Remember Carl Sagan's Cosmos? It Aired 30 Years Ago this Time. He Popularized Science and Hooked Many of Us in Awe!

Thirty years ago almost to this day, PBS aired Carl Sagan's COSMOS and made history. Science and its fruits were finally presented in such a way that most people could understand and, yes, be in awe!  I didn't have a VCR or a way to record this program except put an old tape recorder next to the TV and capture the sound. Listening to those tapes years later I still found the series extremely interesting.

"We wish to pursue the truth where ever it leads..." Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan had a gift of taking complicated scientific subjects and explaining them to the public. Some scientists criticized him for over-simplifying science, but he understood that the great scientific discoveries and knowledge should be something excites everyone. We need more of this, and we should have academic programs specializing in the Public Understanding of Science. Not only because, after all, it's public money that supports much of science, but because science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. Not to mention that we live longer, better, and healthier lives because of science.

Until the 17th century, the Church controlled knowledge in Europe. Of course, controlling knowledge is one way to control people. Any alternative theory was deemed a threat to the status quo. Free thinkers are a threat to dogma and absolutism. The more a person learns, the more questions he asks, the more chances that freedom and free inquiry will become a necessity.Knowledge is empowering. 

I often have to pinch myself when I see that, despite all the learning opportunities and tools we have at our disposal, so many Americans remain willfully ignorant. How else can you explain the war against science, and the scientific illiteracy of our fellow citizens?


If a specific knowledge is claimed by anyone, then the starting point should be, which kind of knowledge is better? The one arrived at by inquiry, evidence, and rational thinking, or the one that "feels right" or secretly revealed to the select few and can't be challenged? 

If you dare to learn, ask, how do you know the things you think you know? 

Like Hitch says, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The Arrogance of Those Who Did Bad and the Need for Strengthening the Middle Class

It's amazing that those people who are saved by the government are also against government--not just inefficient government--but scream against the expanding powers & scope of it. On This American Life [link to follow when they make this segment available], I listened to a segment about Wall Street people who never ever want to acknowledge (not even to themselves) that they screwed up and their companies & jobs had to be salvaged by a big government bailout!

Edvard Munch's Vampire. [yes, there's an analogy somewhere here]

Most Americans are under the impression that the marketplace is the best mechanism for everything and that pure capitalism is the order of all things. No, the state has lots to do with the marketplace. For one, it protects the businesses, creates opportunities for new entries, regulates behavior to protect consumers, and ensures competition. All these are desirable qualities. The fact that there are failures should lead us to examining the causes and improving the performance of our institutions.

The Republicans run on a platform of limited government, which may be a good principle as an alternative. Personally, I'm in favor of efficiency, honesty, transparency, accountability, all in the service of our commonwealth--or, put it in another way, in service to the people of our country. But, what is the best way to serve the people? Leave it to the "invisible hand of the market" only? Not sufficient and might even be dangerous without the appropriate safeguards.

Like any other country, we have powerful myths. Yet, we often should check with reality. For example, do we live longer than other advanced countries? Are we more educated? Do we have more leisure, are we less affected by crime, are we happier? If not why not? 


Most advanced countries seem to have decided that a strong middle class is necessary for a better quality of life and for the political system to serve the people, not the elites. Extreme concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the few isn't good. Greater such inequalities exist in dictatorships and less advanced countries than in advanced liberal democracies, who rely on their government & the laws to correct injustices and lack of opportunity.


Aristotle who was very critical of democracy--the common people participating in the decision making process of their polity--but he thought it was the best regime to promote the interests of the many. He argued for a government bound by popular consent and one that serves the middle class. He was in favor of a Republic, as the framers of our constitution were. But, he was adamant about having a strong middle class, not extremes of power and wealth.

Now, guess what, those responsible for royally screwing our government and the country (not to mention other countries) want to be in power again--and they may be able to capture the House of Representatives. Their "new" ideas are those old ideas about giving tax cuts to 2% of the population, less regulation in Wall Street, and, oh yeah, no consumer protection, or creating opportunities for those who need their government to represent the people's interests.  


How's this for a new Republican idea, their energy saving proposal: construct all roads downhill...

Apparently God Can't Intervene When Priests Bugger Boys in His Church. The Pope Just Covers the Evidence, Offers Regrets in Hindsight. All is Well Then. No?

In Africa, a new wave of witch hunt is going on and many Christian churches are taking advantage of the superstitions. Even children are sometimes accused of demonic possession if a parent suddenly dies. Other individuals are hunted down because they are either possessed by demons or are witches/warlocks. Religious leaders offer solutions to this problem of witchcraft and the devil's doings. The gullible faithful believe and obey, and they flock to the churches.

What's wrong with this picture, you may ask. Some in our society would dismiss such problems as endemic in primitive societies. Yes, the more primitive a society is the more ignorance and superstition exists. However, even an advanced society can be fertile ground for superstition and idiotic beliefs. Actually, our own country has many unscrupulous leaders who peddle such nonsense, and, incredibly, there are millions of Americans who buy this crap and want to shove it down our throats.

If I can convince you that there's a curse on you, then I offer you a remedy, that I (or my reps) can lift this curse for a fee or for strict obedience... then, I'll have a great scheme going for me. Not going to happen because we have modern people with enough education and smartness? Not so fast... It has happened over and over again, and it's happening right now, here in the US, Europe and every other country.

So, everyone is born with original sin--religion has convinced people of that. But, don't worry, there's a solution to this problem. There's somebody whose father sacrificed him to pay for the sins of others and to prove that his father loves us. {I love you, therefore I'm going to kill someone for your benefit} Then you can communicate, telepathically, to him that you accept him as your lord and savior so the curse can be lifted. This curse was placed on you because the very first couple ate the fruit of knowledge and was kicked out of paradise. Ever since, all humans begin in guilt/sin and it's up to them to beg, bargain for salvation. Easy, if they pay up (support the church and its minions) and listen to God's reps on Earth.

I suppose since every single person at time of birth bears the scar of sin is why the murder of children to pay for the sins of their parents is acceptable--in a Biblical sense of course, because modern civilized societies have a more rational approach, thank God.

Now here's this Pope--whose church's dogma proclaims that he's infallible in matters of faith--telling us that atheists are responsible for evil-doers like Hitler and Stalin. Really, Mr. Pope? I don't know, but I'd think any monster doesn't kill in the name of atheism, and even if he did, he doesn't represent the non-believers. Yet, the Catholic Church, and all major religions have officially sided with monsters in perpetuating crimes against humanity, over and over again.

If a child is raped, I want the perp to face criminal charges in a civil court of law, and not judged only by God after death. Oh, yeah, how should I interpret the practice (and often the official policy) of the Church covering up the crime and exhorting the victims to remain silent?

As long as people remain sheepish and in abject fear, any scam is possible. I had hoped that there wouldn't be too many of them at the dawn of the 21st century.  Being lectured by a schemer is too much to bear. It's not accidental that the Christian story is analogous to that of a shepherd and his flock of sheep... They want people to be sheep that serve the interests of the master, are fleeced, and eventually killed.

...

PS. I hope it's clear, but if it's not, I'm singling out the Catholic Church for perpetuating a scam. All religious institutions, organizations who profess to know something they don't and who provide remedies for imaginary ailments are preying on the gullible, the ignorant, the weak, and the fearful.  

Those who would argue that so many smart and educated people can't be the types I describe here for accepting religion, I have to say that humans have the ability to hold contradictory beliefs in their brains, and, secondly, intelligence is many things... A person can be a brilliant scientist mapping the genome sequence but see a waterfall and think that Jesus has a message for him.

Stupid Rules: Can't Film or Make Sand Castles in Public Parks! [and, what the public shouldn't know]

This situation provides an interesting point of discussion about the role of government. What should the government do before, during, and after a disaster like the 206-million-gallon leak in the Gulf.  Seriously, should the government regulate and supervise certain economic actities? How is the public good being served? Assuming the government works in the interst of the public.





The video above demonstrates that government can have silly rules--like not filming or digging a few inches of sand in national parks, or that special & narrow interests have prevailed. It could be incompetence too. Why shouldn't the public know how well BP is cleaning up the spill on our beaches? And, shouldn't our government want to be transparent about such things?

Tea Parties + Republican Morass = More Disfunctional Politics

It seems that the tea parties have some success in the Republican primaries this year, producing nominees that are way out of where most Americans are politically. The teabaggers may represent a growing movement but I think such reactionary and rather extreme groups don't have much lasting effect once crises subside. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is being pulled further to ultra-conservatism and to a political base that's small and shrinking.

Irresponsible leadership, careless rhetoric, and promoting crazy ideas eventually comes back to bite you. The GOP will not compete for control of the Senate this year because of the teabaggers. Moderate Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said today that if the moderates are endangered in the GOP, the party cannot be a majority party. In the northeast, ME has the only Rep Senators, while in the House there are zero from New England, and only 2 if NY is included. This may change in this election and the next, but this region--and for that matter most of the country--is not moving in the GOP's direction.


Think of the major policies, ideological stances, and the candidates on the Republican side. Do you see the majority of Americans being attracted to them in the future? I want a modern Republican party, one that promotes science, is tolerant & cosmopolitan. If it promoted fiscal responsibility in an honest way, it could be helpful. Please, don't tell me about Repubs being for fiscal responsibility since Nixon..  All have been big spenders and deficit peacocks... all show but no substance.

The budget cannot be balanced by cuts alone. Revenue is needed too. And, giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich isn't right and won't help either.  As long as the GOP runs on an anti-government platform, it should remain out of government. In a free and advanced country, the government is of-by-for the people. The "for" means the government serves the interests of the people not the elite's.


Did you hear about a country that 1 in 7 people live in poverty? Where the middle class wages have remained stagnant (adjusted for inflation) since 1973? Where almost 50 million people are still without or limited health care?... That's 1 in 6 with no health care insurance. Where infant mortality in some states is much higher than Cuba's and Iran's? Where the gap between the rich & every one else has increased and now it's bigger than the so-called Gilded Age?


Ah, freedom! It's a nice thing to have. But, it has to be connected to meaningful choices and opportunities.

Now let's observe how the Dems will screw this up once again. They should take the fight to the Republicans. Despite the former being played like a rag doll by the GOP during the first year of the Obama administration, they have to remind the voters who's responsible for this mess, that a wrecked economy can't be fixed in 18 months, and that this ultra-nutty GOP cannot be trusted with the keys to the government.

Those Who Wrecked the Car Want the Keys Back.... (Some Thoughts on the November 2010 Election)

It's the economy, stupid. September has been good on Wall Street but no so good on Main Street. Anywhere between 25 and 35% of our working force has felt the effects of unemployment since the Republicans were in office in 2008. The latter are saying now that the Dems haven't fixed the problems of the Great Recession in 1.5 years that they created when they controlled the government.

Unfortunately there's a big percentage of Americans who have short memory and float from side to side and often decide elections. They are low information voters, moved by impressions of power and outcomes. For the life of me, I can't see why voters would return control of the House to the Republicans. The congressional GOP has one strategy: to frustrate any Dem initiatives and make Obama one-termer. The hell with the country. Controlling one chamber (the House) will produce more dysfunctional government. Indecision, delays, bad laws, inaction, and a protraction of the economic crisis all are bad for Obama in 2012 and the Dems.


We can consider ourselves a bit lucky that the biggest threat to the Republican party right now is the tea parties. If it weren't for the teabaggers wrestling control from key GOPers, the Dems would also lose the Senate this year. Take for example Dem Harry Reid in Nevada. He would be trailing by double digits today if his opponent wasn't such a nutcase. Instead he's ahead by a couple points. 


Now, what has the Dem in the White House and those in Congress done? Not much. They have managed to alienate their most reliable and active base--the progressives and those groups that believed the country would finally get bold leadership to pull it our of the morass the conservatives had sunk us in. But, no such bold leadership came despite huge majorities, a huge electoral win, and high approval ratings when Obama took office in Jan. 2009. 

Drildo. Many voters will be satisfied (one way or another) in November

I've written lots on this wasted opportunity and how the Dems have been incompetent in managing their good fortunes after the last general election. Let's look to the future now. But, in a democracy with popular elections there has to be some kind of strategy, good communication with the public, and, yes, a clear & bold policy. The president usually wins public fights with Congress if he knows how to play the game. He has to be out there every day saying articulating a clear policy while pointing to the obstructionists. The current president should see how Clinton played the Republicans when they shut down the government via their congressional leadership.


The economy will be a major factor in this election and it ain't getting much better between today and election day. But, from Labor Day on the voters pay more attention to politics and begin to form their opinions. 

• Bigger than 5% points in polls by end of this month will be insurmountable by election day. Time to act is now.
• In a low turnout midterm election the more energized base produces huge advantage. Thus far, the Dem leadership has failed to energize its base. Why? Because, they shied away from legislation (jobs bills, tax breaks for the rich, immigration, etc) even if there are big majorities in favor of such bills. The Times has an article on college voters, here.
• Obama must set forth a clear agenda now and make a promise to implement it one way or another. He should establish clear objectives and send a clear message to the Republicans and Dems that he's going to be a stronger leader than he's been so far.

With fewer Dems in the Senate and a minority in the House it's imperative the Dems show more solidarity. Their electoral fortunes in 2012 will depend on this. And, the country will be better off. The Republicans are going to have a brawl with the teabaggers one of this days or the GOP will cease to exist as a party that represents a big chunk of the country. Tea party candidates are way out of the mainstream and I don't think they can sustain their initial success, but then again they may capture the GOP whose white, southern (regional) stronghold is shrinking.


The bottom line is who can convince the voters that they can do a better job with the economy after the November election. In theory there should be no contest, but in reality... well, we're seeing it right now. I just think there's a small (and getting smaller) window for the Dems to stem their loses and retain control of the House. Yet, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

The Principle of Tolerance And Free Expression (but with a twist)

Let me be controversial for a moment...    


One group of people fervently holds beliefs that dismiss any other group's fundamental tenets therefore this group is deemed as a threat to the latter's survival--physical or cultural. Really, isn't this the true reason for opposing the expression and practice of other religions? It's the fear that their values are so different than the prevailing ones and that those values will dilute or poison the good established socio-political culture.

How about the various laws against proselytizing? How could a religion tell the infidels about a good thing they're missing out if prevented from preaching openly and acquiring new members? [definition: proselytize] It's the dominant religion that uses the state to safeguard its own faithful from competition. The Founders understood this danger when they established the principle of separation of church-state. The courts have also ruled on the Establishment Clause.

I do believe in the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is part of it, as freedom of expression is too. Free speech means that people can argue about ideas, or just pronounce their beliefs without offering any proof. But, they can't prevent others from doing so. Here's a fundamental point: Respect for the right to free speech but no idea or belief system should claim immunity from criticism or evaluation. This concept is hard for many to accept. If I haven't examined my own ideology, my own cultural directives, how could I be "open to a dialogue" when confronted by people with different claims? 

If I happen to be a tolerant person, I could accept others' religion to exist on the principle of tolerance but without evaluating their claims--unless I say, I know they're going to hell but that is their choice, those fools....  All major faiths claim the only true path to salvation while condemning others. And, here's the crux of the matter: Faith isn't up to rational thinking and critical evaluation whereas revision is possible or desirable. The dogmatic approach demands devotion, acceptance, and that a few special persons understood God's absolute commandments. 

The Muslim organization that wants to build its cultural center, including a mosque, near the WTC has the legal right to do so and if this offends other people and organized religions so be it. Can you imagine how different our country would be if we made "being offended" a legal principle? Anything you do or say can be found offensive by a number of people. There would be no wealth of art, literature, music, fashion, etc. Granted, not everything out there is fine by me. I found many things offensive. What I don't like, I boycott not try to ban it legally. Of course, I'm talking about adults who have choice, not children. 


Personally (adding to being controversial) I believe that all religions are fundamentally wrong. They pronounce edicts, deliver judgments, and construct arguments on the idea they have captured the only absolute truth--and only them can possess it. All major faiths (at least) are misogynistic. Their holy books contain passages supporting slavery, killing of the apostates and members of other faiths, promote blind obedience, superstition, and ignorance.


Humans have established more civil societies because they created the secular state and chose not to strictly obey the commandments in their holy books. I do prefer a more thought-out, rational, appropriate for our enlightenment-era society. Can you imagine the world whereas we killed adulterers, those who left a faith, those who worked on the Sabbath or wore the wrong clothes, ate the wrong foods or broke their fast, that we could beat our slaves, murder children for the sins of their fathers, commanded women to be man's property while we cut their clitoris once they became teenagers, etc, etc,...

Mike Huckabee, Bucking the GOP dogma, Backs the DREAM Act and Sensible Immigration Reform Unlike Flopper J. McCain!

I don't agree with most of Mike Huckabee's but on this instance he's right. "When a kid comes to his country, and he’s four years old and he had no choice in it — his parents came illegally. He still, because he is in this state, it’s the state’s responsibility – in fact, it is the state’s legal mandate – to make sure that child is in school. So let’s say that kid goes to school. That kid is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he’s a smart kid and he works his rear end off and he becomes the valedictorian of the school. The question is: Is he better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it’s better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen"

What is the future US national makeup?

Unfortunately our country lacks leaders who will speak the truth on the immigration issue.Of course there's the short-term political calculation, especially by the GOP, that caters to xenophobia, racism, and ill-conceived notions of citizenship. Most go for the easy and visible action "enforcing the law and reinforcing the border, but we're spending a disproportionate amount of money and resources for a problem that can be addressed otherwise. Right now, the system is broken so any one-way while the US is addicted to cheap labor.

The immigration issue will return after the November elections and I'll devote plenty of space to it here. So, stay tuned. 

Don't Build the "9-11 Mosque"... But, then (to be fair), Remove All Churches from "Sensitive" Areas Around the World Too!

Is the US a Christian country? I mean it in a legal, constitutional sense, not that the majority of its citizens are Christians. According to our Constitution, and the intent of the founders, the US is a secular country that separates religion from the state, whereas the government cannot favor one religion over another, and that every person here can freely choose to take any religion or laugh & scorn all of them. This is a fundamental American right. Why should we turn it into a privilege?

If this country respects this principle, then a church, a mosque, or an altar to Zeus can be built. The same rules should apply to every religion, sect, or any fantastical organization--not only to the "privileged" ones who happen to be Christians. 

Soon the discussion centered around the issue of whose hat was the best

I hear a lot about respect. That the Muslim center (which will include a mosque) is disrespectful to the victims of 9-11 by being built some 2 blocks away from the site. What is the rule here? I don't see the reason for objecting--other than our government shouldn't be subsidizing any religious organization by offering tax-free status. But this should apply to all religions. 

You do know that all the main three Abrahamic religions (and most others) are mutually exclusive, right? Every single one of them professes to hold the absolute truth and the only way to salvation. All those outside this faith are condemned to go to hell. When any of those religions dominated the government it usually implemented persecutions against the infidels and the non-believers. This isn't respect. It's dogmatic. Therefore, every religion a priori is against the others. 


Interestingly enough, all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) entertain the justification of guilt by association. Children could pay for the sins of their parents. Also, that God can deliver collective punishment. We were told by some popular American preachers that 9-11, and hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the gays, feminists, ACLU, and the godless hedonists.  So, yeah, collective punishment, because all are guilty of some kind of trespass....


I'm wondering whether the serious crimes some Christians have committed, some via the official Church establishment should prevent churches from being built near "sensitive" areas, like Jerusalem. The "offensive" principle should apply there too, no?
 
Even if I think that religion is adopting a belief system with certain obligations without reference to evidence or reason, many people do need religion so I have no problem people expressing their faith--as long as it does not being imposed on me. Fear and the need to be saved makes people behave. If hard-core criminals (many in prisons) find a god that makes them a better person, all the better for the rest of us too. If a believer gives more to charity or avoids law-breaking because he things God is watching, then it's just fine by me.

A Duke University study [link to the NYT article] just came out suggesting that contemporary mosques are a deterrent to terrorism! If it's true, then I'd say, built more of those damn things as fast as you can. Otherwise, young hot-headed Muslims may seek other venues, or may be more prone to be recruited by the jihadist fundamentalists. Obviously there is a problem with the old Islam as it was with the old Christian church. Islam hasn't had it's Protestant Reformation but there are moderate voices in it--those voices and organizations we should support and open a dialogue with.

When will the demonstrations outside the Pentagon will commence? What, you didn't know there's a mosque in there?!!  Tsk. 


Marxism needs to be revised. Religion isn't the "opium of the people" in that it may sedate reasoning but I think it's more like crack cocaine! It can make some weak people so excited as to do some crazy and stupid stuff.

SHAMEFUL! And, the Democratic Leadership in Congress is to Blame!

The Dems are afraid to tackle the immigration issue before the Congressional election this November so they sacrifice decency and common sense to the even more ridiculous Republican demands. The House failed to pass a bill that would give health care benefits to the 9-11 responders. The bill received 255 votes for and 159 against. Shame to those 159 politicians who voted against giving benefits to people who rushed to the scene in NYC and later worked at the site for the rescue/recovery/clean up effort. The Bush EPA, told everyone that the air at the World Trade Center disaster zone was OK to breathe. The Giuliani City Hall, and the Pataki state government failed to give adequate protection and alert the workers & emergency responders.

But, wait a second. Isn't 255 a bigger number than 159? How come a bill that gets a majority like this fails to pass, you ask.  Well, because the Dems brought it under a rule that required a 2/3 super majority to pass! Why? Because the Dems did not want to confront the issue the Repubs were raising: We should not pay for health benefits for any undocumented worker (I wonder how many there could have been) who without proper papers rushed to the scene to help out, got injured or breathed in the cancer-causing polluted air. Those bastards, they should die for helping out without having the proper visa!

Yeah, this is the absurd and obscene reason the Repubs used to oppose this bill. Oh, and to shield big business from paying taxes in the US. The bill was to be funded by ..ending the tax loopholes the multinational pharmas use to avoid paying US taxes! 

What a shame, shame, shame!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Immigration and the 14th Amendment

Have you heard about the 14th Amendment? It gives citizenship and all legal rights to anyone who is born in this country. When it was adopted, it meant to enfranchise people who had been born here but were discriminated by the political & legal system, on the federal and mostly state levels. Now some conservatives, including many state Republican parties, want to repeal this amendment because they say illegal immigrants shouldn't be rewarded by having babies here!

First, babies to illegal immigrants is not a problem but it's a distraction. It's a rallying point for the conservatives and the tea baggers. It may be beneficial to them short term but it'll help put this GOP on the sidelines in the future. The Hispanics especially favor the Dems by 65-70% at the ballot box. The immigration issue will further solidify this block behind the Dems in increasing numbers. Much like other immigrant groups that have favored the Dems for generations, because they found their way via the big city political machines controlled by the Dems. In addition, the Latinos are a growing block. In about a generation, the Caucasians (white Euros) will be a minority in the US.

The present day anti-immigrant stance isn't new. The Know Nothing Party and others had expressed the same views targeting the Irish and other "inferior European immigrants."  As one framer put it at the time, "we are entirely ready to accept" that under the proposed amendment, "children born here" of immigrant parents "shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others." In two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court verified this "clear constitutional mandate" of birthright citizenship, ruling in 1982 that the "fourteenth amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger" regardless if "a person's initial entry into a State, or the United States, was unlawful." [source]

Just a few minutes ago, there was a piece on NPR where Young Americans For Freedom and that awful Ken Blackwell [we go back to Ohio, 2004] talking about the disillusionment with Obama's "hope message" and how younger people are giving up on the dream of change and whatever. Oh, and, yeah, Obama is a socialist, anti-freedom, anti-market system, and the best thing that happened to ..conservatives!  How do these people manage to convince anyone beyond their immediate cadre of interested parties is amazing. 


In the abstract, we can talk about conservatism, like we can talk about religion, and debate the philosophical points. Yet, I want you to keep in mind this: How do the vast majority of conservatives (and the faithful) understand and practice their ..faith?  The present-day Repubs stand for what public policy? And, when they had control of the Executive and Congress, what did they do? A year and a half ago, when Obama took office, the country was a short step from economic (and not only) depression. Since, the Repubs have done everything to oppose everything Obama and the Dems have proposed.


So, the conservatives want more religion--the kind that goes against self-determination--more transfer of wealth to the top 2%, more wars & huge military budgets, they're anti-immigrants (legal or illegal... because, after all, those people aren't the ideal Americans, right?),  want less safety, fewer programs designed to help the least fortunate or the sick, and they promote ignorance by attacking science and the scientific method.

Our Government Represents Whom Exactly?

We as the electorate have to be smarter. It's not about class warfare--this war appears to be over in the US, and the elite has won it. But, just think how many adverse actions against the vast majority of Americans our government has taken in order to benefit the few and big business. Why? Because, too many of us fall for the smoke & mirrors of skilled magicians, also mainly known as Republicans. 

It's amazing that important issues are reduced to bumper sticker expressions and, worse, mentality. Sarah Palin writes notes on her palm and proudly displays her ignorance. Taxes are bad, she says, never bothering to explain why she wants to keep the tax breaks to the top 2%, which will add trillions to the debt. [Pew Center's analysis]


We also think we make money, and that high salaries and fortune are a birthright for Americans. Only 1 in 10 make more than $100K a year, less than 2% make twice as much! At least now, the majority is for letting the Bush tax cuts (to the very top since the early 2000s) expire this year. But, the Republicans convinced the public the "death tax" (large estate taxes) was a bad idea, while under 2% of Americans would be subject to this!

Rand Paul is the leading Repub Senatorial candidate in Kentucky and he's saying that we don't need the federal government to have safety guidelines "because no one will apply" for jobs in a dangerous mine! Another idiotic statement ontop of many others by this Tea Bagger, who's probably a young-earth (loony) believer!


Elizabeth Warren has been a consumer advocate for a long time now. She should be the head of the consumer protection bureau created by the recent financial reform signed into law. But, she's deemed controversial because she has said the banks & financial institutions screw consumers via their 30-page small print incomprehensible clauses they include in their agreements. She is a Harvard professor who teaches contract law and she's said she can't understand what all of the fine print! 

Yeah, I want to be free from government regulation. I don't want a nanny state. I don't want to know...  It feels better if I'm screwed by the private sector than our government, doesn't it?! Look, I don't want a nanny to take care of me, unless I'm sick and unable to take care of myself. But, I do want information so I can make good decisions. And, by the way, those who don't like big government when it comes to consumer protection, they like it when the use government to shove religion down our throats, and use the monopoly of violence to tell me what kind of sex I can have and what to put into  my own body!

Those Lazy Bastards Want More Free Government Money...

It seems that economists agree on the need to extend the unemployment benefits not only to help millions of Americans who can't find a job but also stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of people who are going to spend it on necessities. Of course, there are some who abuse the availability of this government assistance as it happens everywhere when people can exploit loopholes. The greater benefit has to taken into account.


Also, it's easier to see the abuse of the people who play the system. Yet, the larger abuse or the sweet deals that are struck behind closed doors are hidden from public view. The image of a lazy drunkard who's on public assistance alienates and creates a personal experience that makes the public skeptical about the need for certain social programs. But, who knows that just 2% of the taxpayers (yeah, those super rich) got a tax break under president Bush that cost the US Treasury $678 billion? That's OK, while $33 billion to extend unemployment benefits is not? Who needs what?!


I'm fed up with the deficit peacocks--who are supposedly concerned about the national deficit--and they keep arguing for more tax cuts and services. There is no way the deficit can be eliminated by cutting services, unless we become like Somalia. [see the video on this blog's sidebar].  Revenue comes from taxes, either from the taxpayer or from taxing goods and services.  On the national stage at least, it's been the Republicans who have created huge deficits by giving the store away to the wealthy & powerful.


One more thing about cutting services. Yes, there's waste and inefficiency, and corruption in the government & its various functions. The important question here is, who needs those services? Who needs the government of, by, for the people?  And, guess what... It's the big players that go to the government to cap their liabilities, weaken consumer protection, kill competition, maintain low wages, privatize profits  and socialize the risks of doing business.

No country can be strong if it has poor financial practices, but the sane thing is to be prudent. While the times are good, it should save and invest, but when there's a need, then it should spend. When I'm healthy and productive, I save and I invest, but when I'm sick or out of a job, I run a deficit. It's this simple.

Stay the Course? The Continuation of the Afghanistan War Is Obama's Choosing

The ridiculous Republican chair, Michael Steele, has put his foot in his mouth when he said that the Afghanistan War is something the current president initiated. However, it is the sitting president that makes the decision to keep or disengage the US from this conflict. Obama seems to want to pursue a very costly war with no end in sight, and no real chance for turning Afghanistan into a stable country.

Fareed Zakaria raises some very important questions in this video. I agree with the basis of his argument, that this expensive US war involvement should end, sooner than later. 

 

Patriotism for the Benefit of the Commonwealth

As we celebrate Independence Day with fireworks and lots of displays of our national flag, patriotism, obviously, is emphasized. Besides the emotions of love and pride, patriotism should include other rational and practical aspects. 

"Love it or leave it" is a moronic statement uttered too often by the "ultra-patriots"... who are usually not progressive beings. Summarily stated, no change would have ever occurred if people lived by that motto. The Pew Center's recent poll on patriotism shows some interesting views among Americans.


We have to remember that patriotism is not blind devotion whereas reasonable criticism, evaluation, and corrective action are absent. The flag represents certain values, above all the rights and privileges we enjoy in this country. But, we didn't arrive here by divine ordinance--we got here after a long trek filled with trials & tribulations, and because many people fought for those rights.  Of course, the journey continues as there are still strong forces for regression, prejudice, and willful ignorance. 

For all the advancements and great achievements the US has managed, we are not the freest country, the most educated, the healthiest, the richest (per capita), nor do our people report one of the highest happiness levels. We're stressed, have too much poverty, too much suffering (health care included), too much militaristic, too wide income disparity, and too much violence.


So, clearly there's much to be done. This country was built on rugged individualism but also on the strength of our secular institutions embedded in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights included. During times of crisis, the national makeup of a country is revealed. The choices the people make are paramount. 
Ancient Athens became too powerful, too rich, and too arrogant. As Athenians believed they were invincible, they overextended themselves. The defeats came, and crises ensued. This, in turn, challenged the confidence of the citizens and their democracy. As things worsened, Athenians gave up all those values and practices that had made their city-state great.


The US must avoid the same path. American exceptionalism must be checked, and the neo-cons who exaggerate it must be defeated. The Tea Parties [as we now know are basically groups of conservative Republicans and other extremists] lack the characteristics of the protest movements of the 1960s & 70s. The former are for a minimal government that's impotent to help the less powerful in our society, while the "radical" movements of the past were more altruistic--about civil rights, gender and racial equality, and an end to imperialism.


Enjoy the holiday weekend and enjoy life in general. Just remember, we can't be tourists in our own country. We have to help progress continue.

A Few Reminders to President Obama...

Even if the choice between Obama and McCain, including their respective parties, was very clear in the last election, we can't be happy with several actions by the sitting president--who has maintained the failed and even illegal policies of the Bush administration.

Many of us were inspired and greatly motivated by the rhetoric of candidate Obama and the striking differences to the Bush-Cheneys he pronounced. So, what the hell has happened???!!!

All progressives have to keep Obama's feet to the fire. "All the power you didn't like when you didn't have it ... now YOU decided to keep it"..

Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com

As for the election in November, two things can happen. Either the Dems will maintain a narrow majority in the House or it'll go to Republican control. Wasting one year on health care reform and wasting his political capital falls squarely on the president. He took his electoral winnings and gave them to DINOS and the GOP to squander.

He's seen as slow to react in the BP disaster, and the general view is that Obama doesn't have a clear policy. Again, the country prefers leaders who are strong but wrong, to weak/indecisive but right. 

The economy is also a big factor, and it will greatly influence the outcome of the November elections. There are signs of improvement but this has to be "felt" by most Americans. It can't be a jobless recovery or one defined just by a Wall Street rise.

A Curious Life is Worth Living

I have lots of questions but not as many answers--I realize how little I know, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. To those who've been visiting here since 2004, it's obvious that I have some strong opinions. Yet, I'm truly interested in the truth, the facts, and I believe I'm able to change my mind without feeling stupid for adopting another point of view. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions but not to their facts.  We can disagree based on our values and priorities but there's got to be some mutually accepted reality.

Now, that's the problem: How we perceive reality, methods of acquiring knowledge, and standards of evidence. Fortunately, we do have methods of inquiry and logic. Unfortunately, they are often discarded in lieu of confirmation bias, lack of interest in asking questions, and personal identity issues.

Since at least the ancient Greeks, we have the fundamentals of reasoning and the scientific method but even after thousands of years and many civilizations later we don't seem to want to learn. We still cling to primitive taboos, superstition, and willful ignorance. It's very frustrating to see a preference for old inadequate answers to some big questions. Many students aren't interested in learning other than the basic mechanics of a profession that will enable them to become rich... That's how most young college students perceive their efforts.

Perhaps it's only in the US where a highly advanced country with lots of scientific talent and research has such great numbers of people who are basically anti-science. That's why in several states (yes, where religion is the strongest) they're still debating about the validity of the theory of evolution--one of the strongest scientific theories we've got!

At any rate, for those of us who are awed by the richness of the universe and the thrill of scientific exploration, it's worth watching Brian Cox lecture at Ted. Enjoy--as I know you will.

" Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam"

 Carl Sagan on the occasion of the Voyager taking a picture of Earth in 1994, 4 billion miles away.

God, Gays, and Guns.... And, Government...

Remember Bobby Jindal's response to president Obama's first State of the Union address?  Why do we spend millions of taxpayer money to monitor volcanoes, he asked, and that there's nothing Americans can't do on their own!  Then a volcano erupted... I'm sure you've heard of the recent oily mess off the coast of several states whose voters think Jindal's view of an impotent state is right on the money.

The conservatives keep saying that the marketplace can take care of the bad actors in it. Yeah, right. They say that bad, unsafe practices will be punished by the consumers and the court system. Of course, this doesn't happen because we know it hasn't! Bad practices, including illegalities aren't necessarily bad for business. Especially BIG business. Wall Street gambles, screws up, and what happens? Too big to fail comes to my mind. 

The people in charge of making decisions are rewarded with huge bonuses and golden parachutes. Their companies are "too big to fail" we're told. Often the end result is: privatizing the profit and socializing the risk. Capitalism for most of the people, socialism for the rich.

The government should be the expression of the public will and it should act in the interest of the people not the few elites. Guess what? The conservative rhetoric has managed to disorient too many Americans who believe "government takeover" means less freedom! Obviously, government is not the solution to everything. Nor, that the government cannot be abusive. Yes, it can. 

Yet, in an advanced democracy the government's role is to empower and protect. Who really needs this? The marketplace can't do this. Equality of opportunity, safety (workplace and individual), and consumer protection have not come because private business saw it fit to do so.  It came through collective action and government passing laws often in the face of visceral opposition from the big business interests and their political ally--the US Republican Party (20th century on).

Who should protect the public interest in the month-long ecological & economic disaster of the BP oil leak? Guess whose interests are served when the government regulators are absent. Or, that the law (passed with the help of lobbyists) limits the oil industry's liabilities to a few million dollars?  And, why did the oil industry got huge tax breaks (while the government failed to collect royalties for it) while it was making record profits?

The T-baggers are angry at government in general--and some of their anger is justified--but their anger is only matched by their misunderstandings & misconceptions. We need better government that serves the commonwealth, not the interests of those who have lots and want more.

By the way, who's going to protect me from the gun-totting tots who want to walk around and go into coffee shops, restaurants and bars professing their Second Amendment rights? I thought we left behind the Old West lawless frontier, and we decided that a civil society has found other means to protect itself than having everyone carry guns everywhere.

Yeah, God, Gays, and Guns...  {who said this?...}

Primary Election Results Show Divergent Paths for Dems & Repubs.

Some interesting results from yesterday's primaries where the most active/interested party members participate. Granted the turnout is usually low for such elections, but it's an indicator of the base's direction and mood.

The Dems defeated party switcher Arlen Specter who's been a senator from PA for the last 30 years. Specter had been endorsed by the Dem establishment and president Obama. There's a runoff election in Louisiana where the incumbent conservative Dem Blanch Lincoln will have to face a more progressive Dem for the nomination. Both of these events are good.

The two parties spent millions of dollars to win Murtha's seat in PA (he died recently) in a very conservative district. The Dem won but the two partisans will face off again in November. We got a Blue Dog DINO here, but his opponent is far worse.

Another interesting development in KY where an extreme Teabagger won the Repub nomination. The Democrats may have a better change of winning the Senate seat in a conservative state in November, hopefully--if Kentuckians have any sense left.

Not a Mainstream Party Anymore?

As I've said before, the Republican party has moved far to the right because of the pressure it has from wingnuts. But, the Republican leadership (and its mouthpiece FOX) is responsible for promoting such lunacy. Unfortunately for them, that political base is rather small, especially nation-wide, and it's not getting bigger.  But, it seems that in order to get the GOP nomination, the path goes through the crazy land.

John McCain, back in 2000, understood this and he decided to become a much more conservative politician since he wanted to get the presidential nomination. He did and he picked Sarah Palin as the cherry on a stinking old pie.  Now, Newt Gingrich--the disgraced former Speaker of the House--is seriously thinking of running for president.


"The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did"

Asked whether such remarks [from his book and public statements] are a over the top, Gingirch  responded, "No, not if by America you mean the historic contract we’ve had which says your rights come from your creator, they’re unalienable, you’re allowed to pursue happiness." Gingrich should know the history of our country. Our constitution begins with, "WE THE PEOPLE". The rights and political system we established here came from human authors. Nowhere in the constitution the word "god" is mentioned nor that the rights come from divinity. Happiness, by the way, is pursued only if there are appropriate conditions that allow it. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of our polity but it's easily forgotten by the conservatives and those who want to maintain a system that works best for the small upper class.

Guess what? He's jumped on the loony wagon too. Obviously, if that's what some people want to hear, that's what they want their leaders to say, but it is very disturbing to have this kind of political discourse in the 21st century USA.

A Country Where The Lunatic Fringe is Still at Center Stage. Where?

We have way too many loons in this country, and unfortunately the have ..critical mass so they are a force that steers our polity into the wrong direction. Several recent events have showcased something ugly about our society.

One. The love of guns. When the framers of the Constitution thought of the "right to bear arms" all they knew was the technology of the 18th century. In that time you could carry a musket and a knife. In our times this right definitely doesn't mean ownership of attack helicopters, bazookas, F16s, and nuclear warheads. For the life of me, I don't understand why so many Americans don't want any restrictions on gun ownership. We have members of the US Congress that say a known terrorist shouldn't be restricted in buying AK-47 assault rifle, even though such person is on the no-fly list and can't board a plane.

What kind of a country do we want when we allow every person (usually without any background & mental checks) to own & carry openly? In the reality of the frontier strapping one on your hip was perhaps necessary but at some point civil communities decided that it was better for pubic safety to have law enforcement do the gun totting. Now in certain states, persons can carry guns to coffee shops, bars, and everywhere else! Sure, I can't imagine a problem with this. 

Guns are openly displayed by angry men at political rallies too. Have you noticed the violent rhetoric of those idiots? How about the rhetoric of their leaders and other irresponsible talking heads? "It's time to re-load," and "put the cross-hairs on the target," the Sarah Palins extort us!

Can you imagine the reaction of the wingnuts if blacks were using the same rhetoric and carried guns to demonstrations & political rallies?...

Two. When Congress tries to pass comprehensive health care coverage, the usual suspects cry, "stop government takeover"!  At least 10 states are suing arguing that the latest health care bill is unconstitutional! Yet, the other provisions of the Bill of Rights--like due process--are ignored.  Did you see a poll that suggested most Americans approve of the new Arizona immigration law? Geesh.  On suspicion of being  an unauthorized immigrant, the authorities can detain you if you don't have the proper papers. Nice. We're safer now, aren't we? But, what are those crimes we should be really concerned about?

The criminals who infiltrate our borders don't come over to steal a job from an American. They're hear to satisfy another demand: illegal drugs.

Speaking of terror, why should we shred the Constitution in the illusion that we'll be safer? Provisions that give suspects (and, yes, criminals) certain rights are there to protect the rest of us. Due process, legal representation & procedures define our system. The would-be Times Square bomber (whose smoking SUV was spotted and reported to the police by a couple Muslim street vendors) is cooperating with the authorities. Same with the Xmas airline bomber who became cooperative because of the proper (and civil) treatment he received. No torture has been necessary.

Three. We have a unquenchable thirst for energy and for petroleum. I'm told that it's our g0d-given right to use resources like there's no tomorrow, but something has to be done about it now. Funny thing, some states that are more pro offshore drilling are feeling the ill effects of the BP disaster in the Gulf.  Kudos to the guvernator of CA that changed his mind after seeing the catastrophe.  

But, why worry about the environment when Jesus will return in the near future? I'm not kidding. The majority of Americans believe that the messiah will make an appearance in their lifetime (next 30-50 years?) at which point you can kiss the world goodbye! Yeap, and the Theory of Evolution is just a guess--this is the belief of the majority of our countrymen. Sad.

PS/Update (5/10/10): Just is case you think the lunatic fringe is limited to just a few disgruntled individuals...  I don't believe that all conservatives or Republicans are stupid, bigots, ignorant, selfish, and mean. No, but the loons are most likely to be conservative and Republicans. Unfortunately, the GOP has shifted way to the extreme conservative side in order to appeal to such people.
Take for example the second populous state, Texas, and the state Republican party there. Here's the Texas Republican Party platform--their official ideology & policy proposals. Yeah, this is where much of the GOP is located today.

The Changing Demographics and the Backpedaling of the US Conservatives

I read just recently that for the first time ever we're about to have more non-white babies born in the US. It can happen this year, or the next few, but the fact is that the demographics of this country have changed and will change more.  Is this politically significant?

There's lots of speculation about the prospects of the Democrats in the upcoming election in November. Some Repubs are salivating, believing that they could capture the House, at least. They point to the MA special Senate election where a Repub (Scott Brown) took over Kennedy's seat.  There may be a big Repub gain but I'm willing to say it now, way in advance. Assuming there's no new war or terrorist attack, the election will hinge on the state of the economy. 

The conservatives and their loud mouthpieces are creating a lot of noise by being against president Obama and Congressional Dems. They have no new ideas besides worn rhetoric about "freedom" ,"states' rights", security, etc. And, they want to repeal what the Dems have passed through Congress since 2009. A recession or a bad economy with high unemployment isn't good for any incumbent. There will be loses for the Dems, but they may not be catastrophic.


The conservative base is much more excited right now. The doom and gloom--including rhetoric that can lead to violence--can serve them politically in the short term. It's not a good long-term strategy.  

What is the Impact of Political Campaigns?

Campaigns do the following. Energize the party loyalists, bring home the voters that have supported the party before, discourage the opposition from voting, and, most importantly, make connections between the voters' preconceived notions and the candidate or the party.  

Here's a fact: Most people don't change their minds during a campaign. They may look for reasons to vote in a particular way, but being educated about the issues and then rationally deciding what to vote for is a myth we like to tell about our citizenry. A masterful campaign is to make connections between voters' preferences and the candidate. 


Here's another interesting fact: There is more partisanship in the US that we're being told. Even the majority of "independents" have strong leanings. They may occasionally vote for the other party but they tend to identify more with one that they frequently vote for. Some of the INDs are true swingers and often decide elections. They are low-information voters and can be undecided right up to the election if they're exposed to a balanced bombardment from the two sides!


INDs and Swingers have another trait: they tend to prefer a strong leader who may be wrong to a weak leader who may be right!  This is why many of us have been extremely critical of Obama for wasting a whole year trying to be a ..community organizer from the White House.

The Future Has Begun

Ah, I almost forgot about the demographics.  Can you identify any main plank in the Republican platform and core policy proposals that has a long-term future with the changing demographics? Also, if other advanced democracies provide some kind of an example, can you identify those US conservative stances that will be adopted by the majority of Americans in the near (or distant future)?  Things like outlawing of abortion, more theocracy, no regulation of the marketplace, no social safety net, military might over diplomacy, environmental issues, climate change, immigration, rejection of science and the scientific method? Just wonderin'

Jesus Would Be Turning Over in His Grave... As Children Being Raped by Clergy

It's time we keep asking the hard questions even if it makes the majority of people uncomfortable. The longer we keep quiet, the longer we'll have to wait to change a bad situation. It is a systemic problem with organized religion not just a failure in leadership by the current Pope or other church  officials. Covering up crimes was the policy. Has this policy changed? Or, the admission of the crimes and repentance takes place after the crimes become public despite the church's effort to keep them secret?

The cover-up [Memo to Pope Described Transfer of Pedophile Priest] and [Scandal Tests Catholics' Trust] is immense and new cases (those that haven't made headline news already) are being uncovered everywhere the church has a presence. No one knows the exact number, but there are thousands of children who have been molested, raped, and abused by priests--just counting the cases where the Church has admitted responsibility along; probably there are many more. [Here's the article on the sexual abuse of 200 deaf children in Wisconsin, US]

What's unconscionable is that most those priests were known to the church for their pedophilia! But, they were transferred from parish to parish instead of being criminally punished. They weren't event expelled! Now, any other common organization would have gone out of business if it repeatedly failed its "customers" or broke the law in similar fashion.


This raises another interesting point. If the church was serious about punishing the perpetrators, it would excommunicate them; and this would be a good start in addition to calling in the authorities and have them arrested. But, the church doesn't operate like this, and that's why we can't remain silent. I would like to know how many priests have been excommunicated because of their failure to uphold the reputation of the church by committing crimes. Read yesterday's NY Times front page, Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest.


Remember last year when a 9 year old girl was raped by her step father in Brazil? She became pregnant, but her small body wouldn't be able to carry a baby. She would have died if the pregnancy continued, so an abortion was performed. The Brazilian Archbishop, with the Vatican concurring, excommunicated the ..mother and the doctor. No, the rapist wasn't!


The Pope can instruct his followers that the foundation of their faith is obedience to the church, not what Jesus said. Obedience and fear are the staples and the means of control. Oh, and the devil. Yes, the devil plays a very important role--obey or he'll destroy you! OK, he can be under the Fear category too.


Further, Catholic church doctrine holds that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith. Somehow, a man who was complicit in covering up the rape of children got divinity when he became the Pope.  He received more wisdom by donning new robes and becoming in charge of a palace--the Vatican--that also doubles as a sovereign state. Martin Luther was on to something when he said the church and priests were unnecessary.


The former Cardinal Ratzinger, currently the Pope, is the same person who told Africans that AIDS is indeed bad but condoms are worse! He condemns abortions but also condemns birth control--those family planning methods that are effective unlike the rhythm method. 

He and many other religious leaders are fit for the Dark Ages, and it's unfortunate that they are the spiritual leaders of 21st century humans. It's no wonder why we have so many people who not only don't understand science but don't want to either. The same people who opposed the current health care legislation because it could provide funds for abortion--never mind if there was a case where abortion was deemed by a doctor as a medically necessary procedure.  Care to guess which people are against sex education, birth control, and evolution theory?

In a few days, Christians will mark Easter--the most important Christian holiday. I know many who are decent human beings, really nice people who care about their neighbors. I'm not talking about them. I'm focusing on the ones who have taken Jesus in name only and have used dogma to turn this world into a worse place... all in the name of Jesus.


Like the tele-evangelists who have to buy a new Lear jet with your money in the name of Jesus, of course. Like those clergy who claim to be experts in knowing the word and will of the creator of the universe!  This creator presumably gave us a brain with which to reason! But, it seems the religious authorities don't want us to think. Faith--accepting dogmas with no evidence or reason--is the currency upon which the flock of sheep is organized and preyed upon. It's no wonder why the rewards for the faithful will come in the afterlife and not in the real world today!


We must ask the tough questions and try to infuse more reason into our social discourse. We are capable of governing ourselves through reason as mature, responsible adults without fear being the motivating factor. Of course we are not perfect but we are not (nor should we be) governed by original sin. We have evolved.

Fear is is the foundation of religion. It worked for primitive peoples but we deserve better nowadays. The shackles of the body are being broken everywhere, although the shackles of the mind still remain intact. Where's religion has more power, the stronger those bonds are. 


Shouldn't, at least, an Almighty protect the innocent children in his own house? Why did he allow children to be raped by clergy that supposedly serve Him? Or, is child rape punishment for the sins of parents?  If either is true, then I know, I can't worship any deity that makes these allowances or tests faith in such a manner. Of course, the religious authorities peddle fear to paralyze us into obedience and prevent us from asking reasonable questions. Once we start questioning their "wisdom" we may come out of the self-imposed delusions and stop paying money & respect to them. 


Who knows, we may eventually become less afraid of an angry, jealous, vindictive, genocidal, racist, homophobic, ethnic cleanser, and misogynistic God. Or, that we may discard the god we made in our own image back in the Iron Age and finally move into world of reality and humanism without primitive superstitions.


I understand this post will make many people uncomfortable and angry. I wonder what Jesus would say if he was around...




Update: Various links on the child abuse and the church.