I read an article today that said as of Jan. 1 the U.S. incarcerated more of its citizens -- numerically and percentage-wise -- than any other nation on earth. Even China has a lower number of prisoners than we do, and since they have many times the number of citizens as the U.S. their percentage must be well below ours. Desite our attempt for generations to dislike the Chinese because they are a communist nation, and thus bad, they outshine us on this one. One of the guesses at the reason for the U.S.'s high rate of incarceration was because of things like the 'three strikes' ruling.
It probably doesn't need to be said, but locking up criminals hasn't decreased crime. If the system isn't working why isn't it being changed? In fact, rather than changing it, the system continues to build. Prison management is now privatized and hefty profits are being realized. Upwards of ten percent of some states' discretionary dollars goes to corrections. Those districts that pull in government dollars with their prisons aren't about to vote for anything that decreases prison populations.
My guess as to the reason is different. One of the traits of a fascist state is a focus on crime and punishment. It seems natural with the paranoia that seems to permeate such movements. The definition of 'justice' moves more toward vengeance. Every democracy that has morphed into dictatorship has followed a standard blueprint, and one of the practices has been to create an 'enemy within' the nation's population. Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler all did it. Initially criminals are those who break existing laws, and punishment gets stronger. Then laws are set up that decrease the freedoms of the population and allow the rulers more sway, then political criminals start getting rounded up.
By the way, how do they know who to round up so quickly? Each of the dictators named, and many others, have already developed a list so that when they gain enough power they are able to arrest their detractors without any credible threat of public backlash. Is the U.S. government developing such a list? You betcha. I'll bet this summer, when I try to get on an airplane for the first time since before 9-11, that I will be detained because of this blog site. They have a list. I can't know if I'm on it until I try to board an airplane. It's secret. They don't have to provide any rationale for placing people's names on it. Are there political prisoners in the U.S.? Well, there were those peaceful protesters in NY during the Republican convention in '04 who were arrested and herded into a warehouse on a pier...there are prisoners in U.S. detention facilities who have been held for years without charges because the president calls them enemy combatants without having to provide proof...
Anyway, once the government is rounding people up with impunity they then resort to torture of prisoners. The Bush administration has been arguing for several years for the right to torture prisoners, and we have intelligence that our nation has secret detention facilities. We know the rest from accounts of Nazi concentration camps.
In short, the statistic of our prison population and a punitive brand of justice fits easily into the model of an advancing fascist state.
I am grateful that our nation is still free enough that I can read and listen to critiques of those in power. I am concerned that the morph toward fascism has been progressing despite the efforts of those trying to speak out. It will be a marker for me if our elections in November turn out to be questionable (again), or even more if Bush suspends the elections because we are at war or because he got a directive secretly passed that he can take control without public consent if he determines a disaster has occurred. A disaster can be created; remember the WTC? Should any of these things happen we will have crossed a line away from democracy.
I've said it before: I'd hate to see the United States lose its democracy and descend into a dictatorship when so many people tried to sound a warning and it went unheeded.
Would it be paranoia to ask someone to print out a copy of this blog immediately upon receiving it, just to prove it was there?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Feminists
Eighty years ago women won the right to vote in the United States. They are one group in a long line who have had to have special legislative recognition in order to be treated as 'normally' human. Yet even after eighty years they still haven't overcome the glass ceiling in the business world, are questioned on propriety and ability of they want to run for President, and still are expected in many households to have dinner on the table when the man gets home from work (after she's gotten home from work, cleaned the house, tended to the kids, etc, etc).
There are lots of flavors of feminists. Just look at Wikipedia on the topic. Some are brave. Some are aggressive. Some are progressive. Some are angry and totally objectionable, even spiritually lethal. But if we narrow the issue to 'equality' alone we will catch the spirit of Suffrage and bra burning.
I am a white male. My mother was elected to city council in the early 1970s and eventually became mayor pro tem in our cautious small city on the edge of a metropolitan area. My father encouraged her. We all had influences; this was mine.
Am I a feminist? Do I believe that women have as much legal right as men? Do I believe that women should be paid equal wages for equal work? Do I believe that women are in general smart enough to be equal decision-makers alongside men? Do I believe that women should have equal say in how a household is run? Do I believe that it is reasonable for a woman to expect a man to put as much time and energy into a household as she does? Do I believe that a woman has a right to say no to a man, for anything she doesn't want to do? Do I believe that God looks at women as being equal in faculties and responsibilities as men? Do I believe that historical figures as wise and respected as Aristotle were wrong in their assessment of women as weak and less than men?
Yes.
I realize that in writing this I am merely repeating something that has been said for decades and centuries by others, and it is unlikely that I will sway anybody of a differing belief. Yet in trying to envision the greatest revolution humankind can ever go through -- conquering the self rather than nature -- it will turn out that our failure to value women as equals will turn out to have been an embarrassing mistake. The same goes for racism, classicism, and -isms and oppression of any stripe. I look forward to a time when race, gender, orientation, origin, and so forth will no longer need legal distinction and protection because it no longer matters. I don't see a gender-blind, color-blind, difference-blind culture, and in fact see a valuation of differences while relying on our commonalities to get through everything together. Right or wrong, I believe it's what God wants from us.
Realistically, I don't expect it will happen in my lifetime. But unless we do something about it today it will never happen.
There are lots of flavors of feminists. Just look at Wikipedia on the topic. Some are brave. Some are aggressive. Some are progressive. Some are angry and totally objectionable, even spiritually lethal. But if we narrow the issue to 'equality' alone we will catch the spirit of Suffrage and bra burning.
I am a white male. My mother was elected to city council in the early 1970s and eventually became mayor pro tem in our cautious small city on the edge of a metropolitan area. My father encouraged her. We all had influences; this was mine.
Am I a feminist? Do I believe that women have as much legal right as men? Do I believe that women should be paid equal wages for equal work? Do I believe that women are in general smart enough to be equal decision-makers alongside men? Do I believe that women should have equal say in how a household is run? Do I believe that it is reasonable for a woman to expect a man to put as much time and energy into a household as she does? Do I believe that a woman has a right to say no to a man, for anything she doesn't want to do? Do I believe that God looks at women as being equal in faculties and responsibilities as men? Do I believe that historical figures as wise and respected as Aristotle were wrong in their assessment of women as weak and less than men?
Yes.
I realize that in writing this I am merely repeating something that has been said for decades and centuries by others, and it is unlikely that I will sway anybody of a differing belief. Yet in trying to envision the greatest revolution humankind can ever go through -- conquering the self rather than nature -- it will turn out that our failure to value women as equals will turn out to have been an embarrassing mistake. The same goes for racism, classicism, and -isms and oppression of any stripe. I look forward to a time when race, gender, orientation, origin, and so forth will no longer need legal distinction and protection because it no longer matters. I don't see a gender-blind, color-blind, difference-blind culture, and in fact see a valuation of differences while relying on our commonalities to get through everything together. Right or wrong, I believe it's what God wants from us.
Realistically, I don't expect it will happen in my lifetime. But unless we do something about it today it will never happen.
Monday, February 18, 2008
We has met the enemy...
In a sermon on Bott Radio tonight Dr. David Jeremiah, preaching about how Jesus defeated death, said, "Let's face it: death is the ultimate enemy."
Enemy?
How can something so natural and guaranteed be considered an enemy? Certainly it is inconvenient, often coming well before one is ready. Certainly it often removes from the living someone that others would rather keep around. Certainly it is the ultimate fear for those who haven't spent much time in the existential zone, or have doubts -- acknowledged or, more likely, not -- about their eternal residence should their faults not be properly attoned for in time.
But an enemy?
Perhaps the perception relies on the definition. I take 'enemy' to mean someone or something who is intent on wrongfully harming one. That gets to be a dicey definition depending on whether you take the myopic, selfish, short-term view or if you take the global, understanding, long-term view. If I take 'harm' to mean any discomfort or pain on my part, then a syringe being plunged into my arm may be considered the implement of my enemy; conversely, if I take the longer view, a vaccination is insurance against future pain and illness.
(We must be careful, however. Torture in the name of security is still wrong. We can never eliminate risk, and to sacrifice liberty for security is an extremely slippery slope).
Considering death as an enemy carries the same flavor as the preachings that a human is by nature bad and wrong, and the only saving grace is through Jesus. Dr. Jeremiah used an example in this sermon, saying "You know those times when something small gets overblown" and ruins your day? Is that a fault of human nature (which God created us with; is He that sadistic that He made us bad and wrong to begin with?), or is it the failure of the person to learn standard stress management? Why put on God what we are able to do as humans and choose not to?
We have made enemies of many things. Mountain lions are enemies and have been hunted and driven from most of its natural habitat, so now we have too many deer that eat my garden and drive up auto insurance. By our labeling of the big cat as an enemy we are interrupting the food chain. Through marketing we increasingly believe that bacteria are enemies, when in fact without bacteria nothing dead would decay and the elements that make up plants and animals would not return to nature for the nourishment of newer life. By making bacteria an enemy we are interrupting the cycle of nature. We decide -- arbitrarily, it seems over the aeons -- that certain nations and rulers are our enemies, mostly when they don't do our bidding, supply the resources we think we deserve that are not on our sovereign soil, or advance a belief that we don't understand and thus fear. By making other nations our enemies we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people -- which arguably gives a small nod to the problem of world overpopulation, though in a poor way -- take what is not ours, and continue to cultivate hatreds that rankle for decades and generations. It's not the finest we are capable of.
Dr. Jeremiah's proclamation that death is the ultimate enemy serves the purpose of his preaching. However, it hinders progress toward the finer of human achievements. Trying to bring people to delight in God by preaching untruths is weird. No wonder so many people are suspicious of religion. Rationalization does not serve religion or nature well.
Enemy?
How can something so natural and guaranteed be considered an enemy? Certainly it is inconvenient, often coming well before one is ready. Certainly it often removes from the living someone that others would rather keep around. Certainly it is the ultimate fear for those who haven't spent much time in the existential zone, or have doubts -- acknowledged or, more likely, not -- about their eternal residence should their faults not be properly attoned for in time.
But an enemy?
Perhaps the perception relies on the definition. I take 'enemy' to mean someone or something who is intent on wrongfully harming one. That gets to be a dicey definition depending on whether you take the myopic, selfish, short-term view or if you take the global, understanding, long-term view. If I take 'harm' to mean any discomfort or pain on my part, then a syringe being plunged into my arm may be considered the implement of my enemy; conversely, if I take the longer view, a vaccination is insurance against future pain and illness.
(We must be careful, however. Torture in the name of security is still wrong. We can never eliminate risk, and to sacrifice liberty for security is an extremely slippery slope).
Considering death as an enemy carries the same flavor as the preachings that a human is by nature bad and wrong, and the only saving grace is through Jesus. Dr. Jeremiah used an example in this sermon, saying "You know those times when something small gets overblown" and ruins your day? Is that a fault of human nature (which God created us with; is He that sadistic that He made us bad and wrong to begin with?), or is it the failure of the person to learn standard stress management? Why put on God what we are able to do as humans and choose not to?
We have made enemies of many things. Mountain lions are enemies and have been hunted and driven from most of its natural habitat, so now we have too many deer that eat my garden and drive up auto insurance. By our labeling of the big cat as an enemy we are interrupting the food chain. Through marketing we increasingly believe that bacteria are enemies, when in fact without bacteria nothing dead would decay and the elements that make up plants and animals would not return to nature for the nourishment of newer life. By making bacteria an enemy we are interrupting the cycle of nature. We decide -- arbitrarily, it seems over the aeons -- that certain nations and rulers are our enemies, mostly when they don't do our bidding, supply the resources we think we deserve that are not on our sovereign soil, or advance a belief that we don't understand and thus fear. By making other nations our enemies we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people -- which arguably gives a small nod to the problem of world overpopulation, though in a poor way -- take what is not ours, and continue to cultivate hatreds that rankle for decades and generations. It's not the finest we are capable of.
Dr. Jeremiah's proclamation that death is the ultimate enemy serves the purpose of his preaching. However, it hinders progress toward the finer of human achievements. Trying to bring people to delight in God by preaching untruths is weird. No wonder so many people are suspicious of religion. Rationalization does not serve religion or nature well.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Leaders and Fear
Today I've been meditating on a question: should we allow ourselves to be led by fear, or led by those who have mastered fear?
Of course I am questioning the Bush administration. Conservative pundits have already asserted, indeed the press followed them from his first presidential campaign, that George the Younger is decisive, resolute. He shows no fear.
Yet it was widely accepted in the psychological community long before W came along that an excess of machismo generally signals an internal fear of impotence. No, not necessarily the sexual kind; this merely refers to one's fund of personal power. It has been known for at least two millenia in Eastern writings that one cannot give what one does not have, and if one hasn't mastered one's own fears then one cannot lead through fears.
Fear isn't evidence of doubt. It isn't evidence of a lack of courage. Indeed, the denial of doubt is breeding grounds for fear, to say nothing of the death of the search for wisdom. Courage is merely making good decisions and acting on them in the face of fear. The inability to admit to doubt, the inability to show imperfections, is evidence that one is putting a lot of energy into a false image.
"I try to put faith in my doubts," Albus Dumbledore said to Harry Potter. How strange, that a fictional character in eight words surpasses the wisdom of so many world leaders.
A study of dolphins a few years back determined that they are able to doubt. The authors of the study, whose names I regrettably didn't record, extrapolated that doubt is the foundation for knowledge, which in turn -- if used right -- is part of the equation for wisdom. My own observation is that knowledge has to be tempered with experience, an orientation to reality, and the ability to see things on a very large level in order to be transformed to wisdom. At the base of it, though, if there is no question then there is no pursuit of answers. For a national leader to display no doubt would mean that he is not looking for answers. All he has is his own opinion and bias. Does anybody know a human who knows everything well enough?
As we march toward national elections in November, maybe it would be a good marker to say that when one leads by fear then he or she hasn't resolved fears of impotence. If one leads by teaching others to master fears -- most likely seen by a willingness to share power -- then one has mastered his or her own fears. Who would we rather have leading us?
Of course I am questioning the Bush administration. Conservative pundits have already asserted, indeed the press followed them from his first presidential campaign, that George the Younger is decisive, resolute. He shows no fear.
Yet it was widely accepted in the psychological community long before W came along that an excess of machismo generally signals an internal fear of impotence. No, not necessarily the sexual kind; this merely refers to one's fund of personal power. It has been known for at least two millenia in Eastern writings that one cannot give what one does not have, and if one hasn't mastered one's own fears then one cannot lead through fears.
Fear isn't evidence of doubt. It isn't evidence of a lack of courage. Indeed, the denial of doubt is breeding grounds for fear, to say nothing of the death of the search for wisdom. Courage is merely making good decisions and acting on them in the face of fear. The inability to admit to doubt, the inability to show imperfections, is evidence that one is putting a lot of energy into a false image.
"I try to put faith in my doubts," Albus Dumbledore said to Harry Potter. How strange, that a fictional character in eight words surpasses the wisdom of so many world leaders.
A study of dolphins a few years back determined that they are able to doubt. The authors of the study, whose names I regrettably didn't record, extrapolated that doubt is the foundation for knowledge, which in turn -- if used right -- is part of the equation for wisdom. My own observation is that knowledge has to be tempered with experience, an orientation to reality, and the ability to see things on a very large level in order to be transformed to wisdom. At the base of it, though, if there is no question then there is no pursuit of answers. For a national leader to display no doubt would mean that he is not looking for answers. All he has is his own opinion and bias. Does anybody know a human who knows everything well enough?
As we march toward national elections in November, maybe it would be a good marker to say that when one leads by fear then he or she hasn't resolved fears of impotence. If one leads by teaching others to master fears -- most likely seen by a willingness to share power -- then one has mastered his or her own fears. Who would we rather have leading us?
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Gospel Of gdamed
Continuing a blog from a little while back, The Athiest and the Believer, I have recently been occupied by thoughts from a conversation with an agnostic -- where we came to a friendly spot of agreement despite our differing beliefs, -- listening for a little while to some gospel music, and a humble comment from a brother about his paling and failing to the example of our father, who died two years ago next week.
The gospel music presented a message over and over: that people cannot do and accomplish things on their own and need the saving grace of Jesus. I was trying to reconcile the message with the stardom of most of the singers. It also brought back and reinforced my inability to cleave to the romance with the name of Jesus. For all the sincerety that devotees practice their faith in, it still seems to me like clinging to a rope in order to stand rather than trusting the strength of one's own legs. It's like relying on medication to solve everything, when working through emotional trauma without medication strengthens character and spirit. As I said in the earlier blog, the use of God or Jesus in the unhealthy denial of one's own capacities does not cancel the existence of God. I understand that people will work things out at their level of competence, but we don't often seem to promote that there is a level of competence that exists within each individual and, should it be realized, we could then approach God on a much higher plane.
The 'differing beliefs' with the agnostic is an example of mislabeling. We hold the same beliefs, just call them different things. When the spirit of what we believe is exposed and the labels are for the moment unmentioned, we find common ground. How simple a thing, to leave aside the shallowness and divisiveness of a label. If we dare. What binds us to reliance on labels if they are so destructive is a good question. What danger is there in finding commonality with our brothers and sisters? None, but the exposure of false pride.
My brother mentioning paling and failing to the example of our father was meant as a tribute to Dad, to express his great admiration and esteem for a man who was, after all, exceptionally respectable. And so any critique of how he phrased it is gentle. In reality, none of us lives in the same time as Dad did, we are each bound to other people and situations and factors in life so that any literal comparison to Dad is simply impossible. The only thing that we can really do is to hope that we learned the spirit of how he lived, and that in our unique situations we are able to translate that kindness, caring, and devotion to the way we conduct our lives. So long as we are able to live out that spirit we are in no way failures. My brother is a devoted husband, father, professional, and member of his church and community. So I gently remonstrate him for being too humble. I may cringe at false pride but have no problem with legitimate pride.
Wouldn't God want us to live to our best potential? Wouldn't He be a little disappointed if we didn't nurture the good qualities He made us with, and instead use Jesus as a marketing vehicle, as a codependent to our poor decisions, as a Cosmic 911?
Last week, running across someone I used to go to church with, she said, "You're not going to church anywhere now? Shame on you." How sad, that she didn't even try to understand.
The gospel music presented a message over and over: that people cannot do and accomplish things on their own and need the saving grace of Jesus. I was trying to reconcile the message with the stardom of most of the singers. It also brought back and reinforced my inability to cleave to the romance with the name of Jesus. For all the sincerety that devotees practice their faith in, it still seems to me like clinging to a rope in order to stand rather than trusting the strength of one's own legs. It's like relying on medication to solve everything, when working through emotional trauma without medication strengthens character and spirit. As I said in the earlier blog, the use of God or Jesus in the unhealthy denial of one's own capacities does not cancel the existence of God. I understand that people will work things out at their level of competence, but we don't often seem to promote that there is a level of competence that exists within each individual and, should it be realized, we could then approach God on a much higher plane.
The 'differing beliefs' with the agnostic is an example of mislabeling. We hold the same beliefs, just call them different things. When the spirit of what we believe is exposed and the labels are for the moment unmentioned, we find common ground. How simple a thing, to leave aside the shallowness and divisiveness of a label. If we dare. What binds us to reliance on labels if they are so destructive is a good question. What danger is there in finding commonality with our brothers and sisters? None, but the exposure of false pride.
My brother mentioning paling and failing to the example of our father was meant as a tribute to Dad, to express his great admiration and esteem for a man who was, after all, exceptionally respectable. And so any critique of how he phrased it is gentle. In reality, none of us lives in the same time as Dad did, we are each bound to other people and situations and factors in life so that any literal comparison to Dad is simply impossible. The only thing that we can really do is to hope that we learned the spirit of how he lived, and that in our unique situations we are able to translate that kindness, caring, and devotion to the way we conduct our lives. So long as we are able to live out that spirit we are in no way failures. My brother is a devoted husband, father, professional, and member of his church and community. So I gently remonstrate him for being too humble. I may cringe at false pride but have no problem with legitimate pride.
Wouldn't God want us to live to our best potential? Wouldn't He be a little disappointed if we didn't nurture the good qualities He made us with, and instead use Jesus as a marketing vehicle, as a codependent to our poor decisions, as a Cosmic 911?
Last week, running across someone I used to go to church with, she said, "You're not going to church anywhere now? Shame on you." How sad, that she didn't even try to understand.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Disingenuity
During his confirmation hearings in front of the Senate, Attorney General candidate Michael Mukasy refused to say whether or not he believed 'waterboarding' was torture. It is assumed that he had the opportunity to study whether or not it was, especially since it was an issue brought up in concern about the Bush administration well before Mukasy's hearings.
How long has Mukasy been in office? A couple of months? And today I hear that he has made a statement that waterboarding is legal according to U.S. policy. No matter that it is considered torture according to international law. No matter that it is stated in U.S. policy that our nation does not engage in torture. The U.S. Attorney General is supposed to be politically independent of the executive branch of government, yet against national and international law he has supported the policies of the Bush administration.
The disingenuity of his refusal to state his position in confirmation hearings and then nearly immediate support of the Bush administration is another in the long line of reasons that so many of us believe we do not have a government that is working for the people. The blatant use of deception to many of us is abhorrant. It's so disappointing. It's so un-American.
How long has Mukasy been in office? A couple of months? And today I hear that he has made a statement that waterboarding is legal according to U.S. policy. No matter that it is considered torture according to international law. No matter that it is stated in U.S. policy that our nation does not engage in torture. The U.S. Attorney General is supposed to be politically independent of the executive branch of government, yet against national and international law he has supported the policies of the Bush administration.
The disingenuity of his refusal to state his position in confirmation hearings and then nearly immediate support of the Bush administration is another in the long line of reasons that so many of us believe we do not have a government that is working for the people. The blatant use of deception to many of us is abhorrant. It's so disappointing. It's so un-American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)