Category Archives: Social Discourse

What Dads Need to Teach Their Sons

May 13, 2013

I believe the family is the primary determinant for establishing order out of chaos and serving to mold the larger social realm we are all a part of. Within that context, a most critical responsibility falls upon the father to teach their sons that though their strength may be based in part on a physical advantage over the other members of the family, it is not one that should ever be used to destroy their self-esteem that is so vital for a fully productive life.

There are only a few people in this world that I can’t express any tolerance for and at the top of that short list are the men who abuse children and women. The pedophiles, the abusive boyfriend, the wife-beating husband or child-pummeling dad. I, my two other brothers and one sister were raised by a father who, though never a likely nominee for the father of the year award, never physically abused us or our mom.

Yes, there was physical discipline that he administered but often as a directive from Mom. Those quit occurring however at an early age when dad informed mom he was no longer going to be her punisher. She could issue the physical discipline herself when she deemed it necessary or not at all. As I recall, we never were “whipped” again by our father or even from mom for that matter. Other forms of discipline came into play, like groundings and household labor tasks.

Dad hated the whippings and I’m sure mom did too. They were both raised by a generation who deemed such practices as part of parenting. This was one tradition I’m glad they saw little lasting value with. There was however a more noble tradition that my parents were raised with and that was that a man never hits a woman – EVER. Not that this ugly practice didn’t still exist or that some Southern Christian men even felt it was their natural right to physically correct women who would “forget their place” in the social order of the day. But dad always viewed those men who would beat a defenseless woman as someone beneath him and I remember a conversation we had in my pre-teen years where he made this known to me. Just that once, but it stuck with me.

Role Models

As a child of the 1950’s when TV was just starting to become a common fixture in most households, most of what we became engrossed in were the movies from the 30’s and 40’s that had strong male figures who served as role models for most of us. Mine were Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda. Their masculinity always shined through in their performances but not in any overtly aggressive fashion. If the plot involved a scene where a woman struck them across the face for some offense the man had said or did, he would not retaliate in like manner.

Only the villainous character would strike a woman and if our hero was in the same room when this happened, Bart the bad guy would soon realize the mistake he had made. I identify with that reaction to this day. These on-screen examples and my dad’s own words etched in stone for me, as it did I’m sure for many of my friends growing up then, that hitting a woman is never acceptable.

In a scene from the 1939 film Dodge City, Errol Flynn offers Olivia de Havilland security with his respect for women and his six-shooter. Today however there is less respect for women and over half of the violent acts perpetrated by men against women occur with guns

So was this life-lesson lost on too many other males of my generation? Did some miss it and thus fail to pass it on to their sons? Perhaps it isn’t that there are actually more instances of women and children being battered and abused today as a result of men who were not properly raised to respect women. Perhaps we are just hearing and seeing more of this intolerable behavior because public attitudes have changed where it no longer remains behind closed doors. This and the fact that we are more exposed to such behavior through the social media sources present today could account for what seems to be an epidemic of male aggression towards women and children.

I don’t know either if there is a link between those who abuse women and children and men who were raised under some strict orthodox view about the roles of men and women. No matter what the political, philosophical and religious influences, there are examples of each where men have abused members of their family. Yet, while I am sure no man with so-called traditional values would align themselves with wife beaters and child abusers, there exists a mindset inherent with conservative males where many take offense to the role of modern women today – working outside the family and raising children by themselves – and still hold that some forms of corporal punishment are acceptable for children. The traditions of their youth where they were raised with such notions have perhaps been ingrained more permanently than others who take a broader view of social conditions today, especially as it relates to the family.

Do such men ultimately cross a line where physical abuse feels right to them? If so, did their fathers fail to instill in them as mine did for me that you never hit a woman, or worse, did their fathers themselves serve as a role model for wife beating and child abuse? Do their conservative values that fostered the notion that women are subordinate to men and sparing the rod spoils the child create a crack in that taboo wall of wife beating and child abuse? Are the ones who cross that line also victims of abuse themselves or suffer mental health issues that prevent them from controlling their actions?

I have no real sympathy for people like Ariel Castro who’s been charged with kidnapping three women in Cleveland recently, two who were teenagers at the time and held them as his personal sex slaves for 10 years. There’s that part of me that wants to see him hung by his male genitalia and die a slow death from a thousand cuts. Then there’s that part of me that knows that Castro is not normal in the head. This makes him a victim too, albeit an unsympathetic one. Sane and mentally healthy men raised in a manner as I and millions of other Americans were don’t easily fall prey to victimizing weaker people, especially women and children.

The brain is a durable organ under most of what life gives us. But when it is traumatized from physical or emotional injuries, something breaks down that no longer allows one to see their world “normally” anymore. Castro has already stated that he was an abused child but how much of this is a move by the defense and how much is real and related to what led him to do the awful thing he did to three innocent girls remains to be seen. I’d be willing to bet that he was traumatized in some way that effected a healthy brain. I’d also bet there was a father who never had that conversation with his son about respecting women and limiting any discipline to a child to things NOT physical or emotionally disturbing like, “you’ll burn in hell for that”.

I don’t know that people like Rush Limbaugh who belittles today’s modern woman the way he does is capable of caring out a heinous act like Ariel Castro. But what makes a man publicly vilify a woman for her stand on birth control and refer to her as a slut and a prostitute? Limbaugh’s audience numbers in the millions and I suspect more are men than women. Mentally healthy male listeners who tune into Limbaugh’s talk show regularly are not going to victimize women in abusive fashions from Limbaugh’s frequent femi-nazi slurs.

Limbaugh attacked Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke last year after she spoke to a congressional hearing about supporting birth control legislation in Obamacare

But what of those men who themselves suffered some early childhood trauma at the hands of their father or a step-father or a bullying uncle? Are these men who also listen to the Christian-right preachers who rail against “promiscuous women” and warn of End Times to punish a “sinful” nation. Does all of this congeal into a state of mind that pushes such unstable men over the edge and validate a notion that says they have a right to control women and children in some sick demented version of doing it for their own best interest? Is this part of the thinking of some male conservative christian legislators in those states who pass laws that do all they can to control a woman’s right to an abortion?

We Need to Change

Back in March of this year there was a rally held in Dallas supported by conservative Mayor Mike Rawlings that featured notable sports figures including Emmitt Smith and Roger Staubach along with other local male religious leaders and politicians. It was an effort to bring attention to domestic violence in Dallas where boyfriends and spouses are physically injuring and killing their lovers and wives. Such an event, something unheard of when I was a child, tells us that our sons have not undergone that right of passage where a father talks to his son about respecting women.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings on stage March 23rd of this year in front of city hall with other notable speakers calling out men to act against domestic violence in the city

In Dallas [alone] last year, 26 women were killed by their intimate partners, up from 10 the year before. The death of Karen Cox Smith—whose husband has confessed to shooting her in a parking lot in January—has become a rallying point for those hoping to reverse the trend. Mayor Mike Rawlings is a big part of that effort, becoming a high-profile advocate against domestic violence in the last few months, and urging Dallas men to speak up and take responsibility. SOURCE

The group that had been formed from this effort is called Dallas Men Against Abuse. When I went to its website and clicked on the link at the top of the page “What It takes To be a Man” I was thoroughly delighted to see at the top of the list something my dad told me fifty something years ago – “A man never hits a woman”. It’s corollary was also on that list – “A man teaches his son to respect a woman”

It’s good to have these ideals I’ve held so long validated by other men my age. And its good to see some men standing up and trying to address the issue of domestic violence. But a closer look at this group shows that they are simply “good Christian men” who appear to view wife beaters and child abusers as men who suffer a character flaw and tend to characterize such deviant behavior as “sin” rather than as a mental health problem. Nowhere on their website does it discuss addressing mental health needs of known abused children and especially young boys who were raised with no fathers or fathers who were far more absent in their lives than they were present.

This cycle of violence by men towards women and children needs the message that Dallas Men Against Abuse is advocating to help deter further abuses, but like any deviant behavior that deals in violence, we can’t merely issue a “Just Say No” proclamation and expect everything to magically disappear. There needs to be early intervention and constant support for men who show any signs of aggressive behavior in their family settings. We need to watch male children who are known victims of sexual and physical abuse and track them during their formative years to ensure that the ill-effects of their abuse doesn’t lead to more of the same in any future relationships with women.

To never hit a woman is not something imprinted in our male genes. It is a learned trait and relies heavily on being brought up in a stable family environment where the father serves as a role model who respects his wife, loves his children and doesn’t routinely fall back on uncontrolled rage when life doesn’t play out the way he wants. Our culture sends a mixed signal to many men with the media images played out in the cinema and the extremist voices on radio and TV that chastises women and children who don’t tow a strict religious interpretation of archaic scriptures. It doesn’t help either when we force women to have unwanted pregnancies and men are too often absolved of their responsibilities for a child that has ever right to be raised in a loving, stable environment.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Social Discourse Tags: Ariel Castro, child abuse, Domestic violence, fathers and sons, male role models, raising boys to respect women, real men, violence against women, wife beatings

16 comments

Why Can’t Texas Cash in on the Marijuana Bonanza?

April 18, 2013

I rail against my native state Texas for the wellspring of stupid politicians we have been seeing over the last few years but the state does have some economic benefits for its citizens. So why can’t they see the financial gold mine that other states are beginning to realize by legalizing pot?

In a depressed economy where politicians are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for vital social services and equally vital infrastructure, you would think they could get beyond outdated taboos and unreasonable fears to find the necessary resources to sustain such services. There’s a natural product out there that’s been around for centuries that suffers from this stigma. One that not only has medicinal benefits to it but when properly regulated could reduce crime and prison populations while generating revenue to put people back to work in construction and the essential public services of education, law enforcement and firefighting services.

Marijuana has long been the victim of social biases that prevents its entry into the market place along the lines that alcohol and tobacco have. The alleged “evils” of marijuana have always overshadowed its economic value. The hemp cultivated from the Cannabis plant has the ability to produce seed foods, hemp oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, pulp, and fuel.

movie poster for “Devil’s Harvest”, a 1942 film about an investigator who goes after the people who are corrupting the nation’s youth by spreading the weed of Satan–MARIJUANA!!!

There are, like any controversy, pros and cons to marijuana’s use as a euphoric substance. But before we tackle the facts and myths about marijuana lets come to terms with two arguments that hang over the use of any drug.

The Social Stigma of Marijuana

Any mind-altering chemical can impair judgement where some choices under the influence could jeopardize your health and well-being. But if the effects of the buzz that marijuana gives you was the only reason to prevent legalizing it, then alcohol and caffeine would have to be banned as well as other controlled substances (and some not so controlled) that currently make million$ for chemical and pharmaceutical companies.

There’s also the point of view that getting high in any fashion seems unnatural and thus unnecessary. Only weak-minded people want to get high, or so the argument goes. Yet natural states of high are built into our physiological system so that argument has little merit. Socially acceptable highs that don’t consist of controlled substances are the high we get from sugar and food. Getting “high on Jesus” or the high we get from winning a competitive sporting event are responses that many promote, not condemn.

There will be a propensity to induce this natural high, even by artificial means, to reduce the ill-effects of stress in today’s world where depression is reaching epidemic proportions. Alleviating excessive stress is necessary for sound health but not everyone can attain a state of nirvana through exercise and yoga therapies, not to mention the time it takes to achieve these states by using such tactics. Life styles that develop and sustain healthy diets, exercise, 7-8 hours of sleep and are filled with healthy doses of sex and genuine love for other humans, usually avoids the need for getting high from manufactured sources. But finding such ideal conditions in today’s fast-paced world has become more a thing of the past.

I don’t dispute that natural processes have advantages that unnatural measures haven’t but I am only making the point that getting high is not an innate evil and avoiding it is not necessarily something that should be done at all costs. Making marijuana illegal is not going to stop anyone who wants to try it. It does increase the risk of providing a product that has unsafe levels of THC, not to mention other toxic elements that get picked up through the less than ideal conditions of growing, harvesting and handling it from producer to consumer.

Considering the Facts

So, considering these two overarching points let’s look at the myths and facts on marijuana put out by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), that governmental agency that currently supports what most assume is the general consensus of the American people.

Myth #1: Marijuana is harmless

This is a straw man that of course can easily be knocked down but is not a myth that anyone sensible would argue. Depending on where they got their marijuana, what one’s existing health conditions are and the frequency they use it, marijuana like anything else can be harmful. Drinking too much water can be fatal. Too much Jesus and too much Mohammad can and has been fatal since the days of the Crusades. Too much food or the wrong foods can be fatal. So suggesting that proponents of legalizing marijuana are claiming that the weed is harmless is simply a red herring that ignores the caveats that apply.

One of the claims the ONDCP makes here is that the health threat is greater based on “the fact that the marijuana available today is more potent than ever”. The potency currently is regulated by drug lords whose sole aim is to make it more addictive and thus more profitable. When licensed pot dealers who are regulated by U.S. inspectors meet standards that control potency, where this is a threat, it then becomes contained. But how big of a threat is this really?

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) notes that “Although marijuana potency may have increased somewhat in recent decades, claims about enormous increases in potency are vastly overstated and not supported by evidence. Nonetheless, potency is not related to risks of dependence or health impacts. According to the federal government’s own data, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana – which comprises the bulk of the US market – is less than 5 percent, a figure that has remained unchanged for nearly a decade.”

Myth #2: Marijuana is not addictive

I can personally vouch for this but again that doesn’t mean this applies in all instances. The government claims that “recent research shows that use of the drug can indeed lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time.”

The key term is “heavy users”. According to the DPA “a federal Institute of Medicine study in 1999, fewer than 10 percent of those who try marijuana ever meet the clinical criteria for dependence, while 32 percent of tobacco users and 15 percent of alcohol users do.”

Perhaps the best argument that disputes the government’s claim about marijuana being addictive is that studies have found that addiction is not the result of some external substance. It’s a neurological disorder, making addiction a health problem. Ten kids can meet after school and smoke a joint but none will become addicts unless their brain isn’t wired properly to prevent this health defect.

In his book Clean, David Sheff takes an in-depth look into the causes of addiction. Though he finds that teens are especially prone to drug use and more likely to become addicted the earlier they start, any addiction that does occur “is almost always a symptom of another illness like PTSD, depression or obsessive disorder that likely doesn’t get treatment during any recovery program”.

Myth #3: Marijuana is not as harmful to your health as tobacco.

This would only be a fact if the average pot smoker toked as many joints a day as the average smoker. At the height of my smoking days I would consume two packages a day of cigarettes. During this same period I may have had inhaled a total joint in one week’s time. I know several people who smoked at least a reefer once or twice a day, everyday. I’m pretty sure that most smokers I was acquainted with smoked at a bare minimum 10 -15 cigarettes a day.

The ONDCP actually makes this case for me when they point out that “regular use of marijuana appears to be at least as damaging as regular use of tobacco”. These are their words, not mine. Notice they say regular use of marijuana, not the casual users or infrequent tokers. And then they fall short of any absolute by stating that this “appears” to be the case.

This entire argument should be pretty much dismissed because beyond the ONDCP’s claims based on a 1990 study entitled “Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse” and published by the Western Journal of Medicine, there is a more recent one from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and University of California at San Francisco, that finds “Occasional marijuana use does not appear to have long-term adverse effects on lung function. In fact they found that “cigarette smokers saw lung function worsen throughout the 20-year [study] period, but marijuana smokers did not. “

Myth #4: Marijuana makes you mellow.

Yes it does but it can also make you anxious and if you are prone to violence without ingesting marijuana, guess what? You’re going to be even more so at a heightened state induced by smoking the weed. Again, potency levels can be in play here but the research the ONDCP claims, regarding violence levels and marijuana use, doesn’t make us aware of what the behavior traits prior to smoking marijuana are of the “kids who use marijuana weekly” and who they found to be four times more likely to be violent than non-users.

“According to that study, incidences of physically attacking people, stealing, and destroying property increased in proportion to the number of days marijuana was smoked in the past year. Users were also twice as likely as nonusers to report they disobey at school and destroy their own things.” Was this a pattern of behavior prior to smoking weed and was weed the only drug being used here? What was the mental health state of these individuals? We don’t know any of this because the ONDCP fails to make such correlations.

Myth #5: Marijuana is used to treat cancer and other diseases.

This is another straw man created by anti-marijuana supporters and is mentioned in the ONDCP’s report. What supporters of medicinal marijuana claim is that it has been proven helpful for treating the symptoms of a variety of medical conditions. Big difference between implying that it directly “treats cancer” and treating “symptoms of cancer”. In its report the ONDCP does state “that THC, the primary active chemical in marijuana, can be useful for treating some medical problems. Synthetic THC is the main ingredient in Marinol®, an FDAapproved medication used to control nausea in cancer chemotherapy patients and to stimulate appetite in people with AIDS. Marinol, a legal and safe version of medical marijuana, has been available by prescription since 1985.”

It further claims that marijuana as a smoked product has never proven to be medically beneficial and sites a 1999 study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that “concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for any longterm medical use, and a subsequent IOM report declared, “marijuana is not a modern medicine.” Yet Several state legislatures appear to have found sufficient evidence that disputes this claim along with the testimonies of many cancer patients who smoke the rope to alleviate their pain symptoms. It also ignores the fact that Big Pharma gets a cut in the legal sale of Marinol® In those states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes patients are allowed to grow their own and thus save the expense of a drug store purchase.

What really caught my eye is the ONDCP’s claim that “medicines are not approved in this country by popular vote. Before any drugs can be released for public use they must undergo rigorous clinical trials (emphasis mine) to demonstrate they are both safe and effective, and then be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Our investment and confidence in medical science will be seriously undermined if we do not defend the proven process by which medicines are brought to market.”

The image of the FDA as one that looks out for the interests of American consumers has been seriously tainted over the last few decades. So-called “rigorous testing” is often nothing more than those tests that the companies themselves have done and submitted to the FDA for review. These tests are then signed off on by FDA officials who are under pressure from corporate friendly directors often appointed by conservative administrations. One WSJ report noted in the case of Menaflex, a new device to treat knee injuries, that “some senior FDA staff members complained in documents that the handling of Menaflex, made by ReGen Biologics Inc., shows how political and industry pressure can influence scientific conclusions.”

The deaths of some 60,000 people occurred when the FDA failed to do due diligence with the reports from Merck with their nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug,Vioxx, after it was discovered that they “were developed by the company’s marketing department, not its scientific department.”

So until the FDA can be shown to once again serve the public’s interests rather than pharmaceutical lobbyists, we needn’t feel intimidated by the ONDCP’s claims about “our investment and confidence in medical science” is being undermined regarding medical marijuana. For more on the FDA’s recent history for easy approval on pharmaceuticals read, The Problem with Fast-Tracking Drug Approvals: Pharmas Fail to Follow Up

Addendum, Ad nauseam

The remaining five myths posted on the ONDCP’s web page are equally filled with vagueness and misinformation or inadequate information. Comparing marijuana’s use to the Ecstasy drug is an irrelevant apples to oranges comparison. And if the main reason the government feels that someone’s marijuana use is hurting those other than users because of the “violent” nature of marijuana trafficking, then it only seems reasonable that we remove this problem by taking it away from unregulated drug lords.

Not only do we remove the violence but we control the conditions its grown under and processed for sale. The money we save decriminalizing it by removing it from court dockets and emptying prison space will be additionally enhanced by the tax revenue we garner from its legitimate sale. Then of course there is the additional jobs benefits this new business creates.

Underage kids are no more likely to get their hands on it as a legalized substance than they are in its current state. Even the ONDCP admits that “if kids want marijuana, they can find it. More than half (55 percent) of youths age 12 to 17 responding to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2002 reported that marijuana would be easy to obtain. The survey indicated that most marijuana users got the drug from a friend, and that almost nine percent of youths who bought marijuana did so inside a school building.”

But here’s the clincher that ONDCP makes. “[N]early 17 percent of the young people surveyed said they had been approached by someone selling drugs in the past month. In the 2000 survey, more than a quarter of 12 to 17 yearolds (26.6 percent) reported that drugselling occurs frequently in their neighborhoods”.

It only seems logical that the need to “push” marijuana in locations where kids gather is because there are no legal outlets that can be monitored for underage sells. Strict regulation and monitoring of known suppliers in a legal environment diminishes, if not removes, this vulnerability to our nation’s youth.

Reality Check

Let’s be clear here though. Like any controlled substance there are hazards that can occur. Abuses in all aspects will prevent a scenario where those who shouldn’t have access to marijuana are unable to do so. Like smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol and eating unhealthy foods, parents and society have an obligation to provide accurate information and utilize all resources to educate our kids about marijuana smoking. Proper education is something we are always obligated to do despite any industry’s effort to circumvent such education to protect their profits.

Rather than using science to appeal to their intellects we will fail as we currently have to prevent inquisitive kids from trying something that society considers taboo. Taboo not for the right reasons but for the fairy tales we tell them that discredits our authority in their eyes once they discover that they won’t grow horns from its use. There’s nothing to prevent concerned citizens to diligently educate kids about marijuana as they do other drugs, especially alcohol, in a child’s formative years; in their homes, their schools, churches and youth clubs.

If a child or young adult then makes the choice to use pot, then clearly there are drivers there that not even attempts to banish its access will stop. Throwing them in jail may have a “scared straight” effect but it will also give them a criminal record that will follow them in their early attempts to seek gainful employment and could even associate them with a true criminal element that may carry on once they’re no longer incarcerated

Once we resolve to act like intelligent adults not motivated by irrational fears, then we can take control of a product that has too long been socially demeaned and its users relegated to a criminal icon. We remove the stigma and the legal costs that takes this thing out of the dark shadows and make it a profitable source of revenue that creates jobs and funds for the essential public services that the anti-marijuana crowd seem all to willing to cut taxes for.

Now if only these facts will penetrate the thick skulls of the ideologues and bible thumpers here in Texas we may solve our budget issues they created in the first place.

The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying to Keep Marijuana Illegal

Wednesday, 02 May 2012 08:59

Posted by lbwoodgate in Economy, Social Discourse, Texas/Local stories Tags: Cannabis, Controlled substance, economic and social benefits to legalizing pot in Texas, Health, legalizing pot, Marijuana, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Social stigma, Texas

7 comments

Oh My! Not More Christian Persecution!

March 28, 2013

While some people seem to be upset about stepping on the name of Jesus, others are profiting from it.

Righteous indignation often takes on such dramatic flair with some people. Zealots of any belief system, be it secular or sacred, are the easiest to offend and the quickest to seek retribution. If there is even the slightest indication of offense, hair-on-fire accusations spew forth and the lighting of torches and burning of tar are not far behind.

Such is the case with the recent incident that occurred at Florida Atlantic University, a state university of some 30,000 students located in Boca Raton, Florida. It appears that a professor at the university that was teaching an intercultural communications class had the students engage in an exercise that required them to write the name of “Jesus” on a piece of paper and reflect on it for a moment. Then they were asked to step on the paper and talk about how that made them feel.

The object lesson of the exercise was ”to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies. One student however felt his “religious rights [were being] desecrated” and claimed he was “being punished” for refusing to participate in the class exercise.

That student is Ryan Rotela who is reported to be “a devout Mormon” and a junior at FAU’s Davie campus. Yet there is nothing to indicate that Ryan was in fact punished. Clearly Ryan is the source of this story that leaked to the media and before it was he acquired a lawyer, Hiram Sasser, to inform everyone that he received a notice asking him to “attend a Student Conduct Conference.”

The notice simply says that Ryan is “not [to] attend class (SPC 3710) or contact any of the students involved in this matter – verbally or electronically – or by any other means.” It appears this was just a procedural move on the part of the university to investigate the matter before the public got wind of it and the rumors started flying. Whether Ryan deliberately disregarded this procedure for personal reasons or simply lost control of how it made its way outside the university is not clear.

What does seem apparent though is that he has solicited the services of a lawyer who is the director of Litigation for Liberty Institute, an advocacy organization whose website claims it is “dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America.”

It isn’t clear why Mr. Rotela sought out Mr. Sasser,or any attorney for that matter, since the University is asserting that they had no intention of punishing the student. But Mr. Sasser claims that “school officials told Rotelas he would be suspended”. It appears we have a he said, she said controversy.

There is nothing on Ryan Rotela’s Facebook page that would indicate he is anything other than a young university student who, ironically appears to “like” atheist Christopher Hitchens and Che Guevara. His “Proud to be an American” header seems to indicate he holds strong personal feelings about personal liberty. Time will tell if Ryan was sincere in his reaction to the exercise or is party to a cause célèbre for the religious right, spearheaded by the Liberty Institute.

Where this whole hair-on-fire storm took off to a fanatical level appears to be from the public display his right-wing lawyer has engaged in. Once the right-wing Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, got wind of this, the incident became something short of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ himself. Scott has demanded a detailed report from state university system Chancellor Frank Brogan regarding the incident.

“Whether the student was reprimanded or whether an apology was given is in many ways (inconsequential) to the larger issue of a professor’s poor judgment,” Scott stated in a letter to Brogan. “The professor’s lesson was offensive, and even intolerant, to Christians and those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom.” SOURCE

This seems at odds with Governor Scott’s non-existent response when the Florida christian preacher, Terry Jones, publicly burned the Quran about two years ago. Jones had threatened to burn Korans earlier, back in September of 2010. During that election year many people on both sides of the political spectrum condemned Jones’ threat but Rick Scott was silent. His running mate, state Rep. Jennifer Carroll, condemned the action but Scott himself never made mention of the incident, even after he was elected and Jones actually did burn the Quran in March, 2011.

Also upset over the Florida Atlantic University incident is the incendiary pastor of the Church of All Nations in Boca Raton, Mark Boykin, who has informed the press he will be staging a protest march at FAU.

“To write the name of Jesus on a piece of paper, and then to stop and contemplate what they were doing. And then to stomp on it,” says Rev. Boykin. “We find this to be unconscionable, unprofessional and completely unacceptable.” This event must have brought back a bad childhood experience for Boykin.

“Step on a crack, break your mother’s back”

Boykin however didn’t appear to find it all that unconscionable, unprofessional or even all that unacceptable when his fellow pastor Terry Jones burned those Qurans. Despite “not agree[ing] with Pastor Terry Jones’ actions to burn copies of the Quran”, Boykin was more concerned that Jones’ Constitutional rights to protest were being trampled on.

“I find it reprehensible for the city of Dearborn [Mich.} to ban Pastor Jones from going near America’s largest mosque for three years” Boykin told the press in April of 2011. “The Constitution of the United States affords freedom of speech for everyone, not a selected few.” Boykin made headlines of his own earlier that month by calling for the firing of a Muslim professor at Florida Atlantic University, who Boykin claimed had ties to terrorists. SOURCE

The religious right hasn’t had much to cheer about recently. Most of their candidates lost their bids to win office in 2012 including their poster child in Florida, Rep. Allen West. Outside of some victories restricting abortion rights in some states, their fight against equal rights for homosexuals seems destined to see defeat with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and legalizing gay marriages is slowly gaining acceptance with the public as well as in the legal system.

This incident at FAU has been blown out of proportion by the religious right simply because they are losing their battle to make this country a Christian nation. Not just as a matter of its predominant, traditional faith base, but more along the lines of a theocracy.

Scratch the surface of any fundamentalist christian in this country and you will see beliefs not unlike other theocratic regimes in the world. The good old days of burning heretics at the stake holds a fond remembrance for some. The promise of more academic censorship brings a twinkle to their eye.

If it were true freedom of religion that the likes of Governor Scott and Pastor Boykin were really concerned about, their indifference toward the abuses of Islam in this country would not be so apparent. If it were true of what they tend to profess, that “God is in control”, there would not be this stringent effort to change the laws that imposes their beliefs on others.

Governor Rick Scott and pastor Mark Boykin

Step on the name of Jesus and you step into their world

When a Persecution Complex Goes Awry

Posted by lbwoodgate in Religion/Science, Social Discourse Tags: Church of All Nations, claims of religious persecution, Florida Atlantic University, religious freedom, Rick Scott, Ryan Rotela, stepping on Jesus

10 comments

A Democratic Budget Worth Fighting For?

March 25, 2013

Well the Democrats have finally passed a budget, forcing the Republican talking points to change. GOP criticism must now direct itself to the content of that budget, focusing on the tax increases Democrats will use to reduce the deficit. Why Democrats eventually did something they’ve been putting off for 3 years to avoid is perplexing and typical of a government that gets bogged down in Party politics. This delay has done nothing but kick the can down the road and as a result we have very little to show for it.

But now that it’s out there, perhaps Democrats, who have had time to create talking points of their own, can defend their position and lay out the facts so voters can see who it is that Republicans really represent. As Jonathan Weisman with the NY Times news services states, the “$3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 … would fast-track passage of tax increases, trim spending gingerly [but] leave the government still deeply in the debt a decade from now” with a “$566 billion deficit in 10 years, and $5.2 trillion in additional debt over that time”.

That part about a $566 billion deficit and $5.2 trillion in additional debt over that time will no doubt be highlighted by the GOP-controlled House in their attempts to protect the tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans. The Senate bill offers plenty of spending cuts but not the ones the Republicans and their wealthy private financial interests want. The right-wing media talking heads at FOX, Breitbert blog, the Drudge Report and other conservative sources will focus their attention only on the fact that Democrats want to once again “raise your taxes”.

The devil is in the details however and if the Democrats want to effectively counter the GOP’s message on this they need to be equally aggressive in defining exactly who will see “tax increases”.

Some who won’t, thanks to an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will be seniors, disabled vets and the surviving families of those who have died for their country while serving in the military. The GOP, in a thinly veiled offering they claimed would “save Social Security and Medicare”, lost their bid to impose the chained CPI method to replace the current method of measuring inflation. The chained CPI would work against the interests of people who have a larger medical expense than the general public and who would have seen serious cuts in their benefits as the years progressed at a time when their health is more likely to worsen and requires greater care.

The chained CPI was a contrivance of conservatives who tend to favor a Paul Ryan budget plan. A budget supported by people like billionaire Pete Peterson who has made it his life’s goal to eradicate Social Security and Medicare so for-profit private interests can get their hands on the billions that tax payers have deducted from each paycheck to help cover the government-run medical and retirement programs that serve as a safety net for them as they age or become disabled.

Peterson and his ilk are trying to convince everyday Americans that their money invested in the free markets will amply provide for them in their later years. But anyone who has had a private retirement account over the last 10-12 years has seen their savings dwindle significantly as big financial interests on Wall Street have used their money on risky ventures, plunging the stock market into two serious recessions.

The only winners in this have been the very wealthy while many seniors were forced back into a dwindling labor market to help cover their bills. The volatile stock market over the last decade has been so erratic that a sense of security is the last thing anyone feels who has invested their life savings in it.

Democrats need to drive home this point and show that what “outrage” the Republicans will feign over the coming weeks is not out of an interest for those who struggle each day to make ends meet, but to cover the backs of millionaires and billionaires they rely on to fund their political livelihoods.

Cutting out tax loop holes for people who purchase private jets or a third or fourth luxury home on the coast is not an attack against the American people. It is simply the most practical way during our current economic state to generate needed revenue to create jobs and pay down a debt that was essentially the result of previous big tax cuts under the Bush administration along with the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Great Recession has also created havoc with people’s earnings. This economic collapse was the direct result of greedy financial markets that went wild after government oversight was eliminated through the combined efforts of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

It will be a war of words and the Republicans will devise strategies intended to give the impression that only they can restore our economy to fiscal soundness. How they will do it is a mystery because they continue to offer nothing more than the failed policies of trickle down economics while falsely proclaiming how entitlement programs are creating a debt our children will never recover from.

Their battle plan can be easy to defeat unless the Democrats engage in the same old weak efforts that allowed them to lose the moral high ground years ago. They need to take their argument to the people fast and frequently and not buckle in the face lies and damn lies from people whose only loyalty lies with very wealthy special interests. Senator Patty Murray of Washington sets the stage for this in her defense of the Democrat-sponsored budget.

“The first priority of the Senate budget is creating jobs and economic growth from the middle out, not the top down,” Ms. Murray, the chairwoman of the Budget Committee, said. “With an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery.” SOURCE

Senator Patty Murray offers a focal point to promote the Democratic Senate’s budget

Americans need to understand that their interests are first and foremost served by job creation. When we can get people back to work, making a livable wage where they can spend their earnings on goods and services, we will then see a demand that fosters more hiring and job creation. This will then lead to greater tax revenue to pay down the deficit while it also rebuilds our middle class. It was the strong middle class that developed following WWII that allowed the U.S. economy to expand and become the predominant economy in the world. And this all happened when tax rates for the wealthiest were much higher than they are now.

We can live with a debt for a time but we cannot eliminate it first through measures that do nothing to put people back to work and only hopes that so-called job creators will materialize from the top down. Spending is required to generate demand and if the private sector can’t or isn’t willing to divest some of their huge profits towards job creation, then we must rely on the government to set the wheels in motion for our economic survival. The wealthy only lose another opportunity to get their hands on even greater sums of money if they cannot eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Most everyone else loses their ability to survive from conditions that they have little control over like aging and health issues.

Worms, Pond Scum and Economists

Posted by lbwoodgate in Budget Crisis, Social Discourse Tags: Bernie Sanders, chained CPI, entitlement programs, fighting for middle class, GOP budget, job creation, killing social security, Patty Murray, Pete Peterson, saving social security and medicare, Senate Democrat budget

10 comments

The Deficiency of Empathy in Conservatives

March 17, 2013

Many liberals and gay rights advocates are celebrating Senator Rob Portman’s reversal on same-sex marriages. Many are also pointing out how this reversal was motivated by an empathy that appears to only extend no further than immediate family members. It was the revelation that his son was gay that encouraged the Republican congressman from Ohio to reevaluate his view of gay rights and decide not to support any federal law that prohibits gay couples from receiving the same federal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Here are but two of those reactions:

“While I would like to say that it makes me happy to have the first Republican senator come out in support of marriage equality, I am having a difficult time getting past the whole “I need this EXACT situation to affect me PERSONALLY before I can do anything” mentality that seems to persist in the halls of Congress.” Kenneth Walsh from the HuffPo blog

“I’m glad that Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has reconsidered his view on gay marriage upon realization that his son is gay, but I also find this particular window into moderation—memorably dubbed Miss America conservatism by Mark Schmitt—to be the most annoying form.” Matthew Yglesias at Slate.com

Though Portman’s turn around on this issue is quite dramatic since he was one of the original backers of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the 1990s, it is still noteworthy that this change in attitude would likely have never been forthcoming had his son remained in the closet. Kudos to the son who understood that his coming out could be a national embarrassment to his father and yes, some applause should be extended to the dad for not trying to conceal it to benefit his political career.

But I’m on the side with the critics here. Empathy is something that conservative Republicans appear to have very little of until it impacts some of their own. There are those of course who appear to lack any at all. There was Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy towards Clinton sexual misconduct while the former speaker himself was boning another woman before serving divorce papers to his second wife – while she was hospitalized. Most recently there was Mitt Romney’s 47% soul-less comment about those who had fallen on hard economic times as a result of financial malfeasance in the investment banking sector, declaring them as moochers and takers because they supported someone who provided relief for them when they lost their jobs and homes.

Many top officials in the Bush administration, including the president himself, VP Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld – none of who saw active combat duty – supported the shock and awe campaign that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the government’s assault on Iraq back in 2003 and ultimately the death of 4488 American military personnel. Rumsfeld’s cavalier attitude toward most of the civilian deaths was typical of the neo-conservative mentality that wrote off such tragic loss of human life as mere “collateral damage”.

Compassionate Conservatives?

CONFESSION AND MEA CULPA

All of this has taken me back to a time when I myself was anti-gay, even as I professed liberal ideas. I also considered myself to be a somewhat devout Christian at the time but I didn’t want scripture alone to be the basis of my opposition to same-sex unions. I was intent on pressing the compassion of Christ however if I was going to pass judgment on others who appeared to violate “the word of God’.

I came to reason then that homosexuality was indeed a distortion of that natural state men and women developed from. Rather than cite scripture I attempted to appeal to the intellect by insisting that homosexuality violated the laws of nature. How could we be designed for anything else other than being drawn to opposite sex partners out of the life-serving need to procreate and sustain the species? Did not the male and females anatomies alone validate this?

It was important to me too that homosexuals were not to be demonized but merely were the unfortunate recipients of a gene mutation that led to same-sex propensities. But as I expounded on this notion it drew into question the perfection of God’s creation that we have been led to believe is there. If homosexuality was more than mere choice; a choice that eschews God, then why would people who were raised with this belief suffer the torment they developed overtime that drove them toward gender like partners rather than opposites?

I could have easily rejected such a rational response and declared, as many fundamentalist do, that Satan was trying to deceive me. But my journey to understanding my faith had already convinced me that a God of love and mercy could not also create his or her evil opposite.

The deeper I dug into my faith origins the more I discovered that much of the dogma we’re taught as children and the fear of hell we’re raised with should we “stray”, had little basis outside the conventional wisdom of a time when people still thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Once I concluded that many fundamentals of my religious teachings were wrong or metaphorical at best, it was not such a great leap to conclude my adversity towards homosexuals had no raison d’etre except for the fear-based attitudes of many of my elders and peers.

Inherent in my decision to change, as mentioned above, was the need to express compassion or empathy for those who suffer from want or hatred of others. Raised in the Catholic church I had fully incorporated the core principles behind our faith being love and mercy. How could we be so cruel to blacks back then and still call ourselves Christians? How could we treat women as second class citizens and still not share the mindset of Jesus who saved the whore from stoning and rebuked the Pharisees who admonished the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:38?

If God was, is and always will be, how could it be that such things were seen as they were but no longer are now? Were we wrong then or are we wrong now? In view of the evidence we now possess about our universe and human equality, the logical conclusion one would have to draw is that we had it wrong then.

To admit that our previous and preconceived ideas about many things we held so tightly to are now wrong and should thus be revised to fit the reality, to me, takes real courage. The fact that Senator Portman has made this change about gay marriages in light of the evidence he has been willing to accept with his own son is exemplary … but courageous?

I have not always been courageous when I should have been. I have been guilty of trying to reconcile my lack of courage with some feeble rationale that excuses such weakness. I have been able to forgive myself to some degree however because of those times when I have shown some courage in the face of adversity. One of those times came when I finally admitted openly to many gay people I had looked down on that my views about them were wrong.

SHARED HUMANITY; NOT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS

It didn’t take the revelation about 4 years later that my own daughter was gay for me to develop empathy for homosexuals. It simply required that seed of compassion planted, oddly enough, by the same church people who taught me to condemn those different from me.

Why the one stuck with me more than the other can only be attributed, in my opinion, to the legitimacy of what is morally right. Love and mercy that hones our empathy for others carries the moral high ground and for people who wait until something personal happens to them or theirs means needless suffering continues for millions of others who share similar deprivations.

Many conservatives will raise the objection about their lack of compassion by pointing out their charitable giving through their churches or private giving. That’s a whole other issue we could debate but let this response suffice to answer that objection. So what?

Liberals give equally in these areas and yet still all of this charity combined is insufficient to meet the human deprivations that exist not only in our country but around the world. Where some might ask as Cain did “Am I my brother’s keeper”?, a liberal is more likely than a conservative to answer yes to that question. That’s part of what distinguishes the two. Besides, treating people as equals costs nothing in monetary terms.

It’s time that the moral high ground showed itself more naturally within the ranks of conservatives instead of those arguments they diligently make to avoid it. A good place to start is to change the right-wing narrative within the GOP that persecutes anyone who raises the issue of income disparity. It’s real and it’s not a choice people make. It’s unnatural and needs to be confronted courageously.

“It’s All About Bacon”?!?

March 11, 2013

A standup comedian asks the question to perhaps the most critical concern of our time. Why do people who profess to believe in the biblical God trash the home he is alleged to have entrusted to their care?

I was watching CK Louis’s standup routine “Live at the Beacon Theater” the other night on Netflix. In it there was this 3 minute segment about two-thirds of the way through where he played out a scenario as God chastising some of those he entrusted to act as good stewards for his earth creation. CK pretends to be God and comes back to earth to see how his creation has been taken care of and is simply blown away with what he sees. Portraying both Jehovah and the earthling he grills, here’s the gist of that interaction in typical CK Louis fashion

God: “What the fuck did you do? I gave this to you mother fucker! Are you crazy? The polar bears are brown, what did you .. what did you do to the polar bears? Did you shit all over every polar bear? Who did this? Who spilled this shit”?

Then he points at an imaginary earthling and tells him, “Come over here! Did you spill this shit? What is that”?

Earthling: (in a rather doofus voice) “It’s oil, its’ just some oil. I didn’t mean to spill it.”

God: “Well why did you even take it out of the fucking ground?”

Earthling: “Because I wanted to go faster” as he gyrates his arms in a locomotive fashion. “and I was cold” wrapping his arms around himself imitating being chilled.

God: “What the fuck do you mean cold? I gave you everything you needed you piece of shit”

And then the earthling dribbles out a few words that are meant to explain everything like most Republicans do when they talk about tax cuts for so-called “job creators” and the very wealthy.

Earthling: “Well, because of ‘jobs’”

God: “Jobs? For what? Why do you need jobs?”

Earthling: “To make money. Money is needed to buy food”.

God: “I gave you free food. Just eat the stuff off of the floor I gave you”

Earthling: “Yes, but … it doesn’t have like bacon around it. I like when it has bacon on it.”

It’s laugh out loud funny to think fossil fuel extraction has been all about our cravings for bacon. This skit does in its simplicity though unmasks where most of our values lie – in the self-interests of creature comforts that often wreak havoc on the only planet we’re ever going to be able to call home.

It struck me then how some Christians strain a gnat but will swallow a camel as they ignore the word of God, according to their own scriptures, failing to be good stewards of this planet but can milk a few words from the psalmist to rationalize the massive campaign to prevent a scared teenager from aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

In a christian apologetic written back in 1977 by assistant professor of political theory at the University of Michigan, J. Patrick Dobel, entitled “Stewards of the Earth’s Resources: A Christian Response to Ecology” the author drives home, through the use of multiple biblical references, where humans lie within in the scheme of earth and its resources and who in fact owns them. Capitalists and free-marketers may want to close their eyes and block their hearing, chanting la-la-la-la-la-la-la as loud as they can.

The proper relation between humanity and the bountiful earth is … complex. One fact is of outstanding moral relevance: the earth does not belong to humanity; it belongs to God. Jeremiah summarizes it quite succinctly: “I by my great power and outstretched arm made the earth, land and animals that are on the earth. And I can give them to whom I please” (Jer. 27:5). For an ecological ethic this fact cannot be ignored. The resources and environment of the earth are not ours in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to someone else.

Humanity’s relation to the earth is dominated by the next fact: God “bestows” the earth upon all of humanity (Ps. 115:16). This gift does not, however, grant sovereign control. The prophets constantly remind us that God is still the “king” and the ruler/owner, to whom the earth reverts. No one generation of people possesses the earth. The earth was made “to endure” and was given for all future generations. Consequently the texts constantly reaffirm that the gift comes under covenanted conditions, and that the covenant is “forever.” The Bible is permeated with a careful concern for preserving the “land” and the “earth” as an “allotted heritage” (Ps. 2:7-12).

This point is central to the Judeo-Christian response to the world. The world is given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy. An “earth of abundance” (Judg. 18:10) provides for humanity’s needs and survival (Gen. 1:26-28, 9:2-5).

Now I no longer consider myself a religious person. I’ve seen too much within the institution of the church to know that self-preservation tends to crowd out the general welfare principles that have been espoused thoughout human history. Lip service is given to much what passes as “God’s law” but people are clever in their ways to circumvent it when it serves their needs.

So Dobel’s biblical assertions carry no weight with me other than the point he makes about the earth belonging to “no one generation”. I would paraphrase the last line in the first paragraph to read instead that “the resources and environment of the earth are not [the private property of select individuals] in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to [everyone]. But I am in sync with the lines in the last paragraph that asserts that “The world [and it’s resources are] given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy.

The Christian capitalist mentality in this country is often silent on those scripture that points out mankind’s responsibility for being good stewards of the earth. Dobel enumerates quite a few. But he also notes there are those verses that some Christians are ready to use to justify their right to own private property and do with it what they will, even if it deprives others of the necessary resources they need for survival. Dobel feels however that the convenant spelled out in 1 Chron. 16:14-18 negates any self-serving use of what is supposed to be their “inheritance”.

The Christian capitalist will exploit the earth to fulfill their need for wealth and power yet prevent unwanted pregnancies based on a single metaphor from the psalmist that suggests God knew David personally while he was still in his mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13) They will also cherry-pick the handful of scriptures that refer to using violence in order to invade countries and claim their resources while overlooking all that is written about the compassion of Jesus. Unlike “christian soldiers”, Onward Christian Earth Stewards is nowhere to be found in contemporary christian lexicon.

Today’s representatives for God here on earth are willing to usurp and drain the resources of one region as if it was their “manifest destiny” ordained by a God who is supposed to have commanded that “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” (1Cor:10-24)

When special interests pollute the air and water we all own and food sources dry up because man-made conditions have contributed to drought, floods and famines for many, it will be the righteous Christian who will assert that such bounty comes not from our exploitation of others but as manna bacon from heaven.

It may be crude and offend the sensitivities of many but CK Louis’ version of God’s response to those responsible for the stewardship planet Earth seems appropriate.

“What the fuck did you do”?

Posted by lbwoodgate in Climate Science/Global Warming, Religion/Science, Social Discourse Tags: bacon and oil, Bible, capitalist christians, christian ethos on ecology, Christianity, Earth, God

10 comments

Tidbits and Considerations

March 4, 2013

I haven’t used this format in a while but now seems as good a time as any. There’s only so much you can say at length about morons, extremists and feckless leaders that can be just as easily said in fewer words and a smaller space. So here goes.

Oklahoma might want to consider changing it’s state slogan from “Native America” to “美国本地人”

“China obtained another chunk of North American oil and gas holdings this week, as state-owned Sinopec moved to purchase half of Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy’s oil and gas holdings for $1 billion. This follows a flurry of deals that in total put $17 billion of North American oil in the hands of Chinese state-owned oil companies.” SOURCE

The irony of this is that the biggest promoter in the U.S. Senate for fossil fuels, Oklahoma’s Senator James Inhofe, is also the most vocal critic of that energy’s source effect on increasing man-made climate change. Oklahoma is one of three states with the severest drought conditions in the country as this map indicates.

Nice move Okies. Keep pumping out that drought generating energy source. Even Texas is beginning to see the advantages of the clean energy in wind power.

Nervous Nelly?

It’s one thing to be nervous these days and over react to a possible threat of gun violence in schools but when it happens from being unfamiliar with some lyrics from a popular TV sitcom, you know we have reached a level where rational thinking is too often absent.

… a staff member from a doctor’s office called a student at Ambridge High School [in Pennsylvania’s Beaver County] to confirm an appointment. Getting the student’s voicemail, which featured the theme from the “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” the woman misheard the lyrics “shooting some b-ball outside of school” as “shooting people outside of school.” She called 911, which forced the entire school district to go into lockdown for 30 minutes. Police detained the student for three hours, before determining it was all a misunderstanding. SOURCE

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire was a popular sit com back in the early 1990’s. More than likely there’s a small population that is not familiar with this popular program or the catchy hip-hop tune performed by the ever popular Will Smith. Yet it’s still a little surprising that any of the lyrics would be interpreted as threatening. The expression “b-ball” in the lyrics was evidently filtered in a way that apparently came out as ”people” in the mind of perhaps a distracted doctor’s office receptionist.

Listen to it here

One scenario that could have contributed to this was that the lady at the doctor’s office perceived the rap music she was hearing in a negative fashion and in the words from an earlier music artist, Paul Simon, she heard what she wanted to hear.

This could have had nothing to do with it but in today’s tense socio-political environment with gun violence in schools happening far too frequently, it is clear that people are on edge at even the slightest suggestion that yet another tragedy like Columbine and Sandy Hill will occur.

Mitch McConnell and Obama – Kindred Spirits

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell got a taste of what Michelle Obama has had to endure since her husband has become President. Defending their spouses American citizenship. In a tasteless tweet put out by a volunteer for the grass-roots organization, Progress Kentucky, McConnell’s wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, had her birthright disparaged and her status as an American citizen challenged.

“This woman has the ear of @McConnellPress — she’s his #wife,” the group Kentucky Progress tweeted on Feb. 14. “May explain why your job moved to #China!” – SOURCE

Repudiated not only by McConnell’s staff and other Republicans but the tweet was also receiving critical admonishments from some Democratic leaders, including actress Ashley Judd, who is considering a challenge to McConnell in next year’s election. A spokesperson for Progress Kentucky, Shawn Reilly, “said the volunteer who posted the comments no longer is affiliated with the group.”

Good. This was the proper course of action that should be taken towards anyone who inserts race with an underlying message that impugns their citizenship. And if Senator McConnell says that his wife is a legitimate citizens then that’s good enough for me.

Let’s hope now that when such aspersions are cast on people with no basis in fact that it be put to rest as quickly as possible by all sides. Are you listening birthers?

Posted by lbwoodgate in Social Discourse, Society and Politics Tags: Ashley Judd, birthers, Chesapeake Energy, Chinese american venture, Elaine Chao, Fresh prince, gun violence threat, Kentucky Progress, McConnell, Michelle Obama, Mitch McConnell, Oklahoma, Will Smith

7 comments

McCain – A Contemporary of a Shakespearian Character

February 7, 2013

Re-blogged from HumorOutcasts.com

Those of us who blog owe it to ourselves as well as our readers to post compelling material as best we can. We may not always succeed but that should not diminish our efforts to do so. In that vein we should also be willing to avail our blog to others whose material meets the standards of good writing that informs as well as entertains and thus alters somewhat our perspective of how we see things. It need not always be serious in nature. In fact, I think writers infect a greater audience about certain realities in our world when they employ humor.

So I submit the following piece from Kara, the nom de plume of an individual who characterizes himself as a “family Guy/American Dad/TCS Producer/Citizen of the World. He also explains that his opinions are his own, “and do not NECESSARILY reflect Fox’s positions or opinions.” He posts regularly on the HumorOutcasts.com blog I subscribe to and on occasion contribute to.

In this piece entitled “More Terrible than Fiction Update – Polonius from Hamlet and John McCain”, Kara shows us a remarkable comparison between the Shakespearean character of Polonius and his contemporary, John McCain. It is both clever and insightful about a man who has fallen from a status that he perhaps never should have been elevated too. But first, this short feature presentation of Kara’s on Sarah Palin Enjoy.

What fiction writer – if any – could have conceived of Sarah Palin without completely blowing the boundaries of reality? Dickens? Shakespeare? Ruth Rendell? In children’s fiction, maybe, where a parodic lunatic still has its place. It’s not really in grown-up literatures nature to have stone cold villains, coal-black embodiments of evil. Serious literature has no shortage of killers, molesters, kidnappers, cannibals, misanthropes, black widows, bloodsuckers, pederasts and politicians…and there are plenty of literary counterparts to modern assholes (change Italy to Iraq in Catch-22, and Milo is Dick Cheney and Colonel Cathcart is George W), but of the snidleliest whiplashes ever to have bound sweet damsel to train track, has any serious writer of novels ever conjured up a sub-literate rube from a weird, frozen tundra, a vicious “hockey mom” to 5 terrible children who shoots wolves from helicopters? Or a character as farcical as “Anne Coulter”, or as grotesque as Roger Ailes?

Polonius from Hamlet by William Shakespeare and John McCain

King Claudius’s chief counsellor and father of Ophelia, Polonius is an old fool and self-absorbed windbag whom Shakespeare referred to as a ”sincere” father, but also “a busy-body, [who] is accordingly officious, garrulous, and impertinent.” For all of his obsequious manner, Polonius must have some abilities to have attained his present high office, but will never ascend to exalted rank.

Polonius’s oratory style is overextended confidence in his knowledge, pride in his eloquence, his dotage encroaching upon his dwindling wisdom. His pomposity comes from knowing that his mind was once strong, and unawareness that it has become weak. He drones on, pedantically and impertinently, with artful turns of thought, amidst actual serious business. He is a victim of the dereliction of his faculties; he forgets what he’s taking about; loses the order of his ideas, and entangles himself in his own thoughts. His phrases are ambiguous and confusing, and he sometimes loses the thread.

Polonius poses as a wise statesman, but cannot resist childish stratagems, seeing things in black and white, discovering coverups and intrigue at every bend and acting on unsubstantiated suspicion to disastrous consequences. Nearly every event in the place results from from his ill-judged influence and the blunders he perpetrated.

Polonius likes to give “when I was your age” speeches, dishing out lame advice, overeagerly dispensing characteristic specimens of cootish pearls of wisdom in boorish fashion. His attempts at humor are bumbling and pathetic. He is inadvertently hilarious. In a dark play, Polonius is comic relief . When one of the players delivers a heart-wrenching rendering of Priam’s death and the hullabaloo to follow, Polonius interrupts to say , “This is too long.” Polonius coined the paraphrased aphorism, “Clothes make the man”.

John McCain has been called many things during his endless Washington career — “craven,” “shameless,” senile”, “amoral,” “stupid,” “drug addled,””pompous”, “world’s worst pilot” and “completely full of shit”. He is equally loathed by liberals, conservatives and the people of his alleged “home state,” Arizona. He seems brain addled, often confused, like when the avowed foreign policy expert mixed up Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or repeatedly referred to the Czech Republic as “Czechoslovakia”. Senator McCain routinely, manifestly loses his grip on the present, appearing not unlike a certain person who “could speak no sense in several languages.”

Superannuated politicians like John McCain seldom have any strength to fall back upon, so default to the resources of memory. He loves talking about his soldiering days. You know, his storied career where he routinely got in trouble with authority for crashing planes and ended up a POW because he wasn’t a very good pilot. It’s truly an inspiring tale of mediocrity and downright stupidity. He is an old man, a windbag, and out of the ashes of his extinct faculties come meaningless but sincere homespun aphorisms. as a blind man may seem to distinguish colors, so long as he refrains from speaking of the colors that are before him.”

In addition to his apparent cognitive problems, Senator McCain exhibits a distressing deterioration in his sense of decorum and propriety. He volunteered his wife for a topless beauty contest, and jigged around singing “Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran.“ This loss of self-regulation is called “disinhibition” and can result in inadvertent hilarity. Who can forget “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Or how he was unable to answer how many houses he owns. Or when he said to his trophy wife: ”At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt”. Or him sticking out his tongue at the end of the third presidential debate after getting confused and walking off the stage the wrong way. Or calling on an absent Joe The Plumber at a rally, accidentally endorsing Obama, calling his constituents “my fellow prisoners”, his general confusion, and being less than informed. Oh, and the gorilla rape joke.

McCain’s usual gracelessness is amped up by a staggering lack of self-awareness, such as his churlish whining about liberals supposedly getting favorable press coverage. McCain’s career has been unremarkable, from abandoning a seriously-injured wife in favor of a rich replacement, to the Keating Five scandal to his bone-headed selecting of Sarah Palin as his running mate, with little of real distinction to fill the gaps, except for the THREE DECADES that he has been shouting “Cover Up!” at every turn. The DC press corp’s calculated burnishing of the “Maverick” myth, puffing up his credentials, burying his scandals, and crafting a heroic public persona, made him the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, and suckered us into believing he was a “hero”, rather than an opportunistic and deeply vindictive pol who once crashed a plane. His best moment –by his own account–consisted of refusing to accept the early release offered by his Viet Cong captors. Like Polonius, McCain is a man strong in general principles, who fails repeatedly in application.

No amount of pity for the physical ordeal he endured in his youth could have compensated for the reality that John McCain is an erratic, pompous, petty and self-serving man and a notorious SOB even by Washington standards. The same man who was hanging around with the rebels, encouraging them to overthrow Ghadaffi, while calling for increase support for them is now running around blaming others for the actions of his buddies in Benghazi. The arrogant, pig-headed “war hero” has managed to turn into a lonely, sad, pathetic old man whimpering in a bitter, cold rain of his own making.

Polonius is hiding behind a tapestry in Gertrude’s room, when he gets scared and yelps for help. Hamlet draws his sword and thrusts it through the curtain. Polonius is stabbed in the gut. “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell! I took thee for thy better”. – Hamlet

Posted by lbwoodgate in Humor, People, Social Discourse Tags: Colonel Cathcart, Czech Republic, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Polonius, Roger Ailes, Sarah Palin, senile politicians, William Shakespeare

6 comments

Woe Unto Them That Stiff Their Server

February 2, 2013

There was a time when I didn’t know any better and seldom if ever tipped my waiter at a restaurant. Part of the reason was because my own resources when younger were significantly limited, especially compared to incomes I earned as I got older. But I also asked myself why I should increase a person’s wages who already made what I thought was a normal salary for doing something they are already being paid to do. I still apply this logical thinking today as it relates to our federal and state subsidies to profitable oil companies that enables them to do something they’re supposed to be using those massive profits for. But I digress.

It was only later in life when I came to learn that wait people at restaurants and other similar jobs make less than minimum wage, significantly less in a lot of cases and rely primarily on tips from customers to make an income that will pay for their rent, food and clothing. So today I automatically take this situation into account when eating out and factor in a 15% gratuity to my bill and up to 20% if the service is exceptional.

Now I suspect there are still plenty of people out there today that look at tips similar to the way I did when I was poorer and younger. I can empathize with the poorer part though I would hope that knowledge about what wait staff make these days is more commonly understood and if these people do decide to eat at a sit-down restaurant and are waited on for their meal, they do so with the understanding that a tip will be part of their final bill.

Anyone who doesn’t get this is not only a cheap skate but an insensitive lout towards people whose income relies upon tips in order to survive in today’s economy. So you can imagine my surprise as well as my disgust upon discovering someone who most people expect to be a role model for human kindness in society not only fails to tip their waiter but justifies it by making a comparison between this low-income wage earner and God.

A pastor’s note on a restaurant bill has unleashed an unholy outcry on Reddit. A snapshot shared by an apparently stiffed server shows the gratuity scratched out and a big “0″ written in its place. “I give God 10% Why do you get 18″ the diner scrawled on the $34.93 receipt, adding the word “Pastor” above his signature. SOURCE

Now this waiter may hardly be starving or struggling to make ends meet but as I indicated earlier, anyone who has worked in a restaurant or knows someone who has, knows that waiters make less than minimum wage. It would have been one thing to forego a tip if the service had been lousy but clearly this wasn’t the reason this “man of God” gave. No, he had to invoke the most High and compare his waiter to someone who supposedly paves their roads with gold

Somehow this pastor feels that the Creator of heaven and earth, who’s supposed to be capable of giving “sunlight to both the evil and the good, and … sends rain on the just and the unjust alike”, needs 10% of this or any man’s earnings. We all know that anyone who can make the resources we humans value by simply willing it doesn’t need 10% of what we have taken, rightfully or not, from this creator of universes.

When pastors refer to tithing and other donations as “giving to God”, we all know that this is merely semantics to thinly conceal where it really goes. It is in fact partly the necessary revenue for the pastors services who congregations engage to serve them. You could probably even stretch this to say this is their way of tipping the pastor for services rendered, no?

What stumps me most about this entire episode I think is the fact that someone so vulnerable to criticism for withholding a waiter’s tip would make it known to that person – and now, as a result, to the entire universe – that his station in life is one that most people would least expect such miserly behavior from.

The individual who actually posted this story on their Reddit account said “the man’s party of 20 ran up a big tab but asked for separate checks, ‘thinking it would get them out’ of the automatic 18 percent gratuity for large groups, ‘even though the same man paid for everything.’” It’s not clear then if someone other than the pastor paid for everyone’s meal or each had to pay for their own.

What is clear is that the good reverend justified giving nothing at all based on the assumption that he pays the King of the Heavenly Host 10% of his wages. Wages, mind you, that essentially come from the tithing and generous giving of church members. For someone whose income depends almost exclusively on the giving of others you would think he would reciprocate such generosity.

Way to lead by example padre.

Posted by lbwoodgate in Religion/Science, Social Discourse Tags: 0 tip for waiter, cheap skate pastor, Minimum wage, Pastor, Restaurant, tithing pastor stiffs waiter, Waiting staff

18 comments

WE’RE NOT A PLUTOCRACY … YET!

January 21, 2013

Rico Tomaso’s rendering of a “Family Sitting on the Back Porch”

We all need a little space of our own

People need to be able to sit out on their back porch and enjoy life …

No wait! People need to have a back porch first then sit out on it …

No wait! People need to have a secure home that has a back porch …

No wait! People need to have a decent paying job to buy or rent a secure home …

No wait! People need to feel healthy and productive over the years to sustain them with a decent paying job …

No wait! People need to know their government will be there to be make sure that private special interests don’t deprive them of affordable health care so they can feel healthy and productive over the years ..

No wait! People need to be sure that we the people have control of a government that benefits all of its citizens fairly … not just a wealthy, powerful few. Rich and poor, all skin colors, all cultural and religious variations. We’re not extremist liberals or extremists Republicans, no matter who gets the most air time in the media. We are one people who have many ideas and who share a 277 year-old heritage that promises to not allow a single individual or small influential crowd dominate our lives.

Let’s protect THAT above every other partisan idea we align ourselves with. We are still, ideally, a democracy until we allow ourselves to let wealthy, verbose, well-positioned people, take it away.

Wait for that … and we lose it all. GET INVOLVED!

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” – Martin Luther King

Posted by lbwoodgate in Corporate Influence, Social Discourse Tags: crony capitalism, health care reform, job creation, owning a home, Politics, wealthy special interests

13 comments

Search Blog Content

America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians

Bet on solar power

What I have written recently

Blogroll

Archives