I was listening to NPR this morning, as per usual, and on the Diane Rehm Show, she was discussing the proposed tax on soda and sugary drinks that would allegedly drive down consumption and provide revenue for the health care overhaul. The tax could be somewhere around a penny per ounce. So, a 20 oz Coke from the vending machine would be an extra 20 cents or so. It reminded me of a commercial I saw recently on the same topic where a "mother" bemoans the fact that in this economy even a few pennies add up to strains on their budget. The commercial was paid for by a coalition that, among others, included soft drink companies.
I guess you can figure out where I come down on this issue...I'm all for the tax. In fact, I think it should extend to candy, chips, and other non-essential foods. If the government can tax the heck out of cigarettes under the assumption that it will deter smoking, which contributes to disease, why not tax junk food in a similar manner in hopes it will steer some people toward healthier food choices? A Coke a day may not kill you as quickly as a cigarette a day, but it will eventually affect you.
And, the argument that it's going to put a strain on the working American's budget...Uhmmmm, have you considered removing soda from your budget? Tap water is extremely cheap. The problem of unhealthy food being cheaper than healthy food is an entirely different (very serious) issue. As is the absence of grocery stores in certain urban areas.
I realize a tax won't deter everyone. No amount of taxing or even educational campaigns are going to keep the majority of people from doing exactly what they want to do, no matter how bad it is for them. In fact, if the tax goes into effect, it probably wouldn't stop me from having the occasional Diet Coke. But, as long as I'm going to make a less than healthy choice, someone else might as well benefit...as in the millions of people in our wealthy nation who can't get affordable health care.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
A Good Morning for a Rant...
My first experience with the so-called "credit crisis": I received a letter yesterday saying that a credit card I've had since college had closed my account due to "inactivity." What?! Last year, I paid off the rather high balance and put the card away for emergencies. It was part of my attempt to get my finances together and use my credit cards responsibly. This is how I'm rewarded? Had I known this was a possibility, if they'd, oh say, sent a letter warning me this could happen, instead of just a letter saying the account was closed, I'd have made a small occasional purchase to keep the line of credit open. Instead, my credit score will take the hit. What a crock! I called to tell them so, and the representative's response was "Because this is mentioned in the terms of your credit agreement, there's nothing that can be done." Oh, the fine print in a document I haven't seen in 10 years. How could I have not noticed that?? What gets me is that they were way more into me when I was drowning in debt. When I was almost maxed out, they were more than happy to give me more credit, more rope to hang myself with. I was a "good" customer. One that would make them money, whether I survived or not. Now, ironically, I'm a "bad" customer, one who doesn't spend more than she makes and keeps her cards paid off. As far as I can tell from my online searches, this is perfectly legal under the current system. I really think that needs to change. It feels like all the laws protect the banks but less so the consumers. There's no neat conclusion here. I'm pissed! I don't know who to write angry letters to first. But first things first, I suppose: I'm off to buy a pack of gum on my other two no-balance credit cards...
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Things That Make You Go "Hmmm"
Anyone else find it ironic that most of the people who are "concerned" by Judge Sonya Sotomayor's statement about a wise Latina woman making better decisions than a white man are...white men? Wouldn't it be horrible if their interests weren't the top priority of the entire establishment for the first time in centuries? I can only imagine the panic in the old boys' club.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Basic Argumentation
Over the weekend, I read the article about Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because he and Bill Ayers, founder of the radical anti-war group Weather Underground, live in the same Chicago neighborhood and have served on a couple of the same committees and fundraising campaigns. I read similar articles on no less than six news sites and did some searching on my own. My conclusion was that while Ayers may or may not have done some extreme stuff in anti-Vietnam demonstrations in the 60's, charges against him were dropped, he's no longer in hiding, and he's a professor at U of I Chicago. Being board members together and socially cordial hardly seems like "palling around," and "terrorist" is a relative, inflammatory term in this case. In any case, this situation isn't analogous to, say, inviting the bin Ladens over for a 4th of July barbecue.
As I shut down my computer, I shook my head. In politics it seems like people can say anything they want, regardless of the veracity of their comments. Even when fact checkers uncover half-truths or total fallacies, the damage has already been done. The lie lives on in the mind of the average person as truth. How many people do you know that take the extra step to check the validity of the political commercials, debates, and speeches they've heard? A very sad few. Just once, I'd like to see arguments from either political party that would hold water in even a freshman composition class.
When I taught college writing courses, this was about the point in the semester that we started talking about their argumentative research paper. We spent a lot of time talking about what constituted a valid information source (i.e., not Wikipedia or your friend's blog) and how to analyze those facts to construct a solid argument. Inevitably we covered things like not twisting facts to support your agenda. We discussed how to respond to those who disagree with you and what constitutes an appropriate rebuttal. I responsibly taught them that a logical, valid argument doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks, rely on straw man arguments and sweeping generalizations, or make irrelevant appeals (to fear, force, pity, etc.). I told the poor schmucks that this was the kind of critical thinking the professional world expected of them. Some of them were a little annoyed by the whole concept of logical argument and the extra time that would be consumed by weeding out those pesky logical fallacies. Why bother when one can build an entire political campaign (and an administration, come to think of it...) out of an array of artistically spun logical fallacies and outright lies?
As I shut down my computer, I shook my head. In politics it seems like people can say anything they want, regardless of the veracity of their comments. Even when fact checkers uncover half-truths or total fallacies, the damage has already been done. The lie lives on in the mind of the average person as truth. How many people do you know that take the extra step to check the validity of the political commercials, debates, and speeches they've heard? A very sad few. Just once, I'd like to see arguments from either political party that would hold water in even a freshman composition class.
When I taught college writing courses, this was about the point in the semester that we started talking about their argumentative research paper. We spent a lot of time talking about what constituted a valid information source (i.e., not Wikipedia or your friend's blog) and how to analyze those facts to construct a solid argument. Inevitably we covered things like not twisting facts to support your agenda. We discussed how to respond to those who disagree with you and what constitutes an appropriate rebuttal. I responsibly taught them that a logical, valid argument doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks, rely on straw man arguments and sweeping generalizations, or make irrelevant appeals (to fear, force, pity, etc.). I told the poor schmucks that this was the kind of critical thinking the professional world expected of them. Some of them were a little annoyed by the whole concept of logical argument and the extra time that would be consumed by weeding out those pesky logical fallacies. Why bother when one can build an entire political campaign (and an administration, come to think of it...) out of an array of artistically spun logical fallacies and outright lies?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Just a Note...
I watched the VP debate last night. And, I'll be honest...I expected a lot more excitement than it provided. I was surprised, though, that a few commentators were impressed by Palin's you-betchas, golly-gosh-darn-its, and precocious winking as having really connecting with "the people." What people?? As someone who is neither a "Joe-Six-Pack" nor a hockey mom, I found her wide-eyed, feigned ignorance (i.e., "Wow--I really am a Washington outsider because blah, blah, blah...") to be the ultimate play of the sweet, harmless female card. I didn't buy it for a second. Why?
Remember what we got last time we chose a leader based on his ability to play the good ole country boy language card? Surely America (even notoriously naive middle America) won't be fooled by that again!
Remember what we got last time we chose a leader based on his ability to play the good ole country boy language card? Surely America (even notoriously naive middle America) won't be fooled by that again!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Hey, Sarah...
As someone who writes frequently about feminist topics, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least comment on the Sarah Palin issue. Let's leave out the fact that I disagree with absolutely everything she believes in...Really, EVERYTHING...and stick to how I feel her nomination affects the role of women in politics. In answer to what someone (who clearly doesn't know me very well) asked, No, I'm not excited about the first Republican presidential ticket with a female vice-president nominee on it. Would I like to see more women in highly visible political roles? Absolutely. Qualified women. Trustworthy women. Women who can make it through an interview without sounding like bumbling idiots.
There were many other viable female McCain could have chosen if he was really interested in having a woman's perspective in the White House. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was nothing more than an attempt to gain some street cred with the right-wing conservatives for whom he wasn't conservative enough. Everyone knows that crowd will overlook a multitude of deficiencies of character and ability (see George W.) as long as he/she loudly proclaims a devotion to "God's will (a.k.a., ending reproductive choices, creationism in science classes, abstinence education, and keeping those gays in check). And in that regard, Palin fits the bill.
However, many of us have a tougher criteria for a candidate than that. For instance, I require someone with the knowledge base to handle the job. As she's proven every time she's been interviewed (and the McCain camp has done its very best to keep her quiet since), she has a very low level knowledge of big politics (and doesn't think well on her feet). Sweetheart, even I know what the Bush Doctrine is! And, when Katie Couric looks at you like you're an imbecile, clearly something's wrong.
While I'd love to see more women in high levels of politics, I can't stand to see those who have risen without deserving it. We've worked too long and hard to be taken seriously in politics to ruin all that with a vice-presidential nominee who's best quality is that she resembles Tina Fey...who'd make a MUCH better nominee by the way...She's picked up a lot more foreign policy doing Weekend Update than Palin apparently picked up governing a state with fewer people than many medium size cities.
Step down, Palin, you're making intelligent women look bad.
There were many other viable female McCain could have chosen if he was really interested in having a woman's perspective in the White House. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was nothing more than an attempt to gain some street cred with the right-wing conservatives for whom he wasn't conservative enough. Everyone knows that crowd will overlook a multitude of deficiencies of character and ability (see George W.) as long as he/she loudly proclaims a devotion to "God's will (a.k.a., ending reproductive choices, creationism in science classes, abstinence education, and keeping those gays in check). And in that regard, Palin fits the bill.
However, many of us have a tougher criteria for a candidate than that. For instance, I require someone with the knowledge base to handle the job. As she's proven every time she's been interviewed (and the McCain camp has done its very best to keep her quiet since), she has a very low level knowledge of big politics (and doesn't think well on her feet). Sweetheart, even I know what the Bush Doctrine is! And, when Katie Couric looks at you like you're an imbecile, clearly something's wrong.
While I'd love to see more women in high levels of politics, I can't stand to see those who have risen without deserving it. We've worked too long and hard to be taken seriously in politics to ruin all that with a vice-presidential nominee who's best quality is that she resembles Tina Fey...who'd make a MUCH better nominee by the way...She's picked up a lot more foreign policy doing Weekend Update than Palin apparently picked up governing a state with fewer people than many medium size cities.
Step down, Palin, you're making intelligent women look bad.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Freedom of Religion?
Amendments to the Constitution was not intended to be a new theme for this blog...
However, I was listening to Diane Rehm today; her guests were discussing the raid on a LDS compound in Texas and the removal of hundreds of underage children and women under allegations of abuse, physical, sexual, emotional and otherwise. As usual, she had guests from every side of the issue, including a man who thought this was nothing more than an attack on the LDS members' religious freedom.
It's a difficult line, discerning between protecting religious freedom and protecting the safety of those involved. Clearly, marrying underage girls ("spiritual marriage" or otherwise) to older men and forcing them to procreate is a form of sexual (and possibly physical) abuse. But, then there's the question of the "brainwashing" that goes on, convincing these children that if they don't do what they're told, if they question those in authority that they'll burn in hell. When does a parent's natural inclination to indoctrinate their children with their personal religious beliefs constitute abuse? Don't most devout parents go out of their way to immerse their children in their beliefs with the hope that it "sticks" when they are adults? When does the state have the right to step in on that? Is it abuse to instill a fear of retribution either by religious leaders in this world and/or by their god in the next?
Then there's the matter of the adult women who were removed. Another woman on the show, who runs what basically seemed to be a PR group to let people know that not all LDS members are nutty child abusers, was upset that people see these wives (underage and over) as abused when most of them are "happy" with their lives. It's a question I've asked myself a million times, how women whose culture or religion clearly oppresses them can live in that oppression without seeming to notice or feel it? Why do so few of those girls run away or report what's happening to them? The aforementioned fear? The genuine belief that they're doing the right thing and less than full freedom is the price they must pay to please god? Ignorance? Complacency? Brainwashing? A mixture of all of the above?
Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment though...
It's easy to demonize what's strange to the majority of us. It's easy to point at the LDS women or women who cover their heads/faces in compliance with their religion and talk about how they are being oppressed. But what about the subtler ways many religions and cultures sexualize females and then try to suppress them because of their perceived sexuality? I could give a hundred examples of these subtleties that were present in the religious atmosphere I grew up in, examples with the underlying premise of keeping a young girl from being a "whore" and other examples that were aimed at keeping a young girl in her place, firmly in the shadow of males. I couldn't stand it, but plenty of other women don't feel that way at all. Why the difference? How does that apply to what was happening on that compound in Texas? Granted the underage girls are below the age of consent, but what about the adult women who stay and subject their children to the possibility of abuse? Who's responsible for all of this?
It's a lot to think about.
However, I was listening to Diane Rehm today; her guests were discussing the raid on a LDS compound in Texas and the removal of hundreds of underage children and women under allegations of abuse, physical, sexual, emotional and otherwise. As usual, she had guests from every side of the issue, including a man who thought this was nothing more than an attack on the LDS members' religious freedom.
It's a difficult line, discerning between protecting religious freedom and protecting the safety of those involved. Clearly, marrying underage girls ("spiritual marriage" or otherwise) to older men and forcing them to procreate is a form of sexual (and possibly physical) abuse. But, then there's the question of the "brainwashing" that goes on, convincing these children that if they don't do what they're told, if they question those in authority that they'll burn in hell. When does a parent's natural inclination to indoctrinate their children with their personal religious beliefs constitute abuse? Don't most devout parents go out of their way to immerse their children in their beliefs with the hope that it "sticks" when they are adults? When does the state have the right to step in on that? Is it abuse to instill a fear of retribution either by religious leaders in this world and/or by their god in the next?
Then there's the matter of the adult women who were removed. Another woman on the show, who runs what basically seemed to be a PR group to let people know that not all LDS members are nutty child abusers, was upset that people see these wives (underage and over) as abused when most of them are "happy" with their lives. It's a question I've asked myself a million times, how women whose culture or religion clearly oppresses them can live in that oppression without seeming to notice or feel it? Why do so few of those girls run away or report what's happening to them? The aforementioned fear? The genuine belief that they're doing the right thing and less than full freedom is the price they must pay to please god? Ignorance? Complacency? Brainwashing? A mixture of all of the above?
Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment though...
It's easy to demonize what's strange to the majority of us. It's easy to point at the LDS women or women who cover their heads/faces in compliance with their religion and talk about how they are being oppressed. But what about the subtler ways many religions and cultures sexualize females and then try to suppress them because of their perceived sexuality? I could give a hundred examples of these subtleties that were present in the religious atmosphere I grew up in, examples with the underlying premise of keeping a young girl from being a "whore" and other examples that were aimed at keeping a young girl in her place, firmly in the shadow of males. I couldn't stand it, but plenty of other women don't feel that way at all. Why the difference? How does that apply to what was happening on that compound in Texas? Granted the underage girls are below the age of consent, but what about the adult women who stay and subject their children to the possibility of abuse? Who's responsible for all of this?
It's a lot to think about.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
My Two Cents
How is it that I don't want to do my writing for work, and all I want to do this morning is blog? Maybe I can write this off as a warm-up for the real writing to come later today...
I watched the video of Barak's speech yesterday on race in America. Words mean everything and absolutely nothing when it comes to politics, but whatever the outcome of the election, the man is an amazing orator. Maybe it's just the novelty of a politician who can pronounce all the words in his speech for once, who knows. To this thought, B., ever the incendiary, replied, "Yeah, so was Hitler." To which, belatedly, I reply, "And so was Bobby Kennedy." He went on to say that someone on NPR had worried that we "aren't allowed to say anything bad about him." There's plenty of room to criticize all three of the candidates, people just have to talk about real differences on the issues and not dismiss them based on sexist, racist, or even ageist attitudes that are so easy to throw out when we're too lazy to dig into the root of a problem.
Again, regardless of the outcome, it's a pretty exciting to live in a time in America when both a woman and a minority can be serious candidates for President. I cynically tend to believe that politicians can't really change anything and the best they can do is not make things worse, but I have to admit, the current state of affairs makes me hopeful.
I watched the video of Barak's speech yesterday on race in America. Words mean everything and absolutely nothing when it comes to politics, but whatever the outcome of the election, the man is an amazing orator. Maybe it's just the novelty of a politician who can pronounce all the words in his speech for once, who knows. To this thought, B., ever the incendiary, replied, "Yeah, so was Hitler." To which, belatedly, I reply, "And so was Bobby Kennedy." He went on to say that someone on NPR had worried that we "aren't allowed to say anything bad about him." There's plenty of room to criticize all three of the candidates, people just have to talk about real differences on the issues and not dismiss them based on sexist, racist, or even ageist attitudes that are so easy to throw out when we're too lazy to dig into the root of a problem.
Again, regardless of the outcome, it's a pretty exciting to live in a time in America when both a woman and a minority can be serious candidates for President. I cynically tend to believe that politicians can't really change anything and the best they can do is not make things worse, but I have to admit, the current state of affairs makes me hopeful.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Woman Vote
Last weekend at a party, a good female friend of mine informed me that she'd taken the time to watch the most recent Republican debate on televison, "because I know you are into that sort of thing," she said. I am into "that sort of thing." And even though, I would rather she had watched the Democratic debate, I was glad she took the time to become an informed voter for the party of her choice, even though it's not necessarily her "thing."
In the last election more than 20,000 women failed to vote. Most weren't even registered. If I had a dollar for every time a woman told me she didn't "get" politics or didn't care about the process, I could retire. You just don't hear that excuse from men. Most of them appear to step up and do their civic duty without question. Maybe that's why there are so few women in political offices. When we as a group so segregate ourselves from the polticial process, we are making it the domain of men. The domain of old, white men. And then we wonder why it seems like our leaders don't understand what we need or want.
So, why can't we, whether we enjoy politics or not, take the time to think about our beliefs and priorities for our country? Is that so strange? Would you work in your job aimlessly without thinking about where you hope to see the company and yourself go? Would you be in a relationship in which you never thought about the future? Would you buy a new car without thinking about your driving needs? So, why not consider where the country is going?
The second step is to find a candidate who supports causes and national priorities you hold dear. This means more than finding out who friends, significant others, or other social leaders are voting for. I've known too many women who have copied their political views from their husbands like math homework. Like I used to tell my students, grow an opinion, an informed one! If we don't help make decisions, other people will make them for us. And, I don't know about you, but that's not good enough for me. This is about how lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to fully participate and be a visible, functioning part of our society.
But thousands of women won't be. Take a minute to watch the video above. Can you imagine what 20,000 more votes might have done in the last two elections? Can you imagine that your vote might be the one that puts the first female or minority in the White House instead of the same old white guy? You've got the better part of a year to figure out how you are going to make a difference. Do it already!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Nothing to see in this mailbox, I swear
Did anyone else see the news story yesterday that the fine print of some postal legistlation signed last month gives the government the right to read your mail without a warrant? Add that to the wire tapping and bank records and why don't we save a step and have a federal agent move in with every American family? Better to keep an eye on all of us first hand.
The wire tapping issue came up during the last semester I taught at SIUE and we discussed it as a class one evening. I was shocked (appalled even) that only one person in the entire class thought there was anything wrong with allowing the government to do things like this without a warrant. One girl said, "Well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, why would I care? They can listen to my phone calls if they want." What? Really??? Unfortunately, I know too many people who feel the same way as my student. And that apathy has translated into the whittling away of our most prized civil liberties.
Whatever happened to privacy, reasonable doubt, due process? It's an over used quote lately, but I think Ben Franklin said it best, "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Moves like these in the name of "security" may or may not turn up valuable information, but there's a correct way to obtain that information when necessary. Through a judge and warrant order. The other popular argument, that time-constraints might make a warrant impossible if the information is to be obtained quickly, seems like a very rare scenario.
Who's to say the government would even be keeping an eye on real terrorists. Take the number of people who have been released from Gitmo after the powers that be realized, "Oops, you aren't a terrorist after all...our bad. Sucks that you've been imprisoned for three years." Something tells me the wire taps, bank records, and mail reading net would be cast even wider. Unchecked power in the government threatens even the culture of dissent that America was built on. "Agree, shut up, or face the consequences" isn't the kind of society I want to live in.
So what if I'm not really doing anything wrong? So what if all the governement would find out from checking my collective records is that I have an ungodly number of rollover minutes, barely have enough cash to finance my lifestyle let alone anti-government organizations, and get nothing more exciting than Victoria's Secret catalogues in the mail? Forgive me if based on its track record, I want a second opinion on what this administration deems a "good reason" to invade a citizen's privacy.
01/05/07
The wire tapping issue came up during the last semester I taught at SIUE and we discussed it as a class one evening. I was shocked (appalled even) that only one person in the entire class thought there was anything wrong with allowing the government to do things like this without a warrant. One girl said, "Well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, why would I care? They can listen to my phone calls if they want." What? Really??? Unfortunately, I know too many people who feel the same way as my student. And that apathy has translated into the whittling away of our most prized civil liberties.
Whatever happened to privacy, reasonable doubt, due process? It's an over used quote lately, but I think Ben Franklin said it best, "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Moves like these in the name of "security" may or may not turn up valuable information, but there's a correct way to obtain that information when necessary. Through a judge and warrant order. The other popular argument, that time-constraints might make a warrant impossible if the information is to be obtained quickly, seems like a very rare scenario.
Who's to say the government would even be keeping an eye on real terrorists. Take the number of people who have been released from Gitmo after the powers that be realized, "Oops, you aren't a terrorist after all...our bad. Sucks that you've been imprisoned for three years." Something tells me the wire taps, bank records, and mail reading net would be cast even wider. Unchecked power in the government threatens even the culture of dissent that America was built on. "Agree, shut up, or face the consequences" isn't the kind of society I want to live in.
So what if I'm not really doing anything wrong? So what if all the governement would find out from checking my collective records is that I have an ungodly number of rollover minutes, barely have enough cash to finance my lifestyle let alone anti-government organizations, and get nothing more exciting than Victoria's Secret catalogues in the mail? Forgive me if based on its track record, I want a second opinion on what this administration deems a "good reason" to invade a citizen's privacy.
01/05/07
More Than a Book Review (This one is long but worth it)
I've always loved reading, and ever since the first middle school book report, I could think of nothing more exciting than sharing my excitement over something I'd read with others. Somethings never change. Recently on NPR, I caught the end of an interview with author Dr. Robin Meyers speaking about his new book Why the Christian Right Is Wrong. The very title caught my attention…I had some pretty clear opinions myself on why they were wrong and wondered what his might be. What piqued my interest was that Dr. Meyers is also a minister from the notoriously conservative state of Oklahoma. My curiosity had the best of me, and I was in Borders the next afternoon to pick up the book. As I read, I felt like he was pointing out many of the very inconsistencies between the teachings of Jesus and church practice that had caused me to distance myself from organized Christianity. In his words, which were carefully researched and documented from a well-rounded variety of sources, I found a voice that expressed it was possible to be a person of faith and a compassionate, ethical, logical human being as well. He carefully traces the rise of religious fundamentalism and its incorporation into American politics. The current administration's relationship with so-called Christianity has both eroded the separation of church and state and perverted a faith to give credence to its destructive agendas. As I worked through the book, I marked all the passages I wanted to remember to share with others, but in the end, I realized there were far too many. The only way to really understand the impact of this book is to read it. The book was based on a speech he delivered to students attending a peace rally at the University of Oklahoma, which you can read below. Following the speech, I've included a list of 14 Characteristics of Fascism that political scientist Lawrence Britt published after studying the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet, which Meyers reprinted in chapter 10. Enjoy:
What Are Moral Values
As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor. Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:
When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.
When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.
When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.
When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.
When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.
When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorist -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.
When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.
When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.
When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turnout record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.
When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.
When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.
When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral.
We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.
When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith--compassion--and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.
When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.
When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.
I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war
I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong--the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?
This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It is your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.
Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious.
Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.
And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race-- and thus the greatest failure of faith. There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.
Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness. My generation finally stopped a tragic war. You can too!
14 Characteristics of Fascism
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. Identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government intertwined
9. Protection of corporate power
10. Suppression of labor power
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections.
Sound familiar at all? Even if you aren't religious, even if you are and took issue with his comments, I hope you'll at least take the time to think about why and maybe open the book and read the arguments before making an easy judgement. Something light next time, I promise!--perhaps a discussion on the Flava of Love?
10/26/06
What Are Moral Values
As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor. Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:
When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.
When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.
When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.
When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.
When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.
When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorist -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.
When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.
When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.
When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turnout record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.
When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.
When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.
When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral.
We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.
When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith--compassion--and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.
When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.
When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.
I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war
I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong--the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?
This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It is your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.
Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious.
Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.
And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race-- and thus the greatest failure of faith. There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.
Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness. My generation finally stopped a tragic war. You can too!
14 Characteristics of Fascism
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights
3. Identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government intertwined
9. Protection of corporate power
10. Suppression of labor power
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections.
Sound familiar at all? Even if you aren't religious, even if you are and took issue with his comments, I hope you'll at least take the time to think about why and maybe open the book and read the arguments before making an easy judgement. Something light next time, I promise!--perhaps a discussion on the Flava of Love?
10/26/06
It's amazing what you find out when you read the news
Yesterday on a local news website, I began reading an article about how I-44 was shut down near Sullivan, MO b/c of an accident involving a truck pulling a horse trailer carrying about 40 horses. There were pictures of the resuce workers herding the animals into makeshift corrals along the interstate. They were so adoreable; a real feel good story. The report then mentioned that several of the horses had been killed in the accident and several more had to be "put down" because of severe injuries. I had immediately wondered what kind of trailer was large enough to carry that many horses safely or comfortably and now wondered if this had contributed to the amount of injuries. Then I got to the end of the article to a single sentence stating that the horses were on their way to a slaughterhouse in Northern Illinois.
Then I remembered a report I vaguely heard on NPR while I was getting ready for work. The report discussed the push in the Illinois state congress to outlaw the slaughter of horses in the state and shut down the slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois, which is supposedly 1 of only 4 of its kind in the US. In a slight twist on the old "glue factory" story, these slaughterhouses buy horses that no one wants--old horses, sick or lame horses, horses people no longer want to care for--and process them as meat to sell in Europe where in some countries equine meat is considered a delicacy.
The combination of these two news stories revolts me. Obviously, I am against the slaughter and exploitation of all animals, but horses?! As someone who used to ride recreationally, the idea of anyone allowing this to happen to their horse makes me ill. Even if you aren't a vegetarian or into animal rights, I think you can at least agree that butchering and consuming a "companion animal" is disgusting. Would you sell your aging family cat or dog to be packaged and sold for someone's dinner?
I can't honestly say where I stand on euthanizing animals either, but it seems to me that if a pet, and many if not most horse owners view their horses as pets, is old and suffering, there are FAR more humane ways to aleviate that suffering than making a buck and sending them off to a brutal slaughterhouse.
I was gratified to read in this morning's news that the Humane Society was taking legal action to gain custody of the remaining 26 animals it helped rescue yesterday so they could be adopted out and allowed to live out their days in caring homes. So if successful, that saves these 26 horses, but many others aren't going to be so lucky. I usually prefer just to bitch and rarely write my congress person, but this will be an exception. This is just another case of exploitation of nature for human luxury and profit. You might argue that there are more serious problems in the world right now--war, poverty, hunger--and this is true. But we should stand up for the rights and fair treatment of all those who can't speak for or help themselves. Animals included! It all comes down to practicing compassion for all living things.
09/28/06
Then I remembered a report I vaguely heard on NPR while I was getting ready for work. The report discussed the push in the Illinois state congress to outlaw the slaughter of horses in the state and shut down the slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois, which is supposedly 1 of only 4 of its kind in the US. In a slight twist on the old "glue factory" story, these slaughterhouses buy horses that no one wants--old horses, sick or lame horses, horses people no longer want to care for--and process them as meat to sell in Europe where in some countries equine meat is considered a delicacy.
The combination of these two news stories revolts me. Obviously, I am against the slaughter and exploitation of all animals, but horses?! As someone who used to ride recreationally, the idea of anyone allowing this to happen to their horse makes me ill. Even if you aren't a vegetarian or into animal rights, I think you can at least agree that butchering and consuming a "companion animal" is disgusting. Would you sell your aging family cat or dog to be packaged and sold for someone's dinner?
I can't honestly say where I stand on euthanizing animals either, but it seems to me that if a pet, and many if not most horse owners view their horses as pets, is old and suffering, there are FAR more humane ways to aleviate that suffering than making a buck and sending them off to a brutal slaughterhouse.
I was gratified to read in this morning's news that the Humane Society was taking legal action to gain custody of the remaining 26 animals it helped rescue yesterday so they could be adopted out and allowed to live out their days in caring homes. So if successful, that saves these 26 horses, but many others aren't going to be so lucky. I usually prefer just to bitch and rarely write my congress person, but this will be an exception. This is just another case of exploitation of nature for human luxury and profit. You might argue that there are more serious problems in the world right now--war, poverty, hunger--and this is true. But we should stand up for the rights and fair treatment of all those who can't speak for or help themselves. Animals included! It all comes down to practicing compassion for all living things.
09/28/06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
