Winter Thoughts

While I haven't been posting here much of late, I haven't gone completely into hybernation. I've written several comments over on Blog Critics Magazine and a few at other blogs. Also, I've become involved in Blog Critics Radio. I have taken part in broadcasts of the "Big Tent Roundtable" political discussion program at Blog Critics - not one, but two (count 'em, two!) scintilating hours of highly intelligent political discourse. (Well, maybe not scintilating, or highly intelligent, or even particularly intelligent at all, but discourse, nevertheless.) Both programs were recorded, and I invite any and all to listen. Or catch all of us zany folks live at 5:00PM (EST) on upcoming Thursdays. You'll be glad you did, er, uh, maybe.

With the holidays looming and the weather becoming truly wintry in many parts of the country including here in Indy, the year coming soon to an end, many of us tend to take stock, as it were, regarding just where we are in life. Actually, I don't generally. But, my anti-religious bias notwithstanding, I am a sucker for good seasonal - okay, I'll say it - Christmas music, Christmas trees and all the trimmings and the rest. We have one of our two sons at home. That's half good, I guess. I truly love the one with us, and truly miss the one not.

The nation is starting to be consumed by the presidential campaign. Even as we complain and deny having an interest in it, most of us will maintain at least a tangential awareness of its ebbs and flows, noting who is charging forward into the light or fading back into the gray. Again, we will feign disinterest, but at heart, regardless of which side of the political aisle our druthers lay, we will be emotionally rooting for one and wishing hexes on the rest.

I'd say that as of this writing both races remain pretty much wide open. The recent and sudden rise of Mike Huckabee who is now a front runner in some states and is surging in others is testament to that.

Of course I keep more abreast of things on the left side of the ledger. Sadly, there are none who will embrace a secular banner, but I'll take what I can get. Hillary? Barack? John? Joe? Chris? Dennis? Bill? Mike?

Presently, it still appears to be a no more than 3 candidate race. Obama's surge, owing to Oprah's hearty endorsement has changed the complexion of the race for the present, but there is a long way to go. While Edwards shows strength in some quarters, overall I see him as a weak third right now. But things change. An unexpected confrontation such as that between Mitt Romney and Huckabee, a seemingly small misstep, an errant comment, an unintended slight, a revelation regarding some past peccadillo, could send any of the candidate's campaigns into a tail spin. Who knows?

Back to Christmas. My wife and I took in a recent performance of the Indianapolis Symphonic Choir and its holiday presentation. It included the usual mixture of religious and secular pieces, all nicely performed. The Symphonic Choir is around 100 voices strong, and more importantly, well balanced - no shrill sopranos, no growly basses. It is led by Eric Stark as its director. I was a member of the smaller Indianapolis Arts Chorale for three seasons under Eric's direction. He is great. It was an enjoyable evening of good music. I think their holiday shows may be over, but if you live around Indy and enjoy good choral music, check out the Symphonic Choir for coming performances.

Any of you reading here who believe that the religious right has been stymied or have gone dormant, keep in mind that there are at least 3 Rep candidates - namely Huckabee, Romney and, of course Ron Paul who is surging on his own - who are openly and strongly on the evangelical christian side of things. (I know, Romney is one of the truly nutball Mormons, but still.) None would openly admit to being theocrats, but any of them, upon reaching the White House, might well provide a willing ear to those who have made it their mission to bring about an American Theocracy. Remember what Romney just said in his recent speech about his belief that secularists are wrong about the separation of church and state. Don't forget! Don't get caught unawares! They're still out there, and they still want all of us to live under the cowl of biblical law. Tell them to kiss your ass, loudly and with verve!

TLS

The above image is that of "Elizabeth on 37th," a truly great (and rather expensive) restaurant in Savannah, GA. The former owner, Elizabeth Terry and her daughter Alexis have published a really great cookbook, Savannah Seasons. Check it out - literally - at a library, or purchase it through here, directly from Amazon or wherever good books are sold. (Member FDIC. Batteries not included. Void where prohibited. Side effects may include, but are not limited to, vomiting, hemorrhoids, sudden, agonizing death and drymouth)

Is Indiana Turning Blue?

An interesting article appeared in the Indianapolis Star this morning. A poll taken by Selzer & Company, a public opinion research firm based in Des Moines, IA, breaks down the current level of approval for Bush and his administration within the Hoosier state. It has been reported in the media ad nauseam that Bush's numbers on a national level have and continue to be abysmal. But in Indiana? Despite a few anomalies over the years, Indiana has been about as dependably Red as any of the historically conservative/Republican strongholds in the country. The last presidential Democrat to carry the state was Lyndon Johnson in his landslide win over Barry Goldwater in 1964.

The Selzer poll was taken via land line telephone between November 13-16 with a total of 600 randomly selected Hoosiers. According to those polled, Bush enjoys only a 28% approval rating while 66% responded that they disapprove of how the President is handling his job. A further breakdown indicates disapproval ratings as follows: Bush's handling of the federal budget - 74% , immigration policy - 71%, the economy - 69%, the situation in Iraq - 68%.The poll revealed that if the election were held today 37% of those asked would vote Democratic to 31% who would pull the Republican lever, with the remainder as yet undecided. Another interesting tidbit revealed by this poll is that 47% of the respondents claimed that they would vote democratic if Evan Bayh shared the ticket.

The only significant number still in Bush's favor was a 48% to 46% approval rating regarding his fight against terrorism. Given the estimated 4% margin of error, the 2% approval margin is shakey at best.

Other questions were asked regarding Iraq, immigration, universal health care (with 60% support,) taxes and auto fuel efficiency. The numbers were also broken down as regards sex, age and race. Across the board excepting those war on terrorism figures, the numbers went consistently against Bush and his administration's policies.

What do these results mean? Perhaps at this juncture, not much. We are still nearly a year from the election. How Bush's approval ratings ultimately affect voting is anybody's guess. One could argue that the lower Bush's numbers go, the more difficult it will be for any Republican candidate to overcome. While that is not an automatic, it certainly seems a likely prospect.

What may make these numbers more problematic for Republicans is that, as noted, they are coming out of a traditionally conservative stronghold. If Hoosiers are this disaffected from Bush and the Republicans now, and if these numbers are found to be consistent in other traditionally hard line Red states, it could certainly be a steep, uphill battle for the GOP ticket having to slog along dragging Bush's legacy behind them.

Time may actually be on the Republican's side, though, as so much can happen between now and next November. Given the volatility primarily in the middle east, sudden, unforeseen events could make the election turn on a dime. Maybe Bush still has an ace up his sleeve. Failing that, perhaps the Republican nominee will be successful in divorcing himself from Bush. A tough job, but doable - maybe. Perhaps the Dems will falter. In-fighting for the nomination could cause disruption of a party that is all too often unfocused and chaotic. The Democratic nominee could say or do something that would be self-destructive.

Still, barring a near miracle coming out of Bush Land, the Republicans have their job cut out for them, and the Hoosier state may have little help to offer.




TLS

Something from Nothing?

I have had a number of discussions here and elsewhere concerning the existence of god. (Really? Yes, really.)

Any number of arguments have been tossed back and forth by myself and others. One of the more perplexing questions posed to me by Sweet Jazzy Cat among others is: Why is there something rather than nothing?

I've had no answer to that one. I've made a few stabs at it, to little effect. Stephen Colbert posed this question to Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report several months ago. Dawkins had no definitive answer either. While I don't believe having an answer to this question is crucial in a determination of god's existence, it is a question that has dogged me since the first time Jazzy asked it of me.

I am currently reading Victor J. Stenger's GOD: The Failed Hypothiesis - How science shows that god does not exist. For a non-scientific fellow like myself it is a fairly difficult read. It covers a great deal of ground in debunking pretty much every argument for god's existence mainly from the scientific perspective.

While I haven't finished the book - at this writing I'm only about half way thru it - I was very happy to find a section, a sub-section actually titled - surprise, surprise! - "Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?" - the last section of a chapter titled "Cosmic Evidence."

I must admit that I had sneaked a peak ahead of my reading and found this enticing little discussion. However, I utilized great discipline in waiting to read the section until I actually read all that came before.

Now the "discussion" of this particular question is not what you'd call in depth . The section is only about a page and a half in length. But let's take a look at what Stenger has to say.

Stenger writes that this question "is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguments fail." Stenger goes on to quote philosopher Bede Rundle who claims that it is "philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." Rundle's answer is "There has to be something."

First: What is the defiintion of "nothing." Does it have properties? If so, does that make it "something?" Is "nothing" a more natural state than "something?"

Stenger uses the example of snowflakes, one of the more ephemeral phenomenons in nature to illustrate that simple systems are unstable. "Nothing" is as simple as it gets. Why there is something rather than nothing is that 'nothing' is unstable. "The natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention - not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as god, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no god."

This is all rather cryptic to me. I must admit that I don't altogether follow it. I doubt that it will put the question to rest, but its something rather than nothing. No?

TLS

I decided just to sit down and start writing. I have no particular ideas here. I'm just pecking away with the notion that the activity itself will bring about an inspiration. Nothing yet.

What have I been doing all this time? It's been well over a month since I posted anything. For a time I got into a series of debates over at Blog Critics Magazine. Sadly, I lost most of them. I've tried to take on some generally right wing politicos who came armed with a lot of facts and figures, poll results and such. I should have known better. I'm not a "numbers" kind of guy. I'd make a position statement - generally an opinion - then I'd get slammed by the numbers guys. I have been duly humbled. I made a few attempts to find and counter their facts and figures to some effect., but on the whole I just don't have it in me to immerse myself in demographic studies, graphs, pie charts and such. So what does that mean to me?

Well, first I should be more careful about what I say and how I say it. I need to harness my tendancy to make broad claims that I can't, in fact, back up. It won't hurt me to be more prudent about the way I go about writing the things I write. It does little good for the advancement of my positions if the only ammunition I carry into the fray is emotion or wishful thinking. I need to bring more to a debate than bullshit.

For the time being at least, I'm going to leave the political harangues to others. I don't know what that will mean with respect to what I post here. I'm still licking my wounds. I'll be more circumspect about things though.

Anyhow. Why can't we just all get along?

Read any good books lately?

TLS

Where the hell have you been?

Just a note to my loyal reader. I haven't posted for a while. It may be a while yet before I do so. What it comes down to is that I'm tired, and I just don't have much to say. Maybe later. Maybe not.

TLS

I love this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/09/breakthrough-study-conservatives-stupid-liberals-nuanced/

Sorry to every conservative George, Dick and Harry ... er Rumy.

In fairness, all I can say is, I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!! Oh, I know there are some gray areas. Ha, ha! That's the point, isn't it? Conservatives don't see any gray. It's all black and white for them. Black or white, Yes or no. Yin or yang. Nothing in between.

TLS

Farewell Luciano

As I write this, it's been well more than a day since news came of the death of Luciano Pavarotti. His passing might have been no more than a blip on the screen of my consciousness were it not for the fact that my older son is an operatic tenor. I believe my younger son could have gotten there as well, but he opted for writing over singing. Which he is better at, I don't know. He excels at both.

Prior to my sons' involvement with operatic music, I was barely aware of it. I have some ability and history singing myself, but not on any serious level. While I won't claim to be a died-in-the-wool opera buff, I have over the last several years become better schooled in and more appreciative of it. I have a much greater understanding of the difficulties of singing at that level. Of course, one must have "the gift" of an adequate instrument, but one must also work extremely hard over a long period of time to achieve any level of success. My older son will be 29 years old in a week or so, and only now is his voice reaching its maturity.

To watch Pavarotti sing, one would think that it is easy, as he made it seem effortless. Of course there are many great tenors out there. Perhaps my son will be counted as one, I don't know. But Pavarotti had "the voice." Domingo, Carreras, and others were and are great in their own right. But Pavarotti touched a nerve that transcended the sometimes insular world of opera. He was criticized soundly by many for "crossing over" into other genres which many considered shameless pandering for fame and money. Even the "Three Tenors" concerts were frowned upon by purists.

But I would suggest, as others have, that Pavarotti's forays into pop, even rock and country perhaps brought people to opera and classical music who otherwise would have remained blissfully unaware of it. And, remember Placido Domingo recorded a duet with John Denver. Remember Perhaps Love?

I have listened to some truly great recordings of Pavarotti's over the last day or so. Should you be uninitiated but curious, or if you would enjoy revisiting some great singing, check these sites out and give a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxyrphGgLH4

and/or

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14207108

You'll be glad you did.


TLS

God's Warriors

Christiane Amanpour's three part, six hour special report, God's Warriors which aired last week on CNN was a great bit of reporting. I won't presume to "review" the program. Suffice to say that Ms. Amanpour is, in my opinion, one of the best reporters anywhere. She took great pains to be as impartial as possible, revealing her incredulity only briefly in response to some instances of obvious sexism.

The overarching theme of this omnibus presentation was the advent of religious radicalism now prevalent in all three of the major monotheistic religions of the world - Judaism, Islam, and of course, good old Christianity.That in itself is not news to most earthlings of the human persuasion who haven't spent the last twenty or so years in the asteroid belt. But the program served to put into perspective to some extent, the history and events which brought each tradition to this dangerous pass.

It is worthy of note that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and, of course, much of the violence being visited upon the planet today is rooted in radical Islam. But it is also important to understand that there are radical Jews and Christians who are equally disposed to doing violence in the name of their god. God's Warriors does an admirable job of articulating that fact.

What ultimately renders any lasting resolution to the conflicts between these religious traditions so remote is the inability or unwillingness of any of them to accommodate the others in compromise. To do so would be forsaking their god. The true believers of each tradition maintain an unswerving faith that theirs is the one and only true path; that all others are deluded, following false gods or being led down the garden path by Beelzebub himself.

I know there are those, especially in the U.S. who believe that the right wing evangelical movement is waning. Certainly, since the last mid-term elections, it would appear that the Christian fundamentalists have lost their momentum. But they are a hearty lot. They have proven to be every bit as steadfast and driven as Osama and his boys.

Radical Christians are in part driven by the awareness that radical Muslim leaders have made great strides in galvanizing their followers into a fairly monolithic and overtly devout group. The Christians don't want to be caught with their spiritual pants down. They are compelled to mobilize and strengthen their flocks in preparation for the ultimate battle against the supposed heathen Islamist hoards. Many are booking passage to Armageddon as I type. I think a new Holiday Inn Express just opened there. There may be package deals on Expedia or Price Line, maybe an "Apocalypse Special"

What else drives the fundamentalist radicals of these respective faiths? We often hear both leaders and followers of these traditions lament the advent of the secular world and the dissolution of traditional morality, mainly in the west. Much of the western world, and certainly foremost, the U.S. has, in the eyes of many fallen into a miasma of materialism, sexual perversity, drug use and street violence. The fundies of all faiths believe that the only cure is a return to old time religion - a dose of fire and brimstone to force people to sit up and fly right; that failure to do so will ultimately doom us all to eternal damnation. Even a "loving" god can get testy.

Obviously, I think that's all a lot of hooey. While it is certainly true that materialism, mainly in the form of consumerism, pretty much rules the western world - and now more and more of the east as well, as witness China's massive thrust into capitalist ventures, not to mention thoroughly westernized Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shanghai plus inroads in South Korea - even Thailand and Viet Nam. But is it all bad?

I think not. As I see it, many of the negatives we are witnessing in westernized societies are essentially growing pains. We are dazzled by technology. Computers, IPods, IPhones - all the electronic junk that is being foisted upon us is for many intoxicating in their possibilities. Many years ago, Zelda Fitzgerald was quoted as saying, "We grew up founding our dreams on the infinite promise of American advertising..." That is certainly no less true today.

While, at my rapidly ripening age, I will likely not see an end to this, I do believe that at some point, we may eventually just get over such fascination - that the gizmos and toys will not be so coveted as they are today. Some will shake their heads. Considering the current state of affairs, there is certainly no evidence of any waning in our love affair with "stuff." But who knows? Such change may eventually come to pass.

Of equally serious concern is the apparent deterioration of our sexual mores. Witness the massive offerings of any and all types of pornography, mainly via the internet, but also on the tube, in films, books, magazines, in our music and so on. Sex in our society has become ubiquitous and pervasive which deeply troubles many, not only those of a religious bent. Sex can be debasing and dangerous. It can be used to degrade both women and men. It can be lethal owing to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Our concomitant fascination with violence simply adds to the complexity of the problem and the misery it causes either in conjunction with sex or not.

But again, I look upon it as a phase - a troubling one, no doubt - but nevertheless, a phase. It is a logical response to hundreds of years of sexual repression. On the whole, western society is mad for sex and violence. In a sense, we want it all. We want to see it, feel it, smell it and taste it. We want to experience the whole gamut of pleasure and pain. We want to wallow in its perversity. Ultimately, though, "civilized" society will get beyond it. It will likely take a while - at least several decades, more likely, a few centuries. But, should man survive, most of the perverse thrill of sex and violence may become passe', perhaps boring.

Humanity will not be doomed to hell for its sins. There is no hell - and certainly no heaven, no afterlife. No god. If we don't nuke ourselves out of existence, if we don't get wasted by an earthly collision with a giant comet, we may one day wake to find that we are well and happy, that we are whole, totally on our own, owing no allegiance to any god or other "higher power."

But in the mean time, anyone disturbed by the growing threat coming from radical fundamentalists of all stripes should be attentive and watchful. It was one thing to wage religious war in the days of swords and spears. It is quite another in an age when some true believer may have his nervous little finger on the nuclear button. The fundies, in their religious zeal, may rush us all to an end we didn't believe would or could happen.

TLS

Secular Music

Back in May a letter appeared in the Humanist Network News the "ezine of the Institute for Humanist Studies" signed by one "Tenor with Reservations" regarding the conundrum of being an atheist or agnostic struggling with misgivings about performing religious music. "Tenor" had been asked by a neighbor to join a local civic chorus. He told her that owing to the strong religious content of much of the music the chorus performed, he couldn't in good conscience join such a group.

I responded with a letter which appeared in the same publication a few weeks later stating that I too had been faced with a similar problem. I wrote: "As it happens, most of the greatest music in the western world is, like it or not, religious. Bach, Mozart, Palestrina, Bernstein, etc. - virtually all of their choral works are religious. While the inspiration for this music originated with belief in a god, it was, nevertheless, composed by and for us lowly humans to play, to sing, and listen to."

I had a three year tenure with a choral group in Indianapolis. Not all, but most of the music we performed was religious in nature, mostly Christian. I didn't embrace the message provided by the mosly biblical texts. I just reveled in the greatness of the music.

As atheists or agnostics, we still marvel at great cathedrals, sculpture and paintings of religious subjects. Remember, this life is the only shot we get. I say. . . go for it. Embrace the music and sing out."

As it happens, the 'Tenor with Reservations" is a member of the "Brights, the humanist organization."
"Tenor" sent me an email thanking me for my comments and suggested that since we appear to have a common interest - singing, music, etc. - that I might consider becoming a Coordinator of Musical Development for the freethought community. While intriguing, such a task seemed a bit ambitious for the likes of yours truly.

But Tenor voiced his frustration at the "dearth of music" heard at various humanist gatherings, conventions and the like. I may be wrong here, but what I believe Tenor is looking for is accessible music with a humanist bent - music that would be appropriate for such gatherings, but that is of such a nature that the audience could relate to and/or actually participate in. (Humanist karaoke?)

Obviously, there is a great deal of what is considered to be "secular" music. But, for the most part, few of us know of music specifically inspired by and written as a celebration of humanity as opposed to music composed through supposed "divine" inspiration. I am aware that many 20th century composers had either openly or covertly broken with the church and some came to deny any belief in a god - Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, perhaps Mahler among others, just as many writers and other artists did. Although many of these composer's works are highly respected, little of it is accessible to the average person.

So, what am I getting at here? A response from any fellow "Brights" or anyone else pausing to read here who can offer suggestions regarding what's out there. Are there individuals or groups of whatever genre who are composing and/or performing music which is in whole or in part focused on humanity, on the human condition, living without god, or consideration of some "higher power?" Perhaps music focusing on the struggle between belief and non-belief?

I know I am not conveying this very clearly. Perhaps it's because many of us, myself included spend a great deal of time detailing who we are NOT, what we do NOT believe, as opposed to defining who we ARE, and what we DO believe. Words fail me.

If you do understand what I'm getting at, and know of such music or musicians, let me know here. In the near future there should be some kind of notification in this regard at http://www.the-brights.net/ Nothing is set up there as yet owing to some health problems with one of the director's families. If we can be directed to this type of music and their creators (not of the heavenly type,) perhaps it could be beneficial for all.

Let us all revel in the "glory" of the morning!

A Fundamental Question

Fundies help me out here:



1. God is omnipotent - all powerful

2. God is omniscient - all knowing

3. In order to be allowed beyond the pearly gates one must embrace Jesus Christ as one's lord and saviour.

4. One has until virtually one's last cognizant moment to do this.

5. Living a good life, doing good deeds, thinking pure thoughts will not get you into heaven.

6. It doesn't matter if one sins as long as he or she takes care of #3 above BC (before croaking.)



Preachers and the like constantly direct their parishoners, and anyone else who'll listen, to live a righteous life and avoid temptation and sin.

Why?

TLS

Thinking About Moving

My wife and I have given some consideration to moving to Germany. My older son has lived there for 4 or 5 years and loves it, although he does miss home at times. Of course, he speaks the language fluently. My younger son has some skill with it as well. My wife and I struggle with "guten morgen," and "danke shoen" or nervously asking "Wo ist die toilette, por favor - er I mean, uh - what is it? - uh - bitte? Yeah, that's it - Wo ist die toilette, bitte?" - spoken triumphantly, and, of course, loud enough for all the people in the room to stop in their tracks to turn and stare at us. But I guess we could eventually pick up enough to get by over time.

But I'd really miss some uniquely "American" things which are generally difficult to get in Germany and elsewhere abroad. What would those things be, you might ask?

Well, these come to mind:

Tap water at restaurants.

Ice in drinks.

Clothes dryers.

Stores open 24/7.

Air conditioning.

American toilets.

When we were in Vienna some years ago and a few years later in various parts of Germany, restaurant servers looked at us askance when any of us requested a glass of tap water. Bottled water is the rule. Tap water, verboten.

Soft drinks may be served chilled, but forget getting ice.

I could probably get along fine without a clothes dryer, but few people have them, or so I understand. My wife would more likely find that a bother, but I'm sure I'd miss the effects of the loving touch of those fabric softener dryer sheets. The liquid stuff you put in with the wash load just isn't the same.

I could also probably adjust to the lack of 24/7 shopping, but it certainly is convenient to go to, well - a convenience store - at midnight to get a gallon of milk, a can of coffee or a bag of whatever. Or to be able to go to a drug store and get something for that maddening itch or a serious case of the hoohaws.

Obviously, most of the above are, on balance rather piddling trifles.

Living without AC though, would be tough for this fat boy. The area of northern Germany where my son has been living has been extremely hot most of the summer. His apartment is on the top floor of his building with poor air circulation. He can't even find a fan, for whatever reason. The few occasions I've been obliged to spend a hot, humid summer night without AC have been hellish. With my having Apnea, a decent night's sleep is rare enough. Trying to do so without AC can be a nightmare.

Then there's the toilets. You world travelers probably know of what I speak. In Austria and Germany, where I have traveled, most of their toilets are designed with what is euphemistically referred to as "the shelf" which is high and dry. One does not truly appreciate the great job that the water in the bowl does for one's olfactory senses. I remember the glee with which I responded to finding American style toilets in a public restroom at the Grand Hotel in Vienna. Woohoo!

I know, I have exposed my very soul and revealed that I am a truly spoiled and predictably shallow American. What can I say? These are some of the things to which many Americans are accustomed. They are all part of the hallowed "American Dream."

After several days in Germany a couple of years ago I found myself wistfully envisioning myself sitting atop one of those wasteful American toilets, sipping a glass of ice water obtained straight from the tap (yeah, I know, it's a fairly disgusting vision) in my air conditioned suburban home while my clothes are spinning dry in the basement laundry room, contemplating a midnight run to the 24 hour Kroger Store for a pint of Ben and Jerry's Chunky Monkey.

Now THAT'S my America!

TLS

Just an additional note. Something weird happens to some of my paragraph divisions when I publish. I've tried to remedy the situation to no avail.

Oh, and one more note: We're not moving anywhere.

SICKO

My wife, son and I went to see Michael Moore's Sicko last weekend. While I have generally agreed with most of Moore's positions over the years, I have not been a fan of his modus operandi. His prior films have depended largely on cheap shot humor and guerilla or predatory journalism. While Sicko includes some of that, overall it depends far less on those tactics than Moore's prior work.

I liked this film. Approximately the first half of the picture is spent illustrating the limits and shortcomings of the current American health care system. Much of the remainder of the film focusses on health care systems in other countries including Canada, England, France and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.

I have read a number of the reviews and other discussions of this film. Detractors are quick to point out how the film tells only partial truths, ignoring good things about American health care and passing over the bad aspects of the systems in the countries noted above. I don't doubt the truth of many of these charges. As with his previous works, Moore doesn't claim to be unbiased. He doesn't even claim to be fair.

The fact is that no health care system anywhere, especially those of countries having relatively large populations are perfect. Not even close. However, the question remains: Which system or systems are the most equitable, the most workable, resulting in the optimum healthcare for its citizens?

I am certainly not prepared to answer such a question. But it is impossible to ignore the glaring shortcomings of the American system which for the most part remains a "for profit" industry. Therein lay the core of the problem. As long as medicine and medical care - all aspects of it from individual medical practices, emergency care, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, drug manufacturers and purveyors remain in the private sector, with pretty much all of it concomitantly under the thumb of the insurance industry - the primary focus of their efforts being a positive bottom line and paying dividends to share holders, medical care in this country will continue to be second rate for many, and effectively unavailable to many more. As with so much in this country, profit is the holy grail. Everything else is secondary - even life and health.

I know this is an old, but nevertheless, an ongoing argument. To suggest that all or any of the medical industry be nationalized is anathema to most hard core, and even not so hard core capitalists. Just the thought of - dare I say it? - socialized medicine is enough to send these folks into apoplexy, wildly gesticulating as they drop, spittal spewing from their contorted mouths, veins popping from their crimsoned temples.

I've no doubt that there are gaps and failures in the best of the nationalized health care systems. The draw back most often cited is long waits for care - especially non-emergency surgery and other specialized care. I don't know if that particular problem is ubiquitous with all nationalized health care, perhaps it is. Of course another, and larger complaint is the resultant increase in the tax burden. Given the often incredible costs for even routine medical care today, a significant hit from the tax man is probably unavoidable.

However, if there is to be any significant improvement in the quality and availability of health care in this country, hard decisions must be made. What is of most importance to us? Wealth or health? How many of us might be willing to give up trophy houses, having expensive "toys," and generally living lavishly to help insure that the greatest number of our country men, women and children have access to the best medical care? So far, and sadly, it is apparent that not many are so inclined.

I am not a glutten for punishment. I do not wish to be taxed out of existence. My son in Germany pays taxes at around 41% of his gross income. Some European countries have much higher tax rates. It's a hard nut to swallow. However, the populations of these countries seem to have adjusted to it, some perhaps kicking and screaming, but most in relative quiet, in the knowledge that they can obtain health care, along with other services and benefits with little or no additional cost. As an example, in Germany if someone, owing to the effects of aging or poor health, is forced into a nursing home or some other type of full or intensive care facility, they are not required to divest themselves of everything they own in order to qualify for government aid. It is all simply paid for by the government through taxation. Such people are not required to sell hearth and home, their other worldly goods and empty their bank accounts. They can actually retain their estates.

I hear people in the US complain that they don't want to pay for someone else's medical care. Others complain about paying taxes that support public education, if they have no children, or no school aged children. The fact is, though, that we all pay for any number of government services that we never use, and/or receive no benefit from. Why not education? Why not health care? The better educated and healthier our population, the more productive we will be as a nation.

While I don't for a moment imagine that designing an efficient, responsive and equitable national health care system for a country the size of the U.S. of A. would be easy, I find it hard to believe and, frankly, disingenuine of people to claim that it can't be done. Of course it can, and it has. Is it beyond the possible for the best minds in medicine, business, industry and government to come together and study the world's many and varied medical systems and come up with a workable solution for the U.S.? Pick and choose what works, dispose of what doesn't. At the outset, there would no doubt be problems. Complaints would run rampant. Some heads would probably roll. There would be significant growing pains. It would never be perfect or cover all the bases. But the status quo just can't be allowed to continue. Far too many people are falling through the ever widening cracks in the current system. The primary purpose of health care should not be to line the pockets of insurance company CEOs or their share holders. Its purpose should not be to enable doctors to join the best country clubs. The primary purpose of health care should be the improvement and maintenance of our citizens' health. Period.

TLS

Where All of This Is Heading?

Sometimes I think or at least hope, if I just start writing, something will begin to roll out of my mushy little mind. I have written a good deal here and elsewhere over the past 20 months or so. This is my 141st post on Rupture. Granted, some of them don't amount to much. Some are just silly and pointless. But a number of them were written with at least a modicum of thought, seasoned at times with emotion, occasionally rather raw emotion - usually anger.

Since my first post in November of 2005 I have read a number of books, several magazine articles, any number of blog posts and comments, most having to do with god and religion. I still have difficulty making sense of it all. Just as it seems that born again christians constantly repeat a small number of stock phrases drummed into their heads at their respective churches, I find that I too, have become somewhat repetitive in what often amounts to diatribes against religious belief and believers, dominionists, religious radicals of all stripes and their often heinous acts of violence. I guess there are only so many ways one can say the same things.

I just finished reading the book I alluded to in a previous post, Jack Huberman's The Quotable Atheist. As I noted, it is a collection of several quotes from mostly non-believers but with a few believer quotes thrown in just to spice it up a bit. Some are quite funny, but most are serious in nature. In the end when taken together, the message is essentially the same: Religion and a belief in god, any god, is wasteful, ludicrous and to many of the "quotees" downright evil.

While I could laugh at many of the good, often witty quotes, ultimately I put the book down with a twinge of sadness, even of dread. A great deal of the turmoil, destruction and death now being perpetrated on our planet is based upon which god one believes in.

The recent failed bombings in London provided yet another wake up call about the ever present danger of terrorist attacks. One can only take heart in the fact that these guys were inept. They couldn't get out of their own way. I conjured a scene of one of the brainiac doctors attempting to detonate one of the two Mercedes bombs by dialing the implanted cell phone detonator, only to have the recorded message break in "We're sorry, the number you have reached is not in service.' Bilal, I thought you activated all of the phones. No, Khalid, I assumed you had them turned on, Allah be praised." My wife's initial response was that it was a terrible waste of good cars.

The fact that at least some of these terrorist wannabes are medical doctors is troubling. First, they cannot be considered as true to their professional calling if they were actively and willingly attempting to "first, do harm." Mistakenly perhaps, I think of medical doctors as men and women of science. That, for those fellows in London and Glasgow science lost the battle with faith, is disturbing.

The three major monotheistic religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are arriving at a pass which many hope will culminate in an ultimate battle to determine who is truly king of the hill. What most people of these respective faiths don't appear to acknowledge is that there is, in the end, very little difference between these religions. They were all three born out of the same part of the world of the same traditions. Each of their sacred texts are an inter-mix of much the same material. All of it is a conglomeration of myth and legend told and retold, written, rewritten, translated and re-translated ad nauseam over more than 2 millennia, and yet each is now believed to be the one and only, inerrant true word of god. And many of them are more than willing to see millions of people die over this ludicrous load of crap! Many hope to take an active role in the massacre.

There was a great cartoon in an issue of the New Yorker magazine a few months back which depicted the scene of a battle worn king his sword raised high in victory, sitting astride his rearing horse as it stands atop a huge pile of the battlefield dead, the legend below reading: "Let the healing begin!"

It's just that kind of absurdity which haunts me as I see how all of this emnity throughout the world may well play itself out. What will the winners of such a conflagration do upon achieveing their victory? Will they be looking to the sky for their saviour, their prophet? Might it not be like the idiots through the years who have convinced people that the world is going to end at such and such a time? Will these victors be deafened by the silence of their god? Will they desparately look for signs, wildly reading some kind of spiritual meaning into every damn thing that passes? How will they explain away the failure to realize the rapture? How will they rationalize their failure to touch the face of god? Will they mourn the dead?

Will there be any hope for a voice of reason to rise up out of the ashes? I fear not. The gross stupidity which brought them to Armageddon will live on, igniting new flames of religious fervor continuing to subjugate the weak and further divide the survivors to foment yet another, greater battle for the glory of their god.

I end this with a couple of quotes, the first from Huberman's book from Percy Bysshe Shelley:

"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? . . . If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? . . . If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?. . . and if he has spoken, why is the world not convinced?"

The second is a quote of Albert Einstein's repeated in Walter Isaacson's biography, Einstein (pg.387):

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."


TLS

Angry Response

Note: I wrote this little diatribe as a response to an article posted to Blog Critics Magazine regarding faith based initiatives being financed with our tax money. Some of it is repetitive as regards previous posts here. However, as the article to which I commented was several days old, it occured to me that it would likely not be read by much of anyone. I didn't want this stellar example of my literary and discursive prowess to completely go to waste. Placing it here guarantees at least another 3 or 4 exposures. Who knows, maybe 1 or 2 people (other than myself) might actually read it - or some of it at least. I could probably pick up some additional hits if I could just work Paris Hilton into the piece. ( Hey, I just did.)

Atheists carry much less hate than the average believer. Most of us, I think, would pretty much mind our own business, content to be free of religious dogma if all you "faith based" humans weren't doing so damn much damage in this world.

Christians love to proverbially hug themselves reveling in just how wonderful they are. They are all so kind and generous, so loving, so concerned, but are quick to remind anyone not of the faith of their certain descendance into eternal hell for not professing allegiance to jesus. It's all bogus crap.

As there is not one iota of evidence supporting the existence of any god or gods, why don't believers carry a burden of proof for their faith before they are allowed to subject the rest of us to their blather? Believers carry a greate deal of fear and loathing for non-believers (gays and lesbians who are perennial targets of christian hate are nevertheless more accepted in society than are atheists.) Pastors continually remind their respective flocks of how dastardly we are. After all, we are the devil's minions.

Keep in mind that to be an atheist pretty much anywhere in the world has been a very risky business for much of human history. The "burning" of atheists often took place right here on earth usually sponsored and carried out by mother church. Atheists have been vilified for centuries. That given, perhaps we are a bit defensive and tend toward being a tad cranky.

If the dominionists have their way, all of us professed non-believers will likely have to find new digs and/or go underground. We will probably rue the day we ever chose to start gabbing about our distaste for god and religion on the internet. We'll be hunted like rats.

(There should be a paragraph break here.)

Our founding fathers were true products of the "enlightenment" as brought forth through the Renaissance. As many of them were professed deists who accepted a notion of some kind of godly creator, but certainly not a personal god, often professing their great distaste for religion in general, it was no accident that god is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. They understood only too well the dangers of any government endorsement of religion. The separation of church and state was a mainstay of their political philosophy. Georgie Porgie's "faith based" initiatives with the federal government providing tax money to support religious organizations in any capacity is a slap in the founding fathers' faces and counter to the Constitution. There can be no "taking back our country for Christ." He never had it in the first place.

People can be good and do good without religion, without churches, without god. We don't need some idiot evangelist prancing about the dais at some mega church to provide our moral bearings.

Hell, I think I'll establish my own church, the "Church of What's Happenin" and get me some of that good federal money. Whoo doogies!

TLS

How to Grease the Slide Down - er - Up to Heaven

Fundamentalist preachers tell their flocks that living a "good" life has little or nothing to do with whether an individual will gain heavenly ascendance. Doing good deeds, thinking pure thoughts, being humble, being honest, being kind, working hard, being smart, being responsible, being productive, count for little or nothing. The only relatively sure way to get beyond the Pearly Gates is to consciously and, I presume, sincerely become "reborn" in acceptance of Jesus as your lord and saviour.

What this says, then is that say, Saddam Hussein, even his sons, Uday and Qusay, those zany, fun loving guys, could be enjoying the pleasures of eternal paradise had any or all of them come to Jesus prior to swinging in the breeze or being riddled with bullets respectively. That's a pretty good deal, if you think about it. That given, there is no particular reason to "be good" in this life. One could rape and pillage, be a pedophile, cheat, lie, steal, commit mass murder, actually like Rob Schneider movies, any such heinous things and more, but just in the nick of time get right with the "J" man, and it's all okee dookie. A ticket for the Bliss Express will be waiting for you at the "will call" window. Isn't that just a tad too easy? It obviates the need for being good or pious. It all comes down to the Big Guy's ego, doesn't it? As long as you acknowledge His supremacy and humble yourself before it, you are, according to your local evangelist, in like Flint. It's okay to be a despicable asshole in this life as far as the Lord of Lords is concerned.

What a load of shit! We lowly humans usually demand more of someone than a hastily blurted out "Hey, I love you, man." for even relatively small rewards, let alone the ultimate enchilada, eternal life in paradise. Would anyone "love" someone who would demand such fealty for whatever rewards? You might feign some kind of love or adoration to survive, to maintain a better life. But love? I think not. At your core, you'd hate the son of a bitch, wouldn't you? Supposed love for God is, at best, forced out of fear of losing that ultimate reward. ("Yes, sir. No, sir. Right you are, sir. Ha, ha, that's really funny, sir. Whatever you say, sir. You're the best, sir. I love you, sir, I truly do and, hey, I really mean that.")

What is it they say? Sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Maybe all the way to heaven.

TLS

Blocked!

I'm blue. I'm blocked. I keep thinking I have a great deal to say, but when I sit down here, I got nothin'. Don't know where I'm gonna get it. But I'll try. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe not.

TLS

"The Quotable Athiest" and Other Stuff

I've been doing some reading. Nothing new, I guess. I always am. I am currently reading The Quotable Atheist by Jack Huberman. Huberman's previous works include The Bush-Hater's Handbook, Bushit! and 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America - probably not titles one would find on the average conservative's bookshelf.



I won't go into The Quotable Atheist in particular detail here. Maybe later. Suffice it to say, though, that it is a collection of generally short quotes from a plethora of people going back to ancient Greece up to these here times. Most are or professed to be atheists or via other terms, non-believers. Some entries are serious, some are funny, some seriously funny. Following are a couple of things which occured to me in reading some of them.

Muslim arrogance. As Chris Hitchens noted in his book God is Not Great, muslims demand supplication not only of its adherents, but of the entire world as witness the hoopla surrounding the cartoons depicting Mohammed a year or so ago. Recently, it was announced that Salman Rushdie is to become a British Knight. It wasn't enough that the man was forced to live under the very real threat of death after publication of his Satanic Verses, now the muslim world DEMANDS that his proposed knighthood be revoked. Who are these cocksuckers? What makes them think they are so fucking special? As Hitchens notes and I quoted in a prior post, "There is nothing - absoulutely nothing - in [islamic] teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption." Radical muslims are such gutless pricks. Cowardly, arrogant pricks! They recruit their children to kill indiscriminantly and die for the supposed glory of their god. They stroke their beards and praise allah and grin their shit eating grins, believing they are operating from the high ground. They hide in the shadows and use terror as their weapon. Fuck them! Had they any courage, they would step out in the light. They are not men. They are pathetic, deranged little boys playing deadly games - boys so intimidated by and fearful of women they can't bear to look at them.

Have I vented enough?

It is assumed by many that it is religion which brought about civilization. Not so. During periods of our history over which the church held dominion, millions of people were murdered, millions more tortured, left homeless, and on and on - all under the auspices of the church. It is largely owing to religious zealotry that hundreds of people continue to die every day.

It is the movement toward secularism which brought on true civilized society. The more we turn away from god and other-worldly concerns, the more we place our focus on earthly life. It is the secular which makes for a richer life free of the violence and intolerance brought about by religious dogma.

I finish with a quote from Huberman's book by former cyclist and cancer survivor, Lance Armstrong

" If there was a god, I'd still have both nuts."

That pretty much says it all.

TLS

The Perfect Father's Day Card

This is the father's day card my thoughtful and loving son sent me. It just kind of says it all, doesn't it? Man, it's like in 3-D or something! JC just kinda pops out at you. I think it's significant that the phone exchange is "UPtown" rather than "DOwntown."

Frankly, it may be the best card I've ever gotten. It will soon be ensconced in a decorative, but piously understated frame, hanging on my office wall in a particularly conspicuous location. Should I nail it up? Any thoughts?

It's great!

TLS

Apocalypse Now!

If you take a quick look at my previous post you will note that I have been reading. Good for me, huh? Well, yeah!

Over the last several months I have read a number of books and various magazine and on-line articles concerning efforts of radical christian fundamentalists to create an American Theocracy, a christian government ruled, not by our constitution, but by biblical law. A number of people who have commented here and elsewhere claim that I am being gullible, that to believe such a thing is, at least over-reacting, of being alarmist.

I have too often ineffectively countererd with but, but, I mean, well, I mean, but... finally resorting to citing Hitler's rise to power while the world looked on. It's a tired argument. One that most people either reject or laugh off, saying, "Oh, man, that can't happen here. This is the good ole' US of A. Land of the free." Perhaps they are right. I would, in fact, like to think so.

But given the manner and direction in which things have progressed over the last 35 to 40 years or so regarding the inroads made by the aforementioned christian fundamentalists into virtually all walks of life, including government at all levels, the work place, our schools, the media, etc., it is impossible for me to simply shrug them off as nut cases, as fringe loonies.

The fact is millions of our fair citizens have bought into the whole idea hook, line and communion wafers. Many of these people have been drawn into the fold, as it were, to escape broken, failed lives for which they cast blame on liberal society. They long for direction, for a strict, well, even harshly defined moral code. They no longer wish to be free. They want to be led, to be reassured of a blissful life - if not here on earth, then for an eternity in heaven. To reach this bliss, they must divest themselves of their personal lives. They must devote themselves to their god. Ultimately, they must be ready and willing to fight to the death as warriors for their god.

As opposed as radical christians are to radical muslims, they more or less mirror them in their ardor, their willingness to do violence, to kill, enmasse if need be. The radical christians are similar to their muslim counterparts in their intolerance, their suppression of women, suppression of art and critical thought. They hate and fear science and modern technology - except insofar as they can make use of it to defeat their enemies - to kill them.

The masses of people who have taken up the standard of the christian warriors enter a closed society wherein virtually their every waking hour is saturated with the message of god's love and the concomitant and necessary hate and loathing of those of faiths not their own, of non-believers, of apostates. They often spend time almost everyday within the confines of their selected church. They often have jobs at companies owned and/or operated by fellow believers. Their kids go to schools set up by their churches, or lacking that, are often home schooled. Most of their social time is spent with fellow parishoners. If they watch TV at all - many sects don't allow it - they watch one of the plethora of local christian stations, and/or national christian networks. The same with radio. The only music they listen to is religious oriented.

Those who attend one of the many "mega-churches" that have sprung up in recent years, are presented with what amounts to a well planned and executed "production" designed to first mesmerize the congregation with a great deal of singing, standing with arms raised to the heavens, often in an attempt to mirror or, perhaps mock black gospel services, repeatedly shouting "Hallelujah," "Praise God," "Praise the Lord" and "Praise Jesus." ad nauseam, or in some instances falling and writhing on the floor speaking in "tongues" until a collective exhaustion sets in. Then at some length the main course begins as the principal preacher takes the stage, often prancing about the dais with bible held high in constant admonition of the congregation's collective sins and citing their unworthiness in god's eyes. They rant on about the evils of the "secular" world that is out to destroy them, satan's minions set to defile and overthrow god. They are taught to trust no one outside their particular sphere. That any who attempt to use "rationality" are the enemy.

At the proper moment, of course, just when the attentive congregation is at their most physically and emotionally spent and, therefore, their most vulnerable, the choir begins singing god's praises and the offering plates come out.

Am I being unfairly cynical? I think not. It is all an enormous scam that may one day bring about the end of America as we know it. Most Democrats, political liberals and moderate christians are largely guilty of looking the other way, of going out of their way to be "tolerant," even of intolerance. The parallel of what is happening here and now in the US to the rise of Nazi Germany is apt. Most people of a more moderate disposition are reluctant to challenge the radicals. They live in the belief that if they ignore it long enough, it will eventually go away. That's not going to happen.

I urge readers of this little diatribe to read any or all of the following books:

The End of Faith by Sam Harris
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips
Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg
The Baptising of America by Rabbi James Rudin
Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfrey
God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

and especially:

American Fascists by Chris Hedges


Chris Hedges is a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School and retains his faith. However, he sees quite clearly the dangers of the rising radical christian fundamentalists or theocrats. Reading just the first chapter of Hedges' book may be enough to overcome any reader's inertia.

Do it. You'll be disturbed that you did.

TLS