Ignorance as a form of oppression

The hallmark of any truly free and open society is the access of its citizens, regardless of social, economic or professional status, to education and information. The purpose of education is to free the mind, to encourage independent thought and fresh perspectives on accepted "truths"--anathema to those seeking conquest and domination, which require blind acceptance and obedience to authority.

All throughout history, oppressive regimes (from the the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany to Communist China and North Korea) have first sought to stamp out free thought, primarily by restricting educational access, because an illiterate and ignorant populace is much easier to control and manipulate. Those who can't read must depend on others for information, and if that information is being distorted for political or financial gain, the people in their ignorance are in danger of condoning all manner of evils.

Over the past several decades, the American education system has been under attack--most clearly so after the federal government took control of it. Budget cuts have caused the closures of many schools, resulting in impossible class sizes and a lack of resources (including qualified teachers), which has driven the system to the brink of collapse. Literacy in America is declining at an alarming rate--if you want to see the statistics, you can visit this website: http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/facts_overview.html. Public libraries are being closed, or being forced to reduce their hours of operation, to depend more and more on volunteers and to restrict the resources they provide.

Americans as a whole have become intellectually lazy, preferring entertainment to education, and propaganda rather than actual news. They accept what they are told by the corporate media because it is easier than asking questions that might reveal unpleasant or uncomfortable truths. If you want to see just how much of our "news" is actually propaganda put out by the media for the benefit of a corrupt and oppressive administration, all you have to do is go online and read what is being reported elsewhere around the world. It's shocking how much more the rest of the world knows about what is really happening in this country than the average American knows--or cares to know.

Do we really want to live with the same shame the Germans are still haunted by--that of having to acknowledge that they knew all along but refused to admit that the smell from the camps a few miles away was the smell of burning human flesh? Do we really have to wait for the day the rest of the world decides that we are as great a danger to the safety and security of the world as the Nazis were, and forms its own "Coalition of the Willing" to stop us?

It's time for us to start paying careful attention to the actions--not just the speeches--of those we elected to make changes instead of continuing to conduct business as usual. The voting records of our Senators and Representatives is a matter of public record, and we need to start examining those records, but we can't do that if we can't read. Our rights as Americans are being stripped away, but we can't even know what rights we losing if we can't read the Constitution for ourselves.

But first, we need to get past the ridiculous idea that questioning those in power is somehow un-American or unpatriotic. Being able to question our leaders and hold them to rigorously high standards has always been an American principle. Blind obedience to authority and the surrender of critical thinking skills are things demanded of fascist regimes, oppressive dictatorships and false gods, and it's tolerance of those things that is un-American and unpatriotic.

Bush is a National Hero?

When I started this thing, I decided I would respond to comments only in the comments section, but I got one comment that has bothered me so much that I feel I have to comment on it more directly and fully. The comment was to my "Birds of a Feather" post, and it was to the effect that Bush is a national hero and that we "fringers" are a bunch of freaks. (There was another one on a different post that we "fringers" should all f**ing die, but I'll let that one go for now.)

First of all, if we "fringers" are a bunch of freaks, it's only in that we insist on thinking for ourselves, rather than simply accepting what we are told--especially when what we are being told contradicts the evidence and common sense.

Second, at this point, I don't see how anyone can still believe that Bush is a national hero--or any kind of hero, for that matter. Forget all of the "conspiracy theories" and just look at the sheer volume of things that even the MIC-controlled media is reporting on--there is enough smoke to convince even the densest moron that there is a fire somewhere and if we don't do something NOW to put it out, it will burn us all.

I don't have the space to list everything this administration is or seems to be guilty of, but here are just a few that should make anyone with a lick of sense stop and wonder:

1. Betraying his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (the North American Union, The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act)


2. Being WRONG on innumerable issues affecting the security of the U.S. (Iraq, Iran, immigration and border security, kowtowing to Israel).


3. Being lax in enforcing Immigration laws.


4. Lying and distorting intelligence to justify an immoral war with one country and trying to do it again with another, to satisfy and "ally" (Israel) who only has its own best interests in mind.


5. Consistently appointing to federal office right-wing fanatics with little or no qualification for that office, and with demonstrable conflicts of interest because they are willing to put loyalty to him and to the Party ahead of the interests of the American people: Brown at FEMA, Wolfowitz at the World Bank, Gonzo at DOJ, most cabinet department heads, the Supreme Court, to name a few.


6. Sacrificing the health and safety of the American people by gutting the budgets of those agencies that are supposed to protect us (like the FDA).


7. Insisting on a level of secrecy appropriate to fascist dictatorships, not a republic devoted to freedom and justice, under the pretext of "national security" and invoking executive privilege to protect himself and his flunkies from the consequences of their criminal activities.


8. Pushing for the privatization of government services for the benefit of his corporate masters and to the detriment of the American people.


9. Rendering people to secret prisons in foreign countries known to engage in torture (even though those secret prisons are located on American military bases, which essentially makes them American soil, just like embassies, and means that any torture being conducted there is being done by Americans--or American agents, which amounts to the same thing).


10. Denying proper medical care to our troops exposed to "Gulf War Syndrome" (the result of exposure to depleted uranium shells, chemical and biological weapons fallout, and experimental vaccines).


11. Exposing our captured soldiers and citizens abroad to the risk of torture because he has violated the Geneva Conventions through his own use of torture (and yes, water boarding IS torture).


12. Pulling the United States out of the International Criminal Court to protect himself and his own family from lawsuits brought by holocaust survivors (or their descendants) for war crimes committed by his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and the crimes for which he, himself, is responsible.


13. Making Americans hated and feared around the world because of our obvious imperialistic ambitions (college students travelling through Europe now mark their backpacks with the Canadian maple leaf instead of the American flag), which is openly reported on in the foreign press, but almost never mentioned in our media.


14. Touting his "service" in the Air National Guard spot Daddy got him, then forcing out of a job the guy (Dan Rather) with the guts to take a hard look at that service record.

There is so much more than this list is barely scratching the surface, but it's enough to see that there is SOMETHING nefarious and decidedly un-American going on, and we need to do something about it NOW.

The Death Penalty is NOT About Justice

The fallout over the New Jersey legislature's vote to abandon its death penalty has pointed out once again that people are sadly confused about the reality of capital punishment. I am personally against capital punishment--not only because its wrong for anyone to take a life for any reason, but because it doesn't accomplish anything. There is no justice in taking a life for a life, it merely compounds the injustice, and it isn't really any kind of deterrent in stopping anyone else from taking lives. In fact, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/) and the FBI's own statistics, the homicide rates in states with the death penalty are actually higher than those in states without. Homicide rates as a whole are actually falling in this country, according to those FBI statistics, in spite of what you hear on the MCI-controlled media.

Of course, the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about the New Jersey vote, and the families of murder victims are (understandably) quite upset at being denied what they consider justice for the loss of their loved ones. But really, how does the murder of one individual at the hands of the State make up for the loss of a loved one? Does having the State carry out the sentence of death make it better than doing it yourself? Does it bring back the loved one, or does it just satisfy a grieving family's need for vengeance?

If we are going to allow capital punishment (and we are the one of the few "civilized" nations on the face of the Earth to do so), we should at least be clear about the reasons for it. Is it really to protect society, or to wreak vengeance? If we are going to claim we want to protect society, then we need to re-examine our guidelines on who qualifies as a danger to that society. There are much bigger threats to our society than the guy who loses his mind for a minute to a particular set of circumstances that will never happen again--like those who make a career out of sacrificing our lives and freedoms for fun and profit.

I have a few questions for those who insist on this Old Testament eye-for-an-eye kind of "justice." First, why, if these executions are so justified, carry them out behind high walls and barbed wire, in the dark of night? Why not in broad daylight, in the public square, like Saudi Arabia (who makes no pretense about the reason they are cutting off someone's head or hands)? Why are Republicans, who portray themselves as so concerned for the sanctity of life when talking about abortion, screaming so loudly about New Jersey abolishing its death penalty--after all, isn't taking the life of an adult just a form of retroactive abortion? Why the hypocrisy in our concern that the method of execution not be cruel and unusual, when the sentence itself is cruel and unusual in comparison to how most of the rest of the world deals with its killers? It can't be a coincidence that the country with the highest murder rates also have a brutal and medieval system of justice--I think those two elements feed into and reinforce each other--blood for blood only begets more blood. The hypocrisy becomes even more evident when you consider the case of Wesley Allen Dodd, a convicted child molester and murderer, whose execution was actually protested because he, himself, wanted to be executed--in fact, went to court to stop the appeals being made on his behalf.

And if the goal is truly to protect society, why not take the millions of dollars spent each year on executions and use them instead to fund prevention programs? There are a lot of prevention programs that are demonstrably effective, but have very little reach because of chronic funding problems. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure--especially when the "cure" is a system fraught with problems: corrupt DAs out to make a career, faulty evidence, bribed or prejudiced juries, to name just a few of the most egregious problems. We may never know how many innocent men and women have already died because the system failed, but we can demand there not be any more.

Birds of a Feather

If you really want to find out about someone, don't believe what they, or their PR people, say--look at what they do and, especially, look at who they consider friends. Like the old saying goes, "birds of a feather, flock together."

Take our "president," for example. The MIC-owned media, and even Bush himself, try to paint our president as a champion of freedom and democracy, but his actions and associations paint a very different picture. Our country has been heading toward fascism for decades, but his administration has carried the agenda forward with astonishing speed, and the world leaders he considers his best friends and allies preside over some of the most repressive regimes on the planet. The one that comes to mind first is Saudi Arabia.

That the Bush family has long-standing ties to the bin Laden clan is a well-documented fact, and the bin Ladens are very close to the Saudi royal family, being one of, it not the, largest construction firms in that country. So how much of a coincidence can it be that we trained, equipped and funded one of the family scions in his fight against the Russians in Afghanistan? (Personally, given the US's penchant for turning allies into enemies--Noriega, Saddam, Osama, to name just a few--I'm amazed that we can get anyone to be our friends. It seems to me that it would be a little like grabbing on to a two-edged sword held by someone with Parkinson's--sooner or later, you're going to lose some fingers.) The fact that the Saudi government is extremely repressive to it's people is also a well-documented fact. It practices one of the "purest" forms of Islam and prides itself on how severely it punishes crimes and subjugates its women. The Saudi clan has been Wahhabi since the family married into the sect in 1774. Now why is it that it's ok for the Saudis to belong to the Wahhabi sect, when the Taliban was so vilified for it in Afghanistan?

Remember the flak in the press (short-lived as it was) about the Saudis giving money to the family of suicide bombers who killed Americans? And that 14 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi? And that it was Saudi Arabia who imposed the oil embargo that caused such a crisis here in the 70's? And that there is as much, if not more, state-sponsored terror coming out of Riyadh than out of Tehran? And let's not forget Osama.

I can't think of a single reason we would have these people as allies, when everything their religion teaches and their government practices is so completely opposite from everything our country is supposed to stand for, unless it's because our president's thinking is right in line with theirs. Oh yeah, I forgot: it's the oil. Except for the fact that, if he wasn't a short-sighted, greedy bastard of an oil baron himself, he could put the vast resources of the US government to work to find alternatives so that we could free ourselves of the need for foreign oil, thereby freeing ourselves from the need to kowtow to the producers of that oil. But that would actually strengthen our national security, and wouldn't serve the agenda of control through fear that this Administration finds so useful, would it?

But it's not just George Jr--it's the whole family:
Brother Jeb got Daddy to pardon his friend, Orlando Bosch, when he was accused of killing 76 people in Cuba by blowing up a plane, and Columba, Jeb's wife, got away with merely being embarrassed when she was caught smuggling nearly $20,000 worth of clothing and jewelry into the country from France.
Brother Neil--Mom donated money to the victims of Katrina, but only if the money was used to buy computers from Neil's comany.
Uncle Prescott Jr., who owned the only company allowed to do business in China (exporting communications satellites) and had ties to Manuel Noriega (I'm assuming that was before we decided he was public enemy number one and invaded his country to remove him, but who knows for sure?)
Grandpa Bush managed to not only avoid prosecution for giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime (otherwise known as treason) but managed to get himself elected a Senator for the State of New York. Some reports say there is no evidence that Prescott Bush supported the Nazi agenda, but to me that would make him even more of a soulless bastard. Claiming it was "just business" isn't much of a defense when that "business" funds the murder of millions and people and the terrorizing into mute silence of millions more.

So the next time our President gets on TV, look past the baby face and innocent demeanor to the monster lurking behind the mask. Look past his public statements and ridiculous rhetoric to his actual record. Look to who he hangs with and considers his buddies, and look to his family. What more do you need to know?

The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled

People say that the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people that he did not exist--personally, I think the greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing people that he was God. Would the "God" you believe in condone genocide, incest, rape, child sacrifice, slavery, and a host of other crimes, or are those things you would associate more with the Devil?

I'm not the first one to make such a shocking suggestion, either--the Cathars, a religious sect in France that appeared in the 11th century (and were rumored to have safeguarded the Holy Grail for a time), believed Satan was identical to the Old Testament God. Because they believed that the Earth was created by Satan, they considered the physical world to be evil and lived lives of great self-denial until they were condemned by the Catholic Church as heretics in the 13th century and wiped out.

I've always wondered why, if there really was only one "God," he would claim that he was a jealous God--who would there be to be jealous of? Jealousy usually indicates, at the very least, a certain insecurity about one's status--not something I would associate with an almighty, all-powerful God. Also, if "He" were alone, and, in fact, a "he," where would he have gotten the idea for two sexes when he was creating the creatures he wanted to live on his Earth? And if He were, as we are encouraged to believe, asexual, then making two sexes seems even more puzzling to me. Then there are the contradictions in his behavior--one loving and generous and forgiving, the other vengeful and angry and destructive. Now, I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, but I know enough bipolar people to recognize the symptoms when I see them, unless we are talking about two separate Gods.

My intent in all of this is not to get people worked up into a frenzy in defense of their God. It is, as I have said before, simply to get people to THINK about the things they believe when it comes to God and religion in general. Blindly accepting whatever dogma or doctrine you are spoon-fed as a child or stumble into after your life has reached a crisis point, is not the answer. It leaves you wide open to exploitation by unscrupulous leaders who seek power at any cost. As an example, I point to the current exploitation of honest, good-hearted people by the evangelical/political machine. These people are being used to further an agenda that will ultimately enslave them once their leaders have no further use for them, without them ever seeing it coming.

Think about it: every major religious describes their followers as flocks of sheep. Why? Because sheep are easily led, easily sheered, and easily slaughtered. In the book of Matthew we are warned of "ravening wolves" who come dressed in sheep's clothing, and that we will be able to recognize them "by their fruits," which means the things they do. Look at what our supposedly oh-so-Christian leaders have been doing, and continue to do--stripping us of our rights, spying on us, engaging in immoral wars, handing our government functions over to corporations whose only interest is in milking us of every last penny--all the while proclaiming their Christian faith and their faith in God--so, I have to wonder, which God would that be?

If At First You Don't Succeed

A few months ago, I made a comment to someone that when we got into WWII, it wasn't really to stop the Nazis, it was to help change their venue. Apparently, I wasn't the only one to see parallels between the Reichstag (the German parliament building) fire and 9/11, because when I used the Google to search for those parallels, I got 13,500 results. It makes a grim sort of sense, though, when you think about it, though. After all, the Bush family (through Grandpa Prescott) paid a lot of money to develop the Nazi playbook and no one wants to lose such a huge investment. It's just that very few families have the political clout to safeguard that investment.

(The Bush family's involvement in politics goes back much further than most Americans realize. Mama Bush's grandfather was Franklin Pierce, who was widely regarded was the worst president ever until George. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, Grandpa Bush managed to avoid prosecution for treason and become elected as a New York Senator.)

Look at these parallels:

1. The Reichstag fire was officially blamed on communists and resulted in the passage of the Enabling Act which suspended certain constitutional rights; the attack on the WTC and Pentagon was blamed on Islamic terrorists and resulted in the the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which virtually suspended the same constitutional rights.



2. Hitler used his power to declare war on his neighbors under the pretense of protecting German interests; Bush used his power to declare war on anyone who was "against us."



3. Hitler had his "good Germans" to support him, even when his abuses had become obvious to anyone with half a brain (I mean, how could you live near a death camp and not recognize the smell of burning human flesh?); Bush has his "patriotic Americans," who toe the party line, even when the smell has risen sky high.



4. Hitler valued loyalty more than education, experience, or connection to reality; Bush values loyalty more than eduction, experience or qualifications for the position to which he is appointing them.

Now, when you use the Google to search for parallels between Bush and Nixon, you get 12,700,000 hits. The newest connection is the CIA's destruction of two interrogation tapes, which immediately reminded me of the mysterious 18-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. Forget the fact that destroying those two tapes was probably illegal as part of the material requested by Congressional investigators--it was DUMB. I can't be the only one that made the connection between the CIA tapes and the Watergate recordings, can I? With all of the speculatory connections being made between this Administration and the criminal cabal over which Nixon presided, why would anyone with any sense at all want to make tangible connections?

But there is one thing you have to give Nixon credit for: I doubt Nixon's press secretary would have ever done anything as stupid as Dana Perino's admission that she didn't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean, she is the spokesperson for the White House and she is admitting ignorance about something of such profound importance? Shouldn't the Administration's mouthpiece know at least a little something about an event that brought our country to the brink of nuclear war? I know it happened before she was born, but I was hardly out of diapers myself and I know more about it than that it happened in Cuba and was some kind of crisis. Didn't she have to take some kind of history class somewhere along the way to becoming White House Press Secretary? Ron Zeigler must be spinning in his grave.

For the Record

In case anyone thinks that I am an atheist, let me state for the record that I am not. True, I am leaning in that direction, but I haven't quite made up my mind yet. I do believe that there must have been some powerful force that created the heavens and the earth and everything they contain, but I do not believe that force to be "God" as He has been portrayed by most religious doctrines. I do believe that prayer works, but I believe it works for the same reason Wiccan magic works. When you pray (or cast a spell), you are focusing your energy on a particular goal, then releasing that energy to accomplish that goal. It's the mechanics, not the formula.

And I'm not trying to convince anyone to abandon their religious faith. I'm all for people having a spiritual code that guides them into being better people. My problem is with any code that requires people to surrender their critical thinking skills. What's wrong with examining and questioning things, especially anything as important as how you will spend eternity? Matthew 7:7 tells us, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." But it's been my experience that people who put themselves forward as spiritual authorities welcome only those questions that they are comfortable with answering. If the answer they would have to give involves any form of "I don't know," then you're likely to be told the equivalent of "take my word for it." We tend to be suspicious of salesmen who say that--why should preachers get a pass, when what they are selling is so much more important than a used car or a kitchen appliance?

The advice given to anyone seeking a spiritual "master" these days includes the warning that anyone who asks that you pay them (preferably up-front) for your training is probably a fraud--unless, of course, that "master" is preaching the "Word of God." Again, I have no problem with a priest, minister, pastor or televangelist soliciting money if they really are going to use whatever money people give them to actually help those in need. But how many of them really do? If they are using the money their followers send them to build fantastic churches and amusement parks and buy themselves expensive cars and homes and dress their wives like queens, maybe they need to go back and reread what Jesus had to say on the subject.

I have never understood why "God" needs money, anyway. Especially to build churches to His "glory." After all, He already built himself a more magnificent cathedral than any mere mortal could ever even hope to equal--the Earth itself. I find it difficult to believe that God would find himself in financial difficulty--and if he did, I don't think that, after creating the heavens and the earth, creating a pile of cash would pose much a problem, do you?

Like I said, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a faith that works for them--I just wish they'd take a little time to think about what it is that they believe, and to look at the leaders they follow and the agenda those leaders are promoting. Is it really your spiritual wellbeing these (mostly) men are concerned with, or the contents of your wallet? Think about it.

Pope Benedict said in his most recent encyclical that the attempt (by atheists) to banish God has "led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice." All I can say it takes a lot of huevos for the head of one of the most blood-soaked organizations in history to lay the blame for the situation the world is in on those who call for the triumph of reason over tribal superstition. But then again, "cruelty and violations of justice" would be something that the head of the Catholic Church would know something about, isn't it? After all, it was the Catholic Church who was responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of women in the Burning Times (along with a few thousand men and children, and a handful of farm animals). And to those who point out that the witch burnings happened a long time ago when the vast majority of people were ignorant and superstitious, I would remind them that the Church stood silent accomplice to the rounding up and slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII. Does that mean that the population of Europe was still ignorant and superstitious well into the 20th century?

Aside from all of that, we have to look at what is going on in this country with the rise of the evangelicals in politics. Supposedly, their Christian faith should make these people more compassionate toward their fellow human beings, particularly those who have "lost their way." Instead, these people are some of the least compassionate--calling for the drastic reduction, if not outright elimination, of most of the social programs put in place to make sure we don't have crowds of people starving in the streets. Instead, they want the churches running those programs, even though a lot of those churches only want to help those who belong to them (I can think of two Baptist churches--one in Washington state and one in Florida--who insist that you join their church before they will give you any assistance.) And our evangelical-in-chief, George Bush, wants his Office of Faith-Based Initiatives elevated to a cabinet position--even while he is endorsing the use of torture on people merely suspected of wanting to harm Americans and denying them the means to defend themselves. How compassionate and godly is that?

The Catholic Church wants to ban abortion because human life is sacred--how sacred can it be if it means condemning those children to a life of suffering and deprivation at the hands of women forced to have children they cannot afford to feed or cannot look at without being reminded that that child was born of an act of violence? And to those who suggest giving those children up for adoption--I would point out that there are already thousands of kids who will never find good homes for without dumping thousands more on an already shaky system. The Church turns a blind eye to the thousands of kids who commit suicide every year because they can't tell anyone--especially their families who are supposed to love and accept them no matter what--that they love or have desires for someone with the same genitalia. The Church condemns untold numbers of women and children to lives of misery and abuse at the hands of husbands and fathers they cannot escape--Church doctrine holds that divorce is a major sin. Families needing counseling are forced to seek it from men who have no practical understanding of the trials and tribulations of marriage and parenting--to me, that's kind of like seeking emergency medical attention from a lawyer, who might have some knowledge of medicine if he handles tort cases, but it's a far cry from any real medical training.

Personally, I find it encouraging that more and more people are choosing to live ethical, rather than moral lives. To choose the path of reason and informed observation, rather than blind faith and ignorant superstition. While I've met few on that path who call themselves atheists, the ones I've met who do are some of the most decent and caring people I've ever known, while some of those in the evangelical church I belonged to in my young-adult years, were some of the hardest-hearted and most condescending people I have known. The pastor of that church used to lecture me from the pulpit about my sporadic attendance, questioning my dedication to "God" rather than finding out about the circumstances in my life that prevented me from attending regularly (namely an abusive and controlling spouse who resented my doing anything that took me outside the house). It was that kind of hypocracy, and that I encountered in the Catholic endoctrination of my childhood that drove me to find another path, and I'm glad to find out that I'm not alone.

To Uphold and Defend the Constitution...

No matter how you look at it, President Bush has failed to keep his oath of office, and done it in spectacular fashion. He keeps saying that he took an oath to "protect the American people." What he actually swore to do was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, but what he has done is slowly destroy that very same Constitution.

Let's assume for a moment he did, in fact, take an oath to protect the American people. In spite of all the claims he and his flunkies made at the time that no one ever considered that someone might use planes as weapons by flying them into buildings, we now know that the World Trade Center was, in fact, built to withstand such an attack. If the architects and builders could foresee such a thing in the 1970's when the idea that terrorists might attack us on our own soil seemed about as likely as $2-a-gallon gas, then the people charged with preventing it should have at least had an idea it could happen, don't you think?

The truth is, he had numerous warnings about an impending attack on the WTC before 9/11 and did nothing about it. If his oath was truly to protect the American people and he allowed (as we now know he did) the attacks to proceed (assuming he wasn't involved somehow in those attacks), then he again failed miserably to keep his oath.

If he really believes that he has a responsibility to "protect" us, it seems to me that the best way to do that is to keep his oath--the one he actually took, which was to uphold and defend the Constitution. To uphold and defend those values that made us the country that everyone wanted to come to, the beacon of freedom and opportunity to those who lived in oppression and crushing poverty. Not the country those people are fleeing because the government spies on them and throws them in prison for having the temerity to question it and its policies.

The Fourth Amendment says that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Pretty simple, right? The language is clear enough that even you should be able to understand the intent and know that everything you are doing with your Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps and using firemen as de facto spies, directly violates the Fourth Amendment. But that Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is part of the Constitution which you swore to uphold and defend. Violating the Constitution, any of it, no matter what your reason is, is a violation of the oath of office as President and makes you unfit for the office.

Cults and Religion

Thomas Wolfe said that a cult is a religion with no political power. How sad but true! Look at any of the recognized, mainstream religions of today and tell me which ones were recognized as actual religions from their inception. I can't think of any, personally.

Even the biggest one, Christianity, began as a cult, actively persecuted by the Romans as heretical and subversive. Interestingly enough, the word "atheist" was originally used by the Romans to describe Christians because of their refusal to worship the Roman pantheon of gods. Now, the Christians use it to describe anyone who refuses to subscribe to the Christian doctrine.

Emperor Constantine, who so many claim to have been the first Christian emperor, actually remained a pagan to the end, submitting to baptism only on his deathbed when he was too weak to resist any longer. He had tolerated the Christian sect because they had grown so numerous that weeding them all out had become a practical impossibility, which lent them a certain political advantage, but only after Constantine's forcible baptism was it recognized as an actual religion and elevated from cult status to that of a religion.

Since the Catholic Church became the dominant sect of Christianity, it has spawned a number of offshoots, which formed the base of the Protestant religions, but each one of those offshoots was considered a cult until time and popularity (not to mention wars and conquest) gained them a certain mainstream status.

The corruption which has contaminated virtually all of the mainstream religions is constantly driving people to seek, or form, their own spiritual groups. Most of these groups are tolerated as long as they stay "under the radar," but once they try to go public, or try to isolate themselves from society as large, they are denounced as cults, branded as dangerous, and attacked by the mainstream, who see them as a threat. A classic example is what happened in Waco, Texas in 1995, but that is such an involved subject I really can't go into it here. Suffice it to say, what we were told happened it only what the mainstream wanted us to know, and what little we were told was distorted by the media to serve the ends of the powers that be.

The danger in persecuting people who have unpopular views when it comes to religion and religious doctrine is that when those who defend themselves by adopting the tactics of a tyrant risk becoming tyrants themselves. In a country that prides itself on religious tolerance (even when that tolerance is becoming more and more illusory), such things should not be allowed to go on.

So What?

I just saw a story about a hockey player in trouble because some pictures of him "touching tongues" with another man showed up on the internet, suggesting that he might be gay. WHO CARES??? I mean, really, what business is it of mine, or yours, or anybody else, what anyone else does sexually? Unless they are molesting children or small animals, or something, why does anyone have the right to try to control anyone else's private affairs?

I know, the fundamentalist fanatics who are hijacking our values and using them for political gain say that being gay is a sin and "God hates fags," but like I've said before, I challenge any of them to point to any scripture to defend their position. Jesus never said one word about gays. In fact, he would have to have known that the Roman soldiery at large engaged in homosexual sex routinely but he healed the servant of a Roman centurion anyway. And it's interesting to note that by "servant" we should read "body servant" which presupposed that that servant be available for sex among his other duties. Being a man of his times and aware of the proclivities of the Romans who ruled his world at the times he would had to have known that the servant he was healing was, per force, gay, but he healed the man anyway, because of the centurion's faith in Him. So what does that say about his views on homosexuality? Along the same line, abortion existed in his culture as well, but he never said anything about that, either, did he?

As for gays in the military, the most feared military force ever known (the Spartans) were culturally gay--men and women were almost entirely segregated. They were all required to marry but they did not live together. The men would visit their wives in order to produce children to feed the war machine. In fact, older men were required to select a boy in training and mentor him in all things Spartan, which included sex.

And look at how many of these so-called Religious Right nuts waging their campaigns of hate and fear are turning out to be gay, themselves (Foley, comes to mind right away). Kind of reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover, spouting off about gays being such a threat to our national security, while he was spending weekends as a cross-dresser. Why do you listen to such hypocrites? Why do you care what goes on in anyone else's private life? Maybe you have so much time to be so concerned for my soul because you aren't spending enough time working on your own?

Patriotism

Edward Abbey, an American author (1927-1989) and environmental advocate, wrote "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against it's government." Today, his words seem to have been turned around. Today, it's those who defend the government, pinning flags on their lapels and stumbling through the national anthem and blindly rubber-stamping whatever Bush wants, that are considered patriots, while those of us who protest have our patriotism called into question. How does that happen, and how do we change it?

First of all, we need to recognize that EVERY ONE of us has an obligation as an American to participate in our civic processes--that means VOTE. There are countries that require their citizens to vote. In Australia, for example, you are automatically registered to vote when you apply for anything from the government, from a driver's license to financial assistance, and can be fined if there is an election in which you don't participate. France requires that workers are given the day off with pay so that they can vote. While I don't necessarily believe either of those ideas would ever work here, I think they are great ideas. Why not require every citizen to vote? What's the point in being a citizen, if not to have the right to make your voice heard? Why should people be able to partake of the fruits of liberty, when they aren't willing to make the effort to secure those fruits? When people complain about the inconvenience of having to find their particular polling place, finding a parking space, waiting in line for their turn in the booth, and actually deciding between the corrupt and the less corrupt candidates, I point out that the fact they are willing to put out enormous effort to drive to a mall, search for a parking space, wander through dozens of stores, wait in endless lines, to give their money to support corrupt corporations--for what? To buy gifts for people who will probably return them anyway? Or worse, will stick them in a closet never again to see the light of day? Given the choice of inconveniences, I would much rather choose the one that actually means something in the long run.

Americans Don't Read

When it was pointed out to John Foster Dulles that anyone who took the time to actually read all 26 volumes of the Warren Report would easily see for themselves that Oswald did not kill JFK, his response was, "Americans don't read." Sadly, that fact has been made over and over again, to our peril. This is particularly true when it comes to the two documents we claim to esteem so highly--the Constitution and the Bible. More people have read the Bible than the Constitution, but even those few who have actually read the Bible have read no more than those selected verses chosen by their Sunday School teachers. Having read the Bible from cover to cover, I have to say that anyone who believes it is God's divine word and that we should accept it as literal truth, is either stupid, or thinks the rest of us are.

To me, there are just too many inconsistencies, not to mention outright contradictions, in the New Testament, for me to accept it as literal truth. And if you do accept that it is God's divine word, to be accepted as literal truth, you have to accept ALL OF IT, not just those parts of it that support your particular position on things. If you believe that the Bible as we have it now, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired word of God, then you must follow the tenets in both. That includes animal sacrifices for the remission of sins (and if you accept that Jesus' death fulfilled that obligation once and for all, you shouldn't keep those parts in your Bible because they are unnecessary), the stoning of adulterers and Sabbath breakers, and keeping away from menstruating women, to mention just a few. And I challenge anyone to find any Scripture in which Jesus condemns homosexuality or abortion. Yes, I know Paul ranted about gays, but he is not Jesus, and as a secondary source who started out by persecuting Christians and was a savage misogynist, he is suspect as far as I'm concerned.

And then there are all the different versions of the Bible itself--the King James, the Catholic version, the New Revised American Standard--if you compare verses side by side, you'll come away with a different understanding from each one because they didn't just paraphrase, they substantially changed the meaning of certain passages. If you think God really did write the Bible, how can you justify editing His words like that?

And when most people talk about the Constitution, they mean specifically the Bill of Rights (even though they probably haven't even read all of those either). I've been hearing a lot of talk from fundamentalist Christians running for President about "restoring the Constitution," even though they want to throw out the First Amendment. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee both want to make this a "Christian nation," which would probably require another Amendment or at least a law of some kind specifying Christianity as the State Religion. That is a direct violation of the First Amendment which states:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Plain and simple: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. That includes a State Religion. It's not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. The government can't force you to attend any church, let alone any particular church. If it can, then how are we any different from those who want to make Islam the State Religion? What's the difference between an Islamic Caliphate and a Christian United States?

We are engaged in a war not just of rockets and bombs, but of ideologies. And in any conflict of ideologies, the best way to arm yourself is with knowledge. READ the Constitution, READ the Bible, both of them, all of them, while there's still time to stop the Holy Express.

Render Unto Caesar

All the right-wing fundamentalists who have, to a much greater degree than anyone wants to admit, hijacked our government, need stop trying to drive the political bus, and do it now. Even Jesus himself made a distinction between secular and spiritual matters. Check out Matthew 22:19-22, where he talks about giving Caesar what is his, and God what is His. Ok, I know he was talking about money, but he did throw the money changers out of the temple because they did not belong there, which implies that he believed that secular concerns have NO PLACE in the Temple.

And look at what has happened every time people (even decent, deeply faithful, well-intentioned people) have let their Church take over the Government. The best known and most often cited example is the Inquisition which led to the deaths of thousands of people, but there are other examples as well. For all its anti-religious posturing, the Communists made a quasi religion of its atheist beliefs and killed countless thousands in the name of stamping out the "opiate of the masses."

Aside from all of that is the simple fact that those who would put themselves forward as leaders, should be better than those they would lead. Read Matthew 7:15-23--15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’"

Also read Matthew 7:1-5--1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

With all the corruption rampant in our government (not that it's anything new, just more public), why should we support any of our so-called leaders? And with all of the scandals coming out of the evangelical leadership, why should we listen to anything they have to say about the way we should live? And why should we let the two camps merge to form a theocracy that will rob us of not only our money but our spiritual salvation? To the Pat Robertsons and Ted Haggards and George Bushes of the world, I would say this: get your own house in order, before you come and tell me how to order mine.

State Department's Private Army

Somebody please tell me why is our State Department using companies like Blackwater as security forces in Iraq? What does that tell our troops, that the same government who uses support of our troops as a big stick for bullying the Congress and citizenry into letting them get away with the most reckless spending and lack of coherent strategy, doesn't trust those same troops to provide adequate protection? Instead, agencies like the State Department must turn to "private security contractors" who, as we have seen, act like renegades, safe in the knowledge that no matter how depraved they act, they won't be held accountable for any of it.

Amidst all the talk of troop levels in Iraq, there is one fact that gets little or no attention: there are as many (if not more) private security forces in Iraq than there are actual soldiers. We could pull out every one of our soldiers and there would still be more than 100,000 troops there, they just don't wear the uniform or take the oath that our soldiers do. What I want to know is why are they there? What services are they actually providing, other than guarding our ambassadors and killing Iraqi civilians? Why does our State Department trust them more than they (obviously) trust our soldiers? Why was it necessary to write a blanket immunity for these mercenaries into the Iraqi constitution?

I think that we, as Americans, need to start asking these questions and demanding answers, and not be intimidated by the prospect of having our patriotism and support of our military questioned for demanding those answers.

Homeless for the Holidays

'Tis the season once again. Every year at this time, people gather with their loved ones to share the warm of friends and family, to eat and drink and watch football, to give thanks for our many blessings and to give back some of what we have received in the form of donations to help those less fortunate.

It's a nice image isn't it? But it, like so much in our culture today, it's as fake as the plastic money we use to obtain it all. Behind this "all's right with the world" picture is a grim reality: suicide rates sky rocket this time of year and every year, there are yet more people for whom the "holidays" mean little more than another bitter reminder of how far they are from where they should be.

Keep in mind, while you are gorging on turkey and watching football or the parade, or celebrating with the people who matter most to you, that there are people out whose turkey and trimmings will come from a soup kitchen, eaten amongst strangers, provided by strangers trying to assuage their guilt at having so much when others have so little.

And don't believe the government figures on just how many homeless there are in this country. The statistics are rigged to include only the most obvious--those who are actually sleeping on the sidewalks or in the parks or in the shelters. It doesn't include those who live in "transient housing," which includes places like cheap motels, rooming houses and the couches of friends and/family, from which they can be tossed into the street at any given moment. And no one has any valid estimates of the number of people who are one or two paychecks away from being homeless but I would guess that, if we did manage to come up with an estimate, it is frighteningly high.

As for giving to any of the organized charities--don't, unless you know personally that whatever charity you are giving to actually serves the people it says it does. So many of them spend much more on "administrative costs" (i.e., their own salaries and the costs of maintaining their nice offices) than they do helping the poor that they don't deserve the name "charity." And those who won't even make the negligible effort of writing a check without a compensatory bribe (tax deduction), are as bad as those who give nothing. If you really want to be charitable, give directly to those you want to help--it doesn't have to be money; food, blankets, warm clothing, one night in a motel where they can take a shower and sleep in an actual bed could be the difference between life or death in places where winter months are bitter cold.

That there are any homeless in this country at all is a disgrace. That so many of them are men and women who put their own well-being, their very lives, at risk so that we can enjoy our holidays in peace and safety is a disgrace beyond reckoning. That we spend so much money around the world to relieve the suffering of people we will never meet, while ignoring the plight of those we pass on the street every day, is a cruel joke.

So, while you are celebrating the season, take a moment to think of those who have nothing, and do something to make a difference in their life.

Voting as an Obligation

People think that voting is a privilege--something they can exercise or not. I think that is a short-sighted, even stupid position. Voting is an OBLIGATION inherent in being a citizen--it's the one, basic right that gives any meaning to being a citizen. Even when you think--as most Americans do--that your vote doesn't count, that your one vote won't change anything, it is still incumbent upon you as a citizen to register your position. And when you vote, don't do it as one individual; go with as many friends as you can gather up and go vote as a BLOCK.

But there is more than one way to vote. One more immediate and meaningful way is to vote with your dollars. Every time you spend money, you are voting in support of the company to whom you are giving that money. Like it or not, when you shop at Wal-Mart, you are condoning the fact that their products are made by virtual slaves under sweatshop conditions. How else do you think Wal-Mart can sell so much for so much less than anyone else? (And to me, Wal-Mart is the generic name for all of the big-box stores, like Target and K-Mart--they are all the same to me.) Not to mention the fact that Wal-Mart is the beneficiary of huge amounts of corporate welfare and responsible for the loss of countless numbers of small, local businesses.

If you really want to make a difference, if you really want to change the course our country is taking, take the time to VOTE! This election may be the most important in our nation's history. This election could determine whether we continue to have even the illusion of a democracy, and even whether you will still have the right to vote (look at what's happening in Pakistan--do you really think the Administration isn't watching closely and taking notes) in the future. Vote with your dollars by buying only from those companies who actually contribute something to your community and local economy instead of milking it for whatever they can without returning anything other than token gestures. Make your voice heard, while you still can.........

Practice Run in Pakistan?

Maybe it's just the cynicism and suspicion in my nature that makes me wonder, when I watch MSM news about Pakistan, if what's going on there isn't a practice run, a little glimpse into what is in store for us here, in America, should Musharraf succeed in establishing a permanent state of martial law there. After all, the US has used proxies (bin Laden in Afghanistan and the South Vietnamese against Russia, for example) to promote its agendas in countries we could not engage directly--why not use proxies to try out its domestic agendas, too?

It makes an appalling and grim kind of sense when you think about it. When they latched onto 9-11 as the vehicle for launching their New World Order, for turning their think-tank generated, fascist, ideological daydreams into real-life nightmares for the rest of us, they made a lot of mistakes, for which they are now being called to account. Albeit, the call to account isn't being made with the force it deserves, and the penalties are likely to be far short of anything we would consider just and appropriate (like impeachment proceedings and trials for war crimes), but we should probably be grateful that it's being made at all.

Coming so close to realizing their dreams, however briefly, I doubt these people are going to abandon them because they got caught. A vision cherished so dearly for so long isn't given up without a fight (two steps forward, one back is still considered progress), it just goes underground again--or is tried out through proxies. Let some other country work out the kinks and pay the price for failure; when they get it right, you copy the playbook and run the plays yourself. It's a classic risk management strategy, something our CEO-infested government understands--much better than it understands our "quaint" attachment to the Constitution and the rights as American citizens under that Constitution.

I think we should follow the events in Pakistan closely. And we shouldn't rely on MSM for our information--we should check out what is being reported online, from around the world. The things you get from outside the US are usually much more informative and unbiased than anything MSM tells us. And keep in the back of your head this question: could it happen here? And don't kid yourself--once upon a time, the idea that the United States would emulate some of the worst abuses ever attributed to the Soviet Union or Communist China (spying on its own citizens, renditions, torture) was absolutely unthinkable, too, yet has become a fact of life for us.

9-11 or 911?

Has anyone else picked up on the irony in the fact that the single biggest assault on our nation since 1812 happened on a date with the name digits as the number you use to call for help in an emergency? I think I remember a few people making some vague reference, but no one has ever come right out and said, "Hey, what a coincidence! I wonder if they were trying to tell us more than that they hate us for our freedom?"

Think about it: out of the 365 days of the year those terrorists could have chosen for their attack, they picked that particular day? I mean, the only difference between 9-11 and 911 is a single hyphen--what are the odds? And I find it hard to believe that anyone who could plan and carry out something of that magnitude, with so many details to manage and coordinate, would simply pick a date at random, don't you? I think that if you are going to use an event to send a message, it makes a greater impact if you include the date as part of the message, right? Like bombing a shopping mall at Christmas to protest the way our sacred days have been reduced to designated shopping days dressed up in hollow rituals.

So what would be the message? Why would someone fly planes into buildings primarily occupied by companies whose primary focus was money, on 9-11? Could it be that whoever it was (and I'm not convinced it was bin Laden--the only evidence we have is a video that I think is extremely suspect) was trying to send us a wake up call? Kind of a, "Hey, look at what your government is doing--it's letting these companies rob you blind, it's spying on your phone calls and Internet traffic, and is doing atrocious things around the world in your name. Wake up and do something about it because it's only going to get worse it you don't stop them now!"

If that was the message, we missed it. Instead of being the ice water that shocks us into awareness, it was a punch that knocked us to the mat. Instead of looking closer into the coup d'etat that turned our representative democracy into an imperial dictatorship, we rallied around the flag and our naked emperor; instead of letting our anger drive us toward demanding the truth, we let our fear force us into accepting a politically motivated lie; instead of clinging to the ideals and values that we, as Americans, have always cherished, we became willing to surrender our freedoms in exchange for security. And as Ben Franklin said, those who are willing to trade liberty for security, deserve and will have neither.

Personally, though, I think it's more like the man who will rob and rape a woman, then hand her a phone and tell her to call the cops because he is a cop and he knows that when his fellow officers show up, they are more likely to arrest her for trying to file a false police report than they are to arrest their buddy for his crime.

After all, anyone cynical enough to gut the Clean Air Act with something called the Clear Skies Initiative, is cynical enough to attack his own citizens (or at the very least, allow them to be attacked) on a day whose numbers match our emergency assistance line, don't you think?

The Value of Pain and Suffering

Carl Jung said that the beginning of mental illness lay in the avoidance of legitimate suffering. That being oh-so-sad-but-true, we are obviously a very mentally ill nation. Americans will go to almost any lengths to avoid any kind of suffering--just look at the proliferation of prescription drugs to alleviate depression, anxiety, pain, etc. A pill for every ill, indeed.

Pain, fear, guilt, anger, are all uncomfortable and unpleasant feelings to deal with. It's only natural to want to avoid suffering--the problem is that we can't. They are necessary to our growth as human beings and we avoid them at our peril. They are flashing red warning lights that something is wrong--in our bodies, our minds, our souls--and needs to be addressed. The intensity of the emotion indicates the urgency of addressing the problem.

We can avoid these emotions to a certain extent by using alcohol or drugs, but it's a short-term solution at best. Worse yet, chemically-assisted avoidance only brings with it another range of problems, which compounds the original problem and accelerates our ultimate self-destruction.

It's difficult to come to terms with such powerful, negative emotions precisely because they are powerful--they are primal forces in a modern world and they remind us that maybe, just maybe, we aren't so civilized after all. But we lock up so much of our creative and positive energy in trying to contain and deny these primitive, primal, uncomfortable emotions that we don't leave ourselves much that we can actually use to accomplish the great things we want to accomplish in our lives and our world.

It's also a matter of ego--we hate to admit that sometimes we hurt each other. We like to see ourselves as good people and we think that admitting the fact that sometimes we act spitefully would mean we aren't such good people after all. Why? What it wrong with admitting that we are human beings? Mortal, morally-fragile creatures who are driven as much by their emotions as by their minds?

I agree with Jung that avoiding legitimate suffering leads to mental illness. I have known a lot of people who are "mentally ill" and just about every one of them has some trauma in their life that they refuse to deal with. I understand why they do it--for some people, the pain or grief or anger or guilt is simply too powerful for them to come to terms with. But as hard as it is to face our suffering, to accept and even embrace it our negative emotions, it is absolutely necessary if we are ever going to be whole and healthy, either as individuals or a nation.

I think our nation is suffering from a collective case of PTSD, reeling from the shock of an attack that we did not see coming (although we would have, if we'd cared enough about anything outside our own narrow sphere of self-interest, but that's a topic for another day.) We need to stop paying mere lip-service to the suffering that began, for a lot of us, on 911 and actually start using those primal emotions as a motivation for action instead of an excuse for cowardice and inaction.

Morals and Ethics

I have always insisted that there is a difference between morals and ethics, and it’s always confused people. To most people, morals and ethics are the same thing, even though they are actually opposites. Morals are spiritual standards, imposed by an external force (God, usually), which are subject to change (whenever the imposing force decides such changes are expedient) and can even conflict with each other. Ethics are practical standards, imposed by internal forces (personal integrity and reason), which rarely change and are consistent.

Take the issue of abortion: Morals (in this case, standards imposed by religious leaders) stress the quantity of life; ethics stress the quality of life. “Right-to-life” people are moral, but they are not particularly ethical--they protest abortion on the principle that abortion is murder, but it’s okay to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. They picket clinics in the name of defending the right of unwanted babies to be born regardless of the situation they will be born into. Yet these same people who insist on the “right-to-life” of every unborn child, generally support capital punishment and engaging in wars. To me, there is no difference between the taking of a life whether it’s done by a doctor, the State, or the Armed Forces. Ethics (standards imposed by personal integrity) stress that only those who have to bear the responsibility for their decisions have the right to make those decisions. They realize that forcing women to have children they can’t properly provide for, either financially or emotionally, condemns both the mother and the child (and whatever children she may already have) to a life of unnecessary suffering.

But it’s not really about the value of life itself; it’s about being able to impose your will on other people. The Church tells you a particular thing is wrong, rather than allowing you to decide for yourself, based on your individual circumstances.

Look at any “values” issue and think about the agenda it truly serves. Is it moral, or is it ethical? Is it based in a religious ideology trying to enforce a spiritual authority, or on personal integrity and the right of every individual to make their own decisions in matters that affect their own lives? Do you really want the government interfering in your intimate, personal matters? Once you give it that power, it will never give it up--what happens when it decides that you and your group (whatever it is) is a problem and needs to be eliminated? What if the government decides that your church is a cult? What if the government decides it should choose who you marry, what schools your children can go to (or whether you can have children at all), where you will work and for what wage? What if it decides to pass an amendment nullifying the second amendment because it’s too dangerous to allow ordinary citizens to own guns--after all, the terrorists might steal them and use them to harm us!!

I had a very strange dream several years ago and it is just as clear today:

I was in a baseball stadium in my home town. The stadium was full of people wearing buttons that said “Us.” All across the field where teams used to play baseball, were crosses, to which were nailed people wearing buttons that said “Them.” These crosses were set on fire and allowed to burn to ashes while the people nailed to them screamed out their agony and the people in the stands cheered with forced approval. From time to time, men in long black robes would go through the stands, rounding up everyone whose “Us” button had magically changed to a “Them” button. New crosses would be set up and people nailed to them and set alight. This went on and on until the stands were empty and only the men in the long black robes were left. They promptly began trying to kill each other.

It took me a minute of thinking to figure out what the dream meant. If you haven’t figured it out, it’s simply this: when you live in an Us-or-Them society, sooner or later, everyone is one of “Them,” including you.

Politically Correct--Mentally Dishonest

I wish we could go back to the time before all this “politically correct” nonsense. To a time before people started dreaming up euphemisms for every uncomfortable word and thought (like “aggressive interrogation” when we mean “torture” or a “campaign contribution” when we mean a “bribe”) or to disguise the fact that they feel inadequate by dreaming up ways to make themselves or what they do sound important (like “custodial engineer” when we mean “janitor”). What happened to the days when people spoke simply, directly, honestly? The days when you could call something what it was without having to worry about finding yourself in serious trouble because you hurt someone’s precious feelings?

The language we use, regardless of its origin, reveals much of how we think. If we use plain words to express simple thoughts in an honest and open way, the people we are speaking to able to understand us clearly. It shows that we respect the people we are trying to communicate with by because we tell them the truth in terms they can easily understand. When we use euphemisms, we insult the people we are talking to because we are implying that they either cannot understand what we really mean or that they cannot handle the truth when it is uncomfortable or unpleasant.

I’m not saying that we should not be considerate of others’ feelings in how we speak; I am saying that we should not consider those feelings to the point of being insulting or dishonest. Trying to soften a painful truth with pretty words does not make it any less painful, it only distances us from the pain which makes it much harder to come to terms with. Those who would chose a pretty lie over a painful truth do a disservice to the truth and to themselves.
There are some pretty simple rules that I follow when talking to other people:

1. Say what you mean and mean what you say. For example, always apologize when you can do it honestly, but never just because someone else insists that you do.
2. Speak clearly, using simple words to convey a clear thought. Impress people with your integrity, not your vocabulary.
3. Do not be afraid to call things what they are. For example, if someone is a cheat and a liar, don’t say they are “ethically challenged.”
4. Silence is sometimes the best answer. It’s better to say nothing than to tell a lie.
5. Don’t make other people lie by asking questions to which you can’t handle an honest answer. Don’t ask “does this make me look fat?” if you can’t handle being told that it does.
6. When someone asks you a question, especially about something you did or said, answer it honestly and directly. If your first impulse is to lie, for whatever reason, it's a tacit admission that you know what you did or said was wrong and you don't want to admit it.