Genesis 8:22. Is that All We Need to Know? [and that God likes the smell of burning flesh!]

Spring is not officially here but it feels like it already here in the Northeast. We've been trying to cancel ..winter and it just might happen if we try hard enough. So, my thanks to those who act as if "climate change" or "global warming" is a hoax perpetrated by the liberal elite. The latter hate capitalism and wealthy corporations who look after the interests of the people by providing jobs!

Oh, yeah, I found gold at the end of this rainbow

I toot my horn when I see huge cars with their 30 gallon tanks, using fuel that could power a small village to transport one person. If there was any doubt about the kind of people those drivers are, their bumper stickers pronounce their patriotism ("love it or leave it" kind of view) and their religious convictions about anything they believe in. Yeah, tell that to Jesus!

Of course, this is America--more precisely, the USA--and we have candidates for the highest office that don't believe in the separation of church-state, science, intellectualism, education, equality of opportunity, legal equality, but believe all else fit for the Dark Ages. Witch hunt, anyone?

If idiotic pronouncements were an exception, I'd say the loons exist in any political party, normally not be of a major, "mainstream" party. However, such is not the case in the US, and one that defines the gap between the progressives and the conservatives today: the perception of reality. You'd think that most people would prefer reality and would not support the election to high office anyone whose views are so ridiculous, especially when such views impact the conduct and public policy of that public office!

Take for example Senator Inhofe (R-OK), the senior ranking Republican on the ..Environment & Public Works Committee, who says the Bible is all we need to know! In Genesis 8:22, Inhofe says, and the Bible confirms, that God is in charge of the climate and we cannot change it, plus that since the Flood, God promised Noah that he would destroy humanity again. Yes, it's all there for all to see, you doubters. In the same chapter we also learn that God likes the smell of burning flesh! [The Bible notes after Noah sacrifices some animals and burns them to thank God for not downing him.]

Upon further reading, I learned that: To the woman [God] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. -Genesis 3:16
I don't like this kind of language and sounds very petty, vindictive, immature, petulant, and sexist. I do love the women in my life, from my mother onward and don't appreciate this kind of attitude.

Even though it's shameful that a Santorum reflects the sentiment of so many Americans, I hope he gets the nomination of this GOP. We need to have this debate about utter religious nuttery and sanity so the GOP and our polity in general could become more modern. Yet, I'm afraid that Obama is not the one to make the clear rational and secular argument a modern state should adopt.

Romney just suffered another defeat in the South and he becomes weaker by losing to such weak candidates. I think he's also losing his "electability"--the "best candidate" in the field against Obama among the conservative base.
...


..
I'm going out to play. It's such a wonderful day! Looking forward to warm nights when I can sit outside looking at the magnificent cosmos overhead.

Slavery By Another Name is Unknown History

People want to believe in something. What makes them feel better is preferred to that that makes them uncomfortable, so sometimes reality is not preferable. 

As Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to help promote this program, aired on PBS recently. It's painful to think that these conditions existed in our country not so long ago, as recently as in 1950s, and it's a history that many Americans don't know or want to know about.
 

If one is to understand politics in the US since the colonial times, the issue of race and slavery is of fundamental importance. Even since WW2, elections, the law, and the trajectory of the political parties, all have been influenced by this reality. The Democratic Party used to be the party of slavery and segregation until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s when it traded place with the Republican Party. The latter, through its Southern strategy made the South a fortress and a solid base for electoral victories. 

This, however, has been changing, as Obama proved that a Democrat who's not from the South can win. Furthermore, the Southern states aren't as "red" as they used to be, like North Carolina, northern Virginia, etc. With other western states turning into swingers, the road to the White House doesn't have to go via the South at all nowadays.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is beholden to a shrinking base that is also out of the mainstream America. Add to this the activism of another extreme element--the Tea parties and even the libertarians--and you have a recipe for disaster. Did I mention immigration and how Hispanics have been trending Democratic?...

Again, the PBS program, Slavery By Another Name, is worth a watch. In the video above there's the promo of this program, plus earlier discussions with Bill Moyers and the author of the book upon which the PBS program was based. 

The Theater of the Absurd Keeps Performing, and Amazingly Attracting Audience!

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

Darwin's Day Means a Celebration of Science

Charles Darwin was born 203 years ago, on February 12th, and 50 years later he published the ground-breaking theory of evolution. [Here's a great BBC documentary on Darwin's Tree of Life with David Attenborough]

When I was little I couldn't understand the concept of billions of years. I looked at those over 30 and thought they were too old! It was the time I believed in Santa Claus and in superheroes with fantastical supernatural powers. Then I slowly began to learn all sorts of wonderful stuff about history, science, and critical thinking. Eventually I was exposed to the theory of evolution. Eventually this led  me to ask one of my teachers when the soul entered the human body in this long chain of changing forms--from the very primitive to modern humans--a question I've asked anyone who tries to reconcile evolution with creationism; I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

The teachings of religion used to be the source to explain everything. Science has replaced this, at least, for those who have answered the question, which knowledge is more reliable? There are gaps or unknowns, but a scientific method is the best tool we have to discover and understand the world around us. It's a matter of self-confidence to accept notions like, I don't know, and, it remains to be seen, rather than opting for a "sure thing" that's based on irrational conjecture at best.

It's amazing that it took so long for humans to come up with a rather obvious theory of adaptation, survival, and changing forms in response to environmental conditions. Since the domestication of animals and plants, our ancestors could see evolution taking place in their lifetimes, yet, they stuck with the religious notions that everything was designed in its present form! 

These remnants of thought-inhibitors are still erecting obstacles to progress today. How else can you explain the current debate about contraception? The bishops say contraception is bad, because they figured out that what the maker of the universe wants, so they're part of the debate and given political considerations! Oyvey.

I tip my proverbial hat to Charles Darwin for having the courage (to go against his family and the prevailing social views) and the intellectual fortitude to formulate such an important scientific theory--by observation, testing, factual investigation, reasoning--and advance important knowledge for humanity.


Science depends on people who understand its importance and on people who value it so they're willing to support such an endeavor. I'm saddened though that we have not succeeded in teaching the most important thing science is to every person in the US, and indeed the world: skepticism, rational thinking, and inquiry.

Controversy over contraception. There they go again: "Sex for Pleasure isn't Good". Surely they're fucking with us!

WARNING: If you're offended by sex, vulgarity, by a rational argument against nuttery, or, if you don't want to think about sex, sexual innuedo and sexual intercourse, and why people have sex for fun, (I know, it's too late now not to think about those things) DO NOT read the following post.... So, you are forewarned. And, by the way DO NOT look at the picture below).

****

An appropriate solution to those who oppose contraception?

Persons who have the least experience in (good, mature) sex tell us that sex isn't good for us!  Many of the strongest advocates of this nuttery are some clergy who looked the other way (or, shielded the many perverts who were raping children). Not to be remiss, a bunch of conservative religious pricks in the US stick their heads in our private affairs-- instead of sticking their heads in the usual place, you know,whether the sun doesn't shine.

No fucking for pleasure they argue, because, god-knows where this may lead.... Or, is it using contraception the main problem? Maybe that's why those rapists in the church overwhelmingly chose to molest--you know, orally and anally--children of the faithful. Ergo, no need for contraception there. Why not sex for pleasure, you ask? Because if it's for pleasure, then what happens to the religious view of the perverse human nature? And, bodily pleasures [this should include food, sports, movies, art, and all mental/emotional rewards] take away from worshiping our imaginary tormentor. This is the purpose in life, isn't it?...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Did you notice that God didn't do anything about it while this was taking place in his house of worship. Not one of those sodomites was struck dead. Maybe god is OK with it. Or, maybe he doesn't really care what the fuck we humans do down here. It's up to us to decide what's good or bad! It's up to us to think whether it makes sense to use contraceptives to plan family size and for women's health. It's up to us to rationally think and act without some false divine and private revelation, and without the perverse interpretation of some inane passage in the book god allegedly wrote.

It's, therefore, up to us to fuck however we want, among consenting adults, and have fun while doing it. Those who dislike sex do not have to have it. Or, they do not have to use contraceptives. But, most importantly, they should stay the fuck out of our way.

Poorly designed church mural

UPDATE: I'm not claiming popular wisdom as being always right, but when it comes to personal choices, and what the insurance companies, health providers should do, it's a clear majority of Americans who believe contraception/family planning should be provided to employees. Those organizations who extend their domain into health care, insurance, etc, should be required to provide for such services as deemed appropriate in a modern society.

It has nothing with religious freedom. They're free to worship and believe in any god and in Divine revelation. Can you imagine, say the Mormon Church, arguing that it would not have to pay for goods and services if such were rendered by a black person? Oh, it was the Mormon dogma (until 1979) that blacks were inferior. OK. That's what that church believed; it was its right not to admit blacks or other minority. That's freedom of religion.

• 73 percent of Democrats agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 65 percent of millenials agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 62 percent of women agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 58 percent of Catholics agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 57 percent of all voters agree “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”
• 55 percent of ALL Americans agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 53 percent of Catholic voters agree“that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Those who want to deny health services on moral grounds should get out of that business. Imagine a doctor who has a religious belief that would prevent him from treating a particular injury when you're rushed to the ER?  Preposterous. I know. We have to let them  know too.

I'm not usually this vulgar as when I wrote this post, but I resent being told about morality from those who have no shame and have no hesitation in wanting to force others to follow their perverted ways!

Newt Gingrich is A Big Fat Idiot... and, a Socialist Revolutionary!

As of now, it seems that the Republicans are still not convinced about Romney, but they may prove me wrong and pick him as the eventual nominee. I had argued that the former Massachusetts governor would not appeal to the majority of the very conservative, religious activist base. Well, he still isn't all that popular, since the majority of primary/caucus participants have voted for someone else. If you remove his supposed "electability" then his core support falls below Ron Paul's! The latter is a marginal candidate who doesn't have any chance of success.

There's a scenario whereas Grinch further implodes and Santorum becomes the one to capture all the anti-Romney conservative votes. This scenario will be tested when the race moves to the Midwest. In 2008, the Dems went through a similar phase, pitting the favorite, Hilary Clinton, and the rest. Once Obama became the only one standing he became also stronger as he captured the anti-Clinton votes.  However, there's a huge difference between those contests in the Dem race and today in the GOP race. The Dems had proportional allocation of delegates, whereas the loser(s) still got something out of a state contest.

The winner-takes-all system, many state Republican parties have, gives a huge amount to the candidate who crosses the line first. There's no majority principle here, just a plurality one. Romney is polling ahead of Newt right now and that may just be enough.  I assumed that the GOP would come up with a strong traditional conservative in which case Mittens would lose despite his organization and tons of money. Well, we've seen that the party wanted this to happen. Any announced candidate, an "anti-Romney"  candidate who appeared remotely competitive had his/her poll numbers spike well above Romney's initially. Every single one of them--Bachmann, Santorum, Grinch, Caine, Perry, Paul--were beating Romney at some point before the process began and even afterward. This is significant, because Mittens was a well-known candidate as the second runner up 4 years ago. The GOP usually selects "the next in line" to hold its flag. Yearning for the anti-Romney may just remain an unfulfilled urge in conservative politics.

All the non-Romney candidates self-imploded for various reasons. This field is looney because the Republican base that's active in the selection process has lots of loons--people who are way out of the country's mainstream.

Newt Gingrich is a Big Fat Idiot

If he can slander others by misrepresenting the truth, promote ignorance, and employ the politics of fear, I think I can safely use the big fat idiot term to describe his "intellectual" abyss. Actually I had (I still do) endorsed Grinch for the GOP nomination!  Why, you ask?

It's time that this Republican party becomes a modern, rational, pragmatic party--as much a conservative party is able, and we all know the limitations of this. With Grinch as the one holding the party banner, the GOP would suffer major defeats. Through this experience, perhaps, some reasonable Republicans would try to wrest control from the loons and turn the party around from heading back to the Dark Ages. Maybe after serious defeats, the GOP would realize that what it represents today, what its leaders pronounce, what the stated policy is,  it has left mainstream America.

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

I have frequent discussions with Republicans and I ask them if they think whether the core principles beliefs and public policy of this GOP reflect the majority of Americans...  And, if not so, whether the country is moving toward or away from those... I think the answer is clear. Any reasonable Republican (endangered species) know it.

It's time we had this discussion. Let's hope that Obama can point out the gap between the GOP and the public. Leadership matters, especially when people take things on faith or they look to leadership for clues. Most of the public, especially the conservatives don't know what social democracy is, yet they hate anything about it because they're told so by their leaders. Who the hell knows or has heard the name Alinski ?! But, Grinch tells his followers to hate Alinski and his "radicalism."  They're supposed to love Ronnie, though if he was alive today and insisted upon some of his policies, he would find himself outside this GOP!

 The president has the loudest megaphone, so let's hope he uses it not only for re-election but also for destroys the politics of fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  You know, like FDR did. Is this too much to ask from the president nowadays?...

Obama Delivers a SOTU Speech Outlining His Campaign Themes. [But, will he revert back to a soft, compromising, and ineffectual style?]

Good speech by the president in the SOTU address, which revealed the main themes of his re-election campaign. Obama is a centrist and will play to the so-called independents and the "floaters"--which, for now, have left but many can be convinced to return, especially given the Republican challengers this year.

There are many reasons why we progressives can't stand the conservatives and this loony, extremist Republican party. Yes, that party whose ideology and public policy proposals go against the vast majority of Americans, in spirit and as public policy.

Obama talked about those American values that unite us. Well, let's see, what are those values, besides nationalism, patriotism, American exceptionalism-center of the universe, "support the troops," motherhood and apple pie?

I'll take them in order as Obama mentioned them, without the president being blunt and drawing his highlight pen to expose the Republicans as the ones against those American values.

1. Tuition assistance and generally the cost of education. Access to opportunity, and, of course, having an educated population is good for the US. The Republicans are against grants, tuition assistance, and want the ..marketplace to price education.

2. Immigration. Well, need I say more? OK, I will. The GOP is hostage to a shrinking but still xenophobic base that is more concerned with "border security" and arresting and expelling anyone who lacks documentation (heck, anyone who can't produce papers on demand). Giving amnesty to all those who have benefited from a hard-working, low-paid labor pool is fine with the Republicans, but giving a path to citizenship to those who have been here more many years, are productive, have paid taxes, and have stayed out of trouble, well, this is a no-no for the Republicans.

3. Public funds for scientific research. What is science anyway? It's just some theories who have gaps and the ..liberal scientists are conjuring up hoaxes on the American people... according to many Republicans. We have no money for science, we must balance the budget... unless we have to pay for another war against Iran. The Republicans are against funding for science and exploration, and research for alternative energy, etc.

4. Public projects. We built them even during the Great Depression and under sensible Republicans like Eisenhower. Not any more according to Republicans today. Infrastructure, communications, the internet, national parks, and even electrification were some of the deeds the GOP has opposed.

5. Regulations about consumer protection, conservation, environment, reckless Wall Street practices, etc, are all opposed by the Republicans.


6. Extending the payroll tax breaks to the middle class workers is opposed by the Republicans. Yet the GOP is in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires!

7. The super rich like Romney pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle class. I don't see why the millionaires (and anyone who earns over that amount) couldn't pay more. The Republicans oppose that, even when the country was about to default in paying its bills (many expenses a Repub prez and a Repub Congress authorized), because the GOP wanted to shove it to anyone (98% of Americans) but the rich.

What I find fascinating is that a major political party can advocate for policies that go against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and even against what the public wants right now [ie, spend to create jobs as opposed to balancing the budget], and yet this party is allowed to have so mach political power. The Republicans should not be allowed to govern, because they don't believe the government can do anything well or any good--unless it's about fighting the evil doers. Oh, and tell us how not to fuck.

It's going to be an interesting campaign season. Have I mentioned that I endorsed Newt for the Repub nomination?  I could go with Mittens but I think the campaign for the general election might be too much about style and personalities. However, with Newt being the GOPer, we may finally have the debate about the kind of conservatism inappropriate for in America of the 21st century and beyond. It's about time the conservative vision and policy proposals are clearly defeated and dismissed for good. Maybe then a more modern Republican party can emerge. That would be good for the country.

GOP and the Rich: Don't Offend God by Engaging in Class Warfare!

"When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent," ... "you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."  Mitt Romney

So, I found out that the presidential candidates are a lot like the rest of us, except they have multiple houses and millions of dollars in wealth. Oh, and that Mitt Romney pays less in taxes that I do.

Oh, and when we raise the issue of wealth, benefits, privileges, influence, power, etc, we're accused of ..class warfare. The lord of the manor, Mr. Romney, probably thinks we're committing ..sacrilege for challenging the divine order of the universe, in which the rich get richer and the middle class--the arrogant and inglourious basterds--is falling further behind. 


The gaps between the middle class and the poor is also growing, not because the middle class is advancing but because poverty is increasing in the US. Personally, I don't feel better off when more people fall behind me. If I'm not moving while a fraction of the top captures most of the wealth generated, then I have no problem committing sacrilege. As for "class warfare" it seems to me that the ..war is over and the elites have won it!

The Republican Debates 

I wanted to watch their debates and even discuss the main points, you know, see why we differ in values, priorities, and public policy. But, it's hopeless. I really tried. It's painful and not even worth discussing the bumper sticker statements these candidates are using to excite the very conservative crowds attending the debates. Indeed, they cheapen the dialogue by appealing to the lowest common denominator. They cheapen their stature if any of them becomes, gasp, president.

Take for example, Gingrich's statement (which was met with roaring applause) that ..Obama put more people on food stamps than any other president of recent. Hmm. People falling into poverty and ..applying for food assistance is Obama's fault. There's no logic in this. Or, that the constant Republican motto, "Get a job!" Well, 1/3 of those who receive food stamps work. Assuming someone makes minimum wage, and assuming (big "if" here) he has a full-time job, that may not be enough to meet basic needs, especially if there's family involved. These wages, vary form $5.15 to 9.04, nationally--though there are 9 states that have no MW or is below the fed standard of $7.25. [US Dpt of Labor] Working FT making $300 a week isn't a lot, and if the Repubs had their way, there would be no minimum wage. Plus the lower working class would have to use these 300 bucks to buy food, health insurance, and an education.

But, We're So Much Better Off Than Those Euros

Paul Krugman wrote this the other day, and, as usual, he nailed it: 

"The Times recently reported ["Harder for Americans to Rise"]on a well-established finding that still surprises many Americans when they hear about it: although we still see ourselves as the land of opportunity, we actually have less intergenerational economic mobility than other advanced nations. That is, the chances that someone born into a low-income family will end up with high income, or vice versa, are significantly lower here than in Canada or Europe.

 
And there’s every reason to believe that our low economic mobility has a lot to do with our high level of income inequality.

 
Last week Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, gave an important speech about income inequality, presenting a relationship he dubbed the “Great Gatsby Curve.” Highly unequal countries, he showed, have low mobility: the more unequal a society is, the greater the extent to which an individual’s economic status is determined by his or her parents’ status. And as Mr. Krueger pointed out, this relationship suggests that America in the year 2035 will have even less mobility than it has now, that it will be a place in which the economic prospects of children largely reflect the class into which they were born."

But, we live in a la-la land, where conservative memes, like viruses, still roam the minds of millions of our compatriots. Like, more wealth to the top, fewer taxes [I shouldn't be too upset that Romney pays less % in taxes than I do, especially after learning the GE paid no taxes!], and less protection for the consumer and the environment lead to more prosperity and, of course, more freedom. Tsk...

Christopher Hitchens is Up in Heaven Now **

 "Great voice against cant, against hypocrisy, against obscurantism and pretension, against all tyrants including God." Richard Dawkins

I don't know if it's bravery or simply intellectual honesty, but when a person is confronted with his own immediate destruction and doesn't seek false comfort, I think there's something to be admired. Christopher Hitchens eventually succumbed to cancer last Thursday, and our community is grieving the loss of a brilliant fighter against bigotry, intolerance, indoctrination, stupidity, and totalitarianism. But, he had a life of wonder, and I think he fully enjoyed it, as he put it, he burned the candle at both ends.

Hitch was not timid in attacking the fake, the unreasonable, and even the popular. What I like the most was his sharp wit, great reasoning and the knowledge on the subjects he talked about. I read his books, and watched his many debates and interviews, and read faithfully his essays. That's his legacy, though it would have been nice to have had him around for a while longer.

When once was asked why he was so forceful against religion and many popular icons, he responded by saying he does it for love! He said he loved freedom, the individual, education, a civil life, but there are those who hate what he loved so he had no choice but to fight back. So do we!

Incredulity and fear are promoted by the elites and those who want to maintain their special status. Especially fear--everybody feels and knows fear--because it motivates people while altering their reality. But, the teaching of ignorance by all religions is what needs to be addressed, and a voice like Hitchens' had one of the best polemical voices.

A Matter of Faith

In the US democracy today, no one can run for an important position without professing their strong faith--even if such faith holds truly crazy stuff, as in the case of Mormon, Scientology, etc.. In other words, leaders find it politically advantageous to proudly declare that they can suspend reason and discard evidence! 

If a belief is part of a person's identity, then it's very hard to even critically evaluate it--it becomes faith. Confirmation bias is the method by which someone accepts ideas and images in their heads if they're not interested in amendments. Society and culture play an important role in enforcing norms and beliefs as well. Strong challenges aren't welcomed, since they question the validity of fundamental beliefs.

Here's a sample of Hitchens' argument against religion as he debates Chris Hedges:

 

Which knowledge is more reliable?

Of course, the answer should be obvious, yet it isn't to everyone. Soothing, comforting, and easily-understood beliefs may be preferable to uncertainty or to a reality that's harsher than a person can accept. But, we must keep the dialog, and, yes, polemical debates going.  Through thoughtful discussions, exchange of ideas, and the scientific method we can understand more about ourselves and the universe. Even morality should be based on a thought out process, free from the tribal superstitions of the writers of the "holy" books.

Religion, its manifestations, and its privileged status was a target of Hitchens. He was an important figure among those who questioned revealed knowledge. I often point out that fear should not be the cause for accepting something or even acting morally. A person's own volition, a thoughtful act, kindness, charity, compassion, and morality shouldn't be based on the altar of bargaining, punishment, and terror.

Just in Time for the Holidays

I watched the following video a few days ago, and I've been pondering how to present it here as it's extremely disturbing. It's a demonstration of mindless belief and how religion (faith) can make good people do horrible things to others, including children. Belief without evidence and reason is extremely dangerous, especially when it involves how others are treated. 


A totalitarian, absolute ruler of the universe, who created all the heavens and earth, and humans, and viruses, and diseases, and natural catastrophes, who cares how we think (yes, there's ..thought crime), how we dress, what we eat, how we have sex, and tells us to kill (obviously the followers of the wrong gods), this supernatural entity must be given credit for everything--the good and the bad.

Of course, I've heard about "free will" and the (bad) choices humans make, but assuming bad things happen to people who deserve it, why do bad things happen to babies, or little children who haven't had the chance to exercise their free will? Hitchens spent his last days in a hospital part of a medical center whose tallest tower was a reminder of, at the very least, a God who doesn't care. It's a hospital for children with cancer!

David Hume [The Problem of Evil] put it succinctly : Is God able but not willing? Then he's no moral. Is God willing but not able? Then he's no god. Why God is so apocryphal? Like Hitch put it, millions of humans for thousands of years died in pain, agony, fear, ignorance, etc. Everywhere, from the Americas to Australia. Then the Heavens decide to intervene by telling a few Bronze-age tribal people living in obscurity that there's a true God.  And, for hundreds of years no one else on Earth knew about it. So, people kept dying in ignorance.

I don't know, an infinite entity with all the wisdom would at least have told the tribes to wash their hands. Or, at the very least, not have created the germs, viruses, diseases, etc, to torture the humans he made out of his own image. There's a water-born worm in Africa that's responsible for blinding millions of children (and adults) in the continent. It enters the eyeball of the victim and eats it from the inside out. But, for the rest, we have butterflies and rainbows to marvel at, praise God.

**(From the title of this post). This is the explanation, and it's based on Kurt Vonnegut's joke.

Obama Joins the Battle to Save Christmas from the Claws of Festivus

We know that everything Obama has been doing is to win reelection and he's figured that the game is attracting the "floaters" and independents. Therefore, he's been harsh on his core supporters--the progressives--and easy on his opponents. This is not good.

It's not good because it's not a good electoral strategy. The floaters and independents want a strong president, even if they disagree on policy issues--as they did with Bush 43. It's not good because elections are often decided by turnout of the political base. You can't alienate your core supporters then.

The best thing Obama has right now is the declared Republican candidates. Obama's bad luck to be elected during very difficult times, was followed by his indecision and naivete (that he had a partner in Government--Congress), and now his fortune not to be facing credible challengers. This does not mean that the eventual GOP nominee wouldn't have a good chance of winning the presidency if the economy worsened. 

Myth: Taxes on the Millionaires Hurts Job Creation

Why this meme still circulates is amazing and a testament to the Conservative noise machine. Yet, many reasonable people believe that taxes on small business, millionaires, and big corporations are job killers. Businesses pay taxes on the profits they generate, unlike most of us whose entire income is subject to taxation. Also, someone who makes millions of dollars (like an athlete or a lawyer, etc) can be a "small business" if he has relatively few hired workers.

So, NPR went to the Republicans and other groups who oppose the millionaires' tax and asked them to find a person who'd be affected by this new tax proposal. They couldn't get anyone. After a wide search, including postings on Facebook, NPR spoke to a few small business owners, who confirmed what every business owner would say, that hiring new workers happens when there's an expectation of investment return. In other words, if you think expanding means more business, you do it.

Jobs aren't created because a business has cash on hand. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash right now. They're not hiring. Why should they when they're under utilizing their capacity as it is?

As to how many small business owners this new millionaires tax would affect? Just 0,01%. And, they can certainly afford this small tax increase. The Conservatives are siding with a few thousands instead of the millions of hardworking Americans whose paycheck withholding deduction will expire if the Congressional Republicans don't vote to extend this by the end of the year.  The Grinch that stole xmas may be real.

Aristotle: Extremes of Power and Wealth Are Not Good for Society!

The Republicans block, filibuster, oppose, obstract, and deny anything that has to do with consumer protection and rights. They have perfected Newspeak--the Orwellian language in 1984 whereas words have the opposite meaning. Like, freedom is slavery, war is peace, and their favorite, ignorance is strength.

 

So, what kind of a society do they want to maintain and advance?

 "What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? [...] They say they want a smaller government but that can’t be it. Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States – eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences, including broader application of the death penalty. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life. 

They call themselves conservatives but that’s not it, either. They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backwards – before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.

They’re not conservatives. They’re regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century."

Robert Reich

Thanksgiving in New York City, 2011

Thanksgiving is a special holiday, because it's not religious but rather inclusive. I don't think it's about the Pilgrims and the natives and all the other made-up "history." It's about thinking of the good people we have in our lives and the good things that surrounds us. 

The World Trade Center new tower under construction (view from Broadway)

There's a crowd Thursday afternoon at Zuccutti park

It's also a nice time to be in NY city, as it's the most quiet and fan to walk around day in all of the year. If the weather is good--we're having unusually warm weather for this time of year--a walk in Central Park or the various neighborhoods of this great metropolis is particularly rewarding; it doesn't feel rushed or too noisy.

Great folk band got the people dancing at the park

Trinity Church interior. This church has been helping OWS.

Northern Central Park

The Rumble in Central park.

It's been a tradition of mine to forgo invitations for bigger gatherings, especially out of the city, and spend the day in NYC. This year, I paid a visit to the Occupy Wall Street Liberty square. There were lots of people there. The kitchen group prepared and handed out some 3,000 meals on Thursday! 

In a frenzy consumerism, many stores are opening midnight to boost holiday sales. I think it's crazy that people can't wait for a few more hours before going shopping. It's the stores competing to capture early sales, but if people didn't rush to shop...   Besides, I wouldn't want to be an employee who has to skip Thanksgiving dinner to work the 11 pm Thu to 7 am Fri.

Actually, it feels liberating to me not to have to go shopping. I give gifts throughout the year and I refuse to be part of this insane holiday shopping activity. I expect no gifts either during this time. Well, material gifts--you know, the ones you buy from the stores--but otherwise, yes, it's a nice time to be exchanging and appreciating the gifts that really matter. 
;)