Sorry... I do get a political sometimes.
Sometimes I like to play thought experiments. One such experiment attempts to look at the proliferation of weapons throughout time and amount of associated damage that can be wrought by a single person. For example, a crazy man 5,000 years ago could try to hit someone in their with a club before being tackled by his villages. Two hundred years ago someone could probably get off one musket shot before needing to reload. Sixty years ago the average person could get a hold of a six shooter.
Today it's fairly easy for one to get a hold of technology that can kill scores, if not hundreds or thousands. So I've often interpolated this into envisioning an ultimate future when all it took was one crazy to change the world as we know it.
Today I am revising my opinion for I had forgotten one thing... that the pen is mightier than the sword. At the same time that weapon technologies are developed and proliferated at an alarmingly ever increasing rate the same is occurring in other areas such as communications.
This epiphany was brought on by watching this clip of Glenn Beck. I've said this before and I'll say it again... It doesn't surprise me that people like him exist nor that they have the crazy views that they do. Nor does it surprise me that companies such as Fox News Corp are willing to anything to make money since that is primarily what companies do. It doesn't surprise me that politicians sometimes seek short term political gain over the greater good because in their eyes they can always do good tomorrow... if they're re-elected.
No, these things don't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is how all these things have been conflated to create an environment where are large number of prominent and leading Americans are seeding the ground and either tacitly or nearly-openly advocating for religious and cultural war (and I mean war in the literal sense).
So Beck has Northern Africa conquering Spain, France, Germany(?), Italy and Greece. Really? Is he serious? Please... can we buy him a risk set and lock him away?
I don't believe that we as a society are as worried about how much this country has changed as we should be.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Nudity and Guns
Louisiana just passed a law that specifically allows registered qualified gun-owners to their carry concealed guns into churches. It makes me wonder what the circumstances that made the legislature and governor believe that such an action was necessary.
As I read this, it makes me wonder about a world where the natural human state (i.e. nudity) is criminalized, yet guns are not only legal, but encouraged... in church no less!
I guarantee you the world would be a better place if there was more nudity and less guns.
As I read this, it makes me wonder about a world where the natural human state (i.e. nudity) is criminalized, yet guns are not only legal, but encouraged... in church no less!
I guarantee you the world would be a better place if there was more nudity and less guns.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Boston and Vermont
I met a a guy at the GNI Gathering two years ago, who immediately became a friend. We had kept in contact throughout the year that followed and I was absolutely elated to see him upon my return to GNI the subsequent year. He lives in Boston with his partner, whom I had never met, and had purchased a vacation country home on Rock River in Vermont. Rock River is very popular gay swimming hole near Brattleboro Vermont. For about a year and a half now, he has been inviting me and the BF to visit them but somehow the time and season never seemed to work out.
So when he invited us once again a couple of months ago, I was determined to make it work. Getting to Brattleboro isn't the easiest thing to do since there is only one Amtrak train from here to there that leaves just once per day and takes 8.5 hours. We considered driving, but that too would take about the same time assuming no traffic. Good luck with that. So we decided to fly into Boston and spend part of Friday there before leaving to Vermont.
Once in Vermont, we spent late-afternoon Friday down on the river, which was stunningly beautiful and bucolic. We stopped at swimming hole #5 where we talked to some guys there that Steve knew and swam in the river. This was the last swimming hole and is mostly visited by gay men for naked lounging and swimming. On Saturday and Sunday we attended the naked massage workshop at Frog Meadow. Frog Meadow is a gay B&B, with a beautiful and large home, pond, hot tub and miles of hiking trails. Late that night we went to a gay-owned restaurant named Peter Havens in Brattleboro before sitting on the porch back at the house with a cocktail.
On Sunday, after the workshop, we headed back to the river where there were even more people than before, then later had dinner at a local tavern.
Before heading back on Monday, we bought local cheese, maple syrup and toured a couple of the local towns. All in all it was an absolutely wonderful weekend and I'm glad I got to meet my friend Steve's other half.
SIDE NOTE: Brattleboro was the site of a news story that I had read about last year. Basically, with their philosophy of "live and let live", Vermont is the only state (that I know of anyway) in which public nudity hasn't been made illegal. So last year a group of teenagers took to hanging out in the downtown area naked on weekends. The city legislature, determined to put a stop to this eventually passed a law that public nudity was illegal within the business district, which is actually a relatively small area. Even though I wish that they had not passed such a law, I think it speaks a lot about Vermonters that the law was as narrowly constrained as it was. Had this had taken place nearly anywhere else, public nudity would almost certainly had been legalized throughout the jurisdiction. Go Vermont!
So when he invited us once again a couple of months ago, I was determined to make it work. Getting to Brattleboro isn't the easiest thing to do since there is only one Amtrak train from here to there that leaves just once per day and takes 8.5 hours. We considered driving, but that too would take about the same time assuming no traffic. Good luck with that. So we decided to fly into Boston and spend part of Friday there before leaving to Vermont.
Once in Vermont, we spent late-afternoon Friday down on the river, which was stunningly beautiful and bucolic. We stopped at swimming hole #5 where we talked to some guys there that Steve knew and swam in the river. This was the last swimming hole and is mostly visited by gay men for naked lounging and swimming. On Saturday and Sunday we attended the naked massage workshop at Frog Meadow. Frog Meadow is a gay B&B, with a beautiful and large home, pond, hot tub and miles of hiking trails. Late that night we went to a gay-owned restaurant named Peter Havens in Brattleboro before sitting on the porch back at the house with a cocktail.
On Sunday, after the workshop, we headed back to the river where there were even more people than before, then later had dinner at a local tavern.
Before heading back on Monday, we bought local cheese, maple syrup and toured a couple of the local towns. All in all it was an absolutely wonderful weekend and I'm glad I got to meet my friend Steve's other half.
SIDE NOTE: Brattleboro was the site of a news story that I had read about last year. Basically, with their philosophy of "live and let live", Vermont is the only state (that I know of anyway) in which public nudity hasn't been made illegal. So last year a group of teenagers took to hanging out in the downtown area naked on weekends. The city legislature, determined to put a stop to this eventually passed a law that public nudity was illegal within the business district, which is actually a relatively small area. Even though I wish that they had not passed such a law, I think it speaks a lot about Vermonters that the law was as narrowly constrained as it was. Had this had taken place nearly anywhere else, public nudity would almost certainly had been legalized throughout the jurisdiction. Go Vermont!
Friday, May 28, 2010
Letter from a Soldier
SLDN has been sending letters to Obama advocating the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is a letter from one WWII veteran to another on their anniversary.
Dear Dave,
This is in memory of an anniversary – the anniversary of October 27th, 1943, when I first heard you singing in North Africa. That song brings memories of the happiest times I’ve ever known. Memories of a GI show troop – curtains made from barrage balloons – spotlights made from cocoa cans – rehearsals that ran late into the evenings – and a handsome boy with a wonderful tenor voice. Opening night at a theatre in Canastel – perhaps a bit too much muscatel, and someone who understood. Exciting days playing in the beautiful and stately Municipal Opera House in Oran – a misunderstanding – an understanding in the wings just before opening chorus.
Drinks at “Coq d’or” – dinner at the “Auberge” – a ring and promise given. The show 1st Armoured – muscatel, scotch, wine – someone who had to be carried from the truck and put to bed in his tent. A night of pouring rain and two very soaked GIs beneath a solitary tree on an African plain. A borrowed French convertible – a warm sulphur spring, the cool Mediterranean, and a picnic of “rations” and hot cokes. Two lieutenants who were smart enough to know the score, but not smart enough to realize that we wanted to be alone. A screwball piano player – competition – miserable days and lonely nights. The cold, windy night we crawled through the window of a GI theatre and fell asleep on a cot backstage, locked in each other’s arms – the shock when we awoke and realized that miraculously we hadn’t been discovered. A fast drive to a cliff above the sea – pictures taken, and a stop amid the purple grapes and cool leaves of a vineyard.
The happiness when told we were going home – and the misery when we learned that we would not be going together. Fond goodbyes on a secluded beach beneath the star-studded velvet of an African night, and the tears that would not be stopped as I stood atop the sea-wall and watched your convoy disappear over the horizon.
We vowed we’d be together again “back home,” but fate knew better – you never got there. And so, Dave, I hope that where ever you are these memories are as precious to you as they are to me.
Goodnight, sleep well my love.
Brian Keith
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Morally In Step
I found this poll by Gallup and decided it would be a fun test to see how in/out of step I am with the rest of America on today's hot-button social issues. Unfortunately, these categories are not as "hot" as they seem since the vast majority are considered "acceptable" by most Americans.
Now if I could just get Gallup to do a similar poll on leather, S&M, golden showers and walking naked through public streets....
Footnotes:
1There is nothing inherently morally wrong with wearing animal fur, however there is something morally wrong with killing hundreds of animals to make one coat for no other reason than vanity. I wish there were a way to guarantee that animal fur used for coats only came from animals that are already dying for other reasons, but sadly with few exceptions such as leather, this is not the world we live in. So although fur coats are not inherently evil, I am totally against them.
2We usually think of suicide as someone giving up, but I'm expanding it to include people that are terminally ill with a severely decreased quality of life (i.e. severe pain, etc). When a pet is experiencing this we euthanize them and say it is the "humane" thing to do. But when the same happens to Grandma, all of a sudden we can't do the humane thing to humans. Makes no sense to me.
3I have no problem with polygamy if that's what all involved want. I don't think it typically works very well, but who am I to say? That said, this question was specifically worded with gender imbalances so in this light I think it is wrong.
4Again, I have no problem with people doing as they see fit. However, the use of the word "affair" implies that this is occuring without consent.
| Issue | America | Me |
|---|---|---|
| Doctor assisted suicide | Even | Acceptable |
| Gay or lesbian relations | Acceptable (+9%) | Acceptable |
| Abortion | Unacceptable (-12%) | Acceptable |
| Having a baby outside of marriage | Acceptable (+14%) | Acceptable |
| Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur | Acceptable (+25%) | Acceptable1 |
| Medical testing on animals | Acceptable (+25%) | Acceptable |
| Gambling | Acceptable (+27%) | Acceptable |
| Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos | Acceptable (+27%) | Acceptable |
| Cloning animals | Acceptable (+32%) | Acceptable |
| Divorce | Acceptable (+46%) | Acceptable |
| Suicide | Unacceptable (-62%) | Acceptable2 |
| Cloning humans | Unacceptable (-79%) | Acceptable |
| Polygamy, when one husband has more than one wife at the same time | Unacceptable (-83%) | Unacceptable3 |
| Married men and women having an affair | Unacceptable (-86%) | Unacceptable4 |
Now if I could just get Gallup to do a similar poll on leather, S&M, golden showers and walking naked through public streets....
Footnotes:
1There is nothing inherently morally wrong with wearing animal fur, however there is something morally wrong with killing hundreds of animals to make one coat for no other reason than vanity. I wish there were a way to guarantee that animal fur used for coats only came from animals that are already dying for other reasons, but sadly with few exceptions such as leather, this is not the world we live in. So although fur coats are not inherently evil, I am totally against them.
2We usually think of suicide as someone giving up, but I'm expanding it to include people that are terminally ill with a severely decreased quality of life (i.e. severe pain, etc). When a pet is experiencing this we euthanize them and say it is the "humane" thing to do. But when the same happens to Grandma, all of a sudden we can't do the humane thing to humans. Makes no sense to me.
3I have no problem with polygamy if that's what all involved want. I don't think it typically works very well, but who am I to say? That said, this question was specifically worded with gender imbalances so in this light I think it is wrong.
4Again, I have no problem with people doing as they see fit. However, the use of the word "affair" implies that this is occuring without consent.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Hmmm
I saw this video of Rand Paul today. In case you don't know, Rand is the son of the quirky congressman Ron Paul and has a fairly strong libertarian bent. I'm kind of weird in that I typically believe what people say unless I see something that convinces me otherwise. So taking this at face value means that he is not racist, just extremely libertarian... and stupid. I mean... WOW!!! For the record, this is why I abhor purists. They find simple solutions that will solve all of our problems. Of course these solutions usually don't exist because life is fundamentally about trade-offs and calculated risks.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Glen Beck
Ok, normally Glen pisses me off, but Stephen Colbert did such a good job making fun of him last night Glen made me laugh even more than he made me upset. This is hilarious.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Goverment Regulation
I ran across this this article the other day, which provides a common-sense look at how government regulation is REQUIRED to foster freedom. Now for the record, I believe laws should be kept to a minimum and only instituted when there is an overwhelming case for them. I also know that as a society advances they tend to make more and more laws while eliminating very few of the old laws making the mere task of understanding what we're supposed to do nearly impossible. Don't believe me? Try buying a vacation home, owning your own home, rent out a room or two, start a business, buy and sell a few shares of stock and then do your own taxes.
That said, regulation does have place. The reason I hate the current Republican arguments is because they've become purists. Rather than realizing that the real question is one of balance, they've taken a "drugs is bad" kind of approach in saying that all government intervention is bad (except the military industrial complex of course).
Here's an except in which Bok uses a traffic analogy to make the point:
That said, regulation does have place. The reason I hate the current Republican arguments is because they've become purists. Rather than realizing that the real question is one of balance, they've taken a "drugs is bad" kind of approach in saying that all government intervention is bad (except the military industrial complex of course).
Here's an except in which Bok uses a traffic analogy to make the point:
Normally, the point of driving is to get somewhere. The traffic laws enable us to get where we are going much more quickly and safely than we would if each of us had to decide for him- or herself which side of the street to drive on. The traffic laws do not tell us where to go. They leave the choice of destination, and for that matter the decision whether to drive at all, entirely up to us. They simply tell us which side of the road to drive on, that we should stop at various points, and so forth. By taking away our freedom to drive on the left, or to blast through busy intersections, they grant us much more freedom in the form of a greatly enhanced ability to get wherever we want to go quickly and safely.
Anyone who thinks that the traffic laws enhance our freedom should acknowledge that in some cases, including this one, government action can enhance our freedom, even if that action takes the form of restrictions on what we can and cannot do. An enormous number of questions about which (other) forms of government action might enhance our freedom would remain to be answered, but the fact that some government policy involves either a more active government or new restrictions on our action would not, by itself, imply that it diminishes our freedom.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Another Outed Republican
Somehow stories such as these don't make me feel happy or vindicated. Rather, I feel sad. Most of us over a certain age have passed through a time when we grappled with our sexuality. Try to remember how this was a time when it felt like that the world was arrayed against us. It was a time when our inability to even fathom life as gay either forced us into mental dissonance or into a life filled with depression and self-loathing. Now imagine if those forces were so strong… or if you were a just a little weaker how your life might be if you still lived in that state.
This is Roy Ashburn as well as the others in the recent string political outings including Larry Craig, Foley and perhaps others such as Crist. This phenomenon is not unique to politicians but is a constant mental anguish experienced by millions.
So I think of the lifetime of pain and self-hatred and above all else it saddens me that we live in a culture in which some feel that they are forced to live like that.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Palin
I studied journalism, my college degree there in communications. And now I am back there wanting to build some trust back in our media. I think the mainstream media is quite broken and I think there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there — that’s why I joined Fox. Fair and balanced, yes. You know because, Jay, those years a go that I studied journalism it was all about the who, what, when, where, and why, it was not so much the opinion interjected in hard news stories...I can't be only person that is dumb-struck by her inability to actually say anything.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Maybe...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Political Lies
I know... the title is a little redundant. Anyway, I came across this graph the other day and thought it striking.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this graph, because I'm not sure that the start of the recession is all Bush's fault any more than I believe that the turnaround in-progress is completely Obama's doing (although as unpopular as they were, I think the bank bailout brought us back from the brink of disaster and stimulus probably helped bend the curve a little).
My only point is that saying the opposite is disingenuous and hurts our nation in that when all of the political discussion by the supposed experts and leaders focus on known lies, solely for political gain, it obfuscates the real issues and discussions that must take place.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this graph, because I'm not sure that the start of the recession is all Bush's fault any more than I believe that the turnaround in-progress is completely Obama's doing (although as unpopular as they were, I think the bank bailout brought us back from the brink of disaster and stimulus probably helped bend the curve a little).
My only point is that saying the opposite is disingenuous and hurts our nation in that when all of the political discussion by the supposed experts and leaders focus on known lies, solely for political gain, it obfuscates the real issues and discussions that must take place.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Obama Taking Republican Questions
This video is Obama taking questions from the Republican congressional caucus. This is the first refreshing, political moment I've had in quite a while and gives me a smidgen of hope. It's refreshing because it shows someone (Obama) standing up and and speaking reasonably about the nations real problems and the kind of the things such as cooperation required to solve them. On the bad side, it stood in stark contrast to the majority of the questions that were obviously mere attempts to score political gain. That said, I must cede that some of the comments about Speaker Pelosi did strike me sincere.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Bin Laden on Climate Change
Bin laden discusses climate change. Never thought I'd say it, but besides the whole "death to the infidels stuff" I kind of agree with his main point here. I'm inclined to think that this latest tape is a fake just because it seems so way off of his usual topics. That said, the world would be a better place if he focused more on climate change and less on death and destruction.
Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality.Could we be seeing a kinder, gentler Bin Laden? I think not!
All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Feeling Better
So I've been kind of down on how the healthcare debate has been going and what it says about our country and our political system's ability to get anything done. I wrote about it a little bit here. I began to wonder if the healthcare bill as passed by the Senate was even worth it or whether we should scap it and fight for something better. Well, now that passage seems imminent, I realized that I over-reacted and now feel much better. There's a lot in this bill that will help us as a nation.
I'll be honest though. I think that this bill may cause some problems. The problems will arise when people are forced to purchase health insurance out of their own pockets if the cost of healthcare is not affordable. One of three things I could see happening at that point:
I'll be honest though. I think that this bill may cause some problems. The problems will arise when people are forced to purchase health insurance out of their own pockets if the cost of healthcare is not affordable. One of three things I could see happening at that point:
- Congress makes further changes to the system and implement the public option or something similar,
- Congress takes away the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or be fined, or
- Nothing happens, people suffer, and people blame the Democrats and elect Republicans.
Political Despair...
So I think I've finally figured something out... and it is not good. I've determined that people (as in "we" as opposed to "them") are fundamentally flawed. Ready for my grand revelation? It's that we're fundamentally selfish. Don't get me wrong because I'm not trying to be negative, but am coming to accept the nature that evolution has given us.
We are by nature communal creatures. However our interest in community fundamentally conflicts with our strong instinct for preservation of self. I guess I would've liked to believe that we've evolved more than we have. I wish it was like it was Star Trek (original series) when mankind almost blew itself up at the end of the 20th century and then collectively realized that war works in our mutual dis-benefit. But we're not there yet and probably never will be.
So what led to this revelation?
We are by nature communal creatures. However our interest in community fundamentally conflicts with our strong instinct for preservation of self. I guess I would've liked to believe that we've evolved more than we have. I wish it was like it was Star Trek (original series) when mankind almost blew itself up at the end of the 20th century and then collectively realized that war works in our mutual dis-benefit. But we're not there yet and probably never will be.
So what led to this revelation?
- The completely asinine statements by Republicans against any kind of meaningful healthcare reform. The truth is that they're really against any healthcare reform that it is not completely either (a) remove lawsuits or (b) reduce taxes and public programs. What's even more disheartening is that even this is trumped by their real goal... to see the Democratic president fail at any cost.
- Real life is complex. I haven't met a single person that resembles the caricatures that we try to make them out to be sometimes. Real problems require hard thought with trade-offs and determined follow through. It would be nice if our national discourse were moving in a direction that realizes this and values thoughtfulness. However, I'm realizing that sound bites and one-liners trumps the complexity of truth and reason. Unfortunately with all the good associated with the advent of television and the subsequently the Internet, these new technologies have also enabled the stupid statements such as "death panels".
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I came across these words from the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today...
The other thing that strikes me about this is the long-standing theme that Republicans have espoused that say that anything European is anti-American. If they really want to insult something/someone, they'll say it's French even.
Well having been there a few times I can tell you that we have much to learn from Europeans. Don't misunderstand me now... because they have much to learn from us too. But to refuse to learn from another's successes and failures is just plain stupid.
"I've got a cheerful, upbeat, optimistic team ready to go to battle over what most of my members, if not all of them, believe may well be the most important issue they will ever deal with in their time in Congress -- this effort to transform the American health care system into a European type system," he said. "So we are anxious for the debate and are going to give it our best shot. And I don't know how it's going to turn out."I believe that people reveal themselves in the little things they say. That is, I believe that if you observe someone closely enough you can get peeks into what motivates them. What I get from this short quote is that he's not sure if he'll win what he describes as the most important issue he'll ever face, but yet he is happy because he thinks he'll get a couple of extra seats in the senate out of it. Can there any more glaring example of putting politics way ahead of policy?
The other thing that strikes me about this is the long-standing theme that Republicans have espoused that say that anything European is anti-American. If they really want to insult something/someone, they'll say it's French even.
Well having been there a few times I can tell you that we have much to learn from Europeans. Don't misunderstand me now... because they have much to learn from us too. But to refuse to learn from another's successes and failures is just plain stupid.
Friday, November 13, 2009
On Racism and Discrmination
I recently heard someone spout racist remarks about people of another ethnicity. Their ire was neither directed at me nor blacks nor gays nor any other group to which I consider myself and yet still it bothered me. There are characteristics that I hold in very, very high esteem and among these are how do we treat our fellow human, do we respect others, and are we nice and caring. To me racism and discrimination directly indicates the exact opposite to an entire group of people based solely on the circumstances of their birth.
Truth be told, there are two kinds of racism out there. There's the overt racism in which the person understands that they have a preference for some over others. Then there's the more insidious racism of those that tell ourselves that we are not racists, but our actions still hurt or disadvantage others along arbitrary lines.
So how is it that some of are so sure that this insidious form of racism is so wide-spread whereas others are equally sure that it is not? How can these points of view be so far apart? The answer is hard to accept and lies deep within the nature of our species. We humans naturally define concentric circles of "us versus them" in which we almost always favor the inner circle when compared to an outer circle. We tend to lookout for our own interest before another; our own family before strangers; and our village before the world.
This very natural act that has been fruitful in binding communities together for millenia is also the root of racism and other forms discrimination. It defines "us" and skews our mind's perception of what is good so to benefit the "us". It is why we'll fight for our friends, family, village, tribe or country even if something deep inside of us knows that we are in the wrong. Want and example of this? Think of any movie in which the main character is obviously in the wrong and yet by the director showing us the movie from this character's perspective we are drawn into sympathizing and even routing for him to win. The director has succeeded in making the bad guy one of "us". It is part of our survival and self-preservation instinct.
What does this mean? That we're all racists to some extent. Understanding and accepting this is critical to overcoming the problems of racism and discrimination. It is only when we understand our natural tendencies to choose others like us over those that are different that we can free ourselves from its ill-effects.
So the next question is "why"? Why should we even fight these natural tendencies if they have served us so well throughout time? The answer is because our world has changed. No longer do we live in villages where everyone looks like us and acts like us. No longer are the actions of one village divorced from ramifications on the other side of the planet. Today, our village is multi-racial, multi-ethnic and diverse and therefore even this low-grade, insidious racism destroys the fabric of our community.
Truth be told, there are two kinds of racism out there. There's the overt racism in which the person understands that they have a preference for some over others. Then there's the more insidious racism of those that tell ourselves that we are not racists, but our actions still hurt or disadvantage others along arbitrary lines.
So how is it that some of are so sure that this insidious form of racism is so wide-spread whereas others are equally sure that it is not? How can these points of view be so far apart? The answer is hard to accept and lies deep within the nature of our species. We humans naturally define concentric circles of "us versus them" in which we almost always favor the inner circle when compared to an outer circle. We tend to lookout for our own interest before another; our own family before strangers; and our village before the world.
This very natural act that has been fruitful in binding communities together for millenia is also the root of racism and other forms discrimination. It defines "us" and skews our mind's perception of what is good so to benefit the "us". It is why we'll fight for our friends, family, village, tribe or country even if something deep inside of us knows that we are in the wrong. Want and example of this? Think of any movie in which the main character is obviously in the wrong and yet by the director showing us the movie from this character's perspective we are drawn into sympathizing and even routing for him to win. The director has succeeded in making the bad guy one of "us". It is part of our survival and self-preservation instinct.
What does this mean? That we're all racists to some extent. Understanding and accepting this is critical to overcoming the problems of racism and discrimination. It is only when we understand our natural tendencies to choose others like us over those that are different that we can free ourselves from its ill-effects.
So the next question is "why"? Why should we even fight these natural tendencies if they have served us so well throughout time? The answer is because our world has changed. No longer do we live in villages where everyone looks like us and acts like us. No longer are the actions of one village divorced from ramifications on the other side of the planet. Today, our village is multi-racial, multi-ethnic and diverse and therefore even this low-grade, insidious racism destroys the fabric of our community.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Dang Mormons
Although I am not a fan of the Mormon Church, I do not view them much differently than any other. There are many reasons for me dislike this church including their long history of intense discrimination against blacks and the current crusade against gay marriage in California.
But in spite of all of this I like to give credit where credit is due. The Mormon Church recently supported a bill giving gays protection against discrimination in housing and employment. One might interpret this as a tactical move on their part to counter the criticism they received after the California ballot initiative, but I'm skeptical. It seems to me that the bill actually has too much meaning to be just symbolic.
I've stated in the past about how I couldn't possibly trust a Republican on health care, race and gay issues because they've never done anything proactively in those areas. They only throw stones at Democratic attempts to move the ball forward. If they think that current gay legislation goes too far or is somehow flawed, then I want to see them put forward a bill that guarantees the dignity of gay people in what they see as the "right" way. And I don't want to see it as a response to water-down a Democratic initiative. I want to see it originate from them as something they believe in. If they say that they think health care should be affordable for all and that gay people should be able to visit each other in hospitals, then let them do something to show it rather than just say it as they vote "no".
Well, kudos to the Mormon Church because at least they took a step in that direction. Tomorrow something may happen that will change my mind, but at least today I'll take their word at face value.
But in spite of all of this I like to give credit where credit is due. The Mormon Church recently supported a bill giving gays protection against discrimination in housing and employment. One might interpret this as a tactical move on their part to counter the criticism they received after the California ballot initiative, but I'm skeptical. It seems to me that the bill actually has too much meaning to be just symbolic.
I've stated in the past about how I couldn't possibly trust a Republican on health care, race and gay issues because they've never done anything proactively in those areas. They only throw stones at Democratic attempts to move the ball forward. If they think that current gay legislation goes too far or is somehow flawed, then I want to see them put forward a bill that guarantees the dignity of gay people in what they see as the "right" way. And I don't want to see it as a response to water-down a Democratic initiative. I want to see it originate from them as something they believe in. If they say that they think health care should be affordable for all and that gay people should be able to visit each other in hospitals, then let them do something to show it rather than just say it as they vote "no".
Well, kudos to the Mormon Church because at least they took a step in that direction. Tomorrow something may happen that will change my mind, but at least today I'll take their word at face value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
