an understandable level.
Let's face it: People think they have a right to understand everything all the time. I can respect the search for knowledge, but I think we need a little more humility. We are not as close to being God as we think.
So I have more free form beliefs. And I definitely don't think I understand God. I don't think I can. But I do trust him/her/it to do the right thing. Without owing me an explanation.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Vaguely presidential
Can American elect an unknown quantity to hold the most powerful office in the land? Will people vote for Mitt Romney even if he continues to never answer any questions about who he is or what, specifically, he will do in office? Will the press ever treat him anywhere near as harshly as the Irish nitwit treated Mr. Obama the other day? Where is the little boy with clear vision, as in the fairy tale? I remember how wonderful it felt in 2008 that we had actually elected a black man. But were we really prepared for the backlash, and how much work it would take to keep him in office? The ants whose hill we kicked had a nasty bite, and they are still angry. We worked hard in 2007-08 for Obama; now we have to work at least as hard for ourselves. If we lose this, we will lose decades of progress - maybe for decades to come.
Friday, June 15, 2012
No, really!
Another call for the liberal press (or all the REAL press, you know, not FOX), to grow a spine.
Obama was right - THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS DOING FINE.
Those people in the GOP ad are NOT the private sector. Otherwise, we wouldn't talk about people getting jobs 'in the private sector' or 'in the public sector'. We don't get jobs in ourselves.
The sectors are the institutions. Private institutions are very profitable these days and have oodles of money they are not spending.
Public institutions, on the other hand are shedding jobs like dog hair in the summer.
The jobs numbers we see are the NET jobs. The private sector is creating more jobs than the total, but the public sector job losses have to be subtracted.
So yes, Mr. Romney, we need more police, firefighters, teachers - and safety inspectors, doctors, nurses, public utility employees, etc, etc. How is cutting those jobs helping the American people?!?!?!?!?
And yes, Mr. Romney, the federal government DOES pay for those jobs (Honestly, could he GET any more uninformed?) They send money to states that can't meet their obligations, so these people can get hired, or at least not fired.
Somebody in media needs to stand up to the GOP scare tactics.
I guess that somebody is me.
Obama was right - THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS DOING FINE.
Those people in the GOP ad are NOT the private sector. Otherwise, we wouldn't talk about people getting jobs 'in the private sector' or 'in the public sector'. We don't get jobs in ourselves.
The sectors are the institutions. Private institutions are very profitable these days and have oodles of money they are not spending.
Public institutions, on the other hand are shedding jobs like dog hair in the summer.
The jobs numbers we see are the NET jobs. The private sector is creating more jobs than the total, but the public sector job losses have to be subtracted.
So yes, Mr. Romney, we need more police, firefighters, teachers - and safety inspectors, doctors, nurses, public utility employees, etc, etc. How is cutting those jobs helping the American people?!?!?!?!?
And yes, Mr. Romney, the federal government DOES pay for those jobs (Honestly, could he GET any more uninformed?) They send money to states that can't meet their obligations, so these people can get hired, or at least not fired.
Somebody in media needs to stand up to the GOP scare tactics.
I guess that somebody is me.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
What today means
More than an election is taking place in Wisconsin today. It's really a survey of what at least part of America thinks about workers and their representation.
I think even the most ardent union supporter would admit that unions have not always been perfect. There HAS been corruption and power HAS gone to the head of some of the leaders. But why should we hold these people to such a high standard - a standard that is probably too high for any human to reach? Are not some corporate leaders corrupt and power hungry? Should we do away with corporations because of that? Should we eliminate the presidency because of Watergate? Or the Catholic church because of the priest scandals? In what other organization do we let the errors of some of the members lead to the end of the organization completely (oh yeah, ACORN, but that is another story).
For all their faults, unions are the ONLY voice the workers have that can even come close to the volume of the owners voices. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE!
Just like in any other case, we need to correct the flaws and preserve the institution. The future of working people - and America - depends on it.
We may lose in Wisconsin, but we can't lose hope.
I think even the most ardent union supporter would admit that unions have not always been perfect. There HAS been corruption and power HAS gone to the head of some of the leaders. But why should we hold these people to such a high standard - a standard that is probably too high for any human to reach? Are not some corporate leaders corrupt and power hungry? Should we do away with corporations because of that? Should we eliminate the presidency because of Watergate? Or the Catholic church because of the priest scandals? In what other organization do we let the errors of some of the members lead to the end of the organization completely (oh yeah, ACORN, but that is another story).
For all their faults, unions are the ONLY voice the workers have that can even come close to the volume of the owners voices. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE!
Just like in any other case, we need to correct the flaws and preserve the institution. The future of working people - and America - depends on it.
We may lose in Wisconsin, but we can't lose hope.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
How many kinds?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)