Enough rhetoric. Enough politics. Enough polemics, hyperbole and melodramatics.
Abortion is a hard decision, it's traumatic, and it should be prevented, avoided, and obviated at every opportunity. No one wants an abortion, even someone who wants an abortion. They want an abortion ONLY because fear a greater pain for the future baby than the pain of killing their unborn baby, their own death, or some social stigma (caused by the expectation of being judged by their imagined society for unwed motherhood or other, or fear of the death of their livelihood).
You bitches and sons of bitches who try to shame people into not getting abortions should figure it out. Pray for a cessation of your displaced anger and aggression and for the ability to stop your egregious judgment. If you really want to stem the tide of abortions, get off your arrogant high horse and apply all of your energies in that area to 1. Educating people about the options, 2. Making people who might want to abort understand that you will adopt their baby (or find a good family who will), and find every other option for the future born baby that will make carrying the baby to term a REAL option for the reluctant mother! If that means supplying the means to support her through her pregnancy, fighting for additional employment rights for pregnant women. Don't bury your big head in the sand and pretend your anti-birth control stance is not a ridiculous contradiction to anti-abortion. Anti-birth control and anti-abortion requires a suspension of your natural intelligence tantamount to intentional ignorance which flipping off your Creator, "Um, thanks for the brains, but I'm not interested in using them." If you want people to be abstinent, than you have to somehow be involved enough in the lives of your target (through building trust through love and caring) that they can hear you and want to follow your counsel! Are you willing to take up that cross or are you just a blow-hard trying to impose your righteousness on others. Own your bullshit and live with integrity.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
On Muslim Presidents
Anyone who believes their religious faith beliefs should be part of their governmental professional agenda should be summarily removed from office. Christian, Muslim, Jew -- as an elected official at any level of US government, your job is to advance a Constitionally sound platform that serves every person of every religion or no religion. So if we allow Christians to hold office presuming they can separate their religious faith from their official responsibility (which we do), we necessarily will allow people of any other religion to hold office.
If you believe your religion in such a way as to promote an exclusionary agenda against non-believers, then no. Get your ass out of the public policy game.
Most religions, the big 3 for sure, have somewhere in their orthodoxy, a strong anti-out-group bias. They've all persecuted and been persecuted. But if you hold to that dogma tucked away in your creed which actually contradict the real center of your religion (love your neighbor), then you should seek other employment than public service. If your interpretation of your religion does not consider all people equal in dignity and respect under the law, you need another profession. How many ways can I say it.
If adhering to a religious principal that demands you in any way to diminish others because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is important to you, stay away from government!
Kennedy went so far as to make a public statement that he, as President, would be beholden only to the nation as his guiding star:
The case for Muslims: Because there is a significant number of Muslims around the world who cling to violent and exclusionary principals, and including in our own country, people naturally, if unfairly, associate all Muslims with this practice and belief system. The gut reaction is to fear (and hence, discriminate, denigrate, hate, fear, mock, or otherwise react against) all of them. It's an embarrassing and unAmerican stance. Those of higher character will not succumb to that intellectually and morally weak reaction, but maintain that it is not Islam or its practitioners per se that need to be feared, but those who choose to (or just do) interpret their religion in such a way that promotes violence against those who believe different.
Stay strong, people. Stay smart. When you start making decisions and policy based on fear, you tread dangerously close to being that which you hate.
If you believe your religion in such a way as to promote an exclusionary agenda against non-believers, then no. Get your ass out of the public policy game.
Most religions, the big 3 for sure, have somewhere in their orthodoxy, a strong anti-out-group bias. They've all persecuted and been persecuted. But if you hold to that dogma tucked away in your creed which actually contradict the real center of your religion (love your neighbor), then you should seek other employment than public service. If your interpretation of your religion does not consider all people equal in dignity and respect under the law, you need another profession. How many ways can I say it.
If adhering to a religious principal that demands you in any way to diminish others because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is important to you, stay away from government!
Kennedy went so far as to make a public statement that he, as President, would be beholden only to the nation as his guiding star:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
The case for Muslims: Because there is a significant number of Muslims around the world who cling to violent and exclusionary principals, and including in our own country, people naturally, if unfairly, associate all Muslims with this practice and belief system. The gut reaction is to fear (and hence, discriminate, denigrate, hate, fear, mock, or otherwise react against) all of them. It's an embarrassing and unAmerican stance. Those of higher character will not succumb to that intellectually and morally weak reaction, but maintain that it is not Islam or its practitioners per se that need to be feared, but those who choose to (or just do) interpret their religion in such a way that promotes violence against those who believe different.
Stay strong, people. Stay smart. When you start making decisions and policy based on fear, you tread dangerously close to being that which you hate.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Chase that kid out of his den of technologiniquity
We'll pretend to remember when everyone used to play outside all day, riding bikes, baseball, kick the can, catching fireflies, climbing trees, sneaking in the neighbor's yard for crab apples, riding motorcycles, racing canoes and hunting. And forget all the kids who stayed inside all day watching tv, reading, doing little nothings, because the people posting all those memories online were the ones doing it and the people not posting it (among others) didn't. There have always been the sloths, and now with the allure of the new brain-stroking activities, indoors and online, a larger percentage of today's kids are doing it. So it's not a matter of quality so much as quantity.
How do we get young people to get their asses out there and do things that are challenging, active, enriching and fun? Simple. We take them in some cases. We let them in other cases. We set the example and we live it ourselves, and we drag them along, and fuck their protests, because they will more than thank us when they grow up. They'll perpetuate it, they'll appreciate it deeply, they'll perform better and live a better life. Let them bitch and moan while they're hiking up a boring old mountain. Let them pine for their iPhones while they try again to get up on one ski. Let them wish they had a wireless connection and device while they sit around the campfire and recall the first time they caught a fish and catch a glimpse of a shooting star and the Northern Lights. Race them across the field, throw the football with them and shoot some hoops, take them to the firing range and show them how to get the fire roaring with a single match (or a couple sparks). Quit your idiotic lamentations and start an adventure club where you actually share some opportunities with the local youth, partnering with a community foster-care support non-profit and be part of the solution instead of a squawking tree, rooted to your easy chair, like I am now.
How do we get young people to get their asses out there and do things that are challenging, active, enriching and fun? Simple. We take them in some cases. We let them in other cases. We set the example and we live it ourselves, and we drag them along, and fuck their protests, because they will more than thank us when they grow up. They'll perpetuate it, they'll appreciate it deeply, they'll perform better and live a better life. Let them bitch and moan while they're hiking up a boring old mountain. Let them pine for their iPhones while they try again to get up on one ski. Let them wish they had a wireless connection and device while they sit around the campfire and recall the first time they caught a fish and catch a glimpse of a shooting star and the Northern Lights. Race them across the field, throw the football with them and shoot some hoops, take them to the firing range and show them how to get the fire roaring with a single match (or a couple sparks). Quit your idiotic lamentations and start an adventure club where you actually share some opportunities with the local youth, partnering with a community foster-care support non-profit and be part of the solution instead of a squawking tree, rooted to your easy chair, like I am now.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Where Wealth Redistribution Lies
You hear the negative tone from the Right repudiating wealth distribution as a socialist corruption of democracy and capitalism.
Here's the question: Are they stupid, blind, or obfuscating?
Let's go with reality instead of philosophy for a second. The real story of wealth redistribution is the shift of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy over the last 50 years. When the rich control politics which influences government (which makes the rules about taxes and their distribution, fiscal policy, minimum wage, labor law, etc.), it's just what I'd expect. They end up getting richer and more powerful on the backs, and from the pockets. of the rest of us. Wage inequality and the wealth redistribution in this country is out of control (to use technical systems analysis jargon). If it keeps up, it's a positive feedback loop that will continue to weaken America (against a hypothetical potential of what it could be) until the top-heavy wealth distribution leads to increasing desperation and it tumbles. Trickle down just didn't really work, did it.
The smartest long-term action for the currently wealthy is to change course and increase the wages of the poor and lower middle class to help more of them reach financial stability because their collective confidence in their situation creates economic stability instead of slaves that will eventually check out (happening more and more when you look at the unemployed, no longer looking for work, which turns them into bigger burdens).
What are the odds, though, of the wealthy (who hold corporate purse strings) voluntarily shrinking the wage gap between the higher and lower wages within their control? Keep margins the same, but switch the salary scale way to the left of what it is now. Costco versus Walmart. Starbucks versus McDonalds.
Here's the question: Are they stupid, blind, or obfuscating?
Let's go with reality instead of philosophy for a second. The real story of wealth redistribution is the shift of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy over the last 50 years. When the rich control politics which influences government (which makes the rules about taxes and their distribution, fiscal policy, minimum wage, labor law, etc.), it's just what I'd expect. They end up getting richer and more powerful on the backs, and from the pockets. of the rest of us. Wage inequality and the wealth redistribution in this country is out of control (to use technical systems analysis jargon). If it keeps up, it's a positive feedback loop that will continue to weaken America (against a hypothetical potential of what it could be) until the top-heavy wealth distribution leads to increasing desperation and it tumbles. Trickle down just didn't really work, did it.
The smartest long-term action for the currently wealthy is to change course and increase the wages of the poor and lower middle class to help more of them reach financial stability because their collective confidence in their situation creates economic stability instead of slaves that will eventually check out (happening more and more when you look at the unemployed, no longer looking for work, which turns them into bigger burdens).
What are the odds, though, of the wealthy (who hold corporate purse strings) voluntarily shrinking the wage gap between the higher and lower wages within their control? Keep margins the same, but switch the salary scale way to the left of what it is now. Costco versus Walmart. Starbucks versus McDonalds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)