Chaos Improved

Some of you know that I'm selling my house.  Half of this house is pre-1878 Victorian (pre-dates earliest city plat) re-built by me and half of it is my 1996 construction designed to blend.  Not only do I have a lot of work into this, I've also lived in it for 22 years and so it isn't too easy to leave.  That got a little easier today.

The wife of the couple who are buying the house stopped by today, a bit of work for her because she has somewhat recently had very extensive back surgery and just within the last week or so allowed to fly from CO.  A week ago she got to see the house in person for the first time, her husband has been here for awhile, and I stuck around to show them both what is going on with the place beyond what a realtor would know or include in a tour.  I liked them as much as such a short acquaintance would allow - and my disinclination to sell the place.  Anyhow... get on with it Chuck.

She came to the door apologizing for making contact that is discouraged by the real estate business, something I find a bit ludicrous, BTW.  I assured her that it was fine and asked what I could do for her.  She wanted to assure me that they knew I'd put a lot of myself into the house and that they would care for it - really heart-warming and re-assuring in the sense that someone would want to let me know that.  OK, I know I'm supposed to be pretty hard-bitten (and I am) but I was charmed.  Now as to this blog - she told me she had stumbled across this thing by accident and really hoped I'd continue to write because I have a way with words.  I pointed out that preaching to the choir is pretty easy, but she insisted anyhow.  I don't hear that much so it stroked my not inconsiderable ego a bit.

OK, I'll go ahead and keep this thing going and maybe even post a bit more regularly (maybe).  So this is a very public thank you to the lady from CO who went out of her way to improve my day.  There are a hell of a lot of people in this world who could take this example to heart, I'll sure try to.  Think about how much improved this sorry old world would be if...

GOP Movie Fantasy World

Sure, some of us noticed that Michelle Bachman got John Wayne's birthplace wrong, not Waterloo, IA, and that caused some giggles. That isn't what matters, not even a little bit.

What matters is the theme she was hitting, she wants to live in John Wayne's America. That America is a Hollywood Production, it does not and never did exist. John Wayne was only a brave dedicated soldier on the movie set, he only played a part in movie sctipts that had little to do with history. The pictures and dialogue from the screen are just that, they are not reality, they are not a true picture of America at any time other than very exceptionally and John Wayne's flicks are not among the exceptions.

This is not a Michelle thing, it is practically the foundation of the Modern GOP. As you pick through their policy stands you find almost nothing that reflects reality or even a return to some previous reality. Their ideas and policy ideas are the stuff of fantasy. They sell their voters on the concept of a return to some previous foundation of morality. Gays are scarcely something new, not being closeted and scared to death is fairly recent. Movie stars that were idolized in those halcyon days turn out to have been ... well, really queer. That fierce warrior John Wayne never served a day in his life, while somebody like that goofy likeable Jimmy Stewart certainly did. St Ronnie, of revered GOP mythology, never saved a wagon train or served or own a chimp - he was a figment of Hollywood imagination now set into cement as a Great President.

There were no Happy Days, the Fifties sucked really bad for an awful lot of Americans, WWII was an ugly nasty brutish affair, you could go on and on about the taming of the West, the Revolution, the Gilded Age and most of American History. That's not about hate America - that's about love the real thing and understand how and why we are here today. There were real and astounding accomplishments during the Gilded Age and there were horrid conditions and actions accompanying them. You cannot understand the Gilded Age unless you know what it was and how it worked out - and that isn't available from a Hollywood Movie Script. You just cannot address today on the basis of imaginary images. You cannot, for example, set a tax policy that works based on the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue if it just never happened except in your fevered imagination. You cannot do anything about the outcomes of slavery by pointing to scripts rather than the reality of racism and institutionalize poverty to just deny it exists or is justified.

I like movies, I'm willing (if it is any good) to suspend disbelief for awhile and let the fantasy be momentary reality. I sure the hell don't expect to see hobbits and wizards out there saving civilization from the orcs.

You Can Tell The GOP Something But It's Probably Pointless

Hey, Family Values Guys:

I know in relation to gay marriage you like to portray me and others like me as dedicated to the destruction of marriage and modern civilization. I am aware of the tradition of asserting a homosexual agenda.

Let me assure you of the Family Values persuasion - I don't give a good goldamn if Hank and Harry want to get married any more that I give a rat's patoot if John and Mary want to get married. I don't know them and I'm not invited to the nuptials or the more fun reception. I don't care! I have NO agenda and I have no approval of any of their proposed unions. I have no idea whatever if they should get married, if they're doomed to divorce, spousal beatings, or any other damn thing about it.

What I do know is that I am firmly of the belief that each and every law-abiding citizen should have the same rights and responsibility as any other citizen. There are some good things that are connected to getting married and there are some serious responsibilities that go along with it as well. Ask anyone getting divorced if that isn't the case. I am a married hetero-sexual male and there is nothing in the marriage of anyone else that is going have the least affect on that.

When I have straight friends getting married I have hopes for them to be happy and successful in their union. I have the same hopes for my gay friends. This is because I know these people and have a reason to care about their marriage. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why I should care about some anonymous marriage or make it any of my business and I have no intention of randomly encouraging it (or for that matter - discouraging it).

I do not give the least bit of a fat rat's ass if anybody I don't know gets married or not. Now we get to the crux of the issue, because I do want law abiding citizens to have the same rights and responsibilities I do very much give a damn if they can get married.

Now do you understand?

No?

I thought not.

A Broken Contract

Coming out of the Depression and following it a new social economic contract was established in this country. Although there are a great many factors, a couple feature prominently - the shared social and economic disaster of the Depression and the shared sacrifices of World War II. The case can certainly be made that some few greatly profited from both but that does not negate the nearly universal sharing. This resulted in a nation that not only deserved but also believed it deserved to share in the benefits of the economy and society in broad terms. This means more than just unionization and moderate compensation for upper management and some restrictions on the tools of wealth, it also led to the successes of the Civil Rights movement and what success feminism had.

The 1950s and '60s were the era of big things, and not just cars. Unions built power bases, government put together large programs, manufacturing output soared, and general participation in society and economy exploded. A social and economic contract of shared work and shared benefit became the norm. This scarcely means inequities didn't exist or weren't tolerated but they were greatly reduced from any previous periods. None of this was free of conflict and backlash and yet this is the reason those conflicts even existed.

By the 1970s the very successes of the 'new contract' began to create fractures. Union membership was falling, welfare resentment rose, racial resentment broadened, economic gains by labor began falling and a distance began to grow between labor and white collar in perception of 'place' in the economy and society. By the 1980s a theme grew that government (and by extension - unions) was a problem. Taxes became seen as an evil rather than a necessary sacrifice and as a tool of unfairness to success. The Reagan era began and with it the work of dismantling the contract. Greed was the new contract and those not winning were seen as 'at fault.'

This brings us to today. In this sad state of affairs the ending of DADT and a corporate welfare health care 'reform' are great achievements in a social contract while the drivers of deficits like taxation rates, militarism, and out-sourcing are ignored in favor of gutting what programs of social equity exist. The drivers of discussion are somehow fairness to the greatest beneficiaries of a broken contract and the disaster of supporting those left behind in this broken economy. The social contract has become 'greed is virtue' even in the smallest sense of demonizing public employees and shifting the burden of being old onto the old. The winners are somehow deserving and those who didn't deserve misery so that anything else is socialism.

When a social contract is broken there is fallout and it will involve more than just a broken economy. Misery does not necessarily breed good decisions.

The March Forward Into the Eighteenth Century

I've made it pretty clear that I don't believe in some formalized religious understanding of God. I've also made it pretty clear that I have seen benefits to people from religion and I've seen some pretty obvious deficits.

There are a lot of things that are called Theories in scientific terminology. This doesn't occur because there is any real doubt that the things referred to as Theories actually exist. There is a Theory of Gravity - oddly enough even though it is a Theory we remain stuck to the earth and fall when we're not. A whole lot of things happen that are explained by and continue to happen because that Theory works.

Calling something a Theory as a condemnatory term ought to fall on its face when made in favor of a faith based concept. It ought to because the Theory clearly works as a matter of science. That it works as a condemnation should concern anyone that doesn't want to go back to wearing sabre tooth tiger skins as a fashion statement or riding dinosaurs rather than driving an automobile.

Virtually every modern technological device finds its basis and development in one Theory or another, or several. Even this idea of a six thousand year old world is not something stated directly in the Bible it is taken from, it is a theory of some sorts derived from generational reckonings. Taken together with denial of evolution this stuff alone virtually completely undermines the scientific basis for the modern technological world.

That is the crux. People drive their cars to the church that denies they can work and like driving that car there. What they don't like is the social construct of this century which has grown up around the science and technology that created this century. Denying that science means that this century is misguided, that the eighteenth or whatever was correct. (or whatever may actually refer to some idealized 3rd century BC) It is plainly an attempt to theocratize science and government and a successful outcome is another Dark Ages. No Thanks.

What Kind Of Dump Are You Running ?

What the hell is wrong with this place, this country? Too many broke people, too many unemployed, too many sick, too many criminals, too much death, too many sickly perverted animals masquerading as humans, too many threats and epithets, too many damaged veterans, too much ... damn etc.

I'm real sure the usual culprits are to blame - the queers, the other-religious, the lay-abouts, the different colored, the godless, and for sure the Communistic Nazis. Try to wrap your head around what is going on here and what the reaction is. For pete's sake yes, I do think this place is a mess and that list at the start isn't imaginary. What happens if you listen to the part of the population led by Faux News and Lafemme Palin you'll get a list of culprits that falls apart as soon as you look at it.

Reason has nothing to do with it, think about gays, marriage, and states for a second ... states that lead the country in incest, wife beating, child beating, and divorce lead the fight for the Sanctity of Marriage. What the hell? The politicians beating the hell out of the family values drum represent those places and that has resulted in what, exactly.

If you want to look for a real correlation for crime you don't look to race, you look to poverty. If you want to find clapped out educational systems look to the lack of funding and lack of respect for education and outcomes based on something other than merit.

Why the hell are people sick? Sure, as a population we eat too much of the wrong things and manage a real crappy exercise program and worst of all, go to doctors too late and emergency rooms when it's too late. Schools that can afford physical education programs and continue them create different results than ones that can only barely afford core programs.

We reward the failures of companies with exorbinate salaries for top management as they shed labor and product quality goes in the toilet. We encourage with tax codes and rhetoric the widening gap between wealth and the rest of the population and bust unions with rhetoric best saved for their masters. Our government tolerates currency manipulation that results in lack of competitiveness and job migration and gives tax incentives to those same companies to wreck their domestic production.

If you're wondering why most Americans are not represented in their economic interests you could look at who it is that is supposed to represent them. I won't even bother to lay out criticism of the GOP in that regard - if you haven't or can't figure that one out you either aren't paying attention or don't care. The Democrats are another story, you could look at nearly half of the US Senate and get a wholely different picture than what the Caucus results in.

This post has lain dormant in draft for a month, it is a depressing one and reflects some of the reason there has been a dearth of posts here. Where that is going to go as time passes is open to real question. It isn't even clear to me that much of anybody other than me gives a damn which tends to reduce enthusiasm.

Quiet Heroes, Tiller And...

I give you Webster's definition of "hero"

Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: \ˈhir-(ˌ)ō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hērōs
Date: 14th century
1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage
2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3plural usually heros : submarine 2
4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion

I suppose 1)c&d cover what I'm talking about in regard to Dr Tiller and other providers. It is one thing to do something heroic on a battlefield with nasty instantaneous events all around one and another to daily risk your life as a member of a tiny fraternity of doctors. Doctors who are consistently despised and denigrated in a very public and organized fashion and subject to ongoing threats to their lives.

The trail of death and destruction are clear to anyone who pays attention and those who are its subjects are well aware of it. Think for a moment about their lives, this isn't about being the used car salesman butt of jokes, they are named as practitioners of horrific crimes on a daily basis, on national media. Try to imagine that as the non-violent aspect of being them. Add in screaming protesters, arsons, bombings, shootings, and killings as a consequence of trying to provide women with a terrible choice in the face of a worse consequence.

The word hero has become so devalued by its application to people just doing a job that it is almost inadequate to apply to these people - but they bring a true personal definition to the noun. Stop for a moment and give these people a moment's salute.

A Pot Full Of Justice

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a story up about the 50 year old wife of an Elyria, OH judge fighting off 4 robbers with a 5 qt sauce pan. There are elements of it that will warm your heart and probably make you want to shake her hand. Her husband said,

"She did all the things I told her never to do in that kind of situation," he said. "We've been married 47 years and she raised our five sons. She's not afraid of anything."

Some comments had uncomplimentary things to say about the "liberal philosophy" of lie down and take it. I may not be willing to give someone else control over my life in such a setting but I'm also a healthy capable male. If you want to go where this spunky lady did, you had best recognize that you may be engaging in a real serious fight - one that could get you hurt very badly or killed. A lot of real tough theoretical rhetoric get tossed around and it is a damned good thing these characters weren't inclined to beat the hell out of an old lady.

I don't mean this to be anymore than an exhortation to engage your brain and measure risk versus outcome before acting. That thing in your skull is there for more than keeping your ears from collapsing together.

Society and Politics

It has been said (pretty accurately) that politics is the art of the possible. Whether we're intimately familiar with the processes or not, we are aware that from City Hall to Congress getting anything done is a matter of an action containing enough good for enough disparate interests to get whatever majority is needed to pass it. Making a rule or law and spending money that is supposed to be in the general interest is going affect a lot of people with differing views and interests...and swat. Somehow those must be folded together all the while avoiding goring someones ox sufficiently to stir real trouble. If you care to break that down into Parties or smaller, even within those there are going to be a lot of conflicting ideas. Toss on top of all that rules concerning process and you actually have something fairly difficult to do. Maybe judging from some results it's too easy, but it's what we've got.



We frequently refer to these people as our leaders. There is a problem with that word in that it has several concepts or models involved in it. A leader in the military model gives orders, a leader on a basketball court may have no authority whatever beyond example. In the political model we frequently look at them and accuse them of being too slow to provide changes. That is the piece I'm addressing here.



When you look at the messiness of getting things done politically you have to understand where the will to get things done comes from - answering to the voters at election time. It is common practice to look back and talk about socio-political changes as though they were the same thing. They aren't. Politics lags society in almost every case, the change has already occurred when it is codified as law or budget. Civil Rights is often held up as a political process, that might be accurate in the respect that in some places it was forced down the local throat by law or budget, but it was not a political change creating something that didn't exist. Civil Rights Legislation could not have happened if most of the country was not disgusted with its lack and in favor of the principles involved. Civil Rights happened because most of America wanted it to, because society had moved in its orientation on the issue.



You can look at that particular example and talk about what factors moved society, but at the bottom it wasn't because politicians wanted to deal with it. There were a lot of political considerations and actual outcomes that argued against it, but it was politically an untenable position to ignore it. Society proposed and politics disposed. Great rhetoricians are credited with molding social opinion, nonsense. What rhetoric can do is reach an already formed opinion and awaken it into action or upper consciousness, it will not create such a thing out of nothingness. Hitler did not create the motivations for his toxic policies, he took the existing anger, frustration, helplessness, and racism of Germany and used it, he did not create it. Through dictatorial powers he carried on a government that may have imposed on the society what it did not intend, but imposition through force on a national scale is a different thing. Even propaganda has to have an opening, otherwise it is simply laughable or sickening - judge that by our own reaction to Nazi propaganda of the period. Outside of generations long existence through force a government cannot impose social consciousness, you have to start pretty young and nurture through a lot of exposure such a thing.



American social thought is a true hodge podge. Our society is such a mixture of cultures and societies and religions that there is a natural tension occurring at almost all times between them. What happens is that over time and exposure to ideas we become more comfortable with each other's ideas and at some point something approximating agreement occurs on some issue. There are entire large sections of large libraries devoted to the subject so I'll just stay away from trying to point out how it happens - we know it does happen. It is not a top down phenomenon, it happens because we keep rubbing up against each other and some common chord comes out of it. There is some tipping point where it becomes obvious that the change has occurred, and suddenly we act surprised as though it jumped out full grown from its womb.



The issue of civil rights was around preceding our foundation as a nation in this country, a bloody war was fought over it, a bloody reaction happened, and so it went back and forth even now. Martin Luther King could not have had his movement if the country was not ready for it. This takes nothing away from King, it is simply a fact that it would have been mercilessly crushed unless enough of the nation was ready for it. King and the others reached people because they were ready to be reached, the opinion already existed. It may have been at a level of consciousness where it was not really a part of people's lives until he poked at it and brought it forward, but it was there.



Politics always lags this process, the art of the possible demands that it is possible. Other than on rare occasions the public motivators of sentiment to make things politically possible aren't politicians. Attempting to raise consciousness as a politician is a risky behavior, it puts you ahead of expressed will and for politicians that certainly opens them to criticism they easily may not be able to counter or deflect. This is the part of the process that disappoints me. We have put together a system of governance where boldness in this respect is actively discouraged. In the face of that reality, the challenge is to overcome its existence.



The real crunch is what that requires because most of it is in short supply, the first being patience. If you're proposing change of any particular import it is going to take quite awhile for the rough edges to get rubbed off enough to have some kind of consensus and the bigger the idea the longer that's going to take. You are going to have to achieve some sort of authority to speak to the issue, you can talk all day long to no effect if nobody is listening because they have no reason to take you seriously. You have to develop a platform to speak from, if nobody can hear you, nobody is listening. Finally you have to have the skill to reach into people and strum that string they hadn't noticed and get music from it. Charisma helps, but don't mistake that for the ability to know how to reach that thought and the reasonableness to bring it forward as an issue.



A person of intelligence is able to learn and earn all of those requirements. It certainly isn't for the faint hearted or weak willed because the cost in time and effort is large. This blog takes a lot of political stands, but much of it is dedicated to social consciousness rather than a narrow political issue. I spend a lot of effort within the political structure, but most of my efforts are directed at the lower end of it rather than elected officials, when I talk to them I try to bring the possible to their attention or the developing possible. At the lower end, the activists, it is a matter of trying to multiply effort through the acquisition of additional voices and providing what tools I can. As a public speaker I do not have movie star charisma, I am neither pretty nor is my voice suitable for more than talking, but I have had some success at it. I strongly encourage anyone with the time and patience to take a stab at it.

Cactus 1549 And Capt Sullenberger

The ditching in the Hudson has been called miraculous and while it is an astonising thing the critics of the term miraculous are correct. Passenger jet aircraft are designed to keep air in, which is more difficult than keeping water out, they are designed to sustain the stresses of turbulence, and they are to stay together during very rough landings so the aircraft should be able to survive landing in relatively smooth water and float for awhile. It should be able to survive if it is put down at the proper angle and at a survivable speed. That part is the real
kicker, a passeneger jet whose engines have ingested birds becomes a very tricky piece of equipement with absolutely no second tries. This aircraft is coming down and there is only a question of how hard. It has a "glide path" of sorts, rocks do worse, but it isn't a low speed aircraft and it needs a large volume of air passing over the wings to have meaningful lift and that means speed.

Captain Sullenberger called LaGuardia tower:
"Aaah, this is Cactus 1549," he said. "We lost thrust in both engines. We are turning back toward LaGuardia."
There is conversation about LaGuardia runways before Sullenberger asks about New Jersey and Teeterboro is offered.
"We can't do it."
"Which runway at Teeterboro do you want?"
"We're going in the Hudson"
Matter of factly stated.

From a life spent living near edges I can state that nothing is gained by panic, which is simple enough to say, another thing in practice. The more people who depend on the outcome and the more complicated the situation the more difficult keeping calm becomes. I have had ordinary circumstances turn drastic, quite unforseeably drastic, with an entire family depending on my skill and decisions to keep us all alive. Do not misunderstand, this was serious enough that time dilation ocurred and any wrong move meant fatality. Since I'm writing this, you know how it worked out.

Capt. Sullenberger had hundreds of lives in his hands, his passengers, crew, and anyone in the way on the ground. He had in his hands a very large, heavy, complicated and fatally wounded aircraft and an entire lack of choices, one thing to do. Landing an aircraft is the most difficult part of flying one, landing a large one on water is the gold standard of difficulty. Film from a pier security camera shows the Airbus touching water, laying down on it, and sliding. The crew likened it to a hard landing with no bounce.

This is what it took to let the aircraft perform as designed, the calmness and skill to do exactly what the situation called for. Heroism as an adverb has been devalued in recent years and I don't care to play a role in that, this was the immaculate performance of your job in the face odds. Walking the length of a potential watery tomb twice to check for passengers may qualify, but I think it is enough to state that doing your job exactly as it should be done in these circumstances deserves our admiration.

We don't need to make up catagories for Capt. Sullenberger or mangle English, we can admire and praise his actions and his crew's actions for exactly what they are, absolute professionalism and the exact fulfillment of their job descriptions, despite anyother circumstances.

Thank you Capt Sully for demonstrating just what it does mean to do your job.

Why Is This So Difficult?

Somebody go ahead and reasonably explain to me why this is so damn difficult in this country. Why is it unremarkable in Iceland to have the first openly gay Prime Minister in the world, Johanna Sigurðardottir, and in this country it is astonishing? She's spent 40 years working her way from nobody to the person Icelanders trust to lead them out of a horrid mess and somehow we'll be astonished.

I just shake my head, what the hell.

Moldy Oldies

Turn on the TV or radio to politics and you'd swear a hole had been torn in the space/time continuum. The Republicans seem to find themselves with nothing and running hard on it. Try and name the decade these favorites belong in.

Pro-American/anti-American, heartland, god-fearing, tax and spend liberal, socialist, Marxist, soft on terror, win the war, surrender, cut and run, liberal media bias, elites, god-guns-gays-abortion, enemies, security, and finally and most importantly - "the other."

You could try to make the case that these are classics and that might even be reasonable if there was relevance. It isn't that there are big ideas boiled down to short snappy lines. There just isn't anything there.

Pro/anti-American might make some kind of sense if we were talking about, oh say, the Middle East, but in the USA? What in the hell?

Heartland means exactly what? Heart Land. If the heart is to be considered the central formative influence it isn't the rural farmland. People are the heart of the country - if the Constitution is the law, the brain - and that means you find the heartland where the people are. It is completely stupid and dishonest to tell rural America that it is the heart of the country. I live there and I know better, I know that where I live is the exception. Judas priest, that's why we chose to line here.

God fearing? In a country that professes to be Christian it is to be a good thing to be scared of god? So god is a mean vengeful SOB? OK, not my game, not a fight I want to get into.

Tax and spend liberal...well we've certainly had spend and top tax rates are at historical lows. Oh, and we're broke. I guess liberal holds some meaning, except maybe by what this means at any given historical time.

Socialist. This is a very odd charge to make while the Federal government takes over investment banks. Any tax program redistributes income, roads, fire departments, police, etc and etc are public interest programs paid for by taxes. A progressive tax system has been around since Teddy Roosevelt. Wealth takes the very largest benefit of the system funded by taxes, asking for something proportional to that is somehow wrong? Socialism is the governmental control of business and resources - not exactly something that has been proposed - well, excepting banks... In this case the profits were private and risk socialized.

Marxist - as Joe Biden asked, "Are you kidding?"

Soft on terror - on the basis of what? No candidate has suggested hugging and kissing, rather it all sounds pretty blood thirsty.

Win the war. Which war? I thought you just got done saying we've won.

Surrender - which war? The forgotten one where the terrorist were? Cut and run, same.

Liberal media bias? I could get it if it were called corporate bias. I could understand if McCain hadn't gotten a complete pass through the early stages as Obama struggled with Ayers, Wright, bitter, Muslim, etc, etc and McCain hadn't gotten essentially free advertising by running his past the media.

Elites. Seven houses, wealthy barbie doll wife, son and grandson of 4 star Admirals with a legacy Academy appointment calls elite? Single parent, college loans is elite? Sounds a lot more like ordinary- except for the level of success.

God, guns, gays, abortion. I'm not going to touch this one, the statements are there as is the record.

Enemies... I guess this one is about just how scared you are.

Security, guns and butter is better reversed, guns are real tough if there's no butter.

"The Other," is the big one. All the rest of this mess boils down to it, and there is the issue of middle names and skin tone and just plain exotic. Anything about a candidate that can be portrayed as out of the ordinary can make the candidate suspect amongst certain elements and played just right will carry quite a large segment. The Other has been used about as long as there has been history and regardless of the lack of democratic institutions. It features hugely in most wars, some of them with horrific surrounding events. Certainly you could reach out to the easy one - Nazis - and you'd be missing that their stuff was very late in the day and only another example of the technique. The Romans didn't refer to the barbarians to make them seem like Romans. The Spartans used the technique within their own ruling caste.

This isn't 1968 and nattering nabobs of negativism and damn hippies or Joe McCarthy's witchhunt, oddly enough this is 2008 with a campaign between a youthful black man and an old tired white guy with old tired themes - moldy oldies.

What Have We Done To "God" ?

Generally speaking humankind seems to have a desire to have a Supreme Being, a Creator of the Universe. This would seem to bear some implications for His attributes, the size and scope of the creation. All the stars we can and cannot see down to the subatomic particles making up all of that creation infer a huge act of creation, something well beyond the scope of human concrete conception. We can blithely speak of millions of light years, but our reality is much more constrained, we look at an ocean and know it is larger than what we see, but our conception is limited to "a lot of water," estimates regarding the gallons of that ocean could be made, but there is again a limit to our ability to conceive, we know what a gallon is, but after a certain number it exceeds our ability. This limitation of concept is important, it puts God in a realm beyond our capacity to deal with in concrete conceptual terms. Religion fills this gap.

Religion acts as an interpreter and conduit between limited humanity and the Creator of the Universe. This is accomplished through rules of conduct and rituals of contact and it is here that difficulties ensue. Religions depend on intermediaries such as Jesus, Mohammad, Prophets, Popes, etc. to write the rules and rituals, these intermediaries are the voice of God or the hand of God, divinely inspired. The difficulty is that these are also humans, using human language and concepts, with all the limitations involved in being human.

Words are human derived concepts, love means what it means in human terms, this is not necessarily a universal concept, nor is it even universal amongst humans. But we apply these human concepts to the creator of a universe as though our conceptual framework is somehow applicable to the entire universe. In this process we get to statements such as "I am a jealous God," a phrase that with God replaced with your own relationship definition, ie: husband, friend, etc. would place you in an unattractive category. Behaviors are rewarded or punished by the Lawmaker. There grows from this a certain narrowness and even meanness of behavior on the part of God. Only certain specific intermediaries offer salvation or other rewards.

Ancient religions endowed their gods with very human attributes and some really childish behavior at times and some current religions continue the practice in very nearly the same form. The more modern versions of gods seem a bit more adult in behavior but still reflect very human methods and rationals. The teachings of Christ himself, as quoted, were a huge advance in kindness and concern for our fellows but the New Testament as a whole reflects attitudes of a god much less oriented in that. The figure of Christ is very nearly other worldly and yet the God is very reflective of the world.

The apparent reason for various iterations of God to have such a close resemblance to ourselves rather than the Universe is that limit of comprehension of the very large we face. A personal god that steps out of our reach becomes something other than personal, in fact becomes unfathomable. While the greatness of god or gods has long required intermediaries, this role becomes meaningless if the intermediaries try to present something beyond comprehension, something where gibberish may as well replace words. Science has created huge problems in this respect, not with things like evolutionary theory that bother so many, with elements of scale. Gods remained pretty much within grasp when the stars were lights in the sky and very small was something you could hold in your hand and see, when something near the scale of creation came to have definition, gods began to skid badly.

Today we have some idea of what the Universe is about and some idea of its scales of very large and very small and gods haven't kept up. Our gods still have to speak to us in terms we can understand but we have an idea of the disconnect between that and the scales. This disconnect isn't just felt by the scientific community, little children know about the concept of light years thanks to sci-fi shows and microscopes are commonly understood. At some interior reach this touches chords that may not be fully recognized but still are vibrating away.

Here we are in a modern enough world that ignorance of these things is scarce and yet fundamentalism is rising. The absolute word of various Books is law and sacred and irreproachable. The gods become more rigid and more human in behavior, it is seriously postulated that a Christian God smashed an entire city to punish a few libertines. We would chastise a 5 year old for similar behavior on the same motivation. I only use this Christian example as one generally familiar to my readers, there are plenty of other examples and not nearly enough time? How can this be so?

When a matter of faith collides rather spectacularly with fact something must give. It is horridly difficult for either faith or fact to be dispensed with entirely but something still must give. What gives is that piece of us called critical thinking. God must coexist with reality so therefor rather than modify God to fit, God simply becomes more rigidly defined and locked in place in defiance of the forces pushing for change. Even when there is no action taken against a God he is perceived as under attack. God is under attack, but not from external forces, the Devil in this case is internal, the battle between awareness and faith. Faith demands that the God of the Books continues to exist as defined in those books and reality keeps demanding something more to deal with those scales of existence.

There certainly are religious approaches that attempt to deal with this, they are frequently referred to as liberal theology, but their adherents still face that scale problem as they attempt to hew to the Books. The Books become more subject to interpretation as allegories and advanced understandings of evolving meanings. This loosening of the bonds has consequences as larger and larger portions of the Books become optional or reinterpreted. One consequence is that the sects of the same Book become almost unable to communicate within that framework and anger and distrust is engendered.

As some sects become more liberal the more conservative or fundamental become more so in response to the apostates. The feeling of being under attack is increased by the betrayal by their fellows and a hardening of position ensues. Government is increasingly looked to as a protector and advocate. A tightening of ranks occurs, the not like us are increasingly despised and denigrated. Threats are seen everywhere and the god must be strengthened, both by his followers and in himself, he must be dangerous to oppose.

This is scarcely the first period in history to go through such upheavals. The historical record is full of examples and when they are closely examined large social and scientific changes were occurring. Gods and religions that very much should have been of salutatory effect on their followers became instead agents of harm. Pick the time and the god, what he became was one angry mean son of bitch. Not a god I care for.

Cuban Girl's Custody

The Miami Herald , a McClatchy paper, has a story about a five year old Cuban girl and the custody fight around her. Her father, a Cuban national named Rafael Izquierdo, wants custody and the Miami foster parents and the State are fighting for that.

The Florida Department of Children & Families, together with the girl's court-appointed guardian ad litem, are asking Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen to forever strip Izquierdo of custody over his daughter by granting Joe and Maria Cubas permanent guardianship. They say the girl has so completely bonded with her half-brother and foster parents that separating from them now would endanger her emotionally.

The issue is pretty complicated, the FL statute in issue states that

a judge ''shall place'' a child with a fit parent ``unless the court finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child.''

The State's problem is that Mr Izquierdo has been declared a fit parent. There is a consideration of the state (any) stepping into the natural right of a parent to raise their child absent abusive behavior.

At one time I would have made the argument that taking a child from the free democratic environment of the US and placing that child in the totalitarian state of Cuba was an obvious harm to the child. Since the advent of BushCo many of the distinguishing features between the two countries have vanished. Since the President now has the "authority" to vanish US citizens and torture them, after using warrantless searches and seizures on them, defacto police state actions, I am pretty chary of making that claim. I'm pretty sure that unless the father is a member of Cuba's ruling elite her economic future is better in the US, but as the BushCo has demonstrated, serfdom is the desired end of their policies, such a matter might be questionable. All in all most arguments I might make regarding something other than the affections of a child and the debatable consequences of changing that circumstance; have been thwarted by George II and his minions.

How sad is that?

Basic Rights Oregon Called

Basic Rights Oregon called on the phone today, a person I know from political activity told them I might be a contact person. Andrew Hogan, of Communications Dept, wanted to know if I could think of anyone who might be willing to be a "Voice" in Eastern Oregon. As he explained to me what they were looking for I ran through the list of people in my head that might do. This person would be a heterosexual with some community reputation and recognition who could speak on their behalf in Op Ed or related instances. I won't say I was coming up dry, but as I ran through the names I realized that I was ignoring something.

That something was kind of like a dinosaur in the living room.

The people I know who would do this are Democrats, I'm County Vice-Chair, SCC Delegate, and a former candidate for higher office, and an opinionated Blogger - opinions that have a lot to do with fair play, economic and social justice - and I'm standing next to my work truck trying to think who'd be good? I'm thinking (sorta) this isn't my fight, (maybe a little) this has potential to cause me embarrassment. That's about the time I probably persuaded Andrew that I'm crack brained because I started laughing, and told him (paraphrased), 'well, why not me.'

Yes, some of my friends and associates are going to poke at me over this, well, geeze, I live in Baker County and ran as a Democrat against (other Democrats) Greg Walden. What do I have to lose, everybody that knows me knows I'm a gun totin', drag racing left wing nail banger with a wild beard and a huge white dog. Is there anybody that doesn't think I'm goofy? My wife tells everybody I'm goofy. Damn, I'll lose my reputation?

Yes, absolutely. If I don't do this I lose my reputation. I lose it where it counts, with me. I've never cared about odds, I care about doing right, I care that I see me doing what I believe. I'll tell you straight up, I'm heterosexual, I have no understanding of a homosexual relationship and I find the idea of me engaging in such an act utterly unappealing. SO WHAT? I don't care what color or gender or religion people are, I care about who they are. Any fellow citizen of Oregon who is law abiding should have exactly the same rights AND responsibilities as any other law abiding citizen. I care about people. I don't get to rant about money grubbing sonsabitches with their foot on the workers' necks and shrug off somebody else's neck under a foot.

So I'm going to be a Voice for Basic Rights Oregon, it's a thing worth doing. I sincerely hope it does some good. They're looking for people, maybe you can help out.

The American Promise

I’m sure all of us think we know what the American Promise means, but I’m also just as sure we have some very differing ideas. My purpose is not to write a definitive essay; that would take an entire library section: my object is to encourage thinking about and discussion of the concept. At least one difficulty in this is defining what American Promise we’re discussing; Economic, Social, or Legal/Political.

Legal/Political would seem the first up as a generally referenced segment. We frequently refer to ourselves as the freest nation. We point to freedom of speech, press and religion, the First Amendment as one of the primary facets of that freedom. How relevant is free press if you don’t own one and corporations do own them? Do you have free speech if zones for it are created when the President is around? Does it have a particular value if you don’t have the money to spread your free speech in competition with those with money? Do you actually have freedom of religion when a particular religious view point is the basis of laws? Do you have that freedom when the common perception is that the nation was founded on a particular religion?

The idea of a democratically elected government is certainly a part of the American Promise; the citizens will select their government. In fact a minority of citizens select our government, in close elections it is common for less than 30% of the eligible voters to have selected.

A government of laws rather than personality is a feature of the American Promise; I’ll just leave this one alone and reference our last Congress.

The Bill of Rights and ancient English Common Law combine with the Constitution to create one of the most constrained governments in the world. That is assuming that none are abrogated, not a safe conclusion today.

The Economic Promise of America has been that hard work and smart actions would allow anyone to prosper, regardless of circumstances. The fact of this promise has always been variable, race, country of origin, assets, etc. have long played a part in success or barriers to success. These barriers’ effect has not been constant or singular; at times they have been very low, at times quite high. Today the role of race is lower than at times, the issue of capital quite a bit higher. Class has become an issue of great import, there has been a denigration of labor and its consequential depression. While the economic promise of America is great in some foreign lands the reality at home may be quite different.

The Social Promise of America was equality. Slavery as an institution has ended, but in its place is an underground economy of disenfranchised illegal workers. Class is more an issue than anytime in the last century. Race and gender still play large roles in our perception of our fellows and more egregiously, sexual orientation is increasingly legally addressed. Political discourse has become rabid enough to qualify as prejudicial.

I put these forward as a partial examination and critique, I encourage others to add to or dispute my listings, because that is a part of the American Promise – that we can think for ourselves and promote our views, even if only on a second rate Blog.