tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50484058441591772052024-03-14T12:14:46.031-05:00The Dimming TorchHow can we become fully and truly human in a world plagued by violence, pain, sorrow, greed, exploitation, war, failure and death?Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.comBlogger371125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-60933079851941374672014-02-08T13:26:00.000-06:002014-02-08T13:26:09.359-06:00Struggling with Death<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDk4QiDj_uauqtbd1ZJPKUIZB4N4f9xobgCQ046i7zT10hlJ9i" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDk4QiDj_uauqtbd1ZJPKUIZB4N4f9xobgCQ046i7zT10hlJ9i" height="170" width="200" /></a></div>
Should we fear death? How should we approach it? Does our demise threaten the meaning of life? Listen to the following discussion via Rockford University Radio and the Rock Valley College Philosophy club for some suggestions:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/mwion/mental-gymnastics-with-matt" target="_blank">"Thoughts on Mortality with Dr. Matt Wion"</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" height="16" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-25149756428648455092013-12-23T19:20:00.000-06:002013-12-24T01:07:09.233-06:00In Defense of Santa Claus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.idology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/bigstock-Santa-Claus-show-ok-isolated-o-38669275.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.idology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/bigstock-Santa-Claus-show-ok-isolated-o-38669275.jpg" width="154" /></a></div>
<blogitemurl>For better or worse Santa Claus is the most commonly recognized symbol of our modern Christmas</blogitemurl><br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>For my own part the Santa symbol is one of love, joy, and good will. He fills the hearts and minds of children with awe, and love, and just a bit of magic. I have even <a href="http://mattwion.blogspot.com/2009/12/santa-claus.html" target="_blank">written in the past</a> that Santa presents the most positive aspects of divinity to children</blogitemurl><br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>For others, however, Santa is a troubling figure whom we are better of without.</blogitemurl><br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>Biblical Scholar <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Candida.R.Moss" target="_blank">Candida Moss</a>, whose take downs of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/27/the-gospel-according-to-bill-o-reilly-s-new-book-killing-jesus.html" target="_blank">Bill O'Reilly</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=Candida+Moss+Sarah+Palin" target="_blank">Sarah Palin</a> are splendid, has turned her critical acumen <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/23/how-santa-hurts-christmas.html" target="_blank">against Santa Claus</a>. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl><br /></blogitemurl>
<blogitemurl>According to Dr. Moss "Mr. Claus" has simply got to go. He is, she claims, just about the worst thing that could happen to Christmas and, perhaps even worse, the very symbol of the crimes of capitalism at its most rotten.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl><br /></blogitemurl>
<blogitemurl>Despite her characteristic wit and charm (Dr. Moss expresses herself delightfully with virtually every sentence she writes, she is even more charming on video) one of her major arguments is rather weak. Moss claims that</blogitemurl><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then there’s the disservice Santa does to religion. Even if Ole’ St.
Nick didn’t spend so much time cultivating endorsements and trawling
malls selling photo ops, it’s not clear that he would be beneficial for
the religion to which he is attached. For children, Christmas is the
undisputed high point in the religious calendar. Between the daily dose
of advent calendar chocolate, opportunities for budding thespians to cut
their teeth treading the boards in a nativity play, and, of course, the
presents, Christmas has it all. In many ways Santa Claus shares top
billing with the baby Jesus. And that’s if you’re going to church.<br />
Then
one day comes the truth. After spending years deceiving our children
about the jolly man who brings presents, can we really say “Gee you got
us, but that part about the Virgin giving birth to a child? Now <i>that’s </i>the real deal”? We’re hardly building trust here. We’re <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Catfishing" target="_blank"><u>catfishing</u></a> our children. Do Christians really want to bring religion into the rouse?</blockquote>
I find this line of reasoning particularly unconvincing. A great many modern theologians and Biblical Scholars (even a fairly large number of clergy and laity) do not take the Virgin Birth any more literally than they do Santa Claus. The story is symbolic, it conveys deep truths about who Jesus was, not biological facts about Mary's body. Similarly, Santa Claus can be seen as a symbol of the joy and benevolence many of us associate with Christmas.<br />
<br />
But perhaps I read Dr. Moss too literally here. She may mean only that we ought not to lie to our children and that doing so diminishes our credibility. I doubt this is so, and find it hard to imagine that any child has gone from learning the truth about Santa to distrusting their parents veracity and authority. It is also not clear to me that we cannot in anyway deceive our children, provided we do so for their own good. I don't think this criticism can stand.<br />
<br />
If Christian parents are worried about Santa taking Christmas from Jesus, then they can simply emphasize that St. Nicholas was a Christian Bishop who served Christ above all else, and use that model of piety to inspire a similar veneration of The Good Lord in their children. There need be no conflict here. <br />
<br />
More serious is Moss' argument that Santa symbolizes the commercial Christmas that puts profits ahead of people and cheapens all values down to mere economic transactions. <br />
<br />
That the modern Christmas is often a gaudy and sappy affair that reeks of cheap commercialism and pushes us into a vapid consumerist frenzy for a whole month of the year is indisputable. That the modern image of Santa Claus is, and has long been, deeply connected to this commercialism is equally obvious.<br />
<br />
Indeed, this seems to be the heart of Moss' complaint against the Jolly Ole Elf:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Any five-year-old can see that rich naughty children are pulling down
more than their fair share of the gifts. That’s if less affluent
families can afford the luxury of purchasing gifts from a figment of the
cultural imagination. When petulant rich kids get more presents than
poorer angelic ones, it sends mixed messages. The historical St.
Nicholas is said to have given money anonymously to poor children. The
commercial Santa brings laptops to rich kids. What’s the lesson we’re
teaching our children? Life’s not fair? The rules are different for rich
people? Better learn the harsh realities of life early. </blockquote>
But, despite the long and close connection between the two, the Santa Claus myth did not originate in advertising and consumerism. Moss herself acknowledges as much. The gift-giving St. Nicholas, and even the Jolly St. Nick of <b>The Night Before Christmas</b>, are hardly commercial figures.<br />
<br />
Moss does, however, point out a problem with Santa Claus. It surely falls on us parents to be sure that we teach our children an image of Santa Claus that does not favor rich over poor, and that does not pitch commercial values over familial and personal ones.<br />
<br />
We can do this by emphasizing Santa's selfless giving, stressing that he loves all children regardless of wealth, class, ethnicity, etc. We can tell our children to put others first and be selfless as Santa is.<br />
<br />
How our children picture Santa Claus depends very greatly on how we portray him to them.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that Moss entirely misses the joy, the awe, and even the sheer fun of Santa Claus. He is not simply a "sales pitch" and a challenge to Jesus. Santa is, at his best, a symbolic embodiment of goodness, generosity, and Christ-like unselfish love. His person and story can be made to impart these values to our children.<br />
<br />
Symbols and myths can convey deep truths to the heart and mind. Once conveyed, such truths sit deeper than mere abstract reasoning can reach.<br />
<br />
Simply telling children to care for others, to give with no thought of getting back in return, to love others, to give with joy in our hearts only does so much. But sharing with them a story, that they can later pass on to their children, may convey these truths more powerfully than simple statements ever could. <br />
<br />
As a scholar of religion, I'm sure that Dr. Moss can appreciate the value of symbol and myth to convey important truths that are, perhaps, best expressed in that manner:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.tshirtbordello.com/images/jesus-santa-bff-selfie-l1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://www.tshirtbordello.com/images/jesus-santa-bff-selfie-l1.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-21275080309744502532013-12-12T11:37:00.000-06:002013-12-12T14:19:36.412-06:00To Megyn Kelly<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;">Dear Megyn Kelly,</span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;">You said the following regarding the race of Jesus and Santa Claus: </span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gUYpu8yolLw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;">These statements are not only unacceptable but demonstrably false. </span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;">Jesus was a middle eastern man and not at all white. Below you fill find a picture of what a man from his time and place would look like it.</span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Next to this image I have placed a picture of a black man playing Santa Claus. He makes a wonderful Santa! Santa is mythical Ms. Kelly and can be any and all races.</span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">To make these matters even worse. By insisting that Jesus and Santa must be white, you are perpetuating the false and hurtful claims that white's are superior to non-whites. People of all races need to feel included and affirmed, not told that their most cherished symbols are different from them.</span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="background-color: black;">Please rethink your claims.</span></div>
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<br /></div>
<div data-ft="{"tn":"H"}" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;">
<div class="clearfix _5pb_ mvm" style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; width: 398px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="_5pc1 mrs" data-ft="{"tn":"E"}" style="border: 0px; float: left; margin-right: 5px; position: relative;">
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F1012762_10100492015279434_433584337_n.jpg&size=300%2C300&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><br />
<div class="_46-h _5pc3" style="height: 196px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 196px;">
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F1012762_10100492015279434_433584337_n.jpg&size=300%2C300&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Matt Wion's photo." class="_46-i img" height="200" src="https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p200x200/1012762_10100492015279434_433584337_n.jpg" style="border: 0px; left: -2px; position: absolute; top: -1px;" width="200" /></a></div>
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F1012762_10100492015279434_433584337_n.jpg&size=300%2C300&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015279434&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">
</a></div>
<div class="_5pc1" data-ft="{"tn":"E"}" style="border: 0px; float: left; position: relative;">
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn2%2F1503310_10100492015479034_485365358_n.jpg&size=240%2C180&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"></a><br />
<div class="uiScaledImageContainer _5pc3" style="height: 180px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 197px;">
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn2%2F1503310_10100492015479034_485365358_n.jpg&size=240%2C180&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Matt Wion's photo." class="img" height="180" src="https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1503310_10100492015479034_485365358_n.jpg" style="border: 0px; height: 180px; left: -21px; min-height: 100%; position: relative;" width="240" /></a></div>
<a ajaxify="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn2%2F1503310_10100492015479034_485365358_n.jpg&size=240%2C180&source=12" class="_5dec" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100492015479034&set=pcb.10100492016287414&type=1" rel="theater" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Even if Ms. Kelly meant that the historical Saint Nicholas was a white man, she is mistaken on that note as well. Here is a pic of what a man from Nicholas' time and place would look like:<br />
<br />
<img height="219" src="http://stjohnsandweecare.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/saint-nicholas.jpeg" width="320" /><br />
<br />
<br />
I highly recommend that you work on being more sensitive on matters of race and ethnicity Ms. Kelly.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, you should do some research on the race of Jesus. I recommend that you start with the following:<br />
<br />
<img height="320" src="http://media.npr.org/assets/bakertaylor/covers/t/the-color-of-christ/9780807835722_custom-46adff8c527100bf82eac941c52172a4b1178356-s6-c30.jpg" width="206" />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-71066980602266344822013-11-21T12:12:00.000-06:002013-11-21T12:12:37.996-06:00Take Back Thanksgiving!<div class="tr_bq">
Black Friday is a plague on our nation. Crazed shoppers fighting over bargain prices should disgust all decent people. This Holiday season matters are worse. For this Thanksgiving a number of big chain stores will be open during Thanksgiving dinner. Even worse, they are mandating that their employees work these hours. All of this is to get a head start on the insanity that is black Friday</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<img height="151" src="http://www.knifeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Black-Friday-Turkey-Scare.jpg" width="200" /></div>
<br />
This cannot be allowed to stand!<br />
<br />
It is crucial to the preservation of close relationships and person well being that working people get to enjoy time off with their loved ones. For this this reason I think we ought to continue to recognize national holidays like Thanksgiving: time off work and time with loved ones<br />
<br />
Workers are human beings, not machines or animals. The indignity of robbing them of their Holidays and forcing them to spend Thanksgiving dinner mobbed by Zombie consumers fighting to the death for discounts ought to be criminal; it is clearly morally repugnant.<br />
<br />
Let us fight these tyrants!<br />
<br />
Boycott the following stores on Thanksgiving and Black Friday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Wal-Mart<br />Kmart<br />Sears<br />The Gap<br />Banana Republic<br />Old Navy<br />Michaels<br />Toys 'R Us<br />Whole Foods</blockquote>
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-89417073271740712312013-11-03T00:19:00.001-05:002013-11-03T01:25:16.811-05:00Understanding "Obamacare"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFluxlGhjM-TIYt6F4PbxlUl89X8VQVO5bcDyJgQRd3VhEzwXzpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFluxlGhjM-TIYt6F4PbxlUl89X8VQVO5bcDyJgQRd3VhEzwXzpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">A number of talk
show hosts, most notably Jimmy Kimmel, have had fun lately asking
folks on the street what they think of "Obamacare."
Revealingly people know very little about it:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/sx2scvIFGjE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/16/two-new-polls-tell-us-americans-are-very-very-confused-about-obamacare/" target="_blank">Polls and surveys</a> find
the same widespread lack of knowledge about what the Affordable Care act (to give the law it's proper name) actually is, and
what change to our health care system the reforms actually make. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This confusion is, I think, largely the result of the fact that The Affordable Care Act is politically very divisive. Rhetoric from multiple sides of the political spectrum has greatly obscured how the law actually works. We must get past the rhetoric and actually take a careful look at the key elements of the new health care law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have taught Health Care Ethics at Marquette University and Harper Community College. A key aspect of this course is a careful consideration of how health care systems and health insurance works in the United States and abroad. Because of this I've been given ample opportunity to study the details of the new health care law <span style="font-size: x-small;">(The Most reliable information on what is the law can be found at: <a href="http://healthreform.kaiserpermanente.org/" target="_blank">Kaiser</a> and the<a href="http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/health_reform_factsheets/" target="_blank"> AARP</a>) </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here in short are the key elements of the law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, two important pieces of information.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. It is important to note that "Obamacare" is not "socialized medicine." In countries like Canada and England there are no health insurance companies. The government pays the bill. But here in post health reform America, the for-profit private insurance companies that we have all used for decades remain the providers of health insurance for the majority of Americans too young for Medicare, too high income for medicaid, and not receiving Veterans care. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. For those Americans who receive health care from their employer the law changes virtually nothing. You will still have the same relationship to your health insurance company that you had before. One important change here, however, is that young people can now stay on their parents plans until they are 26.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where things have changed is the individual private market. The reasons for the big changes here come from the following provisions of the ACA:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <u>Guaranteed issue</u> - insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies. For decades insurance companies have denied people coverage due to pre-existing conditions, Beginning January 1, 2014 they will be legally precluded from doing so any longer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <u>The Individual Mandate</u> - with the exception of those whose incomes are too low, everyone must get insurance or pay a tax penalty (if your income is too low and your State accepts the expansion of medicaid that the ACA offers, then you will qualify for medicaid). If you receive medicare, medicaid, veterans care or get insurance through your employer you already comply with this requirement. This is, perhaps, the most controversial aspect of the law. Many people seem to feel that legally requiring us to have insurance violates our personal liberty. It is worth noting, however, that the supreme court upheld the mandate as constitutional in 2012. It is also worth noting that the individual mandate was first thought of by the conservative Heritage foundation, embraced by Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole, and first enacted by by Republican Governor and most recent Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <u>The Employer Mandate</u> - with some exemptions, all employers with 50 or more employers must either provide an insurance plan to their employees or pay a tax penalty for each employee. Business with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to this requirement. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Other changes that apply to the private insurance market are that annual and lifetime limits on what insurance companies would pay have been abolished. Women can no longer be charged more than men, and individuals who already suffer from an illness cannot be charged more on that account. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Those who buy private insurance on the individual market will do so through either federal or state exchanges which must operate according to strict federal regulations. These Federal guidelines require that all insurance plans cover ten essential benefits (ambulatory patient services; emergency services, hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care).<br />
<br />
There are, in addition, 4 types of plans, <span style="color: #cccccc;">platinum</span>, <span style="color: orange;">gold</span>, <span style="color: #666666;">silver</span>, and <span style="color: #783f04;">bronze</span>. These plans cover 90, 80, 70, 60 percent of costs respectively. The more costs the plan covers, the higher the premium is. Most Americans qualify for a subsidy which will pay for part of their premiums, thus lowering what they will pay.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately the launch of the federal insurance exchange (States who have set up their own exchanges - not all States have - have been more fortunate) has been something of a problem. The web sight is not working properly and most consumers cannot access it. It remains to be seen if this technical problem will result in delaying certain aspects of the law, such as the individual mandate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Benefits of the Affordable Health Care law are clear. For many years millions of Americans were denied access to health care because of pre-existing conditions or high costs. Many of these people will finally be able to buy health care that they can afford.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But there are disadvantages as well. Some Americans will see their premiums and/or deductibles rise. Furthermore, because the new law requires all health insurance plans to cover the ten essential benefits mentioned above, some current plans will be eliminated starting next year. These plans will be replaced by plans that cover more, and for most consumers cost less (thanks to subsidies) but to some 3-5% of Americans costs will rise up. There are those who believe that they should be allowed to pay less for their current plans which cover far less. They are not pleased with this situation. For more on this particular controversy see the very helpful <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/obamacares-three-per-cent.html?mobify=0" target="_blank">piece in the New Yorker</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most importantly the Affordable Health care Act has, hanging over it, one big question mark. The United States has by far and away the most expensive health care system in the world. It is debatable that the ACA does nearly enough to reduce these huge costs. If we really want to reduce our expensive system, further changes may very well be needed in the future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a further quick, comprehensible and comprehensive overview of the Affordable Health Care act in all it's particulars I recommend the following, rather humorous, 9 minute video from Kaiser:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/3-Ilc5xK2_E/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/3-Ilc5xK2_E&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/3-Ilc5xK2_E&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-3294102022450252042013-05-13T22:41:00.000-05:002013-05-13T22:41:42.596-05:0042 - We can still learn from Jackie Robinson
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEjCD_Kb_6Ymivavll6RoJp84CSnqx-h1Gxx1Xyigq9CuuzIOi6eUiB7r98K0w5qnN67V3xD4che6qgKpzO6PGMwhR5s2hyphenhyphen1YuIrr5Uu-XUKUsANSkLufa9-B0hKzORsl5IgZt087Nxp4/s1600/42.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEjCD_Kb_6Ymivavll6RoJp84CSnqx-h1Gxx1Xyigq9CuuzIOi6eUiB7r98K0w5qnN67V3xD4che6qgKpzO6PGMwhR5s2hyphenhyphen1YuIrr5Uu-XUKUsANSkLufa9-B0hKzORsl5IgZt087Nxp4/s1600/42.jpg" /></a></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> The Integration of
Baseball by Jackie Robinson in 1947 is one of the great moments of
American History. In fact and in legend it defines the radical
injustice of legal segregation and the courage and conviction of
those who dared to defy it. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><b>42</b></span><span style="font-size: small;">
directed by Brian Helgeland is faithful to the power of the legend
and the magnitude of the history. Perfectly cast (Harrison Ford
reaches new heights as Branch Rickey), the film brings all of the
central characters to life. The story is moving, eliciting tears,
laughs, and admiration for Jackie Robinson at all the appropriate
moments. In short, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><b>42
</b></span><span style="font-size: small;">is a perfect Baseball
film and a splendid telling of a powerful story; I enjoyed every
moment of it and the movie already ranks high among my personal
favorites. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Despite enjoying the film
immensely, I must confess that it can be difficult viewing at times.
The racism encountered by Robinson in this film (which is only a
fraction of the suffering the poor man actually had to face) is
rather ugly. The hatred behind racist rants against Robinson, the
refusal to accept him for the color of the skin, and the common use
of offensive racial slurs, is painful to watch. During one particular
seen where the Phillies Manager Ben Chapman is berating Robinson with
constant racial slurs, I was quite literally physically ill. The
hatred Robinson had to deal with will bring tears of pain to your
eyes. This makes parts of the film very hard to watch; very hard, but
worth it. We need to see how ugly racism and other forms of hate are.
We must not shield ourselves from this disgusting and shameful aspect
of human behavior. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> As fine a film as 42 is, there
are two aspects to this film that are lacking. First, both Jackie
Robinson and Branch Rickey were devoutly religious men – both were
Methodists in fact!. God was central to each man's life. I would have
appreciated a slightly larger amount of screen time devoted to the
spiritual basis of each man's story. But this is a minor quibble. The
film is made for a mass American audience and it is largely about the
struggle for integration. The second omission is more disconcerting.
Absent from 42 is the large social movement, which existed for
decades before Robinson played the game, to integrate the national
pastime. The film rightly focuses on the courage and heart of Jackie
Robinson, but a nod or two in the direction of the social movement
that gave integration so strong a push would have been nice. Mr.
Robinson and Branch Rickey did not break the color barrier in
baseball by themselves. Despite their remarkable achievements, it
takes a community of people committed to justice in order to truly
achieve it. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Despite these flaws the film is
amazing. Most importantly is provides an opportunity for families and
communities to talk about discrimination, bigotry, and the struggle
for justice. This is must see film for all of us. Jackie Robinson's
battle is our battle; the Battle for recognition of our common human
dignity. To quote from the film “maybe tomorrow we'll all wear 42,
so they can't tell us apart;” perhaps we should. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-14104457674291400292013-03-06T14:23:00.004-06:002013-03-06T14:23:35.504-06:00The Fire from which Morality BurnsI teach a number of Ethics courses each semester. These courses are very enjoyable for me, and I hope for my students as well. Each time I introduce an ethical theory I look for its foundational principle: its central proposition from which it determines the rightness or wrongness of particular actions. For instance, Libertarians ground all of their determinations about what is right and wrong in a principle of self-ownership, Deontologists in a list of universal moral rules, Utilitarians in the greatest amount of happiness that can be produced, Human Rights Theorists in some list of basic rights. <br />
<br />
The problem with all of this is that it is terribly abstract. Traditional moral theories propose a solution to the problem or right and wrong that fails to take into account the genuine motivation behind human goodness. Conceiving of morality as something like a math problem to be solved by the dry and impersonal calculations of reason, such theories forget that our our initial impulse toward acting morally is concern for and empathy with our fellows.<br />
<br />
<i>Compassion for others (be they human or animal) is the fire from which morality burns. The reason we strive to be good is that we care about others. We desire to help them, to keep them from harm, to accord them the same treatment we would like for ourselves. <b>Without this initial compassion for others, the spark of morality fails to ignite and considerations or right and wrong are not possible. </b></i><b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Consider the activities of the most deranged among us: Do mass shooters, serial killers, and other sociopaths care for others? Clearly they do not. Could the SS guards have had compassion for their Jewish prisoners? The American slave-owners empathy for their slaves? Perhaps there was a flicker here and there, but without ignoring, repressing, or just plain not having the natural impulse to feel for others pain and rejoice with them in their happiness, they could not have acted in the reprehensible and inhuman manner that they did.<br />
<br />
The origin of morality is feeling, not reason. Furthermore, it is not feeling for humanity in the abstract, but feelings for others that we actually encounter, that we actually have relationships with, that creates morality. Unless we start here, until moral theories take as their departure the central role of feelings and relationships in creating morality, we cannot hope to provide a satisfactory account of right and wrong.<br />
<br />
This is not to say, however, that reason is irrelevant or unimportant to morality. Reason is extremely important, It is not enough to feel compassion, we must think out how best to demonstrate our compassion. We will encounter conflicts in our relationships with others and we need reason to manage them.<br />
<br />
We cannot figure out how to act morally without reason. But reason cannot provide the initial burst that makes us moral. Without a feeling of solidarity with others, reason is a cold, calculating tool; capable of helping the Nazi gleefully persecute his victims or the serial killer calmly stalk his prey.<br />
<br />
Where the feeling of compassion and solidarity with others is absent, there can be no morality. When it is present, there must be. <br />
<br />
Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-1000609707385061082013-02-04T15:16:00.002-06:002013-02-04T15:18:19.812-06:00Should we Boycott the NFL?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a data-ved="0CAUQjRw" href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=XEt_pjSIdmtgDM&tbnid=0DADCSEhOO7L9M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvannevar.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F12%2Ffootball-voluntary-brain-damage.html&ei=4CIQUaGHEsf_ygHMi4HYBg&bvm=bv.41867550,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFLDffT2WCbuS-wFMbwsNrPZQYMbg&ust=1360098396567204" id="irc_mil" style="border: 0px currentColor; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="200" id="irc_mi" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvXG8crTVT_Hz5g-G4ML0LIUXYDnWU4kDhUtfQDsFn2q_GIkznknqJP_Ue2Of6ZGpGv3T-t0EqXfxmU3DMVjLLmdgOP07xbhE8PfdanHtg0qAGlqxlXu3EA19c1lMGW3icxulrKdfkTwA/s200/football-brain-injury-concussions.jpg" style="margin-top: 102px;" width="182" /></a></div>
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>Can a moral person continue to watch professional football? I have wrestled with this question of late. The prevalence of brain damage from head injuries is well <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/researchers-discover-28-new-cases-of-brain-damage-in-deceased-football-players/">documented,</a> and with the recent death of Junior Seau linked to brain disease caused from injuries I am forced to admit that my entertainment comes at the expense of the health, well-being, and even life of these players.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>I know the obvious reply: <em>They choose to play the game, knowing these risks. If they choose to play it, then it's fine to watch them</em>.<em> </em>But this simply will not do. I am not suggesting that we make football illegal, or censor it on TV, or even that we tell others to stop watching. I am asking myself, and asking my readers to ask themselves, if it is morally appropriate to derive enjoyment from watching others risk so much damage to themselves. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>That these players choose to play football knowing the risk, does not mean we are innocent for watching. When a person is objectified, their dignity ignored, their pain made part of our entertainment, we have done something wrong to them, whether they consent to it or not. This is the kind of argument one often hears against going to strip clubs or watching pornography. When one engages in these activities one treats a fellow human being as if they were a mere "thing," and object existing solely for our satisfaction. If that argument applies to exotic dancers and pornographic actors, then it seems to apply to professional athletes just as well. And in this case, we are watching these men play a game that seriously threatens their well-being and health.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>On the other hand, every profession and every sport carries risks. Sometimes those risk are severe. These men do know the risk and they apparently think it is worth the sacrifice. Furthermore, every time any person renders us a service we use them as a "thing." I doubt we are seriously meditating on the dignity and passion and rights of our garbage collectors, waiters, and other such persons. We do not and cannot always refrain from such behavior. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>But this is not a matter of simple player choice. Most NFL players make a few hundred thousand a year and only play for a few seasons. Few of these players get high paying jobs after they retire and they are not given health care by the NFL. Furthermore, the NFL does not take necessary and relative <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130131/nflpa-safety-concerns-trotter/">simple steps to insure player safety</a>.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>This means that the NFL itself is exploiting its players for financial benefit. Their bodies are ruined and they are then left discarded and abandoned. All this simply to make a profit for billionaire owners. (returning to the analogy with porn and strip clubs: it is precisely this exploitation of individuals who are often emotionally damaged that is the real objection to pornography, not simply their getting naked and being sexual for the enjoyment of others)</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>So it is not a matter of simply knowing that these players chose a dangerous sport and they can get hurt. That is a choice one can make, and I see no problem being entertained by a game that makes those choices. But the abandonment of its players by the NFL is unacceptable. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Perhaps morality does require that we stop watching the NFL until the league treats its players as it deserves? On the other hand, the NFL is so wildly popular and so profitable that one can scarcely imagine sufficient outrage to affect a change. Does this mean we should just throw in the moral towel and enjoy the game?</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>I will be thinking about this very carefully during the off season. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px currentColor;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-15884502689139549452013-01-30T15:16:00.000-06:002013-01-31T23:27:59.476-06:00Let's get Sane about Guns<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
I am increasingly disturbed by the gun violence that plagues our nation. Each year more and more shootings kill more and more people. The carnage piles up, the blood spills, images of body bags flood our frightened imaginations. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Every time it's the same sad story: a disturbed young white man from an affluent or middle class background could not get the mental health attention that he needed, but all too easily and too legally got his hands on military firearms, which the then proceeded to pump into innocent lives. All too quickly lives were cut short and tragedy struck again. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>The unsurprising, although sickening, response from the usual suspects has been to insist on their right to bear arms. Conspiracy nuts have claimed that Obama faked the New Town shooting to seize their firearms and launch a dictatorship, the NRA have suggested arming everyone in order to have shootouts solve the problem. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>ENOUGH!</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>It is past the time to discuss the issue. It is time to do something. Enough stupidity Military weapons should not be allowed in civilian hands. Yes I KNOW WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I get it. I am NOT suggesting that we take away all guns from all people. But for the love of life and decency, let's legislate better background checks, make would-be gun owners pass a psychological exam every couple years, register all guns, ban assault rifles, take guns out of the hands of anyone who is mentally ill or has any kind of criminal past.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>The right to bear arms has never and should not ever mean the right for any person to own any kind of gun made and get it as easily as possible. The right to life trumps the right to bear arms, and we have far too many deaths from gun violence. Too many young lives lost, to many families destroyed too much death, loss and sorrow. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>No more nonsense. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>We need to do what is right here.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px currentColor;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-54646393521139392572012-10-22T15:51:00.000-05:002012-10-22T15:51:08.835-05:00A Plea to My Leftist Friends: Obama is not Romney - The Vote Matters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.altmediapost.com/Media/Default/BlogPost/articles/obamny.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<a href="http://www.altmediapost.com/Media/Default/BlogPost/articles/obamny.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://www.altmediapost.com/Media/Default/BlogPost/articles/obamny.png" width="320" /></a><blogitemurl>There are some on the left of the political spectrum (the real left, not what our media and pundits call the "left") who see no important and meaningful difference betweeen Romney and Obama. Both, they argue, are corporate puppets who don't really represent the needs of poor, working, or even middle class voters. Both are stooges of the Military Industiral Complex that murders civilians abroad and imposes American Imperial Policy on nations all over the globe. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>My Friends on the left are surely right to see Romney and Obama as tools of the the American Military Empire, the Corporate robber barrons, and the absurdly rich plutocrats. Neither man's campaign or debate performances mention the extreme income inequality, growing poverty, and diminshing resources of our nation's poor. Neither questions American expceptionalism and imperialism at home or abrod. Even worse, neither man seriously addresses the erosion and whole-sale decimation of the American Middle Class. With these points I agree completely. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Why, then, do I claim that Obama is not the same as Romney and that this election actually does matter?</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Here's why: Obama will preserve social security and traditional medicare. Romney, on the other hand, will do away with both, turning them - slowly and carefully no doubt - into privatized and ineffective shadows of their former selves. Romney will slash taxes even more than Bush already has, diminsihing public funds, and resulting in drastic cuts to the social safety net. Far fewer food stamps, less unemployment, even more drastically underfunded schools, an infrastructure that crumbles and erodes even more so than it already has. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Romney will repeal Obamacare and pass the Ryan Budget into law. Of course, many on the left are unhappy with Obamacare, seeing it as a sell-out to the Health Insurance Industry. There is merit in that criticism. I share in that dissappointment. Despite my reserveations about Obamacare, however, I prefer a system that eliminates pre-existing conditions, expands medicaid to cover more of the working poor, allows young adults to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26, and provides free vaccines, screenings, and birth control to many who desperately need these services. Whatever Romney would put in place of Obamacare, would include none of this. It is likely in fact, that he will reinstitute the worse of the practices of the private insurance market, and perhaps even make matters worse than they were before.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>I know that, for us on the left, Obama is not "our man." I know that his foreign policy has been a human rights travesty. Drones, kill lists, suspension of due process, the arrest of Bradley Manning. Yes, these are deplorable. The United States and its leadership ought to be held accountable for all of this; Obama included. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>But what is to be gained by letting Mr. Romney win? Will he and his party release Bradley Manning? Stop the drones? Be rid of the kill lists? Be serious. If anything they will expand and amplify this and possibly bring back water boarding and other tortures just for good measure.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Finally, don't foget that Romney will get to appoint as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices during his Presidency if he wins this thing. If you care about a court that is set to consider same-sex marriage, if you are concerned that Roe V. Wade not be overturned, this is very far from a trivial matter.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>To vote for Obama is not to support his dreadful - and all too American - imperial foreign policy. Nor is to vote for the clear corporate power structure that he represents. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>We must vote for Obama to keep what is left of our social safety nets - food stamps, head start programs, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, etc - out of the hands of Mitt Romney and the right-wing party that comes with him. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>We must vote for Obama in order to build on that which is good in Obamacare. We cannot return to what existed before it pasts.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>We must vote for Obama to protect women's reproductive rights and the hope same-sex couples to have their love recognized with legal marriage.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>Obama may not be the "change we can believe in," he is surely not the progressive champion some took him to be. Despite this, however, we know that his opponents are radical regressives who will undo what is left of the New Deal and the Great Society. On social views that will turn back the gay rights and womens movements, and plunge us backward. If we re-elect Obama we can push his party to the left, we can build up genuine progressive movements locally from the ground up and change the political climate of our nation for the better.We can do this not because Obama is wonderful, or even willing to join us, but because with Obama we can retain enough of the old liberal ideas and institutions to move forward and build. </blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>But if we don't defeat Mitt Romney, if we don't win President Obama a second term, it may take us a generation, or even several generations, to undo the damages of the radical, right wing, regressive, and destructive social and economic agenda of Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan, and a Republican Party now run by openly extremist regressives.</blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl></blogitemurl><br />
<blogitemurl>
<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px currentColor;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-72330223622847715152012-08-12T17:22:00.000-05:002012-08-12T17:30:09.360-05:00Why it is Morally Wrong to Vote for Paul Ryan<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/08/06/p233/120806_r22425_p233.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/08/06/p233/120806_r22425_p233.jpg" width="143" /></a></div>
<div>
I believe that Paul Ryan's political views are deeply immoral. Because of this I will cast my vote against Mitt Romney and his VP this November. I guess this makes me a values voter of a short; albeit a <i>liberal </i>one. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course anyone who knows me or this blog knows that I was always going to vote Obama in 2012. So this post is not really about me, it's about the role that morality does, and should, play in our voting choices.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many Americans have long held to the troubling position that our personal values and moral concerns should be separated from how we vote and who we vote for. This has never really been the case. If we are honest with ourselves, then we know that we cannot vote against our conscience, against what we think matters. Furthermore, why on earth would we wish do so? Why would we leave our convictions outside the voting booth.</div>
<br />
The right wing has understood this for a long time. The left has but slowly and recently become aware of it. But this November the choice of values is sharp and clear.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan for his running mate. Ryan is best know as the author of <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/29215926175">the Ryan Budget</a>. This budget deprives the poor of medicaid and food stamps, the elderly of medicare and social security, and in general cuts funding to all forms of aid for poor and middle class Americans, apparently for the sole purpose of giving more tax cuts to the super wealthy. <br />
<br />
As Robert Reich explains,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ryan’s views are crystallized in the budget he produced for House Republicans last March as chairman of the House Budget committee. That budget would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the next decade. The biggest cuts would be in Medicaid, which provides healthcare for the nation’s poor – forcing states to drop coverage for an estimated 14 million to 28 million low-income people, according to the non-partisan <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3723" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; color: #4182c4; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3723" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; color: #4182c4; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></a>Ryan’s budget would also reduce food stamps for poor families by 17 percent ($135 billion) over the decade, leading to a significant increase in hunger – particularly among children. It would also reduce housing assistance, job training, and Pell grants for college tuition. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In all, 62 percent of the budget cuts proposed by Ryan would come from low-income programs. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Ryan plan would also turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won’t possibly keep up with rising health-care costs – thereby shifting those costs on to seniors.<br />
At the same time, Ryan would provide a substantial tax cut to the very rich – who are already taking home an almost unprecedented share of the nation’s total income. Today’s 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together.</blockquote>
<br />
We are , then, presented, first and foremost, with a choice of what we want government to be. Should government work to improve the lives of its citizens, to provide for our basic needs, to help build community, to educate, enlighten, and strengthen civil society, or should government be used as a tool to aid and abet the wealthy few as they hoard more and more of the economic pie?<br />
<br />
If you appreciate government roads, public parks, libraries, and rules and regulations that protect you from shady business practices, if you think education is a right and that our schools should be well funded, if you think the elderly are entitled to basic health care, and the unemployed and starving help for their basic needs, then you must vote against Paul Ryan.<br />
<br />
Ryan sees the government as a tool to be crafted for the good of rich men like himself. If we stand against that, if we really think government ought to be used to help all people and build a strong and healthy society, then we are morally obligated to cast a vote against Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney this election day.<br />
<br />
Should someone be inclined to believe Ryan's claim that his goal is to reduce the deficit, the New Yorker Magazine quickly kills that myth:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: left;">Ryan was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits: sweeping tax cuts, a costly prescription-drug entitlement for Medicare, two wars, the multibillion-dollar bank-bailout legislation known as </span><small style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: left;">TARP</small><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: left;">. In all, five trillion dollars was added to the national debt</span></blockquote>
<br />
In other words, Ryan's budget has nothing to do with reducing the deficit. It would not do so in any case. The best way to reduce the deficit would be large cuts to military spending and big tax hikes on the super wealthy. Ryan directly opposes both. His real goal, therefore, is crystal clear: helping the filthy rick hoard even more wealth.<br />
<br />
The role of government, however, is not the only value forced to the forefront by the Ryan pick.<br />
<br />
If we believe that women have the right to determine their own reproductive choices, if we believe that they are fully equal with and entitled to the same dignity as men, then we cannot, in good conscience, vote for Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan is steadfastly for that <a href="http://www.womenarewatching.org/article/mitt-romney-makes-another-choice-against-women-picks-paul-ryan-for-vp#.UCgF4BOf-IM.facebook">set of policies and positions</a> that some call "the war on women." If Ryan had his way employers would be free to refuse women coverage for their birth control on the flimsy and bogus grounds of "religious freedom," and states could force women to have trans-vaginal ultrasounds.<br />
<br />
Finally, Paul Ryan is a poster boy for those who <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-on-the-issues-taxes-abortion-more.html">refuse to see gays and lesbians as equal</a> to those who are straight. Not only does Ryan oppose same-sex marriage, he opposes allowing gay people to adopt, voted to keep "Don't ask, Don't tell," and refused to support anti-hate crime legislation. Those of us who support our homosexual fellows and their full equal rights and dignity must oppose this man.<br />
<br />
There are other issues that are just as morally disturbing: From his "A" NRA rating on guns - which in light of recent shootings in Colorado and in Ryan's home State of Wisconsin, is particularly perverse -, to his desire to arrest women who have abortions; from his desire to repeal "Obama-Care," to his strong support for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's destruction of that State's unions, there is scarcely any position held by this Social Darwinist that does not demand that we respond by stating our moral convictions with our vote.<br />
<br />
The choice is clear. If you believe government should ensure a fair playing field and a basic standard of living for all, if you believe gay and lesbian people and the love they have for each other should be respected, if you believe that women are human beings with full dignity who have every right to control their reproductive faculties, then you are morally obligated to vote against the Romney/Ryan ticket, and, therefore, to vote for Obama,<br />
<br />
If, on the other, hand you are going to vote for Romney and Ryan, then admit to your moral positions. When you vote for them, you vote for a government that exists to make the richer richer at the expense of every one else. A vote for this GOP ticket is a vote that says that women are not really equal to men, that gays and lesbians are sinful and bad, and that people do not have a right to health care, social security, or basic aid when they fall upon hard times.<br />
<br />
That is the choice. It is a moral decision.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-40648767459369023622012-08-12T12:33:00.002-05:002012-08-12T12:45:43.366-05:00GOP Je$usI really wish I would have thought of something this clever and telling! But alas, I discovered it only recently. Well reading <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/rep-paul-ryan-takes-his-catholic-critics">an article on Social Darwinist Romney VP pick Paul Ryan</a> at <b>Mother Jones Magazine</b>, I learned of GOP Je$us. The basic premise of this clever satire is this: what if Jesus were - instead of a non-violent, anti-greed, inclusive preacher - actually like the right wing of the GOP who claim they follow him. I give you, the GOP Je$us and his Tea-Party Gospel, via <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/GOP-Jeus/131105283688806">his Facebook page:</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="uiHeader uiHeaderBottomBorder mbm" style="background-color: white; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: left;">
<div class="clearfix uiHeaderTop" style="zoom: 1;">
<h2 class="uiHeaderTitle" style="color: #1c2a47; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" tabindex="0">
</h2>
<h2 class="uiHeaderTitle" style="color: #1c2a47; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" tabindex="0">
</h2>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #333333; font-size: 12px;">
<br />
<img src="http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/578668_131162553683079_799090864_a.jpg" style="color: #333333; font-size: 12px;" />The Me-Attitudes<br />
<br />
<ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li><strong>Blessed are the rich, the reign of this world is ours</strong></li>
. The rich rule the world, and the rest suffer and die, often in misery. Do not let this be you my brothers! Easier to use your riches to genetically engineer very small camels that can fit through the needle's eye…</ul>
<br />
<ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li><strong>Blessed are the violent and the invincible, the proud and the powerful, the domineering and oppressive</strong></li>
. We can have it all! And let our status of power be the proof that we are deserving of the fruits of the labor of the middle class and poor…</ul>
<br />
<ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li><strong>Blessed are those who show no mercy.</strong></li>
No mercy to the poor, to women and children, the elderly and the homeless, victims, outcasts, enemies, refugees, the hungry, the undocumented, the unborn, those on death row, those who are different, those we don’t like. And of course, those who happen to be in the way of what we want…</ul>
<br />
<ul style="list-style-type: square; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 25px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li><strong>Blessed are the warmakers.</strong></li>
Yea I say unto you, if we were not making war, we could not be said to be making much. That is what China is for! Lo, the Lord looked at China and said "Let it be the worlds factory floor," and it was good…</ul>
<br />
<br />
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="mbl notesBlogText clearfix" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; text-align: left; word-wrap: break-word; zoom: 1;">
<div style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.5em;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Compare the Me-attitudes of GOP Je$us to the <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=187372271">Beatitudes</a> of Jesus of Nazareth, then take a look at the <a href="http://tryingtofollow.com/2007/03/29/7even-statements-of-jesus-about-wealth/">real Jesus' teachings about wealth</a>. The stark contrast between Jesus and the GOP Je$us satire is well done. This brings the heart of the matter home powerfully. One cannot follow the economic philosophy of the right wing and at the same time follow Jesus. The two are irreconcilable and fundamentally opposed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-31594987860565951052012-07-16T01:41:00.003-05:002012-07-16T01:42:30.119-05:00How to read the Bible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.alandcalledamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/bible1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="166" src="http://www.alandcalledamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/bible1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
There are, in my view, two erroneous perspectives on that collection of ancient literature that we have come to call "The Bible." The first, and perhaps most common, is that is is some kind of divinely authored encyclopedia. On this reading, the Bible comes straight from God as is therefore free from any scientific, historical, moral, or other errors.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has actually read the Bible knows this is simply not true. The Bible contains every manner of human error. We know that not all of its stories are historical, that knowledge of science does not inform its pages, and that it frequently assumes a tribal and primitive morality that we cannot even begin to find inspiring.<br />
<br />
This knowledge, unfortunately, leads some to reject the Bible as a horrid product. Such readers love to debunk and ridicule the Scriptures, pointing with glee to troubling or historically mistaken passages. They are correct that these passages exist, but they too beg the question on what the Bible is and how we should read it.<br />
<br />
The problem is that both sets of readers assume that the Bible is either a divinely authored and error free text, or it is pure rubbish. This dilemma is, I suggest, a false one.<br />
<br />
The way out of this false dilemma is to understand what the Bible actually is. The Bible is a fully human collection of texts. These texts were written, edited, collected, and canonized, copied and re-copied over centuries. They contain every human error one would expect from so broad and wide a collection of ancient literature. It might help if we ceased to speak of "the Bible" and instead spoke of "the scriptures." This is, after all, a collection of widely different texts from very different authors, in different times.<br />
<br />
Far from undermining the Bible however, such an understanding of what it is should enrich our appreciation of it. Were we to believe that God truly authored the texts, we would have to face troubling events, slaying the first born of Egypt, commanding genocide against the Amalekites, stoning twig gathers on the Sabbath, striking Onan dead for the withdrawal method, and so forth. Unless you are willing to look into the face of your firstborn son - and I know I'm not - and think that such a being could deserve God's wrath because of the decision of your nation's leaders, or that God could command that your child be killed just so his "chosen people" could have their promise land, then you simply cannot be a Biblical literalist.<br />
<br />
Seen as an ancient human product, on the other hand, we can appreciate the gradual transformation of Yahweh, a tribal war god, into the one universal God of mercy, justice and Compassion. For make no mistake, taken as a literary work, we can follow the Biblical Character of God from his origins as a fiery, vengeful deity who plays favorites (just read the book Judges or 1 and 2 <i>Samuel</i>) to the loving Father in Heaven who teaches Jonah the value of mercy. That transformation is a splendid and inspiring one. There were lot's of little war lord tribal gods, I can think of no other that transformed in to a loving God of universal justice.<br />
<br />
Casting our gaze downward from Heaven to the Earth, we find that the Bible is a story of conflict. On the one hand stand the Kings of Israel and Judah. Again and again these Kings, and the elites who serve them, attempt to lord it over the "regular folks," to take their lands, their spouses, even their very lives; to become little dictators in the promised land. But again and again the prophets speak out to condemn them. Pleading for justice, making the case for the widow, the orphan, the resident alien, the poor, and the downtrodden, the prophets consistently equate God with justice and fair play, and religion with treating others, particularly the weak and marginalized, with respect, compassion, and concern.Whether it is the prophet Nathan damning King David for the murder of Uriah the Hittite (not to mention adultery with Uriah's wife!), Elijah defending the commoner Naboath against King Ahab's seizure of the former's vineyard, or Amos crying out to let "justice flow like water," there is simply nothing like the passion of the prophets for justice, equality, and fair play in all of ancient religious literature.<br />
<br />
So read the Bible as a flawed, sometimes horrible, human creation. That is, after all, what it is. But in that realization the very power of "the good book" can hit home. A ethic of "the chosen people" turned into a universal ethic of compassion and justice for all people; a petty and jealous tribal god transformed into a loving creator wishing for all to receive justice, mercy, and blessings.<br />
<br />
That is something truly inspiration, truly spiritual, and truly astounding, and - just perhaps - truly divine.<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="mattwion";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onclick="return addthis_sendto()" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-88618593435286200262012-04-28T10:07:00.003-05:002012-04-28T10:07:44.580-05:00Spinozoan Spirituality<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTs_eFbbM1_RP-4dpvfDAPYqETSrOe5B7jj4c4_jXTd11NoUU8f" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTs_eFbbM1_RP-4dpvfDAPYqETSrOe5B7jj4c4_jXTd11NoUU8f" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." ~ Albert Einstein</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">The 17th century rationalist philosopher Baruch Spinoza is not usually regarded as a spiritual or religious thinker. On the surface this fact is odd. Spinoza writes of "God" so frequently that the romantic poet Novalis dubbed him "that God intoxicated man." But <a href="http://mattwion.blogspot.com/2009/03/eistein-and-spinoza-on-god-addition-to.html">Spinoza's God</a> is not the divine lawgiver and potentate of traditional western theism. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">For Spinoza God is the infinite and eternal substance of which all finite things are but temporary expressions. His God is not person-like, not a law-giver nor a judge of human actions. Furthermore, his God did not create a world out of free will. For Spinoza the world is nothing more than the totality of all of God's necessary self-expressions. In fact, Spinoza goes so far as to identify God with nature itself - at least with nature understood as the active and creative power that is "reality as a whole", though not simply with the total collection of things in the world. Because of this, many have claimed that Spinoza's non-personal and absolutely non-supernatural God is really no God at all. This deity surely could never inspire us to dance, pray, love, or die for it.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">And yet, there is much in Spinoza's writing to suggest that he is filled with a profound personal piety and deep spirituality toward his God. In part five his masterpiece the <i>Ethics</i> Spinoza argues that the ultimate fulfillment of human life is the love of God. This love fills the mind with peace, calm, and serenity. The greatest joy we can know comes from knowing God and loving God.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Commentators as diverse as the Catholic Father Copplestone and the atheist Steven Nadler have claimed that we can't take Spinoza's words too seriously here. All he really means, they argue, is that we should have an awe and appreciation of the rationality and order of nature. Spinoza, so they say, means by love "nothing more" than the joy that comes from understanding the natural world; he is not speaking about a personal relationship with a heavenly Father. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">They are right of course. Spinoza does think of loving God solely in terms of understanding and appreciating the workings of the natural world. He says as much, "He who clearly ... understands himself an his emotions loves God, and so much more in proportion as he more understands himself and his emotions." (E5P15) I must confess, however, that I fail to see why this disqualifies Spinoza's thought as spiritual.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">It is certainly true that Spinoza's God is not the God of popular level Judaism and Christianity. It is also true, therefore, that Spinoza's understanding of "spirituality" cannot mean love for a person-like supernatural being who can love me back in the same fashion (indeed, Spinoza specifically says that God cannot love me in any human fashion (EVP18-P19)). But are we really going to insist that spirituality and even religion must be restricted to a relationship with a supernatural and person-like being? If so, then I fear we will have to qualify a great many Buddhists, Taoists, and even many Western mystics from our definition.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Spinoza is spiritual in the sense that Carl Sagan understood that term. In Sagan's words:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: black; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><span style="color: white;">When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Albert Einstein expressed much the same sentiment when he claimed that: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"><span style="color: white;">"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">This captures Spinoza's attitude perfectly. Awe, humility, reverence and deep appreciation. These are the only conceivable feelings in one who has grasped the order, unity, and sheer rationality of reality itself. Furthermore, when we understand that we are are one with reality, a finite and temporary expression of that infinite and eternal power and process, we cannot help but rejoice in that. If such emotions are not spiritual, if such attitudes are not religious, then I have no idea whatsoever what they are. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Appreciation of reality as a whole, joy in understanding our place in and unity with it, humble love for the power and awesome order of it: this is the heart of Spinozoan Spirituality. But it is not the whole of it.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">In his <i>Theological-Political</i> <i>Treatise </i>Spinoza carefully argues that the truths of traditional religions are not ontological or historical, but moral. Religion is true to the extent, and only to the extent, that it teaches justice and charity. A religion that encourages a society where all are treated fairly, where everyone has a decent standard of living, and every person shows compassion to those in need is a true religion. A religion that teaches and preaches the opposite of these is a false one. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">For traditional Judaism and Christianity this moral imperative derives from being children of God. We love each other as God loves us. Spinoza would not put it that way. For him justice and charity arises out of recognition of the deep unity and interconnection of all things as expressions of one and the same underlying infinite and eternal power. Furthermore, it is our powerful connection to one another, our being "like each other" that compels us to be good to one another. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">This connection with each other, this connection with reality, this moral imperative to care for one another and treat each other with justice, charity, and compassion is the expression of true religion in actions, just as awe, humility, reverence, and joy are the expressions of true religion regarding that infinite and eternal ground of being. In both these senses, Spinoza is a deeply spiritual and truly religious man.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">In our time when the conventional forms of our religions no longer satisfy many, perhaps the spirituality of Spinoza can speak to us. The alternative to traditional Western spirituality and religion need not be the secular atheism of Camus and Sartre. Unlike such emotionally unfulfilling existentialism, Spinoza's brand of naturalism has a great deal to offer us. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Samuel Beckett would have us believe that we are waiting for a Godot who will never arrive, searching for a meaning that simply is not there. Baruch Spinoza claims, on the other hand, that Godot is not what we thought, and meaning is not where we thought it was. We don't need to accept the tedium and meaninglessness of godless and horrid existence. On the contrary, we need to reconsider what God, meaning, and existence are.</span><br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="mattwion";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-32233507066063742452012-04-02T15:10:00.000-05:002012-04-02T18:50:20.088-05:00A Den of Thieves - The Real Meaning of Jesus in the Temple<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxCnH3wmj8u-2AicgPSyP_4AK2oIFIen-tvFgwf4xHl0UnvXKWxdyc06KQauQ7JEYqLhFF50pszxNawP3oskPxJjXnIpWjQi0XomAW7jNVptN-T5PO7zzAE8afBE5BQd7wyXotB_4r_o/s1600/Jesus+in+the+Temple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxCnH3wmj8u-2AicgPSyP_4AK2oIFIen-tvFgwf4xHl0UnvXKWxdyc06KQauQ7JEYqLhFF50pszxNawP3oskPxJjXnIpWjQi0XomAW7jNVptN-T5PO7zzAE8afBE5BQd7wyXotB_4r_o/s320/Jesus+in+the+Temple.jpg" width="275" /></a><span style="background-color: black;">In the schedule of Holy Week, Monday is the day that Jesus "Cleansed the Temple." For those who don't quite recall the details of that event, here is the incident as described by the earliest gospel Mark:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers. (</span><span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">11: 15-17</span><span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">)</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">There is a long-standing, but misleading, tradition that sees Jesus as acting out of anger. On this view, he is angry that commerce is defiling the Holy Temple. Scholarship has largely discredited this common misreading of Jesus' action in the Temple. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">Rather than throwing a "temple tantrum," Jesus is acting out a deliberate demonstration against the temple and its authorities. The commerce performed by the merchants was necessary in order to keep up the sacrifices. You had to change impure Greek and Roman coinage for pure Temple coins. This was a legitimate and proper function for Temple sacrifice. The temple could not work without these merchants. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">In other words, by tossing over the tables of the money changers and prohibiting entrance to the temple (this would have had no real effect, given the temple's size. It is a symbolic protest), Jesus is symbolically destroying the Temple. His actions indicate that it's function is invalid. Jesus, acting in the name of the God of Israel, declares by his deeds that the temple and the authorities running it are null and void. They do not speak for God. They do not have legitmate status in the God of Israel's eyes.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">But why would Jesus do this?</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">The Temple authorities were the native ruling elites who made a fortune by cooperating with Roman rule and power. As such, they profited by helping Rome exploit and demean the Jewish peasantry. In particular, Roman commericial agriculture robbed many Jewish peasants of their land, and pushed far too many people to the margins of society and beyond. Roman rule defied the Torah's notion of land ownership, and the distributive justice of the Jewish God. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">For many Jewish peasants, the Priests and the Temple, no longer represented the Jewish God of justice, but rather his opposite, the gentile overlords who harmed the great majority of Jewish Peasants.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">So in the name of the Jewish God of liberty and justice, Jesus condemns the Temple and its leaderships. He declares that far from speaking for the God of Israel, they speak against him; as do their Roman masters.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">The meaning of Jesus' Temple actions was not lost on the Temple leaders, nor on Pilate. They quickly arrested him and crucified him. They got the message and promptly tried to destroy the messenger.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">It is clear to me that those of us who follow Jesus today must do as he did. We must stand against the power structures in our own society that, like the Roman Empire of old, exploit the masses of the population <i>in order to benefit the wealth and power of a narrow few</i>. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;">For me that means we need to involve ourselves in Occupy Wall Street. This, in the United States today, is the true democratic movement (or at least has the potential to be) of our times. The 99% movement identifies the real problem, Plutocracy and Corporate power, calls it out, and seeks to find solutions to it. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /><span style="background-color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: black;">Let's do as Jesus did: let's toss the money lenders from the Temple and condemn the "den of thieves" for the crooks they are.</span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: black; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blogitemurl><span style="background-color: black;">
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="mattwion";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0px currentColor;" width="125" /></a></span><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-15278858991384820632012-03-27T18:11:00.000-05:002012-03-28T00:43:53.643-05:00American Individualism: That Dangerous Delusion<a href="http://www.freemooviesonline.com/images/stories/cinema/actors/john-wayne/john_wayne.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.freemooviesonline.com/images/stories/cinema/actors/john-wayne/john_wayne.jpg" width="163" /></a>I begin this post with two discussions. First a discussion between a group of mothers who don't vaccinate their children and a Public Health official (watch it from 45 seconds to 3:56) :<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/bxLNPOgY0Ho?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
The assumption that these mother's make is that whether or not they choose to vaccinate their children is their decision alone. The possible health risks to unvaccinated, at risk groups are irrelevant - in their minds - to that decision. They either refuse to believe that there are such risks, or refuse to believe that they have a responsibility to take these risks into account. Thinking in terms of the individual <i>apart from the community</i>, these mothers insist that their responsibility is to themselves and their children alone; others are, presumably, responsible solely for themselves in the same manner.<br />
<br />
The Public health official protests that when we affect the community, we cannot help but affect ourselves. If we introduce illness into our society, our own risk of illness increases as well. If we don't help take care of each other, we cannot even take care of ourselves.<br />
<br />
The second discussion I heard today on NPR. The Supreme court is currently discussing the Constitutionality of "Obamacare." Specifically, the court is hearing arguments to rule on whether the individual mandate - which requires Americans to buy insurance or pay a fee - is permissible according to the Constitution. Whatever the fate of that particular position, some of the arguments against it put forward by the conservative Justices have a particular flavor. Listen to the following:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149480694/health-care-mandate-at-issue-at-supreme-court">NPR: Health Care Mandate before Supreme Court</a><br />
<br />
And this:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149480696/supporters-opponents-of-health-law-weigh-in">NPR: For and Against the Health Care Mandate</a><br />
<br />
Just as the mothers did in the first clip, the Justices appeal to the individual first and foremost. The claim is that we cannot require this or that individual to "bear the costs" of other individuals, and that to do so eliminates (or at least greatly diminishes) their freedom of choice.<br />
<br />
The opposition to these Justices argues in much the same vein as the Public Health Official in the Vaccine discussion did. Health care decisions never affect me solely as an individual, what happens to me directly affects what happens to others. If I don't get health insurance, and I am rushed to the ER for a heart attack, the hospital must treat me. When I can't pay, they must raise prices, insurance responds by raising premiums, and State Governments by raising taxes. To think of health insurance as nothing but an individual choice without any communal impact is not only naive, but entirely fails to consider the facts.<br />
<br />
Behind the reaction of both the Justices and the mothers is the myth of the self-made individual. The myth holds, in spite of common sense, that whatever happens to me in life is the result primarily (perhaps even solely) of my own effort and achievement. If I get sick, that's my fault. If I'm not rich, I did not work hard enough. If I lose my home, can't afford chemotherapy, or find myself buried in debt, then I have no one to blame but me. Even worse, this myth seems clearly to advocate the position that the responsibility I have to others is negative; that is, I must not steal from them, murder them, or physically assault them, but <i>I owe them nothing more than that</i>.<br />
<br />
The myth of the self-made individual is sheer nonsense.<br />
<br />
We all owe a great debt to others for who we are and what we have achieved. We were taught to walk, talk, and even use the toilet by parents (or some caretaker). We were taught to read, write, and do arithmetic by teachers. Our character, personality, loves, likes, hates, preferences, values, and even our talents, are shaped to large degree by coaches, employers, coworkers, teammates, friends, lovers, and even casual acquaintanceships. <br />
<br />
We are who we are because we are related to and interconnected with other people, other members of our communities.<br />
<br />
But it's more than that. We are not little islands roving about an vast expanse of sea. What we do affects our society, and that society affects us. If we support policies that cut funding to education, cut aid to those living in poverty, dump people into prison for non-violent crimes, and fail to acknowledge the divisions of race and class that rip our society asunder, then we will be hurt by living in a less content, more violent, and less cooperative society. What we do or fail to do for our society, we do or fail to do for ourselves.<br />
<br />
In economics the myth of the self-made individual is all too well known. Many of the super rich and their supporters argue that they must not be taxed at higher rates than the rest of us. They claim that to do so is nothing short of stealing what they rightly own.<br />
<br />
Behind this idea is the assumption that wealthy people are solely responsible for their wealth. The help and assistance that they have received from others is marginal and negligible. They see themselves as "self-made" heroes whose hard work and intelligence has earned them their success.<br />
<br />
The fact that many of these so-called "self-made" individuals were born wealthy, received government loans, grants, and other funding, use public roads, rely on employees who are publicly educated, depend on consumer protection laws, police, fire fighters, and other public services is not taken into account.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, that how much money one earns depends on arbitrary factors - like being born with certain natural talents rather than others, being born in a time period in which one's talents pay off, and having one's talents, somewhat randomly favored by society - is never recognized by these self-professed heroes and their allies.<br />
<br />
That a professional athlete, or a hedge fund manager, is paid so much more than an elementary school teacher, or a nurse, is simply a matter of the way society structures its economy; not a result of how hard these individuals work, or the result of some moral worth or inherent greatness that they posses.<br />
<br />
We have to start thinking of ourselves as related to others, not merely encountering them like passing ships in the night. We are a community, not a collection of atomistic egos. What we do or fail to do for the broader society, we do or fail to do for ourselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blogitemurl>
<script type="text/javascript">
var addthis_pub="mattwion";
</script>
<a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20"><img alt="Bookmark and Share" height="16" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" style="border: 0;" width="125" /></a><script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-65848575126964922702012-03-23T20:37:00.003-05:002012-03-23T20:52:20.636-05:00Justice for Trayvon Martin<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi222ktgt9zyaN1nAxh_0CKQvBeMLiFAnOWn8DTpMC5vD1CJ_k_32dkb-dqZcdsbFOzQEX58q64vNBcWcIt6d7WcHM4vjRK38OqrrvxUDNCEsfg-ujaHzwZeKBhZnF_RJCQRXRUJSksiCw/s1600/Tribute+to+Trayvon.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 182px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi222ktgt9zyaN1nAxh_0CKQvBeMLiFAnOWn8DTpMC5vD1CJ_k_32dkb-dqZcdsbFOzQEX58q64vNBcWcIt6d7WcHM4vjRK38OqrrvxUDNCEsfg-ujaHzwZeKBhZnF_RJCQRXRUJSksiCw/s200/Tribute+to+Trayvon.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723275215381230946" /></a><div>This Picture of me in a hoodie is my expression of Solidarity with the family of tragically slain teen Trayvon Martin. Many of us in America support justice for this poor kid and our hearts go out to his family. All too often young black men are killed because of "mistaken identity" or just plain racism, and it is shamefully common for their killers to escape any punishment for their crimes.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you don't yet know much about the tragic murder of Trayvon Martin, Here is the tragic tale as reported by <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained#obamatrayvon">Mother Jones Magazine</a> (if you click on the <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained#obamatrayvon">link</a> you can see updates, comments, video and audio):</div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; "></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">On the evening of February 26, Trayvon Martin—an unarmed 17-year-old African American student—was confronted, shot, and killed near his home by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime. Since Martin's death and the revelation of more details, the case has drawn national outcry and sparked hot debate over racial tensions, vigilantism, police practices, and gun laws.</span></div><div><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; "><strong>What happened to Trayvon?</strong></p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">Martin, a Miami native, was visiting his father in Sanford and watching the NBA All-Star game at a house in a gated Sanford community, the Retreat at Twin Lakes. At halftime, Martin <a target="_blank" href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html">walked out to the nearby 7-Eleven</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span> to get some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea. On his return trip, he drew the attention of Zimmerman, who was patrolling the neighborhood in a sport-utility vehicle and called 911 to report "a real suspicious guy."</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin."This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something," Zimmerman told the dispatcher. "It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about." The man tried to explain where he was. "Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male...Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is...These assholes, they always get away."</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: "Yep."</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher warned.</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">Several minutes later, according to other callers to 911 in the neighborhood, Zimmerman and Martin got into a wrestling match on the ground. One of the pair could be heard screaming for help. Then a single shot rang out, and Martin lay dead.</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; "><strong>Are the 911 recordings available to the public?</strong></p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; ">Yes. After public pressure, the city of Sanford played the tapes for Martin's family, then released the audio recordings. Here are some excerpts. You can also <a href="http://motherjones.com/print/168136#transcript">read a full transcript</a> of George Zimmerman's initial police call here, along with <a href="http://motherjones.com/print/168136#transcript">an examination</a> of whether he used a racial epithet, as some listeners have suggested.</p><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; "></p><p><strong>What happened to the shooter?</strong></p><p>So far, not much. Zimmerman told police he'd acted in self-defense. ABC News <a target="_blank" href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watchman-allegedly-shot-trayvon-martin-wanted-cop/story?id=15949879#.T2Zp8czBp7w">reports</a> <span class="print-footnote">[8]</span> that he had wanted to be a police officer, and Sanford police didn't test him for drugs or alcohol after the shooting (such tests are standard practice in homicide investigations). He was licensed to carry his gun, and police <a target="_blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html">initially told Martin's father</a> <span class="print-footnote">[9]</span> that they hadn't pressed charges because Zimmerman was a criminal justice student with a "squeaky clean" record.</p><p>That wasn't entirely true, however; in 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for "resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer"; those charges were dropped. Media investigations and Martin family attorneys <a target="_blank" href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html">suggest</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span> that Zimmerman was a vigilante with "a false sense of authority" in search of young black men in his neighborhood. Police records show Zimmerman had <a target="_blank" href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html">called 911 a total of 46 times</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span> between Jan. 1 and the day he shot Martin. (Florida <a target="_blank" href="http://t.co/FedlXnOI">guidelines for licensed gun owners</a> <span class="print-footnote">[10]</span> state: "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman.")</p><p id="selfdefense"><strong>How are Florida's self-defense and "stand your ground" laws key to this case?</strong></p><p>Zimmerman may have benefited from some of the broadest firearms and self-defense regulations in the nation. In 1987, then-Gov. Bob Martinez (R) signed Florida's concealed-carry provision into law, which "liberalized the restrictions that previously hindered the citizens of Florida from obtaining concealed weapons permits," according to one legal analyst. This trendsetting "<a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Shall-Issue">shall-issue</a> <span class="print-footnote">[11]</span>" statute <a target="_blank" href="http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/shallissue.htm">triggered a wave</a> <span class="print-footnote">[12]</span> of gun-carry laws in other states. (Critics <a target="_blank" href="http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-10-09/news/8703180616_1_loophole-gun-control-rep-ron-johnson">said at the time</a> <span class="print-footnote">[13]</span> that Florida would become "Dodge City.") Permit holders are also <a target="_blank" href="http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/1FD9FA19654DE447852562B500639CAB">exempted from the mandatory state waiting period</a> <span class="print-footnote">[14]</span> on handgun purchases.</p><p>Even though felons and other violent offenders are barred from getting a weapons permit, a 2007 <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-guns.storygallery,0,2214651.storygallery">investigation by the <em>South Florida Sun-Sentinel</em></a><span class="print-footnote">[15]</span> found that licenses had been mistakenly issued to 1,400 felons and hundreds more applicants with warrants, domestic abuse injunctions, or gun violations. (More than 410,000 Floridians have been issued concealed weapons permits.) Since then, Florida also <a target="_blank" href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/10/m1a_xgr_guns_0410.html">passed a law</a> <span class="print-footnote">[16]</span> permitting residents to keep guns in their cars at work, against employers' wishes. The state also nearly allowed guns on college campuses last year, until an influential Republican lawmaker <a target="_blank" href="http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/University-Security/News/2011/03/11/Plan-for-Campus-Open-Carry-Removed-From-Fla-Gun-Bill.aspx">fought the bill</a> <span class="print-footnote">[17]</span> after his close friend's daughter was killed by an AK-47 brandished at a Florida State University fraternity party.</p><p>Florida also makes it easy to plead self-defense in a killing. Under then-Gov. Jeb Bush, the state in 2005 passed a broad "<a target="_blank" href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-qanda-trayvon-martin-shooting-20120317_1_law-enforcement-castle-doctrine-deadly-force">stand your ground</a> <span class="print-footnote">[18]</span>" law, which allows Florida residents to use deadly force against a threat without attempting to back down from the situation. (More stringent self-defense laws state that gun owners have "a duty to retreat" before resorting to killing.) In championing the law, former NRA president and longtime Florida gun lobbyist Marion Hammer <a target="_blank" href="http://www.dominionofnewyork.com/2012/03/18/floridas-shoot-first-law-how-george-zimmerman-claims-self-defense/#.T2Y2TszBp7w">said</a> <span class="print-footnote">[19]</span>: "Through time, in this country, what I like to call bleeding-heart criminal coddlers want you to give a criminal an even break, so that when you're attacked, you're supposed to turn around and run, rather than standing your ground and protecting yourself and your family and your property."</p><p></p></div></blockquote><div><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: 29px; text-align: -webkit-auto; font-size: medium; "></p><p></p><p>As <a href="http://mhpshow.msnbc.msn.com/">Melissa Harris-Perry</a> has noted this kind of <a href="http://mhpshow.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10757742-at-least-we-can-remember-their-names">tragic killing of young black men</a> is all too common. And sadly, it is almost equally as common that their killers go unpunished. This is simply intolerable. We have to take a stand and stop this. Let's make the world a more just place, let's fight to end tragedies like that of Trayvon Martion</p></div><div><br /></div><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-62248700240942177552012-03-21T11:43:00.002-05:002012-03-21T11:45:22.819-05:00Sign the Petition to Forgive Student Loan DebtThe Following email explains it all and tells you where to sign the petition. This is a crucial issue. Student loan debt is unfair and crippling. Something must be done to protect education as a public good!<br /><blockquote>Since 1980, average tuition for a 4-year college education has increased an astounding 827%. Since 1999, average student loan debt has increased by a shameful 511%.<br /><br />In 2010, total outstanding student loan debt exceeded total outstanding credit card debt in America for the first time ever. In 2012, total outstanding student loan debt is expected to exceed $1 Trillion.<br /><br />In short, student loan debt has become the latest financial crisis in America and, if we do absolutely nothing, the entire economy will eventually come crashing down again, just as it did when the housing bubble popped. Reasonable minds can disagree as to the solutions, they cannot, however, disagree on the existence of this ever-growing crisis, as well as the unsustainable course we're on towards financial oblivion.<br /><br />As a result of more than 30 years of treating higher education as an individual commodity, rather than a public good and an investment in our collective future, those burie d under the weight of their student loan debt are not buying homes or cars, not starting businesses or families, and they're not investing, inventing, innovating or otherwise engaged in any of the economically stimulative activities that we need all Americans to be engaged in if we're ever to dig ourselves out of the giant hole created by the greed of those at the very top.<br /><br />Now for the good news: there's finally hope on the horizon! Representative Hansen Clarke of Michigan has just introduced H.R. 4170, the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, in the House of Representatives - legislation designed to lend a helping hand to those struggling under massive amounts of student loan debt.<br /><br />For a brief summary of H.R. 4170's main provisions, please copy & paste this URL into your browser: http://tinyurl.com/7akydbk<br /><br />To read the full version of the actual bill itself, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/6txure8<br /><br />To read answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/8xh4csd<br /><br />Student loan debt has an undeniable and significant suppressive effect on economic growth. The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 directly addresses this enormous boot on the neck of the middle class and represents a glimmer of hope for millions of Americans who, with each passing day, find that the American Dream is more and more out of reach.<br /><br />Therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully request that Congress bring H.R. 4170, the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, up for consideration and commit to holding a straight, up-or-down vote on it this year. Thereafter, we, the undersigned, respectfully request that President Obama sign this legislation into law.<br /><br />That's why I signed a petition to Rep. John Kline (MN-2), The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:<br /><br />"Total outstanding student loan debt in America is expected to exceed $1 TRILLION this year. Millions of hardworking, taxpaying, educated Americans are being crushed under the weight of their educational debts, while the economy continues to sputter. Support a REAL economic stimulus and jobs plan. Support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 (H.R. 4170)."<br /><br />Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:<br /><br />http://signon.org/sign/support-the-student-loan?source=s.fwd&r_by=3447221<br /><br />Thanks! </blockquote><br /><br /><br /><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-86204406543416952512012-03-11T23:47:00.005-05:002012-03-12T00:59:06.017-05:00Morals, Taxes, and the Welfare State<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">There are two primary types of arguments offered to support the Right-Wing agenda of deregulation, cuts to social welfare programs, and tax cuts for the wealthy. The first type of argument is consequentialist. Advocates of this approach claim that cutting taxes on the wealthy, deregulating markets, and slashing social welfare programs are better for everyone. These moves will, they argue, make us all wealthier. </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">This is line of argument is absolutely false. <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph">The empirical data</a> is unequivocal: the Right-Wing economic agenda benefits the very wealthy only. Wealth never trickles down, deregulation never helps main street, cuts to social welfare programs never help the unemployed and working poor. These policies have been implemented since the late 1970s, and all that has happened is that poverty has increased, middle class and working people have seen no rise in income, but have lost their pensions, their health insurance, and become buried in debt. Fewer and fewer people can own a home, send their kids to college, or pay their medical bills. </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">The consequentialist arguments are demonstrably, empirically, and indubitably wrong.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">The second kind of argument is a moral one. The following video clip of Fox News' Stuart Varney provides a good example: </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1lvVuj_rakU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>According to Varney and those who think like him, it is immoral to take more from the rich. They are entitled to what they have earned, and they are better off than the rest of us because they "worked harder" and "made themselves." </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>There are several problems with this type of argument:</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>1) The wealthy have not, as a class, worked harder than anyone else. That's just plain false. Working class people often work themselves to exhaustion and even death, and wealthy people sometimes can go years without breaking a sweat. No economic class, as a group, is divided from others on the basis of how hard they have worked. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>2) There are no self-made individuals. In point of fact, there is a great deal of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/166574/challenging-self-made-myth">empirical evidence</a> that persuasively demonstrates that, in nearly every case, the very wealthy have become so with the help of (a) being born and raised with wealth and privilege and (b) the assistance of government services and subsidies - usually more so than the rest of us. Or, as Elizabeth Warren nicely sums up in the following video:</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hOyDR2b71ag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Finally, 3), as <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/">John Rawls persuasively argues</a>, to claim that one morally deserves X one must demonstrate that one has earned X chiefly through one's own moral or individual efforts. But this is simply not possible in the case of wealth. How much personal wealth one accrues depends on a number of arbitrary factors. First, and most importantly, wealth is often a mere accident of birth, some of us are born more or less fortunate than others. Second, often our income level is determined by our natural talents. But, although we can develop these, we cannot create them. If I do not have a talent that can earn me a great deal of money, then I will not earn a great deal of money. Third, which talents pay best is based on the arbitrary preferences of society. In our society talk show hosts and professional athletes make millions, whereas school teachers make, on average, 43,000 a year. Does a talk show host, say Oprah Winfrey, deserve to be extremely wealthy in some moral sense that a teacher does not? Hardly. The difference between her wealth and theirs depends on the arbitrary whim of society. It is, therefore, not reasonable to claim that the wealthy are morally wronged if they are taxed at higher rates than those who earn less.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>The moral arguments for the Right-Wing agenda fail, just as the consequentialist arguments did. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Now turning from the Right-Wing agenda to the Progressive one, can a good case be made for the Progressive agenda of high taxes on the wealthy, strong social safety nets, and powerful government spending on the public good? Yes they can.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>On consequentialist grounds the Progressive agenda is clearly a good idea. Imagine the reduction in crime if far fewer Americans lived in poverty, were well-educated, had good jobs, nice retirement plans, and access to affordable quality health care! Imagine how much better the United States would compete in the world if our schools were properly funded - not to mention the moral satisfaction in being sure that our society provides for those who are suffering, who are down and out. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Furthermore, the most prosperous time in our nation's history was the period after WWII into the mid to late 70s. <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/5993482080">During that time</a> our income inequality was at it's lowest, unions were at their strongest, regulations at their most intense, and taxes on the wealthiest 1% of income earners was never below 70%. Coincidence? If so, then explain the fact that this boom did not exist before these policies, and failed to exist afterward. Explain the occurrence of <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/european-crisis-realities/">the same trends in Europe</a>.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>More importantly, however, is the moral case for a strong welfare state. As a society we need food stamps and unemployment insurance for those who are poor, health care for all, good public schools, good public roads, parks, libraries, and community centers. We need all of these because our society is a healthier, happier, safer, and much better place when we have them in all their strength. Even those who are wealthy enough to get by with their private schools, gated communities, and personal Islands, are safer and more secure in a society where those around them benefit from good social services and programs.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Consider an analogy: Vaccines prevent deadly diseases. Not everyone, however, can be vaccinated for every disease. The elderly, the very young, some people with chronic illness or disabilities, cannot take certain vaccines. In a population where the vast majority of people are vaccinated, this is not a problem. Those who cannot be vaccinated are protected by what is known as herd immunity. Because so many people are vaccinated, the feared disease cannot enter the population and the unvaccinated persons are safe. Having myself or my child vaccinated, in other words, is not merely of benefit to me and my child, but is a public good, from which we all benefit. A community without measles or polio is much better off than a community with these dangers. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Unfortunately an increasing number of parents refuse to vaccinate their children. These parents fear that vaccines are dangerous and may even cause autism. Science has <a href="http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html">conclusively refuted</a> these fears. Many parents, however, refuse to believe the scientific community and don't vaccinate any way. The result is that diseases like whooping cough and measles have returned. The unvaccinated have suffered because of this, often even dying as a result.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>The Right-Wing agenda for economics is as irrational and as dangerous as parents who won't vaccinate their children. Because an increasing number of Americans have come to believe over the last 35 years or so <i>- in spite of the empirical facts! - </i>that the wealthy both morally deserve all their wealth and will benefit the rest of us by keeping it (and getting more), we have seen our social welfare programs slashed, our public services eviscerated, our social contract torn to shreds. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>The result is a less educated, less secure, less healthy, more impoverished, and increasingly divided society. This is a recipe for total disaster that can, in the end, finish only with widespread rebellion, despair, and disaster.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>We must now either wake up to the failure of the Right-Wing economic agenda, or watch things get much worse. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><blogitemurl style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-46984398306046032992012-02-28T18:27:00.009-06:002012-02-29T01:19:07.666-06:00Feminism is not a dirty word<a href="http://themantruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Feminism.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 271px; height: 300px;" src="http://themantruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Feminism.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; "><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>The victories of the women's movement have caused many to question whether it is still needed. So great is the skepticism for its continued role that "feminism" has become a dirty word. Feminist are generally portrayed and ridiculed as "man haters," "feminazis," and "ideologues." This is an unfortunate and inaccurate caricature.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>A feminist is committed to the following three claims: 1) women and men ought to be moral, political, social, and economic equals, 2) societal perspectives, institutions, and power structures have and continue to prevent full equality of men and women, at the expense of women (patriarchy), and, 3) justice requires that we work to change the patriarchal systems that place women in a position below men. Other than a broad commitment to justice for all people and activism to ensure it, one need believe nothing in addition to these three claims to be a feminist. When that is understood, can anyone not say that feminism is correct? Bell Hooks is right "feminism is for everybody."</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>Recent events make it all the more necessary for those of us who truly believe in working for a world in which men and women are really equal. The time has come to proudly reclaim the feminist label.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>Some extremists on the right wing of the political divide are waging a kind of war on the rights and dignity of women. Angry Catholic Bishops shout out that they will not pay for birth control. All male panels testify to congress about their "religious freedom" - the freedom to refuse to cover women's family planning!. Republicans in a number of states attempt to force pregnant women to undergo a transvaginal ultra-sound if they want an abortion; even if the woman was raped!</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>If all this were not bad enough, when women and those of us who love them protest these draconian measures as disregarding women's rights, </span></span></span><a href="http://http//www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/17/146999566/santorum-backer-friess-praises-old-school-contraceptive-aspirin" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>we have people respond that women should just put aspirin</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>between their knees like the good old days! Meaning, sadly, that if women don't want to get pregnant they should just never have sex. Even worse, some clueless pundits, with more contempt for women than brains, claim that transvaginal ultra-sounds cannot be invasive since </span></span></span><a href="http://http//www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/02/19/rape-is-what-again-now/" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>"they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy."</span></span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>This is all familiar right wing moral fanaticism. It's nothing more than a way of attempting to control women by implying that they are "sluts" and "deserve it" if they have an unwanted pregnancy. It's nonsense. But the fact that so many still think and speak this way is proof that feminism is very much still needed.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>But what of those who reject the puritanical moralism of the right? What of those who fancy themselves free, open, and non-censorious about sexual mores? Unfortunately many of these types are no better. Not only is there a massive market for Internet porn that overwhelming </span></span></span><a href="http://http//www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socialistreview.org.uk%2Farticle.php%3Farticlenumber%3D9817&ei=XnVNT9_-FoXChAedmqjwDw&usg=AFQjCNHIMncbRunnG4omGvojkYfVr_YdhQ&sig2=GNsvdHYoTCgDf-rwsFDLLg" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>portrays women as violently dominated by men</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>but "shock jocks" like Howard Stern, whose entire career is almost nothing but demeaning and insulting women, are more popular than ever.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>To take a very </span></span></span><a href="http://http//www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Flive-feed%2Fthe-voice-adam-levine-howard-stern-christina-aguilera-294909&ei=anZNT9eRHoW0hAf1moHUAQ&usg=AFQjCNG7R7Q0pr2i_do8UWqFjcnK3N1kgg&sig2=p9PDiTFaS1pwaeMZtpZzsg" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>recent example</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>, Stern spent a large segment of an interview with Adam Levine, trying to figure out why Christina Aguilera has gained weight. He lamented the fact that she was no longer "hot" and called her "plus sized," clearly repulsed by the Cuvier-than-before pop star. Aguilera is a beautiful and talented woman, and it serves Stern's misogynistic purposes to try and put her down so crudely ... not to mention the ongoing image problems and eating disorders among women that he and his brood revel in.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>The moral of the story is simple. We do not live in a world where women are fully equal with men. We should, but we don't. Patriarchy is working, much more overtly recently, not only to keep women down, but to push them back.</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><span><span>The women's movement must fight on!</span></span></span></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; "><img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" alt="Bookmark and Share" src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" /></a><br /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-66197249371659767492012-02-19T12:29:00.003-06:002012-02-19T12:36:14.621-06:00Sign the Petition to overturn Citizens United<div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><a href="http://sanders.senate.gov/savingdemocracy" target="_blank"><img src="http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/image/SADANEWsquare.jpg" alt="Sign the Petition" width="200" height="200" border="0" /></a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Click on the image above to go to the petition and sign it. Watch the video of Sen Sanders below if you are not sure why you should</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G9qZZVqSQdo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><div><br /></div><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-84202826494883346202012-02-10T01:36:00.004-06:002012-02-10T03:25:47.026-06:00The Truth about Unions and Their enemies<div>Please watch the following Episode of Fault Lines in order to understand. 1) What Unions are, 2) How they are being threatened, and 3) Why we have to fight for them:</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="433" height="220" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zpWhy5krLXk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>Milwaukee is featured prominently in this episode. I lived in Milwaukee for 7 years and I've taught there for 8. It is, as the above video notes, the 4th poorest city in the country and the second most segregated city as well. Living and working in Milwaukee I can tell you first had, the policies that have been destroying this nation for over 30 years now are on full display in all their horror in Milwaukee Wisconsin.</div><div><br /></div><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-75048539211295114302012-02-10T00:04:00.006-06:002012-02-10T03:16:31.226-06:00Bloodletting, Snake Oil, and Tax Cuts<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/images/early3.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 152px; height: 119px;" src="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/images/early3.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><div>A word about the long abandoned but even longer widely used medical treatment of Bloodletting.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to the PBS documentary Red Gold</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span><span style="font-size: 11px;"><blockquote>Phlebotomy, or bloodletting, is the longest-running tradition in medicine. It originated in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greece, persisted through the Medieval, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods, flourished in Arabic and Indian medicine, and lasted through the second Industrial Revolution. The practice continued for 2,500 years until it was replaced by the techniques of modern medicine. <span style="font-size: 8pt; ">Doctors bled patients for every ailment imaginable. They bled for pneumonia and fevers, back pain and rheumatism, headaches and melancholia; even to treat bone fractures and other wounds. Yet there never was any evidence that phlebotomy did any good.</span></blockquote></span></span> </div><div>You get the idea, a medical practice that no one had any reason to believe worked was frequently employed anyway. In fact, as everyone now knows, bleeding a sick person harms them.</div><div><br /></div><div>It seems clear now that Republican elected officials, party leaders, and pundits are modern day Bloodletters. Even worse, given the financial meltdown of 2008, they are rather like some professional Bloodletter plying his trade after the discovery of vaccines and antibiotics!</div><div><br /></div><div>Republican elected officials and pundits continue to argue that the economy can be fixed and jobs created only if we cut taxes further and deregulate markets and banks more. If we do so, they claim, the wealth will trickle down making us all well-off, employed, and living the good life.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is nothing new. The "prosperity gospel" has been the official doctrine of the right wing since the mid 1970s. What I find perplexing about this dogma, however, is that such policies have been enacted - with barely a pause or a counter policy - for 35 years. Tax cuts have never created jobs (even in the <a href="http://www.nationofchange.org/did-reagan-raise-taxes-let-gop-candidates-answer-1325952790">Reagan era jobs were only created by Tax raises</a>) and never boosted the economy.</div><div><br /></div><div>The wealth has not trickled down. In fact, <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph">as all data shows</a> only the super rich (the 1%) have benefited from these policies. The rest of us have lost our homes and our retirements, seen our health care costs soar, our policies cover less, our personal debt explode, and our incomes stagnate or even decrease. Don't believe me? Just look at the following chart:</div><div><br /></div><div><img src="https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif" /></div><div><br /></div><div>If you still have doubts, read the information on income inequality gathered <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph">here</a> and <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/mind-blowing-charts-senates-income-inequity-hearing">here</a>. The data is absolutely clear and perfectly comprehensible: The rich gain, everyone else loses. The most dramatic deregulation and tax cuts in our history (the Bush Tax cuts, and the repeal - under Clinton - of Glass-Steagall) far from fixing, preventing, or even alleviating this trend have caused the greatest economic and job crisis since the great depression. </div><div><br /></div><div>And, no surprise here, the last time the super wealthy had taxes this low was the roaring 20s. Take a look at one more chart and see it for yourself:</div><div><br /></div><div><img src="https://motherjones.com/files/images/income_inequality_redo.png" /></div><div><br /></div><div>Low tax rates combined with minimal regulation right before the great depression. The exact same combination leading up to 2oo8. Mere correlation? Both in the 20s and the decades leading up to 2008? Not likely. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ok. I can hear some right leaning readers refusing to believe me. So one last bit of evidence. Watch the Following episode of Fault Lines (Aljazerra News) on the top 1%:</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="335" height="170" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XdVODFombco" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>And some people think - or at least <i>claim</i> to think - that more of these same policies will fix things!!!???</div><div><br /></div><div>Either these folks are modern day Bloodletters or modern day <a href="http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/snake-oil-salesman/">snake-oil salesmen</a>. Take your pick.</div><blogitemurl><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-63926572780384331672012-02-09T00:33:00.017-06:002012-02-09T01:50:44.499-06:00Climate Skeptics Peddle Fallacies as Science<div><span>Recently the <i>Wall Street Journal </i>(WSJ) came out with <span><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html">an article</a> "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," </span>claiming that "distinguished scientists" have concluded that Global Warming isn't really happening after all.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Filled with fallacy heaped upon fallacy, this op-ed piece has the intellectual horse-power of "My Little Pony". Take, for instance, the claim that:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><blockquote>The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.</blockquote></span></div><div><span>Since no climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is a pollutant or that the mere presence of CO2 causes Global Warming, this argument is what is called, in logic, a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html">straw man</a>.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>The actual <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/21/2011-climate-change-in-pictures-and-data-just-the-facts/">science of Global warming</a> is pretty basic, but vastly different then this sad parody. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Just watch the following video, it makes pretty clear how Global Warming actually works:</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><iframe width="400" height="271" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oJAbATJCugs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Even worse, these "scientists" rest their main argument for denying that human-produced Climate Change is real on their (false) claim that the planet has not warmed over the last ten years at the rate that Global warming advocates had predicted.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>This argument commits no obvious fallacy. Unfortunately for these skeptics, it contains more rubbish then your local dump. To begin with, that Climate Change is real, caused by human activity, and poses a serious threat does not require some specific set of exact temperature predictions for each decade. And it does not appear that many climate scientists make such exact predictions. But even more damning for the deniers is the following: In a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket">rebuttle to the original op-ed,</a> a group of top rate climate experts reply to this absurdity as follows:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><blockquote>Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.</blockquote></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Finally, when one claims that "experts" are arguing a position. One should probably use genuine experts. According to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">Media Matters</a> of the 16 "experts" who pinned the original denier op-ed piece:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span><blockquote> <p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.21in; "> <span><span><span style="font-size: 9pt">no more than 4 have published peer-reviewed research related to climate change, according to the Scopus database. While they may be prominent in their own fields, their credibility on the science of global warming is not comparable to that of researchers who specialize in this area. For instance, Jan Breslow is a physician, Burt Rutan is a retired airplane designer, Harrison Schmitt is a retired astronaut and former Republican politician, and Edward David is a retired electrical engineer, among others whose expertise lies elsewhere.</span></span></span></p></blockquote></div><div><span><span style="line-height: 20px;">Even more disturbing, the lead name on this list, and ringleader of the pack of "concerned scientists," is one <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/">Claude Allegre</a> a well-known fraud and hack who has published no peer reviewed papers refuting androgenic climate change.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="line-height: 20px;">"No need to Panic," also bristles with the kind of rhetoric and paranoia typical of pseudo-science: Allegations of conspiracy, attributing an almost superhuman power on part of the "Climate Change promoters" to silence dissent, a victim complex, and so forth. </span></span></div><div><span><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="line-height: 20px;">To return to the Rebuttle of the original op-ed referred to above:</span></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span><blockquote> <blockquote style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; line-height: 0.22in; "> <span><span><span><span><span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span></span></span></span><span><span>You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. ...Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses.</span></span><span><span><span><span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote></blockquote></div><div><span><span><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">In Short, "No Need to Panic" appeals to the false authority of faux-experts regarding Climate Change, makes use of factually incorrect statements and fallacious arguments to claim that what the overwhelming majority of true experts in the field assert to be fact, and even explains their consensus as the product of a "conspiracy;" it fails on every level.</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><span><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></span></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048405844159177205.post-61365011691968275832012-01-29T23:19:00.007-06:002012-02-10T03:17:00.284-06:00King John Economics<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/John_of_England_(John_Lackland).jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 345px; height: 568px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/John_of_England_(John_Lackland).jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br /></a><div><div>According to many versions of the Robin Hood legend, King John was in the habit of taking all of the peasants' Meager resources for his own ends. The very epitome of injustice, the vile king legalized robbery and forced the peasants into misery. He did all of this simply to make himself even wealthier than he already was.</div><div><br /></div><div>The contemporary United States is clearly following the King John Model of Economics. We have created a system that enables a very small few to become obscenely wealthy <i>as the direct result </i>of policies that harm a great many of the rest of us.</div><div><br /></div>Before addressing that injustice,however, we all must agree on indisputable facts. First among those facts is the massive inequality in our present American economic system.<div><br /></div><div>To see just how unequal our system is consider the following chart from <a href="http://billmoyers.com/content/chapter-one-of-winner-take-all-politics/">Bill Moyers web page</a>:</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><img src="http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/figure2.gif" /><br /><br />The obvious thing to notice is that most American's incomes have not changed much over the last 30 years. The top 1%, however, has seen a massive explosion in their wealth. This is not, furthermore, a bit of good luck or hard work. The top 1% has profited directly from changes in public policy. Their taxes have been cut, slashed, dropped, and cut again ... they now pay but a fraction in taxes compared to what they did in the 1970s. Furthermore, the top 1%, consisting of largely financial industry fat cats, has made a bundle on deregulation of the banking industry. Many more examples could be cited, but you get the point: public policies have, almost without exception been geared to favor the extremely wealthy. The system has been rigged to make the richest among us even richer. </div><div><br /></div><div>The primary defense of such a system is that allowing the top 1% so much wealth is better for all of us. It is claimed that all that wealth will eventually trickle down and find it's way into all our pockets. If the wealthy have more money, they will create more jobs, and invest in building communities. (another possible defense is to claim that it is unfair to tax the wealthy any more than we do. I have addressed this objection in another blog post, read it <a href="http://mattwion.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-we-must-raise-taxes-on-wealthy.html">here</a>)</div><div><br /></div><div>But we have had these tax slashing, deregulating policies for over thirty years now. The wealth has NEVER trickled down. As the above chart shows, only the wealthy have seen their wealth explode greatly, the rest of us are not particularly better off regarding our income. Nor have policies created jobs. On the contrary, The American manufacturing industry has been all but destroyed, as jobs were outsourced overseas. Communities have not been rebuilt or restored, but eviscerated. We once had small family restaurants and little local book stores. Now we have only Walmart, Starbucks, and McDonalds. Small main street cities have become ghost towns, or perhaps just Walmart storage facilities.</div><div><br /></div><div>And the cost for the 99% of us who have not benefited from the tax breaks and deregulation is that far fewer of us have health insurance, or if we do have it, it costs far more and covers much less. Not very many of us have pensions or reliable savings accounts. We are buried in debt, losing our homes, and seeing the retirement age pushed up as the amount of social security we will one day receive falls down.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is only one truly reasonable conclusion we can reach. <i>The massive profits of the 1% are the direct result of the huge losses for the 99%</i>. By scamming us in the housing markets, stealing our money in the banks, denying us needed health care, wiping out our retirement, and burying us in debt, the richest have prospered almost beyond imagination. </div><div><br /></div><div>These same wealthiest 1% drove the economy into the dust and, rather than be punished for all of the jobs they cost us, the homes they lost us, and the debt they piled on us, our government took our tax dollars and handed them over to the financial elite so they could pay bonuses and take spa days. Of course that's hardly surprising, given that our elected officials run campaigns financed by the 1%, and are thus beholden to their wealthy masters.</div><div><br /></div><div>History tells us that the nobility of King John's age forced him to sign <i>Magna Carta</i>; to share much of his power and resources with them. The would not longer suffer personal injustice for the benefit of the King alone.</div><div><br /></div><div>We are called today to force those who run our system to something far more far reaching than <i>Magna</i> <i>Carta</i>. Any system that benefits the few at the expense of the many is an unjust and immoral system. Because our system, more than most in the contemporary democratic world, greatly benefits a very few to the detriment of nearly everyone else, it is deeply unjust.</div><div><br /></div><div>In itself, this realization does not tell us what economic system is most just; importantly, however, we know that we are obligated to change the system we have.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><blogitemurl><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub="mattwion";</script><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/200/addthis_widget.js"></script><!-- AddThis Button END --></blogitemurl></div></div>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13856294228614073546noreply@blogger.com0